Loading...
09.15.22 City Council Agenda M ayor Aaron Brockett Council M e mbe rs Matt Benjamin Lauren Folkerts Rachel Friend Junie Joseph Nicole Speer Mark Wallach Tara Winer Bob Yates Council Chambers 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 September 15, 2022 6:00 PM City M anage r Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde City Attorne y Teresa Taylor Tate City Cle rk Elesha Johnson AGENDA FOR T HE RE GULAR MEE T ING OF T HE BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL 1.Call to Order and Roll Call A.Hispanic Heritage M onth Declaration to be presented by M ayor B rockett 5 min B .National Voter Registration Day D eclaration to be presented by C ouncil M ember F olkerts 5 min C .Energy E fficiency Declaration to be presented by C ouncil M ember Yates 5 min 2.Open Comment 3.Consent Agenda A.Consideration of a motion to accept the June 7, 2022 Regular Council M eeting M inutes B.Consideration of a motion to accept the June 14, 2022 Special Council M eeting M inutes C.Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 S tudy S ession on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects D.Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8551 adopting Supplement 152 which codifies previously adopted ordinances, and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as amendments to the B oulder Revised C ode, 1981; and setting forth related details E.Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8552 Amending 9-11-16, "C all-Up by City C ouncil," B.R.C. 1981, Changing L andmarks B oard C all-Up Written Notice Requirement to Align with City Council M eetings now being held on T hursdays Packet Page 1 of 489 instead of Tuesdays; and setting forth related details 4.Call-Up Check-In A.Concept plan review and comment for a proposed redevelopment of an approximately 3.99 acre site with existing office use to a new, 139,330 square foot life sciences building, P earl E ast Innovation Building. The prope rty is locate d in the Pearl East Business Park at 4845 and 4875 Pe arl East Circle . Site improv eme nts are propose d for the e ntire campus Case no. LUR2022-00010 5.Public Hearings A.C onsideration of a motion to approve the updated C omprehensive F lood andStormwater M aster P lan (C F S) 20 min Presentation / 55 min Council Discussion 6.M atters from the City M anager A.West P earl Update 15 minutes for staff/ 75 minutes for Council discussion 7.M atters from the City Attorney 8.M atters from the M ayor and M embers of Council A.2022 County & Boulder Valley S chool District Ballot M easures 15 min B .Response to O pen Comment on P silocybin 15 min 9.Discussion Items 10.Debrief 11.Adjournment 4:30 hrs Additional M aterials Presentations Item Updates Information Items A.S now and Ice Control Update Packet Page 2 of 489 B.Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment P roject Update C.2022 C ulture G rants Boards and Commissions A.J uly 6, 2022 Environmental Advisory Board M eeting M inutes B.August 3, 2022 Boulder L ibrary Commission M eeting M inutes Declarations A.Constitution D ay and Citizenship Day D eclaration B.S upport L atino Business D ay Declaration C.Childhood C ancer Awareness Week Declaration Heads Up! E mail This meeting can be viewe d 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 we eks following a regular co uncil meeting. Boulder 8 TV (Comc ast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed c aptioning for all live meetings that are aired on the channels. The c losed captioning service operates in the same manner as similar servic es offered by broadc ast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with the television remote c ontrol. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on Boulder Channel8.com. To activate the c aptioning servic e for the live stream, the "C C" button (which is loc ated at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the channel is providing c aptioning servic es. The council c hambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening devic es. I ndividuals with hearing or speec h loss may contact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-800-659-3656. Anyone requiring spec ial packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions may contac t 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 day s prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita interpretacion o c ualquier otra ay uda con relac ion al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuniquese al (303) 441-1905 por lo menos 3 negoc ios dias antes de la junta. Send electronic presentations to email address: CityClerkStaff@bouldercolor ado.gov no later than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting. Packet Page 3 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 D E C L ARAT I O N S I T E M Hispanic Heritage Month Declaration to be presented by Mayor Brockett P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Taylor Reimann I T E M U P D AT E S while the attached is included in materials for the formal council record, a shorter version will be read during the council meeting itself. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Hispanic Heritage Month Declaration Packet Page 4 of 489 Hispanic Heritage Month September 15 - October 15, 2022 National Hispanic Heritage Month is recognized from September 15 October 15, and it is a time to honor the invaluable ways Hispanic and Latine Americans have shaped our community, celebrate their diverse cultures, and work toward a stronger, more inclusive, and more prosperous society for all. The Hispanic Heritage observance began in 1968 as Hispanic Heritage Week under President Lyndon Johnson recognizing that five Central American countries -- Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua -­ celebrate their respective Independence Days on September 15, while Mexico celebrates it on September 16. In 1988 the week was expanded by President Ronald Reagan to cover a 30-day period to celebrate the contributions of Hispanic and Latine people to the United States and those U.S. citizens whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. The act of recognizing and celebrating the contributions of Hispanic and Latine individuals is important, however, it can be difficult to accurately do so when we examine the complicated history of their many diasporas. Between Spanish colonization, the transatlantic slave trade, and the forcible seizure of Indigenous lands, including in the recent past, Hispanic and Latine Americans have known many homes and traveled many paths. People with ancestry in Spain and the countries that today form part of North, Central, and South America, and the Caribbean, include Indigenous peoples and also the descendants of African peoples enslaved by European colonizers and forcibly brought to these lands. We acknowledge that capturing these complex histories and identities as only Hispanic and Latine oversimplifies history and neglects the richness of these peoples as individuals and as a community. "Hispanic", "Latine" and "Latin America" are all foreign names placed on the peoples and land of this continent. We recognize and support the movement for self-determination and epistemic decolonization efforts of Indigenous peoples that call this continent Abya-Yala. Packet Page 5 of 489 Aaron Brockett, Mayor Packet Page 6 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 D E C L ARAT I O N S I T E M National Voter Registration Day Declaration to be presented by C ouncil Member Folkerts P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Taylor Reimann AT TAC H ME N T S: Description National v oter Registration Day Packet Page 7 of 489 Packet Page 8 of 489 Packet Page 9 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M Energy Efficiency Declaration to be presented by C ouncil Member Yates P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Taylor Reimann AT TAC H ME N T S: Description E nergy E fficiency Day Declaration Packet Page 10 of 489 Packet Page 11 of 489 Packet Page 12 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the J une 7, 2022 Regular Council Meeting Minutes P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Elesha J ohnson, City C lerk AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3A - D RAF T June 7, 2022 Council Meeting Minutes Packet Page 13 of 489 Item 3A – DRAFT June 7, 2022 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Via Video Conferencing Tuesday, June 7, 2022 MINUTES 1. Call to Order and Roll Call: Mayor Brockett called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Council Members present virtually: Benjamin, Brockett, Folkerts, Friend, Joseph, Speer, Wallach, Winer, and Yates A. Juneteenth Declaration presented by Council Member Benjamin B. Immigrant Heritage Month Declaration presented by Council Member Mark Wallach 2. Open Comment: (Public comments are a summary of actual testimony. Full testimony is available on the council web page at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/city-council > Watch Live or Archived Meetings.) Open Comment opened at 6:27 p.m. 1. Ramzy Abueita – spoke on decriminalization 2. Donaven Smith – spoke on decriminalizing psychedelics 3. Gabriel Ettenson – spoke on experience with psychedelics 4. Schuyler Sowa – spoke on decriminalization of plants 5. Patrick Murphy – spoke on climate change, carbon reduction 6. Harleen Singh – spoke on decriminalizing psychedelics 7. Taylor Weekley – spoke on ballot initiative 61 8. Celeste Landry – spoke on elections 9. Evan Ravitz – spoke on climate 10. Macon Cowles – spoke on solid waste recycling Packet Page 14 of 489 Item 3A – DRAFT June 7, 2022 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 11. Shari Hack – spoke on happenings in Boulder 12. Jon Banashek – spoke on outdoor Dining/West Pearl 13. Lynn Segal – spoke on property tax is the new rent 14. Holly Carlson – spoke on safety around affordable housing areas 15. Emily Reynolds – homelessness Open Comment closed at 7:00 p.m. 3. Consent Agenda A. Consideration of a motion to accept the May 24, 2022 Study Session Summary regarding the Guaranteed Income Pilot Project B. Consideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 1307 providing authority to the city manager to enter into and execute a contract for loan guarantee assistance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for use in the development of affordable housing, and, associated with said contract, authorize the issuance of a Variable/Fixed Rate Note in the maximum commitment amount of $4,000,000, and authorizing the city manager to sign all other documents necessary to secure the loan guarantee assistance C. Consideration of a motion authorizing the purchase, and for the city manager to enter into and execute a Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, of property located at 2061 Tamarack Avenue, Boulder, in the amount of $2,214,500, to be used as part of the Preflood Property Acquisition Program, and authorizing the city manager to sign all other documents necessary to secure this property D. Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8517 amending Chapter 6, “Public Right-of-Way and Easement Encroachments, Revocable Permits, Leases and Vacations,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding a new Section 8-6-12, “Outdoor Dining in Public Rights-of-Way and Private Property,” allowing for a five year pilot program that waives certain code requirements and allows outdoor dining through issuance of city revocable permits, and amending Chapter 20, “Fees,” B.R.C. 1981, by amending Section 4- 20-20, “Revocable Right of Way Permit/Lease Application Fee” and adding a new Section 4-20-76, “Outdoor Dining Pilot Program Infrastructure Fee,” setting forth applicable fees associated with the five year pilot program; and setting forth related details E. Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8523, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to update and simplify the use table and use standards and setting forth related details F. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8519 authorizing and directing the acquisition of various property interests, within and outside city limits, by purchase or eminent domain proceedings, for the Packet Page 15 of 489 Item 3A – DRAFT June 7, 2022 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 construction of the main sewer improvements project; and setting forth related details G. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8524 amending Section 2-1-2, “Council Meetings,” B.R.C. 1981, to align language with City Council’s decision to change council meeting days from Tuesday to Thursday; and setting forth related details AND Consideration of a motion to amend the Council Rules of Procedure AND Consideration of a motion to approve the amended 2022 Council Meetings Calendar Motion Made By/Seconded Vote Motion to PASS the consent agenda items A-G Friend / Benjamin Carried 9:0 4. Call-Up Check-In A. Vacation of a 20-foot-wide utility easement at 2150 Folsom Street (case no. ADR2022-00105) NO ACTION 5. Public Hearings A. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8494 amending Chapter 5, “General Offenses,” B.R.C. 1981, repealing Ordinances 8245 and 8259, banning the sale and possession of assault weapons, large-capacity magazines and rapid-fire trigger activators, raising the age to purchase firearms, amending Section 5-2-26, “Matters of Local and Mixed Concern,” B.R.C. 1981, and adding a new Section 5-8-42, “Severability,” B.R.C. 1981; and setting forth related details; AND/OR Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8525 repealing and reenacting Section 5-8-15, “Deadly Weapons in City Buildings Prohibited,” B.R.C. 1981, to prohibit the carrying of firearms in certain public places; and setting forth related details; Packet Page 16 of 489 Item 3A – DRAFT June 7, 2022 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 AND/OR Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8526 amending Chapter 5-8, “Weapons,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding new definitions, and a new Section 5-8-39, “Prohibitions,” B.R.C. 1981, to regulate the possession of unfinished frames and receivers, and unserialized firearms; and setting forth related details; AND/OR Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8527 repealing and reenacting Section 5-8-21, “Open Carriage of Firearms in Carrying Cases Required,” B.R.C. 1981, to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in public places; and setting forth related details; AND/OR Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8528 amending Chapter 5-8, “Weapons,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding new definitions, and a new Section 5-8-40, “Disclosure,” B.R.C. 1981, requiring all firearm dealers to post signs at all locations where firearms transfers take place; and setting forth related details; AND/OR Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8529 amending Chapter 5-8, “Weapons,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding a new definition, and a new Section 5-8-41, “Waiting Period Prior to Firearm Purchase,” B.RC. 1981, requiring a waiting period prior to the sale of firearms; and setting forth related details Bob Yates made a motion to suspend the Council Rules of Procedure to allow for video testimony from Congressman Neguse. Mark Wallach seconded the motion. Mayor Brockett called for a show of hands and motion carried unanimously. Rachel Friend made a motion to set a specific time of 8:00 p.m. for our invited local legislators to speak due to scheduling. Mark Wallach seconded the motion. Mayor Brockett then called for a show of hands and motion carried unanimously. Luis Toro, Senior Counsel, provided a presentation and answered questions from Council. Congressman Joe Neguse’s video testimony was provided. Sarah Huntley, Communications and Engagement Director, went over public participation guidelines. Packet Page 17 of 489 Item 3A – DRAFT June 7, 2022 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 The public hearing opened at 7:20 p.m. and the following spoke: 1. Megan Vos 2. Christina Gardner 3. Leigh Fiske 4. Haley Brown 5. Stephanie Greenberg 6. Katelyn Russell – did not show 7. Rick Healy – did not show 8. Ari Freilich 9. Kathleen Ashworth 10. Elizabeth Smith 11. Jill Grano – did not show 12. Lisa Sweeney-Miran 13. Lynn Segal 14. Kathleen Salmon 15. Brett F 16. Rachel Daly 17. Andrew O’Connor 18. Jodi Sklawer 19. Terry Crook – was having connectivity issues 20. Kevin Lorusso 21. Jeannine Harrington 22. Kenneth Cancian 23. Katie Farnan 24. Bruce Parker This was the 8:00 p.m. mark to provide local legislators the opportunity to give their testimony. Rachel Friend made a motion to allow local legislators to use their videos for testimony on the public hearing item. Mark Wallach seconded the motion, and it was caried unanimously. Local Representatives, Eddie Hooten, Judy Amabile, Steve Fenberg spoke on the issue. 25. Pamela McMillin 26. Tina Pittman Wagers 27. Eric Budd 28. Fred Barton 29. Eric Walls Packet Page 18 of 489 Item 3A – DRAFT June 7, 2022 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 public hearing closed at 8:28 p.m. Motion Made By/Seconded Vote Motion to adopt: Ordinance 8494 amending Chapter 5, “General Offenses,” B.R.C. 1981, repealing Ordinances 8245 and 8259, banning the sale and possession of assault weapons, large- capacity magazines and rapid-fire trigger activators, raising the age to purchase firearms, amending Section 5-2-26, “Matters of Local and Mixed Concern,” B.R.C. 1981, and adding a new Section 5-8-42, “Severability,” B.R.C. 1981 AND Ordinance 8525 repealing and reenacting Section 5-8-15, “Deadly Weapons in City Buildings Prohibited,” B.R.C. 1981, to prohibit the carrying of firearms in certain public places AND Ordinance 8526 amending Chapter 5-8, “Weapons,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding new definitions, and a new Section 5-8-39, “Prohibitions,” B.R.C. 1981, to regulate the possession of unfinished frames and receivers, and unserialized firearms AND Ordinance 8527 repealing and reenacting Section 5-8-21, “Open Carriage of Firearms in Carrying Cases Required,” B.R.C. 1981, to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in public places AND Ordinance 8528 amending Chapter 5-8, “Weapons,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding new definitions, and a new Section 5-8-40, “Disclosure,” B.R.C. 1981, requiring all Friend / Yates Carried 9:0 Packet Page 19 of 489 Item 3A – DRAFT June 7, 2022 Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 firearm dealers to post signs at all locations where firearms transfers take place AND Ordinance 8529 amending Chapter 5-8, “Weapons,” B.R.C. 1981, by adding a new definition, and a new Section 5-8-41, “Waiting Period Prior to Firearm Purchase,” B.RC. 1981, requiring a waiting period prior to the sale of firearms 6. Matters from the City Manager 7. Matters from the City Attorney 8. Matters from the Mayor and Members of Council 9. Discussion Items 10. Debrief 11. Adjournment There being no further business to come before Council at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned by Mayor Brockett at 8:50 p.m. Approved this 15th day of September 2022. APPROVED BY: _____________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Packet Page 20 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the J une 14, 2022 Special Council Meeting Minutes P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Elesha J ohnson, City C lerk AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3B - D RAF T June 14, 2022 Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Page 21 of 489 Item 3B – DRAFT June 14, 2022 Council SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 1 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Via Video Conferencing Tuesday, June 14, 2022 MINUTES 1. Call to Order and Roll Call: Mayor Brockett called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Council Members present virtually: Benjamin, Brockett, Folkerts, Friend, Joseph, Speer, Wallach, Winer, and Yates 2. Consent Agenda 3. Call-Up Check-In 4. Public Hearings A. Boards & Commissions Mid-Year Appointments Elesha Johnson, City Clerk, went over the appointment process guidelines and provided a presentation which listed each board and commission, identified which seats were vacant along with their required qualifications, the eligible candidates, and whether they have applied to other boards. Board or Commission Seat / Term Appointee Beverage Licensing Authority (BLA) Seat #2 / 4-year term Leah Roberts Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) Seat #2 / 5-year term Katharine Crane Boulder Junction Access District (BJAD) – Parking Seat #2 / 5-year term Rebekah Dumouchelle Seat #4 / 5-year term Robyn Ronen Boulder Junction Access District (BJAD) – Travel Demand Management Seat #2 / 5-year term Rebekah Dumouchelle Packet Page 22 of 489 Item 3B – DRAFT June 14, 2022 Council SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 2 Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board (CLAB) Seat #6 / 5-year term Evan Anderson Library Commission (LC) Seat #2 / 5-year term Sylvia Wirba The public hearing opened at 6:10 p.m. and the following spoke: 1. Lynn Segal public hearing closed at 6:12 p.m. Elesha Johnson, City Clerk, outlined the formal candidate nomination process. Council Member Wallach requested clarity on the process of nominating candidates where there are only 1 applicant. Mayor Brockett confirmed that that procedure was implemented due to so many boards having only1 vacancy and Council wanted to obtain more applicants. Council Members weighted in on the procedure and it was determined that boards with only 1 applicant will be nominated to fill the vacancies. The following nominations were made: Board or Commission Seat / Term Appointee Beverage Licensing Authority (BLA) Seat #2 / 4-year term Leah Roberts Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) Seat #2 / 5-year term Katharine Crane Boulder Junction Access District (BJAD) – Parking Seat #2 / 5-year term Rebekah Dumouchelle Seat #4 / 5-year term Robyn Ronen Boulder Junction Access District (BJAD) – Travel Demand Management Seat #2 / 5-year term Rebekah Dumouchelle Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board (CLAB) Seat #6 / 5-year term Evan Anderson Library Commission (LC) Seat #2 / 5-year term Sylvia Wirba Motion Made By/Seconded Vote Motion to APPROVE the Board and Commission Mid-year Appointments Friend / Benjamin Carried 9:0 B. Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8521 to amend the designated boundary to include all of Block 13 of the property at 1236 Packet Page 23 of 489 Item 3B – DRAFT June 14, 2022 Council SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 3 Canyon Blvd., City of Boulder, Colorado, an individual landmark under Chapter 9- 11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth related details James Hewat, Principal Historic Preservation Planner, provided a presentation and answered questions from Council. Abby Daniels, Landmarks Board Chair addressed Council. The public hearing opened at 7:55 p.m. and the following spoke: 1. Kathryn Barth 2. Payson Sheets 3. Leonard Segel 4. Deborah Yin 5. Patrick O’Rourke 6. Lynn Segal 7. Mary Ellis 8. Susan Osborne 9. Robert Hohlfelder public hearing closed at 8:22 p.m. Ali Rhodes, Parks and Recreation Director, and Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager answered questions from Council as well. Motion Made By/Seconded Vote Motion to adopt Ordinance 8521 to amend the designated boundary to include all of Block 13 of the property at 1236 Canyon Blvd., City of Boulder, Colorado, an individual landmark under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth related details Yates / Wallach Defeated 4:5 NAY: Joseph, Speer, Benjamin, Brockett, Folkerts Motion to NOT APPROVE Ordinance 8521 amending the designated boundary to include all of Block 13 for the property at 1236 Canyon Blvd., City of Boulder, Colorado, a landmark under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981; but to direct Planning and Development Services Folkerts / Joseph WITHDRAWN Packet Page 24 of 489 Item 3B – DRAFT June 14, 2022 Council SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 4 staff to prioritize beginning an effort to explore designating a larger Civic Area historic district in 2023. Furthermore, council directs staff to ensure that the Landmarks Board and Parks & Recreation Advisory Board are both appropriately engaged in the park design process and that the bandshell is included in the design and continues to be a centerpiece in Central Park. Move to AMEND motion language Wallach / Brockett WITHDRAWN Council gave a node of five providing direction that upon formation of a historic district, this parcel will be brought for landmarking consideration. Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager acknowledged James Hewat’s retirement from the City and noted his dedication and commitment to his work with historic preservation. He also thanked him for his many years of service to the City. Council took a recess at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened at 9:13 p.m. 5. Matters from the City Manager 6. Matters from the City Attorney A. Even Year Election Ballot Options Discussion Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel, provided a presentation and answered questions from Council. Council discussed the various options and presented questions to the Boulder County Clerk Molly Fitzpatrick. They choose to move forward with Option 4. 7. Matters from the Mayor and Members of Council 8. Discussion Items 9. Debrief 10. Adjournment Packet Page 25 of 489 Item 3B – DRAFT June 14, 2022 Council SPECIAL Meeting Minutes Page 5 There being no further business to come before Council at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned by Mayor Brockett at 10:32 p.m. Approved this 15th day of September 2022. APPROVED BY: _____________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Packet Page 26 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Karl Guiler, Policy Senior Advisor B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M Study Session Item on Aug. 25th AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Rev iew criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects Packet Page 27 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 15, 2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 study session on the Site Review Criteria Update and Use Table and Standards projects. The purpose of this study session was to: 1. Update City Council on the Site Review criteria code change project, describe the draft Ordinance 8515 to implement the changes, convey input from Planning Board and the Design Advisory Board (DAB) and to receive feedback from City Council before revising the draft ordinance, and 2. Update City Council on the status of the second phase of the Use Table and Standards project and to discuss next steps related to industrial areas and neighborhood-serving uses. Key takeaways from the study session discussion on Site Review criteria update were: •The City Council unanimously agreed that the project was consistent with the original goals and objectives outlined for the project in 2018. However, there was consensus that the building design criteria should be modified to be somewhat less prescriptive and made more descriptive like other parts of the proposed criteria. For instance, best practices for architectural and site design, such as form-based code type requirements, should be retained in the criteria as guides for good design, but applied in a more discretionary manner with weight on ensuring good design and innovation. Council AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. PRESENTERS: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor Lisa Houde, Senior City Planner Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 1 Packet Page 28 of 489 agreed with listing design attributes that are considered good quality, but requested that flexibility be preserved, to avoid buildings that all look alike throughout the city. • One council member felt that the Site Review criteria should be more aggressive in attaining key Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) goals in development projects. The council generally agreed that the criteria requiring compliance with all BVCP criteria, on balance, was too open ended for broad interpretation, but also felt that restricting compliance only to a limited set of policies or key topics of the BVCP would be counter to the purpose of Site Review. Council requested a hybrid between the existing and proposed criterion language that would strike a balance of achieving full BVCP compliance while avoiding language that would result in arbitrary denials of projects based on policies that are not explicitly directed to development projects. • The council was in general agreement that two of the three suggested greenhouse gas emission reductions requirements (i.e., reduce the Embodied CO2e of concrete materials, and a Whole-Building-Life-Cycle Assessment) should be incorporated into the Boulder Energy Code update in 2023, rather than in the Site Review criteria. The council found that the proposed third option in the memorandum, that contained three options for an applicant to choose below, would be appropriate to apply as a Site Review criterion: o Design an Electric Project o Design to 10% More Efficient Than Code o Design to Code and Participate in Outcome Verified Code Path Council expressed concern over the cost implications of this suggestion and requested further analysis and community outreach on this topic. Key takeaways from the study session discussion on Use Table and Standards project were: • Residential development: The City Council unanimously agreed that the standards for residential development in industrial districts should be updated. One council member suggested, and others agreed, that the contiguity requirement should be eliminated, as well as barriers to mixed use, minimum lot size, and more restrictive setbacks and floor area ratio. Rather, suitability for residential use should be determined based on the guidance laid out in subcommunity plans and the comprehensive plan. Council did not believe that residential uses are appropriate in all industrial areas or on every industrial site, and they would like to see guardrails put in place to protect industrial uses. In particular, a few council members highlighted the importance of retaining industrial service uses and protecting service industrial (IS) zones. Council also noted the importance of ensuring that underrepresented groups are included in the engagement for these changes. • Office uses: The Council was supportive of combining “professional office” and “technical office” into one generalized “office” use type. Several council members noted that there do need to be restrictions on the amount of office that is allowed in industrial districts to avoid displacing all industrial uses that provide needed services to the community and to avoid having industrial areas turn into office parks. Council members noted some potential restrictions like requiring the first floor to remain industrial or a Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 2 Packet Page 29 of 489 maximum floor area or percentage per lot, and the need for fairly robust guardrails to avoid accelerating speculative office development in these areas. • Future Module Three (Neighborhoods): City Council encouraged staff to be innovative and bold in proposing recommendations that achieve a rich mix of uses and encourage more sustainable living. One council member noted that schools could be important anchor points to consider surrounding uses. One council member noted that changes in our residential zones could be a big opportunity and encouraged staff to bring forward a wide range of options and consider how to best balance a mix of uses that support each other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this summary and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the summaries (Attachments A & B) of the August 25, 2022 Study Session on Site Review Criteria Update and Use Tables and Standards Project Update. NEXT STEPS Based on the feedback from council, staff will move forward with each project with the goal of bringing ordinances back to council before year’s end. Staff anticipates further community outreach on both projects, particularly the Use Standards and Table project, once more detailed changes are developed for consideration. Staff anticipates bringing ordinances before Planning Board and City Council in the fourth quarter of 2022. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 study session on Site Review Criteria Update Attachment B: Summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 study session on Use Table and Standards Project Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 3 Packet Page 30 of 489 ATTACHMENT A August 25, 2022 Study Session Site Review Criteria Update PRESENT City Council: Mayor Aaron Brockett, Mayor Pro Tem Rachel Friend, Matthew Benjamin, Lauren Folkerts, Junie Johnson, Nicole Speer, Mark Wallach, Bob Yates Staff: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager; Hella Pannewig, Senior City Attorney; Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services; Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor; Lisa Houde, Senior City Planner, Carolyn Elam, Senior Sustainability Manager PURPOSE The purpose of this study session was to update City Council on the Site Review criteria code change project, describe the draft Ordinance 8515 to implement the changes, convey input from Planning Board and the Design Advisory Board (DAB) and to receive feedback from City Council before revising the draft ordinance. Specific feedback from City Council was requested on the draft Ordinance 8515 to guide staff on modifications to make the ordinance before bringing the ordinance back to Planning Board and City Council for eventual adoption. SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION Brad Mueller, Director of P&DS, introduced the item and the staff team. Karl Guiler presented information on the background and goals and objectives of the project, the community engagement to date and the results, the content of the proposed ordinance, feedback from Planning Board and the Design Advisory Board (DAB) and the key issues below. Following the staff presentation, council asked questions followed by a discussion structured around key issues. Responses from the council members and staff is provided beneath each question. Council Questions Council members asked the following questions (staff answers are italicized): •What is the overall goal of the Site Review process? Staff responded that the purpose of Site Review is to assess larger scale projects determining compatibility with the neighborhood and also result in an improved design over what you would typically get through a by-right building (one that only requires a permit). Site Review project are held to a higher standard in terms of quality but are also affordable increased flexibility such as allowing modifications to setbacks or height. Projects that meet the criteria can be considered an improved design and can be approved. Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 4 Packet Page 31 of 489 • On page 8 of the packet showing the criteria structures, what is it that we are intending to do with the “additional criteria for parking reductions”? Staff responded that the parking reduction section is not changing. The title was listed only because the criteria were reformatted. • With respect to the criterion on preserving important view corridors, where a building is to exceed the maximum height limit what’s the definition of the type of open space where such views would be protected? Staff responded that open space intended for gathering like a private plaza or outdoor area would be what was the subject of the criteria. The current criterion intended to minimizing impacts to views is vague on what specific views does the city protect or from what spaces. Staff wanted to be more specific of what type of views should be protected as this was something heard often as part of the public outreach, some in response to the building built on the Daily Camera site. Staff looked into Denver’s view corridor regulations, but after checking in with council on hiring a consultant to assess views, council advised that the update to the criterion need not have a specific view line easement for protection and that a consultant need not be hired. • With respect to the list of zoning districts where height modifications are not allowed, does that include the 40% floor area requirement for affordable housing projects? Staff clarified that the zoning district list is only referring to the projects that would not be eligible for a height modification for a 4th or 5th story subject to the adopted community benefit requirements. Projects subject to the 40% floor area requirement or for instance, require a height modification for issues related to topography for a three story building could be requested anywhere in the city. • Following any future update to the BVCP would the Site Review criteria need to be updated yet again? Staff responded that it was never discussed that any update to the BVCP would require an update to the criteria. Updates to the BVCP happen every 3 to 5 years and this has not necessitated changes to the Site Review criteria for last few decades. That said, P&DS can always update the criteria for consistency if any changes warrant an update. • Have we thought about the aspects like Community Benefit that shouldn’t trigger Site Review to incentivize projects the city wants? Staff responded that we have thought about that. There is hesitation in going in that direction as there have been concerns and criticisms about projects like affordable housing where not all of them were good design outcomes. All it takes is one unsuccessful project and then there are questions received by P&DS about why a particular project did not go through Site Review. Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 5 Packet Page 32 of 489 • Could you outline the most common reasons projects apply for Site Review? What are the most common triggers? What percentage are staff level? Staff responded that it’s often the size of the project or number of dwelling units that requires Site Review. Most are staff level. Staff guessed that roughly 60 to 70% were staff level. • Can you explain how much of these new changes will simplify the process? The process is not changing. The tiers of review (e.g., amendments, modifications) would remain the same. The language has been simplified by removing redundancy and by more clearly describing what is a good design outcome, the hope is that the process could be simplified if applications more clearly met the criteria upon submittal negating the need for repeated resubmittals. • Any discussion of allowing FBC for projects that are 100% affordable? Staff responded that we have not looked at applying FBC reviews to projects outside the FBC areas. FBC was a pilot project to meant to apply to Boulder Junction and Alpine Balsam, but it is not intended to be applied in random areas of the city. Staff previously recommend to simplify the review process by removing the automatic requirement for a Planning Board hearing for added height but there has been concern about removing discretion from board and council members in the past. The regulations that were adopted still enabled the call up option on all FBC projects. People really want to make sure that the regulations ensure good design before removing onerous requirements. We don’t appear to be there yet. • Any thought into changing the criteria to incentivize more affordable housing etc.? Staff responded that this is something we are investigating as part of the 2022 Work Program code change items for allowing more affordable, less expensive housing. Typically, the thinking behind Site Review has been that there are potential increased impacts on neighbors from additional units and thus, this has necessitated the Site Review process. • Could the requirement for an acoustic study be a barrier to incentivizing development along multi-modal corridors? Staff responded that there is already a criterion related to noise mitigation between units or from noise sources in the Site Review criteria and has been found to be too vague. We worked to make it more specific such as where would such a requirement apply. Planning Board suggested that perhaps instead of requiring a costly study create a metric that an applicant would need to be meet in the building design if in a particular area. There is already a requirement like this in the code for the “Residential in Industrial standards”. We are looking at making that requirement apply instead of requiring the study. • Does the criterion on historic or cultural resources work against predictability? Staff stated that the BVCP already has policies that encourage the city to look at buildings older than 50 years for landmarking. The current practices have been to do this assessment Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 6 Packet Page 33 of 489 yet the Site Review criteria do not specifically state this. We wanted to specifically state this current practice to make it clearer. • Don’t state and federal laws already cover the environmental preservation criterion? Who’s enforcing this requirement? Staff responded that P&DS staff member advise on wildlife environmental issues as well as enforcement. The environmental preservation criterion is already in the Site Review criteria but has been moved up to the policy section. It has been effective in protecting sensitive environmental areas by easement or protection of prairie dogs. • Where is Community Benefit for affordable commercial addressed in the Site Review criteria? Staff noted that Phase 1 of the Community Benefit project entailed a focus on affordable housing and adopted in 2019. The requirement indicates that additional requirements for affordable apply (increased units or increased commercial linkage fee) if building over three stories or above FAR limits. Phase 2 entailed a focus on below market rate commercial where staff worked with an economic consultant on what an equivalent might be to the Phase 1 requirements. An ordinance was developed for Phase 2 but was not adopted by City Council due to concerns about its complexity and concerns raised by the development community • What was the community benefit associated with the building built at the Daily Camera site? If that project was a bad outcome how do we not have that happen again? Staff is always looking at projects that may not have gone well and analyze how we can do better. The applicant of the Daily Camera promised a theater as part of the project, but it should be noted that the building pre-dated the community benefit requirements, so when the theater was not built it did not violate any city code. This particular project informed the community benefit project. L. Folkerts pointed out that signage at the sidewalk should be put up to alert people to the publicly accessible space on the top of that building. • Please describe the proposed open space linkage criterion? The current criterion states, “If possible, open space is linked to the city-wide system” which is vague and difficult to determine. City goals are to see connections where it makes sense. The criterion is meant to make it clear that open space consents to any linkage to open space lands. • Did you think about avoiding fire accelerant plantings in the landscaping criteria? Staff noted that we did not specifically consider, but we can. Climate initiatives work on this topic is already under way. Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 7 Packet Page 34 of 489 • Wood and fiber cement board may not be considered high quality, but may be preferable to prevent the spread of fire. Was this considered? Staff noted that we didn’t look at that specifically. There are already building code requirements that specify building materials in wildfire prone areas. We can coordinate with the Fire Department on such requirements city wide. • Why are we excluding duplexes from some of the criteria? Staff explained that the exclusion is based on the concerns heard about applying FBC type requirements to smaller scale projects. • What is the intent behind the criterion requiring three design elements intended to draw from or improve upon the character of the surrounding area? Staff responded that determining the character of the area is often a vague and subjective criterion and thus sought to update the criterion to draw out specific elements that could be assessed in determining the character of the area and compatibility. • Does the requirement for recessed windows preclude a modern looking building? Is there enough flexibility. Staff’s opinion was that you can still get modern buildings with this requirement. If we got a particularly modern design, an applicant could ask for alternative compliance for a unique building if not meeting the recessed requirement. • If the reference to all BVCP policies were removed, what plan guidance would be omitted or forgone? Staff responded that nothing comes to mind. The change was suggested because there were some policies that have been problematic from a predictability perspective like the Jobs:Housing imbalance. Policies are meant to inform the programs of the city, area plans and specific zoning and not always meant to apply specifically to detailed proposals. It should be noted that all the criteria are meant to apply the BVCP and not just the BVCP section. • Will the changes add to the cost of doing a Site Review? Staff indicated that we have no specific metrics. We have anecdotal notes on FBC where we’ve heard that additional requirement may add to initial cost of preparing plans for review yet we’ve also heard that plans can take less time to review because it is more clear that a project meets the requirements avoiding the need for revising plans over and over again which amounts to some cost savings. • Why are developers who previously complained about subjectivity now opposing the prescriptive standards? Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 8 Packet Page 35 of 489 Staff indicated that we’ve heard similar complaints and stated that there was an element of surprise that there was so much resistance to the proposed criteria. Staff expects that any changes that would add additional requirements and added expense despite potentially adding to some level of predictability, would result in opposition. • Has anyone costed out the Greenhouse Gas Emissions requirement? Carolyn Elam, Senior Sustainability Manager, responded that research was done on the topic and found that there is cost parity to 10% for low concrete materials. Further, sampling was done on the building assessment and this came to less than $10,000 which is a fraction of the cost for a large building. She noted that many applicants would chose electric since it is cost effective to chose electric and that there was no incremental cost associated with the outcome verified code path. • There appear to be remarkable points of disagreement between staff and Planning Board on the criteria. Why has the project come to council instead of working out the points with the board? Staff indicated that there have been difficulties since the Planning Board was largely supportive of the project at the work session in October 2021 but this changed when the composition of the board changed significantly afterwards as opinions changed. In the same vein, the composition of the council has also changed so we thought that as the project is a City Council initiative, it would be prudent and important to check in with the new council to makes sure that the project is on the right track before returning to Planning Board and again council. • Why use the proposed criteria for Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction criteria as part of Site Review? Wouldn’t the 2023 energy code updates end up being more stringent? Carolyn Elam noted that there are characteristics of Site Review projects that potentially increase the level of impacts on the surroundings beyond by-right projects so it was found to be appropriate to have increased requirements for Site Review to mitigate those impacts. If requirements are added to the 2023 energy code ,the 10% better requirement is based on the city energy code, not the base national code, which would keep the requirement better than the more stringent local code. • The Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction requirements would only apply to individual buildings 30,000 square feet or greater, correct? Staff responded that that was correct that the requirements would only apply to individual buildings that are over 30,000 square feet that are part of a Site Review application and not “projects” that have more than 30,000 square feet in a mix of multiple buildings. • How receptive was the business community to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction requirements and what was the feedback? Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 9 Packet Page 36 of 489 Staff noted that there was concern expressed from the business community about adding new requirements. M. Wallach chaired the discussion and requested that Planning Board members J. Gerstle and S. Silver recount the Planning Board discussion on Site Review and M. Schexnyder discuss the DAB findings. S. Silver noted that there were three issues that Planning Board was particularly concerned about: 1) BVCP criterion: The board had concerns about staff proposal to limit use of the BVCP policies. The board found the BVCP criterion useful to surface key planning issues. S. Silver noted that no Site Review comes to mind as being denied based on BVCP policies, but the policies are used extensively. The one on jobs: housing policy often comes up and it is useful that the community and applicant understand the issue. She noted that a majority of the board did not want the BVCP policies to be limited. 2) Prescriptive vs. descriptive: Four board members indicated that the proposed changes were not too prescriptive and three of the new members felt they were too preservative. That is why the project was sent to DAB. There was a long discussion about the height modification criterion. The board found that context is very important vs. having a requirement that projects be limited to areas that are within 1,000-foot of other tall buildings or along high frequency corridors, the latter of which should be better defined. 3) GHG emissions requirement: Climate change is an important concern and more opportunities should be undertaken to address the impact of buildings. S. Silver felt staff’s suggestion was a good suggestion, but the issue of cost was raised. J. Gerstle added the concern about devaluing the BVCP by not allowing it to be considered in Site Reviews where it can play an important role. The BVCP is a fundamental document that guides development. He noted that all the GHG requirements make sense but cost should be looked into. M. Schexnyder acknowledged the challenges of the project and spoke towards the goals of favorable design outcomes. He asked about the potential for optional FBC citywide and if not, whether the city could elect to make it optional. There is value in doing FBC. He indicated he would support prescriptive standards if it simplified the process such that Site Review may not be required if certain requirements met. The DAB felt that the Site Review criteria were too prescriptive and recommended that there be more options for applicants to consider about whether a design intent is met. M. Wallach brought the discussion back to the council to answer the following questions: Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 10 Packet Page 37 of 489 QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL Question #1: Goals and Objectives Does City Council find that the updated Site Review criteria, within draft Ordinance 8515, meet the goals and objectives outlined for the project (see goals and objectives below)?  Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan.  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. Council Comments and Feedback M. Benjamin answered with “Yes, but…” finding that the criteria did not go far enough to achieve city goals. He thought that the criteria should be more aggressive and bolder. L. Folkerts expressed concern about the prescriptive nature of the criteria and indicated that the criteria should be more discretionary. She stated that form-based code type requirements would remove variety. R. Friend believed that the project was consistent with the original goals and objectives of the project and that the council should not be moving the goal posts at this stage of the project. A. Brockett indicated that the project responds to the goals but that the criteria should be updated to allow more flexible outcomes. T. Winer pointed out how challenging the project is and her agreement with L. Folkerts. She indicated that she did not want to see buildings all look alike. She also agreed with M. Benjamin that the criteria should go farther to achieve city goals. The City Council did a straw poll and expressed that the project was consistent with the original goals and objectives of the project, although modifications should be made per the discussions below. Question #2: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) criterion How should the criterion related to Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policy compliance be evaluated for development projects? Should all policies be applied to projects “on balance” or should only the “Built Environment” policies apply? Council Comments and Feedback A. Brockett understood the challenges of the current “on balance” language from a predictability standpoint and agreed that the language need to be updated. He suggested that language could potentially say that a project would have to be generally consistent with the BVCP but could only be denied per the “Built Environment” policies? Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 11 Packet Page 38 of 489 L. Folkerts agreed with A. Brockett and noted that she’d like to see the “on balance” language updated to have a caveat that the policies recognize each project’s unique circumstance and location be consider by policies that are not otherwise addressed by other zoning standards. N. Speer agreed and noted that we should lean away from the “on balance” language as it’s too open for interpretation. B. Yates noted that the “on balance” language was dangerous in how it can be used to deny projects on high level aspirational policies. Agreed with L. Folkerts on the modified criterion with caveats. M. Wallach supported the existing “on balance” language. Brad Mueller, Director of P&DS, noted that the approach could be a mingling of the two paths such as the project is “consistent with the principals of the BVCP” and any conflicts would be reconciled through use of the BVCP. Question #3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction criterion To what extent should the Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) reduction criterion apply to larger buildings? Should there be three options for compliance or should projects always be required to meet all three? Council Comments and Feedback N. Speer suggested that the GHG reduction criteria just be integrated into the city’s Energy Code rather than through Site Review. L. Folkerts indicated that she thought there would need to be more community feedback on this issue. In concept, she liked the require “two” and pick “one” additional option as this would keep the criterion one step ahead of the energy code. M. Benjamin agreed with L. Folkerts. The criterion should think beyond the current standards and push the envelope. T. Winer also noted that she liked the require “two” and pick “one” additional option. A. Brockett liked the idea that the requirements should just be integrated into the city’s Energy Code rather than through Site Review. This could be done as early as 2023. The total building evolution option could be the one that is made into a Site Review criterion. Carolyn Elam, Senior Sustainability Manager, noted that that could be an appropriate solution. R. Friend had similar thoughts as N. Speer and A. Brockett about putting the requirements in the city’s Energy Code. B. Yate agreed. N. Speer suggested that Site Review projects should be innovative and that it should be done through incentives. Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 12 Packet Page 39 of 489 M. Wallach indicated agreement with B. Yates, R. Friend and A. Brockett. Question #4: Prescriptive nature of criteria Does the City Council believe that the criteria should be modified to be less prescriptive? Does City Council suggest any other modifications to the criteria in the draft ordinance? Council Comments and Feedback A. Brockett suggested that the ordinance be revised to be less prescriptive. He liked the design ideas integrated into the criteria, but cautioned about buildings all looking the same. Alternative compliance language be shifted into the criteria heading and then list specific pathways towards successful buildings. L. Folkerts noted that making architects just design buildings by checking boxes or follow checklists doesn’t help. Site Review should be discretionary and try to encourage innovative design. M. Benjamin understands the how the less prescriptive criteria impacts the level of predictability. He doesn’t want to see homogeneity in building design. Need to find a hybrid that is less prescriptive but has really clear definitions of what good design should be considered. We should be encouraging more community benefit in by-right projects. R. Friend suggested that the process have fewer steps and that the city incentivize what it wants. M. Wallach struggled with why developers and applicants were opposed to the increased prescriptive language to attain more predictability when developers and applicants previously complained about how subjective and unpredictable the process currently was. Doesn’t want to hear more complaints about the criteria. A. Brockett asked about the view corridor criterion and suggested that the type of open space referenced in the criterion should be better defined. A. Brockett also expressed concern about the height modification criterion as being too limiting and perhaps the proposed 1,000-foot context area should be rethought. More flexibility should be allowed for redeveloping areas. N. Speer noted that the city should be encouraging more creativity in development. Attachment A - Site Review Criteria Update Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 13 Packet Page 40 of 489 ATTACHMENT B August 25, 2022 Study Session Use Table and Standards Project PRESENT City Council: Mayor Aaron Brockett, Mayor Pro Tem Rachel Friend, Matthew Benjamin, Lauren Folkerts, Junie Johnson, Nicole Speer, Mark Wallach, Bob Yates Staff: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager; Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services; Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor; Lisa Houde, Senior City Planner PURPOSE The purpose of this item to update the City Council on the status of the second phase of the Use Table and Standards project and to discuss next steps related to industrial areas and neighborhood-serving uses. Specific feedback from City Council was requested on residential development in industrial districts, office uses, and direction for Module Three of the project related to neighborhoods. SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION Lisa Houde presented information on the background of the project and schedule for Modules Two and Three of the project. The staff presentation was divided into three parts, with council’s discussion structured around key questions. Responses from the council members and staff is provided beneath each question. Council Questions: Council members asked the following questions (staff answers are italicized): •Am I correct that in the IS zone, residential is not permitted? Staff responded that attached dwelling units are permitted in IS zones, with some limitations related to ground floor uses. Staff raised the example of the Bus Stop Apartments on North Broadway, which is IS-1 and was developed recently. Efficiency living units, townhomes, and duplexes are similarly allowed in IS districts, provided the use is not located on the ground floor. •Why do you think that there were so few projects completed over a period of years, so few developers have taken advantage of the ability to have a residential use in an industrial zone? Staff noted that this was a question raised by staff as well, but potentially the contiguity requirement had limited the number of available sites, as well as the uncertainty associated with the use review. Staff also acknowledged that many other factors could impact this that are unrelated to zoning as well. However, staff also noted that three of the four projects had been approved or built in the last two years. •Have we done engagement on the question of consolidating office uses in industrial districts? Attachment B - Use Table and Standards Project Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 14 Packet Page 41 of 489 Staff noted that there has been some feedback in the previous parts of the project but the broader engagement effort will start on Be Heard Boulder next week. • What are some other examples of other limitation that might be necessary for office uses in industrial districts? Staff responded that there are a variety of options including limiting floor area, or using a floor area limitation or percentage based on lot size, and that staff will further explore the variety of options as the project moves forward. • How will the use table changes interact with the upcoming ADU ordinance updates? Staff noted that the use table changes will focus more on other housing types like duplex, triplex, attached dwellings, and live/work, but that ADUs are also an important and interrelated part of the conversation since they are allowed in the lowest density districts. Although they are separate ordinance projects, the conversations will not be disjointed from one another as they are closely tied. Questions for City Council: Question #1: Residential Development in Industrial Districts Does City Council support changes to the standards for residential development in Industrial districts that would make more sites eligible for residential uses? Changes could include removing the current contiguity requirement and/or minimum lot size and instead assessing whether sites are appropriate for residential development through other factors, such as guidance from subcommunity plans, limiting residential development only to the IG zoning district, or other potential approaches. Council Comments and Feedback L. Folkerts noted that she supports updates to the standards for residential development, we should eliminate the contiguity requirement, exclusivity of use for industrial in residential, minimum lot size, more restrictive setbacks and FAR that are typically required of housing in those zones. Instead, she would like to see suitability determined based on looking at a combination of intentions set out in the applicable area plans and BVCP. Those intension should speak to housing areas along transit lines and surrounding retail and amenity hubs, housing that is integrated into mixed use buildings and neighborhoods, diverse commercial and retail options. She also noted that housing needs to be in addition to industrial uses and not instead of it in some zones. So in some areas it might be that the first floor has to stay industrial and housing could be put above, or that there’s a percentage on the site, or maybe that there’s the creation of new conditional uses to help shape that so this fits closer to what we’ve described in especially the EBSP. M. Benjamin agreed with L. Folkerts’ comments. Also added comments regarding engagement and noted there was not much reference to community connectors and reaching out to some of our marginalized communities. Discussed that zoning and land use has almost always traditionally disproportionately impacted those communities and so as we think about how we’re using our allowable uses, we want to check in with those communities so that as we’re going Attachment B - Use Table and Standards Project Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 15 Packet Page 42 of 489 forward, how we do our land use and zoning is appropriate for everybody in our community. Provided direction to staff to make sure we’re tapping into these communities. A. Brockett supported L. Folkerts’ comments, with one exception that each site doesn’t have to be mixed use. We don’t want 100% of all industrial areas to become 100% residential, but he noted that think that on any given parcel, it could be appropriate for an all-residential project potentially. Guardrails on a whole sector basis can be tough, but he wouldn’t put a per parcel restriction on the percentage of residential per se. M. Wallach said that we need to determine what kinds of industrial uses we want to preserve, because to the extent that you permit residential development in an industrial zone, it is likely to crowd out most of the industrial users. Residential development is going to be more profitable than industrial facilities. That doesn’t mean we can’t do it, but it should be an intentional choice and understand what we’re doing. He was concerned about residential is permitted in IS zones along Pearl Parkway. That should be an intentional policy decision on the part of the city because it’s going to happen if you do that. He was very concerned about losing small industrial service businesses like plumbing, that have a real place in the community and they may move to other communities if we do not protect them. He noted that some other industrial areas might be more compatible with residential. R. Friend agreed with M. Wallach’s comments and noted the important community value of preserving industrial, and mentioned it had been a main point of discussion during the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. She also noted that we do not want to push out small industrial businesses that the community needs. M. Wallach asked the council to indicate support to making more sites eligible for residential with a thumbs up on video, and all council members voted yes. R. Friend noted that she supported it with the guardrails as discussed to protect the industries we need for this community. Question #2: Office Uses Does City Council support consolidation of the technical office and professional office use types into one generalized office use type? If the two types of office are consolidated into one use type, does Council think that other limitations are necessary for office uses in the Industrial districts? Council Comments and Feedback L. Folkerts strongly supported combining profession and technical office. When we have those definitions, it just is confusing for everyone. She noted that we do need to consider restrictions to ensure that the office use is not displacing industrial use in industrial zones, like requiring the first floor to remain industrial, or having some sort of maximum percentage of floor area or a maximum square footage per lot, or other options too. We do want to protect that industrial usage. R. Friend agreed with L. Folkerts and noted that we need to do robust engagement to make sure we don’t have unintended ripple effects. M. Benjamin agreed with L. Folkerts. Attachment B - Use Table and Standards Project Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 16 Packet Page 43 of 489 A. Brockett agreed and supported adding limitations so that our industrial zoned areas don’t just become office parks. M. Wallach noted the importance of avoiding unintended consequences and expressed concerns about putting the two office categories together without fairly robust guardrails. If there are no guardrails, he cautioned that this could accelerate the creation of speculative office buildings and that is not where the community interest lies. T. Winer agreed with M. Wallach and A. Brockett. Question #3: Module Three Does the Council have any specific direction for changes related to neighborhood-serving uses in Module Three? Council Comments and Feedback A. Brockett remembered the feedback from previous meeting in 2020 and noted he was still on the same page from the discussion then. He encouraged staff to be innovative about getting a rich mix of uses into those homogeneous neighborhoods whether they are residential, commercial, industrial. When you think about so many people working from home, if you can get a cup of coffee or grab a loaf of bread near your house, then you don’t hop in your car and that makes more sustainable society. He encouraged staff to be innovative and bold and come up with a great list of changes for Council to consider. He noted the importance of the direction this is moving in. M. Benjamin thanked staff for laying out the historic context. M. Benjamin recommended thinking of schools as anchor points for 15-minute neighborhoods or larger areas to consider how we want to shape those areas around schools, and raised concerns about enrollment and pressures on schools, particularly on the Broadway corridor. L. Folkerts noted that residential zoning has a lot of potential, since it represents a large area of the community, to address some of our biggest concerns like cost of housing and climate change. She is excited about this piece moving forward and asked staff to provide a broad range of options to Council. She also noted the importance of balancing uses and not being scared to make big recommendations. Attachment B - Use Table and Standards Project Item 3C - Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the Aug. 25, 2022 Study Session on the Site Review criteria update and Use Table and Standards projects. 17 Packet Page 44 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8551 adopting Supplement 152 which codifies previously adopted ordinances, and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as amendments to the Boulder Revised C ode, 1981; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney, 303.441.3020 RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to introduce, order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8551 adopting Supplement 152 which codifies previously adopted ordinances, and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as amendments to the Boulder Revised C ode, 1981; and setting forth related details. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3D - Ord. 8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Packet Page 45 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 15, 2022 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8551 adopting Supplement 152 which codifies previously adopted ordinances, and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as amendments to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981; and setting forth related details. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boulder Revised Code (“B.R.C. 1981”) is the official book of laws of the City of Boulder. Four times a year (quarterly), council is asked to adopt supplements to the B.R.C. 1981. An ordinance format is used to bring ordinances that council adopted in the prior quarter, or effective prior to the upcoming supplement, into the B.R.C. 1981, and to ensure that there is no question regarding what constitutes the official laws of the City of Boulder. These supplement ordinances are approved as a matter of routine by council. In order to generate the printed supplements to the B.R.C. as soon as possible, council is asked to adopt the proposed ordinance at first reading as an emergency measure. The text of Supplement 152 has been previously adopted by the following ordinances: Ord #8494 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5, “GENERAL OFFENSES,” B.R.C. 1981, REPEALING ORDINANCES 8245 AND 8259, BANNING THE SALE AND POSSESSION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS, LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES AND RAPID-FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATORS, RAISING THE AGE TO PURCHASE FIREARMS, AMENDING SECTION 5-2-26, “MATTERS OF LOCAL AND MIXED CONCERN,” B.R.C. 1981, AND Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 1 Packet Page 46 of 489 ADDING A NEW SECTION 5-8-42, “SEVERABILITY,” B.R.C. 1981; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8517 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8-6, “PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT ENCROACHMENTS, REVOCABLE PERMITS, LEASE AND VACATIONS,” B.R.C. 1981, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 8-6-12, “OUTDOOR SEATING IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY,” B.R.C. 1981, ALLOWING FOR A FIVE-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM THAT WAIVES CERTAIN CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOWS OUTDOOR SEATING THROUGH ISSUANCE OF CITY REVOCABLE PERMITS, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20, “FEES,” B.R.C. 1981, BY AMENDING SECTION 4-20-20, “REVOCABLE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT/LEASE APPLICATION FEE,” B.R.C. 1981, AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 4-20-76, “OUTDOOR SEATING PILOT PROGRAM INFRASTRUCTURE FEE,” B.R.C. 1981, SETTING FORTH APPLICABLE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIVE YEAR PILOT PROGRAM; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8523 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981, TO UPDATE AND SIMPLIFY THE USE TABLE AND USE STANDARDS AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8524 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-1-2, “COUNCIL MEETINGS,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ALIGN LANGUAGE WITH CITY COUNCIL’S DECISION TO CHANGE COUNCIL MEETING DAYS FROM TUESDAY TO THURSDAY; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8525 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 5-8-15, “DEADLY WEAPONS IN CITY BUILDINGS PROHIBITED,” B.R.C. 1981, TO PROHIBIT THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8526 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5-8, “WEAPONS,” B.R.C. 1981, BY ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS, AND A NEW SECTION 5-8-39, “PROHIBITIONS,” B.R.C. 1981, TO REGULATE THE POSSESSION OF UNFINISHED FRAMES AND RECEIVERS, AND UNSERIALIZED FIREARMS; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8527 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 5-8-21, “OPEN CARRIAGE OF FIREARMS IN CARRYING CASES REQUIRED,” B.R.C. 1981, TO PROHIBIT THE OPEN CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC PLACES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8528 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5-8, “WEAPONS,” B.R.C. 1981, BY ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS, AND A NEW SECTION 5-8-40, “DISCLOSURE,” B.R.C. 1981, REQUIRING ALL FIREARM DEALERS TO POST SIGNS AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE FIREARMS TRANSFERS TAKE PLACE; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 2 Packet Page 47 of 489 Ord #8529 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5-8, “WEAPONS,” B.R.C. 1981, BY ADDING A NEW DEFINITION AND A NEW SECTION 5-8-41, “WAITING PERIOD PRIOR TO FIREARM PURCHASE,” B.R.C. 1981, REQUIRING A WAITING PERIOD PRIOR TO THE SALE OF FIREARMS; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8531 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 5-9-6, “UNREASONABLE NOISE PROHIBITED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11 P.M. THROUGH 7 A.M., AND 5-3-11, “NUISANCE PARTY PROHIBITED,” B.R.C. 1981, TO PROHIBIT UNREASONABLE AMPLIFIED NOISE DURING THE DAYTIME AS WELL AS NIGHTTIME HOURS; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8543 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-11-6, “POLICE OVERSIGHT PANEL – QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS,” B.R.C 1981, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS TO ELEVEN AND ALTERNATES TO FOUR; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord #8545 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2-1-2, “COUNCIL MEETINGS,” 2-2.5-11, “LOCATION AND SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNING BODY MEETINGS AND DEPARTMENTS,” AND 2-3-1, “GENERAL PROVISIONS,” B.R.C. 1981, ALLOWING FOR BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ATTEND MEETINGS VIRTUALLY OR IN-PERSON; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce, order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8551 adopting Supplement 152 which codifies previously adopted ordinances, and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as an amendment to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981; and setting forth related details. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS  Budgetary - None  Staff Time – This work is part of the time always allocated to code maintenance in the City Attorney’s overall work plan.  Economic – None COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS Ongoing code maintenance is an essential and largely administrative obligation of the city. Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 3 Packet Page 48 of 489 FORMAT NOTES Code amendments (if any) may be reflected in strike out and double underline format along with a “Reason for Change” as part of this agenda item. Such amendments are intended to correct non- substantive errors discovered through review of these ordinances and/or which may have occurred in previously adopted ordinances already in the B.R.C. 1981. Major and/or substantive corrections or revisions are brought forward as a separate ordinance to council during the normal course of future council business. ANALYSIS This supplement includes ordinances that were adopted by council in the last supplement quarter or are effective prior to the upcoming supplement. They are added to the official version of the B.R.C. 1981 by way of the attached supplement ordinance. council adopts a quarterly supplement ordinance to ensure that a clearly identifiable version of the Boulder Revised Code is legislatively adopted. The printed supplements to the B.R.C. may not be distributed until the proposed adopting ordinance is effective. The laws of the city should be current and available to the residents of the City of Boulder as soon as possible, therefore, council is asked to adopt the proposed ordinance at first reading as an emergency measure. AMENDMENTS 1. Section 8-9-3, “General Regulatory Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: … (d) Interpretation of Use Classifications: The city manager may decide questions of interpretation of the use classification or to which category uses not specifically listed as a nonresidential use in Table 23 of Section 4-20-62, "Capital Facility Impact Fee," B.R.C. 1981, are properly assigned. This decision shall be based on precedents, similar situations, relative impacts, trip generation rates, employees per demand unit or the methodology used to create such classifications in the "Development Impact Fee Study" prepared by Tischler-Bise, Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants, dated January 8, 2009. … Reason for change: Ord. 8247, adopted May 1, 2018, revised Section 4-20-62 to include reference to Table 3: Impact Fee Rates for Public & Civic Uses and Affordable Commercial Uses and Table 4: Impact Fee Rates for Other Nonresidential Uses. When Section 8-9-3 was originally adopted the nonresidential use table was Table 3 in that section, but since then Section 4-20-62 has been amended and the referenced table is now Table 2. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Section 1-2-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: … (b) The following words used in this code and other ordinances of the city have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Mall means the Boulder downtown pedestrian mall established by Ordinance No. 4022, (2-18- 1975) adopted February 18, 1975, as amended by Ordinance No. 4267, adopted September 6, 1977. [6] Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 4 Packet Page 49 of 489 Footnotes: --- (6) --- Ordinance No. 4022, as amended by Ordinance No. 4267, generally describes the mall as Pearl Street from the east curb line of 11th Street to the west curb line of 15th Street, less the area between the curb lines of Broadway, 13th and 14th Streets. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Section 4-11-2, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: The following terms used in this chapter have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: … Mall means the Boulder downtown pedestrian mall established by Ordinance No. 4022, adopted February 18, 1975, as amended by Ordinance No. 4267, adopted September 6, 1977. [19] … Footnotes: --- (19) --- Ordinance No. 4022, as amended by Ordinance No. 4267, generally describes the mall as Pearl Street from the east curb line of 11th Street to the west curb line of 15th Street, less the area between the curb lines of Broadway, 13th and 14th Streets. The provisions of this chapter do not cover the courthouse lawn except for that portion which is now within the right of way. Please note that the definition of the mall in title 5, "General Offenses," B.R.C. 1981, is different. Title 5 prohibits various acts, including rollerskating and skateboarding, throwing things, and possession of alcohol during Halloween, on the mall, and these prohibitions extend to the county courthouse lawn and adjacent sidewalks up to the south face of the courthouse. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Section 4-20-20, “Revocable Right of Way Permit/Lease Application Fee,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: … (d) An applicant for an encroachment off the Pearl Street Mall mall shall pay an annual fee of $13.13 per square foot of leased area. … ____________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Section 8-6-8, “Exempt Encroachments,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: … (f) Temporary Street Furniture: Street furniture may be placed in the public right-of-way on a sidewalk in the area immediately adjacent to the property by the owner or tenant of property if the following standards are met: (1) The property is located within the University Hill General Improvement District as shown in Appendix 8-A to this chapter or the Downtown Boulder Business Improvement District, excluding the Pearl Street Mall mall, as shown in Appendix 8-B to this chapter. Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 5 Packet Page 50 of 489 … Reason for changes 2 through 5: Ordinance 4022 established a pedestrian mall on both the stretch of Pearl Street from 11th Street to 15th Street as well as the stretch of 13th Street from Spruce Street to Walnut Street. Recently, staff in the Planning & Development Services department raised questions about whether businesses located within the area off of 13th Street should be subject to the higher revocable permit and lease rate applicable to encroachments “off the Pearl Street Mall,” pursuant to Section 4-20-20, “Revocable Right of Way Permit/Lease Application Fee,” B.R.C. 1981. The definition of “mall” contained within Title 1 and Title 4 of the B.R.C. references “the Boulder downtown pedestrian mall established by Ordinance No. 4022,” and the term “Pearl Street Mall” is not defined. Currently, the definition of “mall” contained in Title 1 and Title 4 of the B.R.C. references Ordinance 4022 but omits any reference to the amendment to that definition made by Ordinance 4267. Further, the B.R.C. contains multiple references to the undefined term “Pearl Street Mall,” which would be clarified by replacing it with the defined term “mall.” This update is intended to codify the current interpretation of these provisions by clarifying that Ordinance 4267 revised the definition of the term “mall” originally established by Ordinance 4022 and by replacing all instances of the undefined term “Pearl Street Mall” with the defined term “mall.” ____________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8551 Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 6 Packet Page 51 of 489 K:\CCCO\o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152-2347-0001.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8551 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING SUPPLEMENT 152, WHICH CODIFIES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCES, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CORRECTIONS AND AMENDMENTS, AS AMENDMENTS TO THE BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Legislative Findings. A. Supplement 152 amending the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (“B.R.C. 1981”) has been printed. B. The city council intends that this supplement be codified and published as a part of the B.R.C. 1981. C. Supplement 152 to the B.R.C. 1981 is a part of this ordinance and contains all of the amendments to the B.R.C. 1981 enacted by the city council in Ordinances 8494, 8517, 8523, 8524, 8525, 8526, 8527, 8528, 8529, 8531, 8543, 8545 and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments. The city council intends to adopt this supplement as an amendment to the B.R.C. 1981. D. The procedure changes contained in Supplement 152 are available in printed copy to each member of the city council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, and the published text of the supplement, along with the text of those changes, is available for public inspection and acquisition in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Boulder, in the Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado. Section 2. The city council adopts Supplement 152 by this reference. Section 3. The city council orders that a copy of Supplement 152 as proposed for adoption by reference herein be on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Boulder, Colorado, Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, City of Boulder, Boulder County, Colorado, and may be inspected by any person during regular business hours pending the adoption of this ordinance. Section 4. The annotations, source notes, codifier’s notes, and other editorial matter included in the printed B.R.C. 1981 are not part of the legislative text. These editorial provisions are provided to give the public additional information for added convenience. No implication or presumption of a legislative construction is to be drawn from these materials. A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8551 Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 7 Packet Page 52 of 489 K:\CCCO\o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152-2347-0001.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 5. The B.R.C. 1981, or any chapter or section of it, may be proved by a copy certified by the city clerk of the City of Boulder, under seal of the city; or, when printed in book or pamphlet form and purporting to be printed by authority of the city. It shall be received in evidence in all courts without further proof of the existence and regularity of the enactment of any particular ordinance of the B.R.C. 1981. Section 6. These provisions of the B.R.C. 1981 shall be given effect and interpreted as though a continuation of prior laws and not as new enactments. Section 7. Unless expressly provided otherwise, any violation of the provisions of the B.R.C. 1981, as supplemented herein, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or incarceration for not more than ninety days in jail, or by both such fine and incarceration, as provided in Section 5-2-4, “General Penalties,” B.R.C. 1981. Section 8. Section 8-9-3, “General Regulatory Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: … (d) Interpretation of Use Classifications: The city manager may decide questions of interpretation of the use classification or to which category uses not specifically listed as a nonresidential use in Table 23 of Section 4-20-62, "Capital Facility Impact Fee," B.R.C. 1981, are properly assigned. This decision shall be based on precedents, similar situations, relative impacts, trip generation rates, employees per demand unit or the methodology used to create such classifications in the "Development Impact Fee Study" prepared by Tischler-Bise, Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants, dated January 8, 2009. … Section 9. Section 1-2-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: … (b) The following words used in this code and other ordinances of the city have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: … Mall means the Boulder downtown pedestrian mall established by Ordinance No. 4022, (2-18- 1975) adopted February 18, 1975, as amended by Ordinance No. 4267, adopted September 6, 1977. [6] A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8551 Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 8 Packet Page 53 of 489 K:\CCCO\o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152-2347-0001.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Footnotes: --- (6) --- Ordinance No. 4022, as amended by Ordinance No. 4267, generally describes the mall as Pearl Street from the east curb line of 11th Street to the west curb line of 15th Street, less the area between the curb lines of Broadway, 13th and 14th Streets. Section 10. Section 4-11-2, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: The following terms used in this chapter have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: … Mall means the Boulder downtown pedestrian mall established by Ordinance No. 4022, adopted February 18, 1975, as amended by Ordinance No. 4267, adopted September 6, 1977. [19] … Footnotes: --- (19) --- Ordinance No. 4022, as amended by Ordinance No. 4267, generally describes the mall as Pearl Street from the east curb line of 11th Street to the west curb line of 15th Street, less the area between the curb lines of Broadway, 13th and 14th Streets. The provisions of this chapter do not cover the courthouse lawn except for that portion which is now within the right of way. Please note that the definition of the mall in title 5, "General Offenses," B.R.C. 1981, is different. Title 5 prohibits various acts, including rollerskating and skateboarding, throwing things, and possession of alcohol during Halloween, on the mall, and these prohibitions extend to the county courthouse lawn and adjacent sidewalks up to the south face of the courthouse. Section 11. Section 4-20-20, “Revocable Right of Way Permit/Lease Application Fee,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: … (d) An applicant for an encroachment off the Pearl Street Mall mall shall pay an annual fee of $13.13 per square foot of leased area. … Section 12. Section 8-6-8, “Exempt Encroachments,” B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows: … (f) Temporary Street Furniture: Street furniture may be placed in the public right-of-way on a sidewalk in the area immediately adjacent to the property by the owner or tenant of property if the following standards are met: (1) The property is located within the University Hill General Improvement District as shown in Appendix 8-A to this chapter or the Downtown Boulder Business Improvement District, excluding the Pearl Street Mall mall, as shown in Appendix 8-B to this chapter. … A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8551 Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 9 Packet Page 54 of 489 K:\CCCO\o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152-2347-0001.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 13. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 14. The printed supplements cannot be distributed until the adopting ordinance is effective. The laws of the city should be current and available to the residents of the City of Boulder as soon as possible. On that basis, this ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure and shall be in full force and effect upon its final passage. READ ON FIRST READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 15th day of September 2022. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8551 Item 3D - o-8551 1st rdg emergency Supp 152 Page 10 Packet Page 55 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8552 Amending 9-11-16, "C all-Up by C ity Council," B.R.C . 1981, Changing Landmarks Board C all-Up Written Notice Requirement to Align with C ity Council Meetings now being held on T hursdays instead of Tuesdays; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Lucas Markley, Attorney, 303.441.3020 RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to introduce, order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8552 Amending 9-11-16, "Call-Up by City C ouncil," B.R.C . 1981, C hanging Landmarks Board Call-Up Written Notice Requirement to Align with C ity Council Meetings now being held on T hursdays instead of Tuesdays; and setting forth related details. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3E - Ord. 8552 1st rdg emergency Amending 9-11-16 Landmarks Board Call-Ups Packet Page 56 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 15, 2022 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8552 Amending 9-11-16, "Call-Up by City Council," B.R.C. 1981, changing Landmarks Board call-up written notice requirement to align with city council meetings now being held on Thursdays instead of Tuesdays; and setting forth related details. PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney Lucas Markley, Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a cleanup item related to moving city council meetings to Thursday. Under current law, the city council may call up for review any decision of the Landmarks Board approving a landmark alteration certificate by serving written notice to the board within fourteen days of the board’s decision. With city council meetings now taking place on Thursdays, the fourteen-day period does not allow for timely notification to allow city council the opportunity to call up a decision. The proposed ordinance changes the call-up period from fourteen days to sixteen days to rectify this. Item 3E o-8552 1st rdg emergency Landmarks Board Call-Ups Page 1 Packet Page 57 of 489 STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS Economic - none Environmental - none Social – none OTHER IMPACTS Fiscal - none Staff time – No additional staff resources will be required. Rather, passing the ordinance will save staff time, as it will prevent staff from having to regularly seek written extensions of the call-up period from the city manager. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None. PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. BACKGROUND A landmark alteration certificate (“LAC”) is required for new construction, alteration, relocation, and demolition of any building or feature on a designated landmark site or in a historic district. Some LAC applications proceed to a quasi-judicial hearing before the Landmarks Board. Pursuant to section 9-11-16 of the Boulder Revised Code, the city Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce, order published by title only and adopt by emergency measure Ordinance 8552 Amending 9-11-16, "Call-Up by City Council," B.R.C. 1981, changing Landmarks Board call-up written notice requirement to align with city council meetings now being held on Thursdays instead of Tuesdays; and setting forth related details. Item 3E o-8552 1st rdg emergency Landmarks Board Call-Ups Page 2 Packet Page 58 of 489 council may call up for review any decision of the Landmarks Board approving a landmark alteration certificate by serving written notice to the board within fourteen days of the board’s decision. Landmarks Board meetings take place at 6 p.m. on the first Wednesday of every month. When city council meetings were on Tuesday, historic preservation staff had sufficient time to notify city council of the opportunity to call up the decision by placing the item on the city council agenda for the meeting that took place thirteen days after the Landmarks Board decision. With city council meetings now taking place on Thursday, there is no realistic opportunity to notify the city council of the call-up. When the Landmarks Board makes the decision on Wednesday evening, it is already too late to include the issue in the packet for the city council meetings that take place the next day and eight days later. While section 9-11-16 allows the city manager to extend the call up period if she finds in writing that city council did not receive notice in time, this is a time-consuming step for both historic preservation staff and the city manager. The proposed ordinance would change the call-up period from fourteen days to sixteen days, which would allow the city council to consider the call-up at its regularly scheduled meeting that takes place approximately two weeks from the Landmarks Board meeting without requiring a written extension of time from the city manager. Passing this ordinance as an emergency measure is necessary to get all clean up items related to the city council meeting day change from Tuesday to Thursday that went into effect July 14, 2022 to council in a timely manner so council can make decisions about all related procedural changes and necessary amendments to the Code. ANALYSIS Staff recommends that City Council pass the ordinance on an emergency basis in order to ensure that council has the ability to review LAC call-up decisions without requiring a time-consuming extension of time from the city manager. Staff considered longer periods of time for the call-up period but determined that sixteen days strikes the right balance between giving the city council opportunity to review the decision and giving the owner/applicant finality of decision-making so they may proceed with their project. The status quo of fourteen days causes an undesirable situation in which the city manager and staff would have to regularly spend valuable time on written extensions of time, which can be avoided with this simple ordinance change. NEXT STEPS None anticipated. Item 3E o-8552 1st rdg emergency Landmarks Board Call-Ups Page 3 Packet Page 59 of 489 ATTACHMENT A – Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8552 Item 3E o-8552 1st rdg emergency Landmarks Board Call-Ups Page 4 Packet Page 60 of 489 K:\PLLB\o-8552 1st rdg emergency Landmark's Board Call -Ups-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8552 AN EMRGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-11-16, “CALL-UP BY CITY COUNCIL,” B.R.C. 1981, CHANGING LANDMARKS BOARD CALL-UP WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT TO ALIGN WITH CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS NOW BEING HELD ON THURSDAYS INSTEAD OF TUESDAYS; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 9-11-16, “Call-Up by City Council,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended as follows: 9-11-16. Call-Up by City Council. (a) The city council may call up for review any decision of the landmarks board approving or suspending action on a landmark alteration certificate application by serving written notice on the board within fourteen sixteen days of the board's decision and notifying the applicant of the call-up. It may call up for review any decision of the landmarks board disapproving a landmark alteration certificate within thirty days of the board's decision and notifying the applicant of the call-up. If the city manager finds in writing within the original call-up period that the council did not receive notice of a decision of the board in time to enable it to call up the decision for review, then the manager may extend the call- up period until the council's next regular meeting. (b) Within forty-five days after the date of a decision by the landmarks board called up by the city council, the council shall hold a public hearing under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981, after publishing notice of the Attachment A – Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8552 Item 3E o-8552 1st rdg emergency Landmarks Board Call-Ups Page 5 Packet Page 61 of 489 K:\PLLB\o-8552 1st rdg emergency Landmark's Board Call -Ups-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days before the hearing. (c) Within thirty days after the hearing date first set, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the city council and the applicant, the council shall adopt written findings and conclusions approving or disapproving the application. In cases of a call-up of a landmarks board decision suspending action on an application, the council may reduce the suspension or extend it up to one hundred eighty days from the date of the council decision. In cases of a call-up of a landmarks board approval of an application following the board's suspension of action, the council may approve or disapprove the application. Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 5. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 15th day of September 2022. ____________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment A – Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8552 Item 3E o-8552 1st rdg emergency Landmarks Board Call-Ups Page 6 Packet Page 62 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M C oncept plan review and comment for a proposed redevelopment of an approximately 3.99 acre site with existing office use to a new, 139,330 square foot life sciences building, Pearl East Innovation B uilding. T he property is located in the P earl E ast B usiness P ark at 4845 and 4875 P earl E ast C ircle. Site improvements are proposed for the entire campus Case no. L U R 2022-00010 P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Shabnam Bista, City Senior Planner B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M T he item was scheduled for a Planning Board hearing on 08/23/2022. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 4A - 4845 and 4875 P earl E ast Circle Concept P lan Rev iew Packet Page 63 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 15, 2022 AGENDA TITLE: Call-up consideration of a Concept Plan proposing redevelopment of an approximately 3.99 acre site with existing office uses to replace two existing office buildings with a new, 139,330 square foot life sciences building, Pearl East Innovation Building. The property is located in the Pearl East Business Park at 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle. Site improvements are proposed for the entire campus. Case no. LUR2022- 00010. Applicant: Danica Powell, Trestle Strategy Owners: BCSP Pearl East Property LLC PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager David Gehr, Interim Director Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Shabnam Bista, City Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the above- referenced Concept Plan application for review and comment at a public hearing. On Aug. 23rd, 2022, the Planning Board held a virtual meeting and reviewed and commented on the proposal. The 30-day call up period concludes on Sept. 23rd, 2022. City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its Sept. 15, 2022 meeting. The staff memorandum to Planning Board, recorded video, and the applicant’s submittal materials along with other related background materials are available in the city archives for Planning Board, August 23, 2022. The applicant’s submittal package is provided in Attachment A. Due to only one City Council meeting being within the 30-day call-up period, the draft minutes for the hearing are not available. The recorded video from the hearing can be found here. Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 1 Packet Page 64 of 489 REVIEW PROCESS No formal action is taken on a Concept Plan application. Public, staff, Planning Board, and Council comments will be documented for the applicant’s use. The proposal is required to undergo a Concept Plan Review and subsequent Site Review because the proposal exceeds the 100,000 square feet of floor area threshold found in Section 9-2-14, Table 2-2, “Site Review Threshold Table”, B.R.C. 1981. Additionally, the proposed building exceeds the permitted building height in Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," B.R.C. 1981. The purpose of the Concept Plan review is to determine the general development plan for a particular site and to help identify key issues in advance of a site review submittal. This step in the development process is intended to give the applicant an opportunity to solicit comments from the Planning Board as well as the public early in the development process as to whether a development concept is consistent with the requirements of the city as set forth in its adopted plans, ordinances, and policies (Section 9-2-13, B.R.C. 1981). City Council has the option to call up Concept Plans to also provide comments early in the review process. City Council has the authority to refer Concept Plan Review proposals to the Design Advisory Board (DAB) and/or Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) for their respective opinions. The purpose of such a review by the Design Advisory Board is to encourage thoughtful, well-designed development projects that are sensitive to the existing character of an area, or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area. The Transportation Advisory Board’s opinion can be requested by council on transportation matters implicated in a Concept Plan Review proposal. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic: None identified. • Environmental: None identified. • Social: None identified OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal: no fiscal impacts are anticipated • Staff time: the application was completed under standard staff review time. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK At the public hearing on Aug. 23, 2022 the Planning Board heard presentations by staff and the applicant, and asked questions following each presentation. At the public hearing, there were testimonies from two members of the public regarding the Concept Plan. The Planning Board discussed two key issues at the public hearing: 1. Is the proposed concept plan consistent with the goals, and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 2 Packet Page 65 of 489 2. Is the height, mass, and scale of the proposed buildings compatible with the character of the area? Regarding Key Issue 1, the board generally found that that the project was consistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the BVCP. The board recognized that redeveloping the site to continue as an industrial use meets the objective of keeping industrial uses in the city. However, members of the board also noted that the proposal does not meet the energy and climate goals or transportation goals of the BVCP. As the project moves forward, the applicant should take into account the network of multi-use paths and connectivity to the site. Regarding Key Issue 2, the board found that a justification for the height modification has not been made by the applicant, in particular, the board thought that the proposed building height was not consistent with the site review criteria relating to building height. Tenants have not been identified by the applicant at this time. The board noted that the building design appeared to be designed for an office use and wants to provide the applicant to provide additional information on the life sciences or laboratory use and how those uses affect the design of the building. One member of the board generally supported the project because it was in keeping win the ongoing East Boulder subcommunity plan for the area to remain light industrial. Planning Board agreed that the building design is at a very conceptual level. The Board discussed whether to seek input from Design Advisory Board (DAB) on this concept plan. Ultimately, the board voted to not refer the project to DAB at this time due to the very conceptual level of design. The board also suggested breaking up the building to reduce the mass and scale of the height. In terms of sustainability, the board agreed that the project would have to better address site review criteria and BVCP policies relating to mitigation of urban heat island effects, mitigation of impacts to water quality, and any water and air pollution that may be associated with life sciences uses. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property. A sign was posted on the property a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing. Staff did not receive any written comments from the public. At the public hearing, two members of the public voiced concerns about the request for a height modification and lack of sustainability. Additionally, they commented that the space should be driven by a tenant rather than being built to attract the type of tenants for the space. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 3 Packet Page 66 of 489 The staff memorandum to Planning Board that includes staff analysis, neighbor comments along with the meeting audio, and the applicant’s submittal materials are available on the Records Archive for Planning Board. MATRIX OF OPTIONS The City Council may call up a Concept Plan application within thirty days of the Planning Board’s review. Any application that it calls up, the City Council will review at a public meeting within sixty days of the call-up vote, or within such other time as the city and the applicant mutually agree. The City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its Sept. 15, 2022 public hearing. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Attachment B: Staff Initial Review Comments Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 4 Packet Page 67 of 489 Beacon Capital Partners Denver 1200 17th Street, Suite 2050, Denver CO 80205 303.710.8807 March 4, 2022 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, Third Floor Boulder, CO 80306 RE: Concept Plan Dear City of Boulder, Beacon Capital Partners is pleased to share a conceptual plan for the world-class Pearl East Innovation Building in Boulder. Our vision is to create a campus community at Pearl East that inspires and engages our Boulder surroundings through adaptive reuse, thoughtful architecture, immersive natural landscape elements, and dynamic programming. The redevelopment of Pearl East will enhance and protect the property’s light-industrial legacy, activate the streetscape via innovative amenity zones, and promote recreation with mobility connections to the broader East Boulder neighborhood. Our Concept Plan submission highlights several program elements that we believe will enhance the quality and experience of the Pearl East Innovation Campus, including the development of 139,330 square-feet of new, purpose-built innovation space on Pearl Parkway. This new structure - the Pearl East Innovation Building - will be suited to uses such as life science, research and development, and technology. The new development will transform an existing surface parking lot to a dynamic, functional space with surrounding landscape and access improvements. Beacon Capital Partners has adopted a sequenced approach to improving the experience and quality of the broader Pearl East Innovation Campus. We have focused this Concept Plan submission on all Site Review-level improvements that are planned, and we are thrilled to receive feedback from city staff and the Planning Board on our ideas. Beyond the new development, there are several other improvements planned for the property that are or will be part of alternate city approval processes, such as the Minor Modification and/or Building Permit process: Renovate portions of the site to prepare for new tenants, including signage, landscaping, and interior improvements Create enhanced landscape nodes with dynamic programming, that would work within existing site constraints including, parking, grading, and flood plain to promote community recreation and tie into the pedestrian pathways and bike trail Upgrade infrastructure in 4888, 4999, 4940, and 4780 to support new life science tenants o This is largely limited to rooftop MEP equipment and screening of those elements o Work in 4888 and 4999 would include speculative buildouts of turnkey life science spaces ready for tenant move in Upgrade the first 2 floors of 4909 into a shared campus amenity suite as a central hub to the campus that would include lounge, fitness and wellness, bike storage, conference and training – as well as a local art program o There is an outdoor terrace component in the current south parking area that we would like to couple with this work Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 5 Packet Page 68 of 489 Beacon Capital Partners Denver 1200 17th Street, Suite 2050, Denver CO 80205 303.710.8807 To design and execute this master plan vision, Beacon has assembled a high-caliber local team including SAR (design architect), Gensler Denver (life science architect), Sasaki (landscape architect), JVA (civil engineer), Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (land use attorney), and Trestle Strategy Group (entitlement and community engagement consultant). Together we will work to create vibrant spaces that are inspirational and impactful to the Pearl East Innovation Campus and the broader Boulder ecosystem. Beacon Capital Partners is a tenant-focused private real estate investment firm with a 75-year legacy of successful real estate development, ownership and management. Beacon has developed a robust operating platform to transform properties into distinctive workplaces through innovative design, state-of-the-art connectivity, modern amenities, and award-winning sustainability initiatives. Beacon has developed a long-standing presence in Denver, with significant expertise in repositioning, developing, leasing, and managing life science and office assets. We are honored to have a growing presence in Boulder. We are excited about this project’s innovation, architecture, and neighborhood enhancement potential. Thank you for your consideration of our Concept Plan submission, and we look forward to continued collaboration with the City of Boulder planning staff team and elected and appointed officials. Sincerely, Elizabeth Paden Senior Vice President Beacon Capital Partners, LLC 617.487.9609 epaden@beaconcapital.com Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 6 Packet Page 69 of 489 Concept Plan Submittal Boulder, Colorado March 4, 2022 Pearl East Innovation Building Pearl Park way Foothills P a r k w a y Pearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 1 Pearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 1 Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 7 Packet Page 70 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan Submittal 3 ____ 5 ____ 6 ____ 7 ____ 8 ____ 9 ____ 16___ 18___ 20___ Site Analysis Zoning and Context Map Project Data Site Plan Flood Plain Overlay Diagram Concept Drawings of the Proposed Building Architecture Character Sketches (Elevations) Conceptual Views and Perspectives Conceptual Review Criteria Index Project Introduction Pearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 12 Pearl Park way EXISTING PEARL EAST CAMPUS NEW INNOVATION BUILDING Foothills P a r k w a y The proposed new building, located on an existing surface parking lot between 4845 and 4875 Pearl E Cir, is a four-story core and shell innovation building suited for life science, R&D, and technology tenants and will include supporting office use. It will contain an internal loading dock and two levels of below grade parking. The below grade parking is included to meet the demands of the added building area, but some surface parking and access to the existing buildings will be retained. The building will provide an opportunity for companies and industries rooted in the Boulder community to grow and thrive. The new proposed building is envisioned to simultaneously reflect its use as a hub of technology and innovation while striving for compatibility in the context of its surroundings. Through application of masonry in the exterior facades, as well as a clear and simple massing approach, the exterior appearance of the new building is designed to relate to the other buildings on the campus as well as the broader neighborhood. On the leg facing Pearl E Cir, the top floor is carved away and an outdoor terrace is provided for the building occupants with an overhead shading structure. In addition, large bays of glass and completely glazed ground and top floor are composed of high-performance glazing and aluminum shading and articulations that set the building apart as a technologically advanced, sustainable, and inviting addition to the Pearl Parkway corridor. The design and massing of the building is approached to be sensitive to its scale and how it relates to its surroundings, and will enliven both the campus and Pearl Parkway. The top floor is stepped in, and its height is reduced so that its appearance from the ground is minimized. Additionally, it is fully glazed, and articulated in a different glass pattern to lighten its appearance and visually separate it from the primary mass of the building. The ground floor glazing is maximized as well as articulated to set itself apart from the primary mass of the building, resulting in a building that clearly expresses a base, middle, and top, and the base is designed to be as transparent as possible, so it appears inviting and scaled for a rich pedestrian experience. The surroundings of the ground level will be planted with lush trees and landscaping and will also include a small hardscaped entry area that could potentially house a public art feature. While nestled within a suburban office campus, the ground floor design is focused on creating a rich human scale and pedestrian experience. Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 8 Packet Page 71 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 13 East Boulder Industrial Core The surrounding context of the Pearl East Campus and new Pearl East Innovation Building is within the Light Industrial and Community Industrial zones of Boulder. Building types and programs include car dealerships, low-rise offices, and hotels. The low density allows for primarily surface parking, large lawns and landscaped spaces between buildings. Design Response The proposed new building responds to the scale and density of the surrounding context, but it also takes the opportunity to enhance the character of the street edge along Pearl Parkway. The materiality and character of the surrounding context is diverse, so the new building will emphasize compatibility within its immediate context of the Pearl East Campus. SITE ANALYSIS - NEIGHBORHOOD NATURE PRESERVE AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS TO BOULDER CREEK PATH NETWORK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 9 Packet Page 72 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 14 Pearl East Campus Character The existing Pearl East Campus is comprised of masonry and glass clad buildings reflecting modern architectural styles, emphasizing horizontality through ribbon window treatments and a combination of flat and hip roof lines. The building heights are varied throughout, and the campus is woven together through a well maintained series of landscaped lawns that will be further improved and activated with the repositioning process. Design Response The proposed new building will aim for visual compatibility with a material pallet inspired by the surrounding structures, but set itself apart with contemporary building systems and applications. High performance glazing and shading devices will be implemented to provide transparency as well as texture to provide a sense of human and contextual scale to the new development. Exterior spaces at grade as well as the rooftop terrace will activate both Pearl E Circle and Pearl Parkway. SITE ANALYSIS - PEARL EAST CAMPUS 1: 4845 PEARL E CIR 2: 4875 PEARL E CIR 3: 4909 PEARL E CIRCLE 4: 4949 PEARL E CIRCLE 5: 4909 PEARL E CIRCLE 6: 4780 PEARL E CIRCLE 7: 4840 PEARL E CIRCLE 8: 4888 PEARL E CIRCLE 9: 4900 PEARL E CIRCLE 10: 4940 - 4990 PEARL E CIRCLE 1 PROPOSED NEW BUILDING 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 10 Packet Page 73 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 15 D D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï D D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D DD D D DD D D DD D DD D DD D DD D D Boulder Louisville Lafayette Gunbarrel Niwot Marshall Superior Broomfield Eldorado Springs H akeD itc h H a k eDitchSB/CCDitchKerrDitchNo.1South Toll Gate Ditch K e r r D itc hNo .2NorthBoulderFarmer'sDitch MarshallDitchNo2Smith and Goss M c K a y D i t c hHaldi DitchStarDitch E ggle s to n R e serv oir#1Fill er D itchCrockerDitch Church M ineDitch1D ry Creek J o nesDonnell y Di tchGoodhueDi t c h Mc Car t y D i t ch Leggett-V alm ontInletDB ader Dit c h FourmileCreek LeftHandValleyInletDitch U p p e r B a ld w in D itc h LewisH D a v ids o n D itchEggle s to n Reservoir #3 Filler Dit c h Johnson Ditch HowardDitchTab le Mou n t ai n Di t c h G o o d h ue Ditch Davidson Ditch SouthBoulderandBearCreekDitchL o wer Boulde r D i t c h Andre w s D itchN e w D r y C r e ek C a r r i e rS chearer Dit c h UpperB earC r e e k D it c h Left H a n d V al l ey O ut l e tB u ffaloG ulchHolland Ditch A git a t o r D i t ch B o u ld e r an d W h i t e R o c k Ditch BoulderandWhiteRockDitch Wellman Feeder Williamson Ditch South Boulder CoalCreek D itchButte Mill Ditch S outh Boulderand BearCreek Ditc h E a s t B o ul de rD itc h Com m u n ity D itchW i l l i a m s o n Ditch Boulde r and L ef t H andDitch B u l l H e a dG ulc h Butte Mill Ditch SouthDraw LeftHandCreek H i nm an Ditch G o o d h u e D i tch G reen DitchStar Ditch Cottonwood Ditch 2 E g g l e s t o nReservoir#4FillerDitch SouthBoulderDiversionCanal L ey n e r Cottonwood Cons o l i d a t e d D itc h E n t erprise Ditch N o rt h B o u ld e r F a r m er's Ditc h SkunkCreek Upper Churc h D i t c h D ry C r ee k Da v i ds o n D i t c h M c G i n n D itc h Anderson Ditch S o u t h B o u ld e rC o a lC r e e k D itc h D ryCreekNo2DitchD r y C re e kLeftHandCreekBoulderFeederCanal Marshal lv ille D itchBearCanyonCreek Fourmile Canyon Creek Roc kC r eek SilverLakeDitch S o u t h B o u l d e r C a no n Di t c h Farmers D i t c h F ar m ers Dit c h Go o d hu e D i t c h G o o d hu e Di t c h D a v id s o n D i t c h D a v i d so n Di t c h Dry Creek Dry C r e e k C o a l Creek Coal Cre e k B o u ld e r a n d W h it e R o c k D i t c h Boulder and White Rock Ditch SouthBoulderCreek S outhB ou l d e r CreekB o u ld e r a n d L eft Han d D i t c h B o u l d er a nd L e f t H a nd D i tc h C o m mu n ity D itc h C o m m u n i t y D itch BoulderCreek B o ul d e r C re e kLeft HandValleyReservoir BoulderReservoir Gaynor LakeSixmileReservoir Harper Lake HaydenLake Res Pit "D" Waneka Reservoir MesaPark Res Marshall Lake Baseline Reservoir Leggett Res Hillcrest Res Valmont Lake Res KOA Lake SpurgeonRes No. 1 CootLake LittleGaynor Lake Goodhue Reservoir 1 ShortMilnePond CottonwoodMarsh Teller LakeRes No 5 N 95th St17th StV ia A p p iaFolsom StW P i ne S t US Highway36 D B US H i g h w a y 3 6 B B30th StColorado Ave Foot hill s Pk wy9thSt CherryvaleRdArapahoe Ave S t at e H w y 42 Lookout Rd28th StCanyon Bl v d11th St15th StBroadwayU S H i g h w a y 3 6 B a s e l ine R d D ia g on a l Hw y South Boulder Rd Pearl St N orthw estPkw y76th StS Mccaslin Blvd6th StR e g e nt DrCourtesy RdDarley Ave W Baseline Rd MccaslinBlvdS t a te H w y 1 2 8 InterlockenLoopMarshall Dr63rd St55th StE South Boulder Rd S Cherryvale RdN 107th StMain StEdgewoodDr N 75th StMineral Rd University Ave S96thSt19th StS Foothills HwyRoosevelt AveDiagonal HwyAlpine Ave Iris Ave Arapahoe RdLefthandCanyonDrN Foothills HwySHwy28720th StPine StN 73rd StB ell a V i s t a D rS B r o a dw a y Table Mesa Dr 71st StN 26th StAirport RdBaseline Rd Forest Ave Jay Rd Lehigh St N Hwy 287Walnut St Spruce S t W Cherry St V i a V arra4th StW South Boulder Rd Toedtli DrN 96th StGreenbriarBlv d W C h arlesStB o uld er C anyonDr N Highway 287JunctionPlCounty Rd 30 EldoradoSpringsDrValmont Rd Empire Rd A i rport B lvdIndiana StStateHwy93Pearl P k wy Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map Legend© 2019 City of Boulder, Colorado S U B J E C T T O R E V I S I O N The City of Boulder has provided the data as a public service and offers no guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. The City of Boulder makes no warranties about the datasets and disclaims liability for all uses o f the datasets, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. Map produced by the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Information Resources Group. For information visit us on the web at https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning. ´1:24,000 Date: 1/27/2020 File: BVCP_FUTURE_LAND_USE_MAP.mxd 0 1 20.5 Miles Land Use Residential Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Manufactured Housing Medium Density Residential Mixed Density Residential High Density Residential Business Community Business General Business Service Commercial Transitional Business Regional Business Industrial Community Industrial General Industrial Light Industrial Performance Industrial Mixed Use D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Mixed Use Business D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Mixed Use Industrial Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Mixed Use Residential Open Space and Mountain Parks Open Space, Acquired Open Space, Development Rights Open Space, Other Other Agricultural Park, Urban and Other Public Environmental Preservation BVCP Planning Area Boundary Boulder, City Limits Parcels Other City Limits Hydrology Perennial Stream Main Ditch Lakes, Reservoirs Roads Highway Ramp Major Road Local Street 4WD Road 0 500 1000' Context Map Site Source: BVCP (Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan) 2020 DR A F T ZONING MAP Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 11 Packet Page 74 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 16 LOBBY TENANT AREA 39,360 GSF ROOFTOP MECHANICAL TENANT AREA 39,360 GSF TENANT AREA 31,700 GSF TENANT AREA 43' - 0"PARKING 70 SPACES PARKING 73 SPACES 28,910 GSF (TERRACE 3,700 SF)LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 P1 P216' - 0"12' - 6"13' - 6"13' - 6"15' - 6"ROOF 55' - 0"TENANT AREA 4875 PEARL E CIR4845 PEARL E CIR Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3/3/2022 6:36:44 AMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 OVERALL SECTION A351 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Date No. Remarks Legal Description of Property and PUD Development History Project Description Zoning Information District IG Use Module 12 Form Module f Intensity Module 22 Setbacks Front Yard 20' Front Yard Setback parking 20' Side Yard Interior 12' Rear Yard 20' Site Data Lot Size 1,393,358 SF Proposed Floor Area P2 34,068 SF Not Included In FAR or Total P1 34,068 SF Not Included In FAR or Total Level 1 28,910 SF Level 2 39,360 SF Level 3 39,360 SF Level 4 31,700 SF Total 139,330 SF Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Allowable FAR 0.5 FAR Existing Building Area 459,855 SF Existing FAR 0.33 FAR Proposed Phase II New Building Area 139,330 SF FAR including Proposed Building 0.43 FAR Use Innovation Use 139,330 SF May include but not limited to: Life Science Research and Development Technology Office Support office for innovation use Parking 68,136 SF 152 Spaces Added. Refer to parkign section for more information Site Coverage Table Total Open Space 443,281 Proposed Total Site Area 1,534,522 Includes entire original PUD Boundary Open Space Ratio 29% Parking Summary Required Parking Ratio: 2.5 / 1,000 (1 per 400 SF) Existing Total Site FAR 459,855 Existing Surface Parking Count 1,654 Existing Undergroud Parking Count 0 Total Existing Parking 1,641 Existing Parking Ratio 3.56 / 1,000 (1 PER 280 SF) New Building FAR 139,330 Proposed Total FAR with New Building 599,185 Proposed Surface Parking Count 1,481 Proposed Underground Parking Count 143 Total Proposed Parking 1,624 Proposed Parking Ratio 2.71 / 1,000 (1 PER 369 SF) The proposed new building, located on an existing surface parking lot between 4845 and 4875 Pearl E Cir, is a four- story core and shell innovation building suited for science, R&D, and technology tenants and will include supporting office use. It will contain an internal loading dock and two levels of below grade parking. The below grade parking is included to meet the demands of the added building area, but some surface parking and access to the existing buildings will be retained. The building will provide an opportunity for companies and industries rooted in the Boulder community to grow and thrive. The proposed building is located between lots 4 and 5. The description below pertains to the entire property. The Property is governed by three basic tiers of governing documents. The first and most general tier is the Code. The second tier of governing documents consists of a number of existing entitlements that are specific to the Property (collectively, the “Existing Entitlements”) and includes: 1. PUD Amendment, P-86-34 (All Lots) (the “1986 PUD Amendment”); 2. Special Review, SR-86-36 (All Lots) (the “1986 Special Review,” and together with the 1986 PUD Amendment, the “1986 Approvals”); 3. Height Review, H-88-7 (Lots 3 and 6) (the “1988 Height Review”); 4. PUD Amendment, P-89-34 (Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) (the “1989 PUD Amendment”); 5. Special Review Amendment, SR-89-24 (Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) (the “1989 Special Review Amendment”); 6. Height Review, H-89-10 (Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) (the “1989 Height Review”); 7. Preliminary Plat, S-89-48 (Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) (the “1989 Preliminary Plat,” and together with the 1989 PUD Amendment, the 1989 Special Review Amendment, and the 1989 Height Review, the “1989 Approvals”); 8. Site Review, SI-93-13 (Lot 10) (the “1993 Site Review”); and 9. Use Review, UR-93-3 (Lots 9 and 10) (the “1993 Use Review”). The third tier of governing documents consists of encumbrances on title to the Property and include: 1. Declaration of Protective Covenants for Pearl East Business Park, recorded September 18, 1987 at Reception No. 00877887, as amended in the First Amendment to Declaration of Protective Covenants for Pearl East Business Park, recorded September 9, 1996 at Reception No, 01640760 (the “1987 Covenants”); 2. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant, recorded June 17, 1991 at Reception No. 01110097, as amended and restated in the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenant, recorded December 16, 1991 at Reception No. 01148979 (the “AR 1991 Covenants”) The original development was approved through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the 1980s as a suburban office park. There were several amendments to the PUD in the late 80s and early 90s: *P-86-49; SR-86-36; H-86-8 Allow office uses and accessory retailing areas on Lots 2, 3, and/or 5 Allow restaurant use on Lot 4 or 7 Allow “small recreational or athletic club” to serve the office park *H-88-7 Allow 46-foot buildings on Lots 3 and 6 *P-89-34; SR-89-24; H-89-10; S-89-48 Allow 51-foot buildings on Lot 8, 9, and 10 Allow shared parking and open space between lots *UR-93-3 Allow uses that “shall be complementary to and service the uses permitted by right in the IG zone, and shall not comprise the predominant use or uses on combined Lots 9 ad 10” *SI-93-13 Approve two 3-story 40-foot buildings with an adjusted 34’ rear yard setback Legal Description of Property and PUDDevelopment HistoryProject DescriptionZoning Information District IG Use Module 12 Form Module f Intensity Module 22 Setbacks Front Yard 20' Front Yard Setback parking 20' Side Yard Interior 12' Rear Yard 20' Site Data Lot Size 1,393,358 SF Proposed Floor Area P2 34,068 SF Not Included In FAR or Total P1 34,068 SF Not Included In FAR or Total Level 1 28,910 SF Level 2 39,360 SF Level 3 39,360 SF Level 4 31,700 SF Total 139,330 SF Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Allowable FAR 0.5 FAR Existing Building Area 459,855 SF Existing FAR 0.33 FAR Proposed Phase II New Building Area 139,330 SF FAR including Proposed Building 0.43 FAR Use Innovation Use 139,330 SF May include but not limited to: Life Science Research and Development Technology Office Support office for innovation use Parking 68,136 SF 152 Spaces Added. Refer to parkign section for more information Site Coverage Table Total Open Space 443,281 Proposed Total Site Area 1,534,522 Includes entire original PUD Boundary Open Space Ratio 29% Parking Summary Required Parking Ratio: 2.5 / 1,000 (1 per 400 SF) Existing Total Site FAR 459,855 Existing Surface Parking Count 1,654 Existing Undergroud Parking Count 0 Total Existing Parking 1,641 Existing Parking Ratio 3.56 / 1,000 (1 PER 280 SF) New Building FAR 139,330 Proposed Total FAR with New Building 599,185 Proposed Surface Parking Count 1,481 Proposed Underground Parking Count 143 Total Proposed Parking 1,624 Proposed Parking Ratio 2.71 / 1,000 (1 PER 369 SF) The proposed new building, located on an existing surface parking lot between 4845 and 4875 Pearl E Cir, is a four-story core and shell innovation building suited for science, R&D, and technology tenants and will include supporting office use. It will contain an internal loading dock and two levels of below grade parking. The below grade parking is included to meet the demands of the added building area, but some surface parking and access to the existing buildings will be retained. The building will provide an opportunity for companies and industries rooted in the Boulder community to grow and thrive.The proposed building is located between lots 4 and 5. The description below pertains to the entire property.The Property is governed by three basic tiers of governing documents. The first and most general tier is the Code. The second tier of governing documents consists of a number of existing entitlements that are specific to the Property (collectively, the “Existing Entitlements”) and includes:1. PUD Amendment, P-86-34 (All Lots) (the “1986 PUD Amendment”);2. Special Review, SR-86-36 (All Lots) (the “1986 Special Review,” and together with the 1986 PUD Amendment, the “1986 Approvals”);3. Height Review, H-88-7 (Lots 3 and 6) (the “1988 Height Review”);4. PUD Amendment, P-89-34 (Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) (the “1989 PUD Amendment”);5. Special Review Amendment, SR-89-24 (Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) (the “1989 Special Review Amendment”);6. Height Review, H-89-10 (Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) (the “1989 Height Review”);7. Preliminary Plat, S-89-48 (Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10) (the “1989 Preliminary Plat,” and together with the 1989 PUD Amendment, the 1989 Special Review Amendment, and the 1989 Height Review, the “1989 Approvals”);8. Site Review, SI-93-13 (Lot 10) (the “1993 Site Review”); and9. Use Review, UR-93-3 (Lots 9 and 10) (the “1993 Use Review”).The third tier of governing documents consists of encumbrances on title to the Property and include:1. Declaration of Protective Covenants for Pearl East Business Park, recorded September 18, 1987 at Reception No. 00877887, as amended in the First Amendment to Declaration of Protective Covenants for Pearl East Business Park, recorded September 9, 1996 at Reception No, 01640760 (the “1987 Covenants”);2. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant, recorded June 17, 1991 at Reception No. 01110097, as amended and restated in the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenant, recorded December 16, 1991 at Reception No. 01148979 (the “AR 1991 Covenants”)The original development was approved through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the 1980s as a suburban office park. There were several amendments to the PUD in the late 80s and early 90s: *P-86-49; SR-86-36; H-86-8 Allow office uses and accessory retailing areas on Lots 2, 3, and/or 5 Allow restaurant use on Lot 4 or 7 Allow “small recreational or athletic club” to serve the office park*H-88-7 Allow 46-foot buildings on Lots 3 and 6*P-89-34; SR-89-24; H-89-10; S-89-48 Allow 51-foot buildings on Lot 8, 9, and 10 Allow shared parking and open space between lots*UR-93-3 Allow uses that “shall be complementary to and service the uses permitted by right in the IG zone, and shall not comprise the predominant use or uses on combined Lots 9 ad 10”*SI-93-13 Approve two 3-story 40-foot buildings with an adjusted 34’ rear yard setback PROJECT DATAPROJECT DATA Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 12 Packet Page 75 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 17 0 150 300' P e a r l P k w y4 9 t h S t4 8 t h C t F o o t h i l l s P k w y 4780 4845 4875 4909 4900 4840 4888 4949 4940 4990 4999 P r o p e r t y Owned by Others SITE PLAN Current Property Line Original PUD Line 150150 3000 Total Open Space 443,281 SF Total Site Area 1,534,522 SF Open Space Percentage 29% Note: Open Space Calculations include entire PUD boundary Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 13 Packet Page 76 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 18 FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY 0 150 300' P e a r l P k w y4 9 t h S t4 8 t h C t F o o t h i l l s P k w y 4780 4845 4875 4909 4900 4840 4888 4949 4940 4990 4999 P r o p e r t y Owned by Others 150150 3000 The team is aware of an optional floodplain mitigation project upstream from Pearl East that would impact the regulatory flood-way on the property, and the team will track the progress and timing of this work with city staff. The timing of the upstream work will not impact the trajectory or schedule of the new building. The team will apply for Floodplain Development Permits for improvements that are required to be permitted. 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Conveyance Zone High Hazard Zone Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 14 Packet Page 77 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 19 LEVEL 1 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS, REQUIRED ADJUSTMENTS, AND RESILIENCE SUPPORT WILL BE INCLUDED AS INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF DESIGN AND APPROVAL PROCESS. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO PEARL PARKWAY TO BE MAINTAINED Level 1 Finish Floor is below current flood protection elevation. Flood proofing measures and raised ground floor sills will be implemented Entry Plaza provides opportunity for public art and landscape integration Parking Entry Loading Entry (Enclosed) Main Pedestrian Entry CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 15 Packet Page 78 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D C B A E 46' - 0" RR RR ELEC STG STG IDF STG TENANT LEASE 38,800 GSF 91' - 0"45' - 9"46' - 0"45' - 9"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"45' - 0"45' - 0"35' - 0"45' - 0"Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3/2/2022 10:22:48 AMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 LEVEL 2 PLAN A212 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"A212 Level 21 Date No. Remarks LEVEL 2/3 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 16 Packet Page 79 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D C B A E TENANT LEASE 31,700 GSF TERRACE 3,700 SF RR RR ELEC STG STG IDF STG 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"45' - 0"45' - 0"35' - 0"45' - 0"40' - 6"40' - 9"40' - 9"40' - 9" Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3/2/2022 10:22:11 AMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 LEVEL 4 PLAN A214 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"A214 Level 41 Date No. Remarks LEVEL 4 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0”Outdoor Terrace accentuates the building’s massing and activates the exterior CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 17 Packet Page 80 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 112 EXISTING BUILDING 4875 PEARL E CIR 62' - 6"15' - 7" 18' - 2" 50' - 6" 5285.50' 5274.50' EXISTING BUILDING 4845 PEARL E CIR TOTAL ROOF AREA: 31,700 SF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE AREA: 7,875 SF 175'45'24.8% ROOF AREA COVERAGE Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3/1/2022 10:25:00 AMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 PHASE II BUILDING SITE PLAN A102 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Date No. Remarks LEVEL 4 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 18 Packet Page 81 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D C B A E PARKING 69 SPACES SRV LOBBY ELEV PIT STG ELEV PIT TENANT STORAGE DN TO P2 UP TO L1WATER ENTRYG E INTAKE ELEV LOBBY STORAGE STG 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION2/3/2022 12:56:04 PMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 Unnamed A2P1 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Date No. Remarks 1/16" = 1'-0"A2P1 P11 LEVEL P1 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 19 Packet Page 82 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D C B A E PARKING 74 SPACES UP TO P1G E INTAKE ELEV LOBBY STORAGE SUMP PUMP SUMP PUMP 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN SRV LOBBY Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION2/3/2022 12:56:08 PMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 Unnamed A2P2 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Date No. Remarks 1/16" = 1'-0"A2P2 P21 LEVEL P2 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 20 Packet Page 83 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 115 25’ NATURAL GRADE DIAGRAM 1/32” = 1’ - 0”WWATERLINE:NO MARKINGS & NO SIGNAL NO SIGNAL CBV PEARL EAST CIRCLE PEARL PARKWAY PEARL EAST CIRCLE 5231' 5232'5233'5232' 5234' 5235' 5235'5236'25' - 0"2 5' - 0 " 5233' 5234' 25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"NATURAL GRADE IS HIGHER ALONG NORTHERN EDGE OF PROPERTY RESULTING IN BUILDING APPEARING SHORTER FROM PEARL PKWY 5332’ = LOWEST POINT OF NATURAL GRADE WITHIN 25’ OF LOWEST EXPOSED EXTERIOR POINT BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 21 Packet Page 84 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 116 25’ LEVEL 1: EL 5234’ LEVEL 3: EL 5247.5’ LEVEL 4: EL 5261’ LEVEL 4: EL 5274.5’ T.O.PARAPET: EL 5287’ 12’-6” 13’-6” 13’-6” 13’-6” 5232’ 52 3 2 ’ 52 8 7 ’ 5233’ 5234’ 55’ 5235’ LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR: 5234’. Level 1 Finish Floor is below current flood protection elevation. Flood proofing measures and raised ground floor sills will be implemented LOWEST GRADE WITHIN 25’ OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT 55’ FROM 5232’ (LOWEST NATURAL GRADE WITHIN 25’) TO TOP OF PARAPET MAXIMUM HEIGHT SUMMARY: IG BASE HEIGHT MAX: 40’ CONDITIONAL HEIGHT: 45’ REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR 20% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT CALCULATION HEIGHT MODIFICATION REQUEST: 55’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT NARRATIVE: The Innovation Campus is designated in the Industrial-General (IG) zoning district with a maximum height of three stories or 40-feet, however, the property’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) has been amended several times to add or change uses and amend the maximum height. There are multiple four-story buildings on the property, and Lots 8, 9, and 10 were approved for 51-foot buildings in 1989 through a PUD amendment (the permissible 51-foot building on Lot 10 was not constructed and was later amended to build two 40-foot buildings). This project will request a height modification to 55-feet and believes the significant landscape and open space improvements provide community benefit for the additional height request. The building is designed to suit innovation tenants that utilize both research and lab functions. The lab components require a more robust mechanical infrastructure than a typical office building, resulting in the need for taller floor heights than other office buildings in the area. The typical floor to floor height proposed is 13’-6”. The proposed total height of the building is 55’. While above the 40’ IG zoning height limit, the rationale for the height is based on the following factors: • Conditional height of 45’ achieved by providing 20% open space (refer to landscape). • Additional 10’ of height to 55’ proposed through height modification (refer to height modification section below). Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 22 Packet Page 85 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan Submittal 2.71 / 1,000 (1 PER 369 SF) Pearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 117 PEARL E CIRCLE (SOUTH) ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 0’90’60’30’ 0’90’60’30’ GLASS AND BRICK TO RELATE TO SURROUNDING CONTEXT WHILE INCORPORATING MODERN BUILDING MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY EXHAUST STACKS MAY EXTEND ABOVE 16’ MAX SCREEN HEIGHT, BUT WILL BE ORGANIZED AND PAINTED TO MATCH FACADE MATERIALS HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SHADING ELEMENTS ARE STRATEGICALLY PLACED TO REDUCE SOLAR HEAT GAIN AND MITIGATE GLARE CONCEPT ELEVATIONS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 23 Packet Page 86 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 118 PEARL PKWY (NORTH) ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 0’90’60’30’ 0’90’60’30’ GLASS PEELS AWAY TO PROVIDE VIEWS OF MOUNTAINS TO NORTH AND WEST AND TRANSPARENCY IS ENHANCED WHERE SHADING IS LESS CRITICAL TOP FLOOR IS FULLY GLAZED TO LIGHTEN ITS APPEARANCE TO BETTER RELATE TO THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING’S SURROUNDINGS TRANSPARENT GROUND FLOOR GLAZING IS MAXIMIZED TO ENHANCE ACTIVATION ALONG PEARL PKWY CONCEPT ELEVATIONS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 24 Packet Page 87 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 119 VIEW FROM PEARL E CIR LOOKING NWVIEW FROM PEARL E CIR LOOKING NE VIEW FROM PEARL E CIR LOOKING N TERRACE AND CANOPY ACCENTUATE MASSING, AND ACTIVATE FRONTAGE ALONG PEARL E CIRCLE GLAZING MAXIMIZED AT CORNERS TO PROVIDE MOUNTAIN VIEWS AND ARTICULATE FACADE. CONCEPT PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (PEARL E CIRCLE) Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 25 Packet Page 88 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 120 MECHANICAL SCREEN IS INTEGRATED INTO ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF BUILDING LANDSCAPE PROVIDES SCREENING OF LOADING ENTRY AND BOH SPACES FROM PEARL PKWY UPPER FLOOR SETBACK REDUCES SCALE OF MASSING ALONG PEARL PKWY CONCEPT PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (PEARL PARKWAY) VIEW FROM PEARL PKWY LOOKING SEAERIAL VIEW LOOKING SE FROM PEARL PKWY VIEW FROM PEARL PKWY LOOKING S GROUND FLOOR GLAZING IS MAXIMIZED TO ENHANCE ACTIVATION ALONG PEARL PKWY Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 26 Packet Page 89 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 121 CONCEPT PLAN CRITERIA The proposed concept and submitted materials describe a high-performance, purpose-built development for the property. The project proposes use of energy efficient systems, water mitigation and wellness to support the Innovation Campus and will incorporate building transparency, and natural light to decrease energy consumption to the extent possible during the day. The project will meet or exceed all environmental standards and energy goals required by the City of Boulder.  The City of Boulder provides an excellent Transportation Options Toolkit for developers and employers to help reduce congestion and encourage a broad range of mobility options. The property is ideally-located next to Foothills Parkway and the Boulder Junction, with access to Boulder’s multi-use path network. Beacon Capital Partners  intends to use the Toolkit and create a Transportation Demand Management plan during site review that complements the existing transportation connections and supports the life science industry in this location.  The current land use is suitable and an update to the land use map is not requested for this project. A. Environmental Impact Mitigation Techniques and strategies for environmental impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation B. Travel Demand Management Techniques and strategies for practical and economically feasible travel demand management techniques, including, without limitation, site design, land use, covenants, transit passes, parking restrictions, information or education materials or programs that may reduce single-occupant vehicle trip generation to and from the site. C. Land Use Proposed land uses and if it is a development that includes residential housing type, mix, sizes, and anticipated sale prices, the percentage of affordable units to be included; special design characteristics that may be needed to assure affordability. Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 27 Packet Page 90 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 19 LEVEL 1 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS, REQUIRED ADJUSTMENTS, AND RESILIENCE SUPPORT WILL BE INCLUDED AS INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF DESIGN AND APPROVAL PROCESS. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO PEARL PARKWAY TO BE MAINTAINED Level 1 Finish Floor is below current flood protection elevation. Flood proofing measures and raised ground floor sills will be implemented Entry Plaza provides opportunity for public art and landscape integration Parking Entry Loading Entry (Enclosed) Main Pedestrian Entry CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 28 Packet Page 91 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D C B A E 46' - 0" RR RR ELEC STG STG IDF STG TENANT LEASE 38,800 GSF 91' - 0"45' - 9"46' - 0"45' - 9"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"45' - 0"45' - 0"35' - 0"45' - 0"Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3/2/2022 10:22:48 AMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 LEVEL 2 PLAN A212 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"A212 Level 21 Date No. Remarks LEVEL 2/3 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 29 Packet Page 92 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D C B A E TENANT LEASE 31,700 GSF TERRACE 3,700 SF RR RR ELEC STG STG IDF STG 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"45' - 0"45' - 0"35' - 0"45' - 0"40' - 6"40' - 9"40' - 9"40' - 9" Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3/2/2022 10:22:11 AMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 LEVEL 4 PLAN A214 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"A214 Level 41 Date No. Remarks LEVEL 4 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0”Outdoor Terrace accentuates the building’s massing and activates the exterior CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 30 Packet Page 93 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 112 EXISTING BUILDING 4875 PEARL E CIR 62' - 6"15' - 7" 18' - 2" 50' - 6" 5285.50' 5274.50' EXISTING BUILDING 4845 PEARL E CIR TOTAL ROOF AREA: 31,700 SF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE AREA: 7,875 SF 175'45'24.8% ROOF AREA COVERAGE Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3/1/2022 10:25:00 AMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 PHASE II BUILDING SITE PLAN A102 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Date No. Remarks LEVEL 4 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 31 Packet Page 94 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D C B A E PARKING 69 SPACES SRV LOBBY ELEV PIT STG ELEV PIT TENANT STORAGE DN TO P2 UP TO L1WATER ENTRYG E INTAKE ELEV LOBBY STORAGE STG 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION2/3/2022 12:56:04 PMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 Unnamed A2P1 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Date No. Remarks 1/16" = 1'-0"A2P1 P11 LEVEL P1 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 32 Packet Page 95 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D C B A E PARKING 74 SPACES UP TO P1G E INTAKE ELEV LOBBY STORAGE SUMP PUMP SUMP PUMP 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN SRV LOBBY Revisions: 1550 WYNKOOP ST. SUITE 100 DENVER CO 80202 PHONE: 303.436.9551 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © COPYRIGHT SHEARS ADKINS ROCKMORE ARCHITECTS The ideas, drawings and specifications contained herein are copyrighted by Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects. Use without the architect’s written consent, as constituted by federal law, is strictly forbidden and written authorization is required for any reproduction.FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION2/3/2022 12:56:08 PMC:\Users\DRaznic\Documents\Pearl East_draznick.rvtPEARL EAST PHASE II BUILDING4865 PEARL E CIRBOULDER, CO 803012022.02.11 Unnamed A2P2 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Date No. Remarks 1/16" = 1'-0"A2P2 P21 LEVEL P2 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 33 Packet Page 96 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 115 25’ NATURAL GRADE DIAGRAM 1/32” = 1’ - 0”WWATERLINE:NO MARKINGS & NO SIGNAL NO SIGNAL CBV PEARL EAST CIRCLE PEARL PARKWAY PEARL EAST CIRCLE 5231' 5232'5233'5232' 5234' 5235' 5235'5236'25' - 0"2 5' - 0 " 5233' 5234' 25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"NATURAL GRADE IS HIGHER ALONG NORTHERN EDGE OF PROPERTY RESULTING IN BUILDING APPEARING SHORTER FROM PEARL PKWY 5332’ = LOWEST POINT OF NATURAL GRADE WITHIN 25’ OF LOWEST EXPOSED EXTERIOR POINT BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 34 Packet Page 97 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 116 25’ LEVEL 1: EL 5234’ LEVEL 3: EL 5247.5’ LEVEL 4: EL 5261’ LEVEL 4: EL 5274.5’ T.O.PARAPET: EL 5287’ 12’-6” 13’-6” 13’-6” 13’-6” 5232’ 52 3 2 ’ 52 8 7 ’ 5233’ 5234’ 55’ 5235’ LEVEL 1 FINISH FLOOR: 5234’. Level 1 Finish Floor is below current flood protection elevation. Flood proofing measures and raised ground floor sills will be implemented LOWEST GRADE WITHIN 25’ OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT 55’ FROM 5232’ (LOWEST NATURAL GRADE WITHIN 25’) TO TOP OF PARAPET MAXIMUM HEIGHT SUMMARY: IG BASE HEIGHT MAX: 40’ CONDITIONAL HEIGHT: 45’ REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR 20% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT CALCULATION HEIGHT MODIFICATION REQUEST: 55’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT NARRATIVE: The Innovation Campus is designated in the Industrial-General (IG) zoning district with a maximum height of three stories or 40-feet, however, the property’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) has been amended several times to add or change uses and amend the maximum height. There are multiple four-story buildings on the property, and Lots 8, 9, and 10 were approved for 51-foot buildings in 1989 through a PUD amendment (the permissible 51-foot building on Lot 10 was not constructed and was later amended to build two 40-foot buildings). This project will request a height modification to 55-feet and believes the significant landscape and open space improvements provide community benefit for the additional height request. The building is designed to suit innovation tenants that utilize both research and lab functions. The lab components require a more robust mechanical infrastructure than a typical office building, resulting in the need for taller floor heights than other office buildings in the area. The typical floor to floor height proposed is 13’-6”. The proposed total height of the building is 55’. While above the 40’ IG zoning height limit, the rationale for the height is based on the following factors: • Conditional height of 45’ achieved by providing 20% open space (refer to landscape). • Additional 10’ of height to 55’ proposed through height modification (refer to height modification section below). Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 35 Packet Page 98 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan Submittal 2.71 / 1,000 (1 PER 369 SF) Pearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 117 PEARL E CIRCLE (SOUTH) ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 0’90’60’30’ 0’90’60’30’ GLASS AND BRICK TO RELATE TO SURROUNDING CONTEXT WHILE INCORPORATING MODERN BUILDING MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY EXHAUST STACKS MAY EXTEND ABOVE 16’ MAX SCREEN HEIGHT, BUT WILL BE ORGANIZED AND PAINTED TO MATCH FACADE MATERIALS HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SHADING ELEMENTS ARE STRATEGICALLY PLACED TO REDUCE SOLAR HEAT GAIN AND MITIGATE GLARE CONCEPT ELEVATIONS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 36 Packet Page 99 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 118 PEARL PKWY (NORTH) ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 0’90’60’30’ 0’90’60’30’ GLASS PEELS AWAY TO PROVIDE VIEWS OF MOUNTAINS TO NORTH AND WEST AND TRANSPARENCY IS ENHANCED WHERE SHADING IS LESS CRITICAL TOP FLOOR IS FULLY GLAZED TO LIGHTEN ITS APPEARANCE TO BETTER RELATE TO THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING’S SURROUNDINGS TRANSPARENT GROUND FLOOR GLAZING IS MAXIMIZED TO ENHANCE ACTIVATION ALONG PEARL PKWY CONCEPT ELEVATIONS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 37 Packet Page 100 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 119 VIEW FROM PEARL E CIR LOOKING NWVIEW FROM PEARL E CIR LOOKING NE VIEW FROM PEARL E CIR LOOKING N TERRACE AND CANOPY ACCENTUATE MASSING, AND ACTIVATE FRONTAGE ALONG PEARL E CIRCLE GLAZING MAXIMIZED AT CORNERS TO PROVIDE MOUNTAIN VIEWS AND ARTICULATE FACADE. CONCEPT PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (PEARL E CIRCLE) Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 38 Packet Page 101 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 120 MECHANICAL SCREEN IS INTEGRATED INTO ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF BUILDING LANDSCAPE PROVIDES SCREENING OF LOADING ENTRY AND BOH SPACES FROM PEARL PKWY UPPER FLOOR SETBACK REDUCES SCALE OF MASSING ALONG PEARL PKWY CONCEPT PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (PEARL PARKWAY) VIEW FROM PEARL PKWY LOOKING SEAERIAL VIEW LOOKING SE FROM PEARL PKWY VIEW FROM PEARL PKWY LOOKING S GROUND FLOOR GLAZING IS MAXIMIZED TO ENHANCE ACTIVATION ALONG PEARL PKWY Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 39 Packet Page 102 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 17 0 150 300' P e a r l P k w y4 9 t h S t4 8 t h C t F o o t h i l l s P k w y 4780 4845 4875 4909 4900 4840 4888 4949 4940 4990 4999 P r o p e r t y Owned by Others SITE PLAN Current Property Line Original PUD Line 150150 3000 Total Open Space 443,281 SF Total Site Area 1,534,522 SF Open Space Percentage 29% Note: Open Space Calculations include entire PUD boundary Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 40 Packet Page 103 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 18 FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY 0 150 300' P e a r l P k w y4 9 t h S t4 8 t h C t F o o t h i l l s P k w y 4780 4845 4875 4909 4900 4840 4888 4949 4940 4990 4999 P r o p e r t y Owned by Others 150150 3000 The team is aware of an optional floodplain mitigation project upstream from Pearl East that would impact the regulatory flood-way on the property, and the team will track the progress and timing of this work with city staff. The timing of the upstream work will not impact the trajectory or schedule of the new building. The team will apply for Floodplain Development Permits for improvements that are required to be permitted. 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Conveyance Zone High Hazard Zone Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 41 Packet Page 104 of 489 Pearl East Innovation Building | Concept Plan SubmittalPearl East Campus Development - Concept Submittal | 19 LEVEL 1 PLAN 1/32” = 1’ - 0” FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS, REQUIRED ADJUSTMENTS, AND RESILIENCE SUPPORT WILL BE INCLUDED AS INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF DESIGN AND APPROVAL PROCESS. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO PEARL PARKWAY TO BE MAINTAINED Level 1 Finish Floor is below current flood protection elevation. Flood proofing measures and raised ground floor sills will be implemented Entry Plaza provides opportunity for public art and landscape integration Parking Entry Loading Entry (Enclosed) Main Pedestrian Entry CONCEPT PLANS Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 42 Packet Page 105 of 489 MEMORANDUM PEARL EAST TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PROJECT #23-007711.01 | 1 Walker Consultants is pleased to submit this trip generation analysis for the proposed Pearl East project in the City of Boulder. The proposed project consists of creating a 14,732 square foot amenity space in the 4909 Buildings and construction of a new office building consisting of 137,500 square feet of office and 5,000 square feet of amenity space to the existing 11-building Pearl East office park. The planned amenity spaces are for the use of all tenants of Pearl East. Table 1 summarizes the existing and proposed land uses on the entire site. Table 1:Pearl East – Existing and Proposed Land Use As shown in Table 1, the proposed Pearl East development consists of a net increase of 122,768 square feet of office space. Since the planned amenity space is internal to the site and for the use of all tenants, it is considered an ancillary use internal to the site that would not generate external trips. The project applicant is considering converting a total of 113,400 square feet of existing office space to laboratory space and leasing 60,000 square foot of the new building as laboratory space for a total of 173,400 square feet of laboratory space and a net decrease of 50,632 square feet of office space. Laboratory space has a lower trip generation rate than office space, thus the analysis that follows is based on a net increase of 122,768 square feet of office space. At the end of the trip generation analysis portion of this memorandum, a trip Existing Office Office Amenity Space Lot 2 (4780)38,787 GSF 38,787 GSF 0 GSF Lot 3 (4840)62,884 GSF 62,884 GSF 0 GSF Lot 4 (4845)32,129 GSF 32,129 GSF 0 GSF Lot 5 (4875)36,005 GSF 36,005 GSF 0 GSF Lot 6 (4888)60,926 GSF 60,926 GSF 0 GSF Lot 7 (4909)24,387 GSF 9,655 GSF 14,732 GSF -14,732 GSF Lot 8 (4900)67,757 GSF 67,757 GSF 0 GSF Lot 9 (4949 & 4999)58,502 GSF 58,502 GSF 0 GSF Lot 10 (4940 & 4990)78,478 GSF 78,478 GSF 0 GSF New Building 137,500 GSF 5,000 GSF 137,500 GSF Total 459,855 GSF 582,623 GSF 19,732 GSF 122,768 GSF Proposed Net Change OfficeProperty DATE: January 20, 2022 TO: Jon Gambrill, AIA, CDT, LEED AP COMPANY: Gensler ADDRESS: 1225 17th Street, Suite `150 CITY/STATE: Denver, CO COPY TO: PREPARED BY: Robert Stanley, PE, Jeff Weckstein PROJECT NAME: Pearl East Trip Generation Analysis PROJECT NUMBER: 23-007711.01 10375 Park Meadows Drive, Suite 425 Lone Tree, CO 80124 303.694.6622 walkerconsultants.com Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 43 Packet Page 106 of 489 MEMORANDUM PEARL EAST TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PROJECT #23-007711.01 | 2 generation for the alternate scenario (173,400 square feet of laboratory space and a decrease in office space of 50,632 square feet) is presented. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY To determine the project’s anticipated trip generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 11th Edition trip generation equations for the office land use were utilized. The analysis calculates the AM peak hour trips, PM peak hour trips and average daily trips (ADT) forecast to be generated by the proposed net change in land use on the site. Table 2 summarizes the ITE trip generation equations for the office land use as well as the traffic generation of the proposed project based on these equations. Table 2: Trip Generation of Proposed Pearl East Development Proposed Land Use1 Quantity Daily Trips (ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Equation Volume Equation In/Out Split Volume Equation In/ Out Split Volume In Out Total In Out Total Office 122,768 SF LN(T) = 0.87*LN( X)+ 3.05 1,387 LN(T) = 0.86*LN( X) + 1.16 88/12 176 24 200 LN(T) = 0.83*LN( X) + 1.29 17/ 83 33 164 197 1: Equations from ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) 2: SF = Square Feet As shown in Table 2, the proposed Pearl East project is projected to generate 200 net new AM peak hour trips, 197 net new PM peak hour trips and 1,365 net new daily trips on the surrounding roadway network. The analysis shown in Table 2 assumes no reduction in trip generation associated with nearby transit opportunities or reduction in trips that may be achieved by implementation of a transportation demand management (TDM) plan. Pearl East is currently not directly served by any bus routes. Bus Route 206 formerly served the site, but service was shortened in 2020, with the route now terminating at 55th & Arapahoe. The Flatiron Flyer Route 6, which also served the site previously, has been temporarily suspended. Walker reviewed 2019 American community Survey (ACS) journey to work data for the Boulder metropolitan area. Based on the census data, approximately 79% of workers in the tract drive alone to work, 10% carpool, and the remainder take other means of transportation (bus, bicycle, walk, other). These figures are similar to the national averages in the ACS. ITE trip generation equations for the office land use were used to calculate the Project’s trip generation; a trip generation credit to reflect transit and non-motorized trips may be appropriate but has not been taken in this preliminary analysis. The project site currently has access at two locations on Pearl Parkway where Pearl East Circle intersects Pearl Parkway. No changes to site access are planned as part of the proposed development. Per section 2.02 (B) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, a traffic study is required for any development proposal where trip generation from the development during the peak hour of the adjacent street Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 44 Packet Page 107 of 489 MEMORANDUM PEARL EAST TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PROJECT #23-007711.01 | 3 is expected to exceed 100 vehicles for nonresidential land uses. Since the proposed Pearl East development project is projected to generate 200 AM peak hour trips, and 197 PM peak hour trips the threshold for further traffic analysis is potentially met, with the ultimate determination of necessary analysis made by the Director of Public Works. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT As part of the trip generation analysis, a preliminary trip distribution in the immediate vicinity of the project site was prepared for the proposed project using census data related to nearby population centers and engineering judgement. As an office use, Pearl East will attract trips from nearby population centers, most notably Boulder itself, as the nearest and largest population center, but also from the nearby communities of Longmont, Louisville, Superior, and Broomfield, among others. It is anticipated that 50% of trips generated by the Project will travel to/from the site from the northwest/north/northeast and 50% will travel to/from the site from the southwest/south/southeast. Figure 1 shows the projected trip distribution of Project trips. Figure 2 shows the AM/PM peak hour trip assignment of the Project trips calculated in Table 2. Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 45 Packet Page 108 of 489 MEMORANDUM PEARL EAST TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PROJECT #23-007711.01 | 4 Figure 1: Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 46 Packet Page 109 of 489 MEMORANDUM PEARL EAST TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PROJECT #23-007711.01 | 5 Figure 2: AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment of Proposed Project Trips PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRIP GENERATION The project applicant is considering converting a total of 113,400 square feet of existing office space to laboratory space and leasing 60,000 square foot of the new building as laboratory space for a total of 173,400 square feet of laboratory space and a net decrease of 50,632 square feet of office space. The closest use to laboratory space in Trip Generation is Research and Development Center. Table 3 sows the trip generation of the proposed project alternative. Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 47 Packet Page 110 of 489 MEMORANDUM PEARL EAST TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PROJECT #23-007711.01 | 6 Table 3: Trip Generation of Project Alternative Proposed Land Use1 Quantity Daily Trips (ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Equation Volume Equation In/Out Split Volume Equation In/ Out Split Volume In Out Tot al In Out Total Office -50,632 SF LN(T) = 0.87*LN( X)+ 3.05 -642 LN(T) = 0.86*LN( X) + 1.16 88/12 -82 -11 -93 LN(T) = 0.83*LN( X) + 1.29 17/ 83 -16 -78 -94 R & D Center 173,400 SF T = 9.70*(X) + 247.71 1,930 T = 0.89*(X) +24.54 82/18 147 32 179 T = 0.84*(X) + 25.08 16/ 84 27 144 171 Total 1,288 65 21 86 11 66 77 1: Equations from ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) 2: SF = Square Feet PARKING The City of Boulder’s minimum parking requirement for office land uses is 2.5 space per thousand square feet in IG Districts. With the new building, and conversion to some space to amenity space, there will be 582,683 square feet of office space, which would be required to provide 1,457 parking spaces. The parking requirement for laboratory space is the same as office space. The Urban land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking (3rd Edition, 2020) provides base parking demand ratios for a variety of land uses. For office uses over 500,000 square feet the recommended parking ratio is 2.80 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, before any adjustments for mode split or other factors are made. Based on Walker’s review of the ACS data and the project’s location, a drive ratio adjustment of 90% is appropriate for employee parking, with no adjustment to visitor parking, for a recommended parking supply ratio of 2.54 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This is slightly higher than the City’s minimum parking requirement of 2.5 spaces per thousand square feet. Walker previously collected parking demand counts at Pearl East in May 2017. The observed parking demand ratio was 2.67 spaces per 1,000 square feet of occupied office space. However, the previous study also noted that one tenant was generating parking demand at a rate of 4.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet, while the rest of the occupied areas were generating parking demand at a rate of 2.15 spaces per thousand square feet. Based on this information, providing parking at the minimum required is likely appropriate as a starting point. Since laboratory space typically has fewer employees per 1,000 square feet than office space, provision of 173,400 square feet of laboratory space may reduce the site’s parking needs to a level below minimum parking requirements. However, a full parking study including the collection of data at comparable sites may be needed to justify a requested reduction from minimum parking requirements. Attachment A - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 48 Packet Page 111 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: June 28, 2022 CASE MANAGER: Shabnam Bista PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: PEARL EAST INNOVATION BUILDING 4780 PEARL EAST CIR REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2022-00010 APPLICANT: AMANDA COLE, TRESTLE STRATEGY GROUP DANICA POWELL, TRESTLE STRATEGY GROUP DESCRIPTION: Concept plan review and comment for a proposed redevelopment of an approximately 3.20 acre site with existing office use to a new, 139,330 square feet life sciences building, Pearl East Innovation Building. The property is located in the Pearl East Business Park. Site improvements are proposed for the entire campus. I.REVIEW FINDINGS This application will be neither approved or denied, but rather is an opportunity for the city staff, the Planning Board, and the public to comment on the general aspects of the proposal. Refer to review comments below for staff’s initial review comments and information regarding the Planning Board hearing. II.CITY REQUIREMENTS The section below addresses issues that must be resolved prior to project approval. III.INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS 1.Access / Circulation, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov At time of site review, provide a circulation map that shows how pedestrians and bicyclists will access the site, circulate within the site and travel to and between the individual buildings. The circulation map must also show how the site will connect to the larger transportation network, i.e., transit, multi-use paths, etc. 2.Access / Circulation, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov It is staff’s preference the Pearl East Innovation Building and adjacent buildings be served by a single access point (driveway) to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists and motor vehicles. 3.Access / Circulation, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov Staff likes the detached sidewalk being proposed along Pearl East Circle. In meeting the site review criteria for circulation, the detached sidewalk should be extended on each side of the sidewalk so that the proposed Pearl E. Circle sidewalk connects to the existing sidewalks on both 48th Street and 49th Street south of Pearl Parkway. 4.Access / Circulation, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov The applicant should consider widening the existing two pedestrian sidewalks that provide access to the Pearl East Innovation Building and adjacent buildings from the public right -of -way to accommodate bicyclists and provide convenient access to the short-term bicycle parking spaces. 5.Addressing, Alison Blaine, Address Administrator - 303-441-4410, blainea@bouldercolorado.gov Each new building is required to be assigned a street address following the city’s addressing policy. The city is required to notify utility companies, the County Assessor’s office, emergency services and the U.S. Post Office of Attachment B - Staff Initial Review Comments Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 49 Packet Page 112 of 489 4780 PEARL EAST CIR Page 2 of 6 proposed addressing for development projects. Please submit an Address Plat and list of all proposed addresses as part of the Technical Document Review process. 6. Building Design – Floor area Land Use Code section 9-2-14(c)(3) permits the averaging of floor area across multiple building sites within a zoning district at the time of Site Review. At the time of Site Review application, applicant must provide documentation of the floor area of all existing and proposed buildings. • Floor area is defined as “the total square footage of all levels measured to the outside surface of the exterior framing, or to the outside surface of the exterior walls if there is no exterior framing, of a building or portion thereof, which includes stairways, elevators, the portions of all exterior elevated above grade corridors, balconies, and walkways that are required for primary or secondary egress by Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981, storage and mechanical rooms, whether internal or external to the structure, but excluding an atrium on the interior of a building where no floor exists, a courtyard, the stairway opening at the uppermost floor of a building, and floor area that meets the definition of uninhabitable space.” • Uninhabitable space is defined as “a room or portion thereof that is six feet or less in floor to ceiling height, or a room solely used to house mechanical or electrical equipment that serves the building, including, without limitation, heating, cooling, electrical, ventilation and filtration systems, or any parking facility located completely below grade on all sides of the structure regardless of the topography of the site (see definition of "floor area").” 7. Building Design, Shabnam Bista, 303-441-1896 Per Section 9-7-7(a)(3) no appurtenance including mechanical equipment installations be more than 16 feet in height. The mechanical screening including the smoke stacks proposed on the elevations is over 16 feet. As the design progress, consideration should be given to reducing the building mass due to the mechanical equipment on the rooftop, to the meet the following Site Review Criterion (h)(2)(F)(i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; 8. Building Design, Shabnam Bista, 303-441-1896 Staff appreciates the modern design of the building and, in particular the use of glass along the entrance of the building. As the design progresses, the entrance should be modified to address the Site Review criteria regarding pedestrian engagement and use of human scale building elements like entrances, window transparency, architectural details, and activity at the pedestrian level. 9. Building Design, Shabnam Bista, 303-441-1896 Staff is generally supportive of the cohesive design of the building. Staff appreciates the clear corners of the building and the general amount of glazing proposed throughout the building. As the design progresses, the landscaping along the front of the building should be modified to address with the Site Review criteria regarding engaging the pedestrian experience and pedestrian friendly design (benches, plantings etc.), reference the Land Use Code section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F). 10. DRAINAGE: Erik Saunders, 303 441- 4493 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Pursuant to Section 11-5-6, B.R.C. 1981, the applicant is required to provide “all reasonable necessary drainage facilities to ensure adequate drainage and management of storm waters and floods falling on, or flowing onto, the property” in accordance with an approved stormwater and flood management plan in addition to meeting the provisions of the City of Boulder Stormwater Master Plan. 2. It is not clear on the plans where water quality pond(s) or other facilities will be located. If permeable pavements are proposed to meet water quality treatment requirements, please be aware; recent testing of porous pavers on multiple projects throughout the city has shown them to require additional maintenance than what is suggested in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual – Volume 3. Maintenance costs of all SCM types should be considered when designing the site. 3. Storm water runoff and water quality treatment are issues that must be addressed during the Site Review Process. Regarding the city’s new storm water regulations and the June 2019 adoption of the updated City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS), this development is considered an “applicable development”. All requirements of Chapter 7 of the DCS apply including (but not limited to): - Storm water detention - LID Techniques - Quality Design Standard Compliance - Selection and Design of SCM’s - Preliminary Infiltration Feasibility Screening - Treatment Approach Selection Criteria - Soil and Infiltration Test - Storm sewer construction - Irrigation Ditches and Laterals - Groundwater discharge - Erosion control during and post construction activities. A Attachment B - Staff Initial Review Comments Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 50 Packet Page 113 of 489 4780 PEARL EAST CIR Page 3 of 6 Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) must be provided by the applicant at time of Site Review application. 4. The applicant is notified that detention and water quality facilities intended to detain and/or treat stormwater runoff for multiple lots shall be located in “Outlots”, with maintenance responsibilities detailed in the subdivision agreement. 5. Discharge of groundwater to the public storm sewer system may be necessary to accommodate construction and operation of the proposed developments. City Agreements and/or State permits will be required for this discharge. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding Agreement requirements. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. Additionally, special design considerations for the property to handle groundwater discharge as part of the development may be necessary. 6. A construction storm water discharge permit is required from the State of Colorado for projects disturbing one (1) acre of land or more. The applicant is advised to contact the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 11. FLOODPLAIN: Christin Shepherd, Floodplain Administrator, ShepherdC2@bouldercolorado.gov The applicant is aware that the proposed structure resides in the 100-year floodplain of Boulder Slough. New non-residential structures must be elevated or floodproofed to two feet above the base flood elevation. A floodplain development permit will be required at the time of building permit. 12. FLOODPLAIN: Christin Shepherd, Floodplain Administrator, ShepherdC2@bouldercolorado.gov The application materials made reference to a potential flood mitigation project and mapping update that would impact the regulatory floodplain on the property. The applicant team should be aware that the proposed project must adhere to the most restrictive floodplain data available per City Land Use Code. At this time, the most restrictive flood data is the current regulatory 100-year floodplain. An upstream flood mitigation project would not yield a new (less conservative) floodplain for the proposed construction until the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for that project is FEMA EFFECTIVE. Please note that an EFFECTIVE LOMR is different than an ISSUED LOMR. After City and FEMA review and approval, FEMA issues the LOMR at which point a 90 day open comment period begins. At the end of that 90 days, the LOMR is EFFECTIVE and regulatory. 13. GROUNDWATER: Erik Saunders, 303 441-4493 Groundwater is a concern in many areas of the City of Boulder. Discharge of groundwater to the public storm sewer system should be anticipated to accommodate construction and operation of the proposed development. Please be advised that if groundwater is encountered at this site an underdrain/ dewatering system may be required to reduce groundwater infiltration. Information pertaining to the quality of the groundwater encountered on the site will be required to determine if treatment is necessary prior to discharge from the site. City Agreements and/or State permits are required for the discharge of any groundwater to the public storm sewer system. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding Agreement requirements. All applicable permits/agreements must be in place prior to building permit application. Additionally, special design considerations for the properties to handle groundwater discharge as part of the development may be necessary. 14. Height Modification. Shabnam Bista, 303-441-1896 The proposed height of the building is 55 feet. The proposed building exceeds the permitted building height in Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," B.R.C. 1981. Per Table 7-1 of the land use code, buildings are limited to three stories and 40 feet in the IG zoning district. An additional conditional height of five feet is allowed per Section 9-7-6(b), “Building Height, Conditional,” B.R.C. 1981. A modification to Section 9-7-5, "Building Height” would be required as part of Site Review to allow the height of the structure to exceed 40 feet. Per Section 9-2-14(g) a public hearing before Planning Board is required for an application for any principal building above the permitted height for buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. It is also important to review section 9-2-14(b)(E), that specifies the circumstances in which a height modification request may be considered. The measurement of height is from the lowest point within 25 horizontal feet of the tallest side of each structure per the Land Use Code section 9-7-5. This will need to be confirmed with more detailed documentation at time of Site Review. Attachment B - Staff Initial Review Comments Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 51 Packet Page 114 of 489 4780 PEARL EAST CIR Page 4 of 6 15. Land Uses Shabnam Bista, 303-441-186 The project site is zoned Industrial – General (IG). Previous approvals on the property allowed certain uses not permitted today by-right. New proposed uses on the site must conform to the current standards of the IG zone. Please review Table 6-1: Use Table and 9-16-1 General Definitions. Of note: • Office, professional: Prohibited. “Office, professional means offices of firms or organizations providing professional service to individuals and businesses, including, without limitation, accountants, architects, attorneys, insurance brokers, realtors, investment counselors, and therapists, where a majority of client contact occurs at the office, but not including technical, medical, dental, or administrative offices.” • Office, technical: Allowed. “Office, technical means offices of businesses providing professional services in a technical field, including, without limitation, publishers, engineering, graphic design, industrial design and surveying offices, where a majority of client contact occurs at the client's place of business or residence, but not including professional, medical, dental, or administrative offices.” • Manufacturing uses: Allowed. “means research and development facilities, testing laboratories, and facilities for the manufacturing, fabrication, processing, or assembly of products, provided that such facilities are completely enclosed and provided that any noise, smoke, vapor, dust, odor, glare, vibration, fumes, or other environmental contamination produced by such facility is confined to the lot upon which such facilities are located and is controlled in accordance with applicable city, state, or federal regulations, but not including computer design and development facilities nor telecommunications and electronic communications uses.” • Manufacturing with potential off-site impacts: Use Review.” means all research and development facilities, testing laboratories and facilities for the manufacturing, fabrication, processing, or assembly of products which may produce effects on the environment that are measurable at or beyond the property line, provided that any noise, smoke, vapor, dust, odor, glare, vibration, fumes, or other environmental contamination is controlled in accordance with applicable city, state, or federal regulations, but not including computer design and development facilities nor telecommunications and electronic communications uses.” A Use Review is required if the functions meet the definition of "manufacturing use with potential off-site impacts" per the Land Use Code section 9-6-1, B.R.C. 1981.16-1, 16. LANDSCAPING; Chris Ricciardiello; ricciardielloc@bouldercolorado.gov; (303) 441-3138 The project will trigger landscape requirements in accordance with the City of Boulder Land Use Code, Sections 9-9-12, 9-9-13, and 9-9-14, B.R.C. 1981. Applicable requirements include street tree plantings and overall site landscape plantings as outlined in 9-9-12(d) and 9-9-13, interior parking lot landscaping per section 9-9-14(d) and parking lot screening per section 9-9-14(b). Include a summary table of landscape requirements per section 9-9-12(d)(1)(J) BRC 1981 to determine the extent of required landscape improvements. 17. Open Space, Shabnam Bista, 303-441-1896 It appears that open space is intended to be shared across the overall site. There are existing buildings on the site which exceed 45 feet in height. Per Land Use Code section 9-9-11(c)(3), at least 20 percent of the total land area must be provided as usable open space. At the time of Site Review, provide an open space plan documenting the areas provided areas as useable open space. Review Land Use Code section 9-9-11(e) Types of Useable Open Space for areas which contribute to useable open space and 9-9-11(i) Prohibitions for specific areas which cannot contribute to useable open space, i.e. parking areas, drive aisles, undecorated pavement surfaces, landscaped areas less than two feet in width, etc. The size of the site and potential to reduce and relocate existing surface parking allows for the creation of well-designed functional open spaces at centralized areas on the site. Provide additional detail regarding the proposed plaza space at the time of Site Review. Consider how the plaza space will be programmed to allow for a variety of activities serving the business park. 18. Outdoor Lighting, Shabnam Bista, 303-441-1896 At the time of Technical Document review, provide an exterior lighting plan in compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code section 9-9-16. 19. Parking, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov At time of site review the site plans for the Pearl East Innovation Campus Project must demonstrate the vehicle parking areas meet the parking design standards Attachment B - Staff Initial Review Comments Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 52 Packet Page 115 of 489 4780 PEARL EAST CIR Page 5 of 6 contained in section 9-9-6(d) B.R.C. 1981. Please consult the ADA Standards for Accessible Design for the number of accessible parking spaces to be provided in each parking area including the number of van accessible parking spaces. 20. Parking, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov Please ensure the site review plans include separate spreadsheets for the bicycle and the motor vehicle parking spaces being provided on each of the individual building lots. The information to be included in the spreadsheet is the required parking requirements for each lot along with what's being provided on each lot. The bicycle parking information must show the number of long-term bicycle parking spaces and the number of short-term bicycle parking spaces for each lot. The motor vehicle parking must show the number of standard parking spaces being provided along with the number of compact spaces being provided. The accessible spaces must be broken down to van accessible spaces and motor vehicle accessible spaces. 21. Parking, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov Short-term and long-term bicycle parking for the Pearl East Innovation Campus Project must be brought up to the current design standards contained in section9-9-6(g), B.R.C. 1981 and section 2.11(G) from the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Table 9-8 from the Boulder Revised Code is to be used to calculate the number of off-street bicycle parking spaces to be provided for the individual building lots of the Pearl East Innovation Campus Project. Additional bicycle parking spaces would be required in support of any request for a parking reduction. 22. Subdivision and Building Setbacks, Shabnam Bista, 303-441-1896 The proposed buildings are located across existing lot lines. A subdivision process will be required modify existing lot lines. Note that this may affect the minimum required setbacks to existing and proposed buildings in accordance with the definition of “Yard, front, rear, and side” under the Land Use Code section 9-16 which states that “… on a corner lot, the open space adjacent to the shorter street right of way shall be considered the front yard. The rear yard is opposite the front yard, and the side yard is between the rear yard and the front yard.” Note that modifications to the minimum required setbacks may be permitted through the Site Review process; however, Building Code requirements will still apply, including requirements for structural fire resistance and/or fire separation distance. For clarity, proposed lot lines and proposed easements should be identified at the time of Site Review with submittal of a Preliminary Plat. 23. The following would be a condition at the time of site review: "Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Technical Review Application for a lot line elimination to remove the existing lot lines." 24. Traffic Study, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov At time of site review a traffic study is required in accordance with section 2.02 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) because the vehicle trips expected to be generated by the project during the AM or PM peak hour exceed 100 vehicles. The traffic study must be prepared consistent with section 2.03 of the DCS. Please forward the parameters of the traffic study for staff’s concurrence prior to initiating the study. 25. Transportation Demand Management Plan, David Thompson, ThompsonD@bouldercolorado.gov At time of Site Review, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan consistent with section 2.03(I) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D)(iv) and (v) of the Boulder Revised Code is required to be submitted for the Pearl East Innovation Campus Project which outlines strategies that will be implemented by the project to shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes of transportation. 26. UTILITIES: Erik Saunders 303 441- 4493 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. A water system distribution analysis (Utility Report) will be required at time of Site Review in order to assess the impacts and service demands of the proposed development. Conformance with the city’s Treated Water Master Plan, October 2011 is necessary. 2. A wastewater collection system analysis (Utility Report) will be required at time of Site Review to determine any system impacts based on the proposed demands of the development. The analysis will need to show conformance with the city’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, July 2016. 3. On-site and off-site water main and wastewater main construction per the City of Boulder Design and Attachment B - Staff Initial Review Comments Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 53 Packet Page 116 of 489 4780 PEARL EAST CIR Page 6 of 6 Construction Standards (DCS) as necessary to serve the development, as well as perpetuate the overall system, may be required. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the DCS. 4. Fire hydrants shall be installed as necessary to meet the coverage requirements outlined in Section 5.10 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Per the standards, no portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. Fire access distance is measured along public or private (fire accessible) roadways or fire lanes, as would be traveled by motorized fire equipment. All fire hydrants and public water lines will need to be located within public utility easements. 5. The applicant is notified that, though the city allows Xcel, CenturyLink and Comcast to install their utilities within public rights-of-way, the private and franchised utility providers generally require them to be located in easements on private property. 6. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along the property frontage, and/or along the north side promenade, may conflict with existing or proposed utilities, including without limitation: water, wastewater, storm drainage, flood control, gas, electric, telecommunications, drainageways, and irrigation ditches, within and adjacent to the development site. It is the applicant’s responsibility to resolve such conflicts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. 7. The landscape irrigation system requires a separate water service and meter. A separate water Plant Investment Fee must be paid at time of building permit. Service, meter and tap sizes will be required at time of building permit submittal. IV. FEES Please note that current development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city written comments. Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Attachment B - Staff Initial Review Comments Item 4A - 4845 and 4875 Pearl East Circle Concept Plan Review Page 54 Packet Page 117 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to approve the updated Comprehensive Flood andStormwater Master Plan (C FS) P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J oanna Bloom, Deputy Director, Public Works - Utilities RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to approve the updated C omprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan (C FS) AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 5A - Comprehensiv e F lood and Stormwater Master P lan Acceptance I tem 5A - Addendum Packet Page 118 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 15, 2022 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to approve the updated Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan (CFS) PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Joe Taddeucci, Director of Utilities Joanna Bloom, Deputy Director of Utilities for Policy and Planning Chris Douglass, Utilities Engineering Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan (CFS) is the guiding policy document for Boulder's Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. The purpose of the plan is to improve the management of stormwater and drainageways to help protect people, places, property, and ecosystems in a way that builds resilience and is consistent with community values. The CFS replaces the previous 2004 Master Plan and was informed by community input, lessons learned from the 2013 flood, Boulder’s Racial Equity Plan, and the increasing evidence of climate change, among others. The CFS update process included three primary phases of: 1) issues identification, 2) project prioritization tool development, and 3) key outcomes and recommendations. These components inform the Master Plan document itself, which is comprised of two volumes: a high-level summary document, Volume I, and a detailed technical Volume II. Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 1 Packet Page 119 of 489 Key outcomes of the plan include the development of a major flood project prioritization framework, and recommendations surrounding racial equity; climate change; emergency preparedness; education and outreach; maintenance of existing infrastructure; and funding to support the program. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide City Council with background and an overview of the CFS and associated community engagement process and to recommend approval of the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – Flood and stormwater infrastructure helps maintain access to schools, work, and businesses during storm events, which supports the economic health of the community. The CFS recommends expediting the pace of major flood project completion for the protection and vitality of all community members and visitors to Boulder. • Environmental – The CFS recommends addressing climate change impacts through designing resilient infrastructure and implementing projects expeditiously with the highest feasible and practical level of flood protection; continuing to be a leader in implementing climate science into utility planning and engineering work; and maximizing natural features such as wetlands into flood mitigation projects to promote creek corridor restoration, water quality enhancement and carbon footprint reduction. • Social – The CFS establishes policies and programs that focus on racially equitable outcomes, including establishing a major flood Project Prioritization Framework that incorporates racial and social equity considerations using the Social Vulnerability Index, and providing guidance for creating emergency preparedness and post- emergency education and outreach resources that are culturally relevant for Spanish- speaking and other non-native English-speaking communities. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to approve the updated Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan (CFS). Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 2 Packet Page 120 of 489 OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – The Stormwater and Flood Utility is funded by fees collected through utility bills for services provided. The CFS recommends increasing funding to expedite the pace of major flood project completion. Actual funding levels will be considered by boards and council as part of the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and budgeting processes and any increases would be borne by utility ratepayers and through Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) paid by new development. The utility will continue to pursue grants and other outside funding sources to offset increases to Boulder’s rate payers. • Staff time – Although plan recommendations can be achieved with current staffing levels, the CFS recommends increasing staffing levels in two areas to accelerate the pace and/or frequency of work. Specifically, the CFS recommends increasing additional engineers, project managers and/or consultants to complete the currently identified major flood projects in 30-35 years. Additionally, the CFS identifies a need to increase maintenance staffing levels to address the 37 miles of open drainage channels, major drainageways, and adjacent greenways, on a regular recurrence interval. Actual staffing increases and associated costs would be considered as part of the city’s annual budgeting processes. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK In May 2020, staff presented an overview of the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility to the Water Resource Advisory Board (WRAB) with an outline for the CFS Master Plan Update schedule. This was followed by updates in September 2020 and in September 2021 where WRAB had the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the master planning process and associated community outreach. At the June 2022 meeting, WRAB heard from staff and CWG representatives and provided feedback on the plan. At the July 18, 2022, WRAB public hearing, the board unanimously passed the following recommendation: The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council approve the 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan update subject to minor additional updates to the plan as discussed, including the recommendation to adopt the vision level of funding as recommended by the plan to expedite the pace of major flood project implementation. The Planning Board hosted a public hearing on the CFS on August 2, 2022. Planning Board discussion included the impact of increased funding on ratepayers and support for the inclusion of racial equity considerations in the plan overall. The Planning Board passed the following motion 7-0: Motion to recommend to City Council acceptance of the Comprehensive Flood & Stormwater Master Plan and approval of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Comprehensive Flood & Stormwater Master Plan Summary. Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 3 Packet Page 121 of 489 PUBLIC FEEDBACK The CFS update included an eighteen-month community engagement process supported by a Community Working Group (CWG) that provided feedback on community values, policies, technical information and community engagement. Major feedback themes from both the CWG and broader community included a desire to move faster in implementing flood protection projects, a desire for enhanced and targeted personal flood preparedness resources, maintenance of existing infrastructure, support for measures to support climate change goals, and a keen interest on neighborhood level flood and storm attention. These themes are reflected in the CWG’s Findings Report, which is included as an Appendix to Volume II of the CFS and included here as Attachment B. BACKGROUND This CFS Master Plan is an update to the previous Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan developed in 2004. The 2022 plan is intended to capture current conditions; accommodate changing trends, norms, state of the science, regulations and standards; and meet evolving community goals and objectives. It provides a framework for implementing programs and projects in the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. The process to update the CFS Master Plan began in late 2019 and included community engagement, a policy and program evaluation, development of a framework for evaluating the relative priorities of major flood projects, and development of policy recommendations. A project team consisting of city staff and technical and engagement consultants began in late 2019 on the update process. The project team assembled a Community Working Group (CWG) to support the development of the update. CWG member selection intentionally included a wide range of voices and perspectives, including members from various geographic locations across the city, professional and non-technical backgrounds, renters, property owners, and with diversity in age, race and gender, and included two Community Connectors and one WRAB representative. With support from the CWG, community engagement was designed to elicit public input on issues facing the community related to stormwater management and flooding, with an intentional focus on obtaining feedback from traditionally underrepresented communities and Spanish-speaking community members. Three phases of engagement provided opportunities for community members to learn about and provide input to Master Plan development: 1. Identification of Community Issues - Multiple activities were conducted with active engagement from the CWG to define themes and suggested topics to be addressed through the Mater Plan update. These discussions influenced the scope of the technical analysis, including a chapter on financial considerations. 2. Project Prioritization - Engagement focused on learning what the community valued most in a project prioritization framework. In response to community requests to provide neighborhood-specific outreach, the project team held five virtual creek- Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 4 Packet Page 122 of 489 based meetings for community members to learn about issues in their area and provide input on criteria for prioritizing projects. A sixth virtual meeting was held to address citywide issues and was conducted in both English and Spanish. 3. Draft Master Plan - CWG members participated in topic-specific groups to perform detailed analyses and review draft materials on the technical areas ultimately included in Volume II of the CFS Master Plan (Attachment B) and summarized in Volume I (Attachment A). Throughout the three phases, the team identified issues of community concern and performed an analysis of existing policy to assess whether current policies and guiding documents adequately meet community needs and support the necessary functions of the Utility. Staff requested recommendations on the plan in July 2022 at WRAB and in August 2022 at Planning Board. Both boards unanimously recommended plan approval. ANALYSIS The updated Master Plan authentically reflects feedback from the community, embodies Boulder’s values, captures the strategic vision of the flood and storm utility and positions the utility to move forward expeditiously. Volume I of the Master Plan update provides a summary of six key findings and outcomes in the areas of project prioritization; racial equity; climate change and resilience; flood preparedness; outreach and education; support for maintenance; and recommends a Capital Improvement Program level of funding moving forward. These topic areas align with areas of community and CWG interest, the highlights of which are described in Table 1 below. Table 1: CFS Key Outcomes and Recommendations OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS PLAN DETAILS Prioritize Projects to do the greatest good first Created a project prioritization framework to prioritize when major flood mitigation projects should be funded and constructed Provide services equitably Incorporated racial equity into policies, current and future outreach and education efforts, and provision of services Make infrastructure resilient to climate change Developed proactive measures to address climate change through infrastructure resilience Prepare for the extremes Clarified roles and responsibilities for city staff and community members related to flood preparedness, flood warning and emergency response Inform the community to create a prepared community Refined outreach and education efforts to reach targeted audiences with a focus on vulnerable populations and non-English speaking community members Maintain the system we have Defined support needs and public and private maintenance responsibilities for stormwater drainage systems and major drainageways Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 5 Packet Page 123 of 489 OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS PLAN DETAILS Adequately Fund the Program Defined three funding levels that result in different pacing of CIP implementation It is worth noting that while the CWG reached consensus on the main outcomes and priorities included in their Findings Report, some members of the group felt strongly that the plan should have gone farther in several areas, such as including a prioritized list of outstanding major flood projects with associated costs and timeframes. Relatedly, both the community at large and the CWG expressed a desire for information related to specific drainageway plans, localized storm systems, and other neighborhood-specific measures at greater granularity than the master plan level. Finally, some members of the group felt that not enough was accomplished since the 2004 update and are dissatisfied with the city’s pace of project and program implementation. Project Prioritization One of the primary objectives of the Master Plan update was to develop a method of prioritizing major flood projects in alignment with community values, including incorporating a racial equity lens. To do this, the project team developed a Project Prioritization Framework that incorporates numerous project criteria based on community input. Commonly, and historically for Boulder, prioritization methods use a simple “losses avoided” approach to calculate project benefits, which frequently result in benefit/cost ratios that favor implementing projects in affluent areas with the highest property values as opposed to areas where the life safety risk and community needs are the highest (see Table 2 and Figure 1). Incorporation of metrics, like the Social Vulnerability Index into the framework, allows for prioritization of projects based on a consistent set of criteria that directly reflects community values and project benefits. Table 2: Scoring - Benefit/Cost Ratio versus Project Prioritization Framework Project Priority Using Benefit/Cost Ratio Priority Using Project Prioritization Framework Project D 2 1 Project E2 3 2 Project A 6 3 Project B 1 4 Project C 4 5 Project E1 5 6 Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 6 Packet Page 124 of 489 Figure 1: Project Prioritization Scoring Upon plan approval, city staff will apply the Project Prioritization Framework to the 30 -plus identified flood mitigation projects to the 20-year CIP. The 20-year CIP will be presented as part of the annual budget process beginning with the 2024 budget cycle. Projects currently in design and construction will be scored using the Project Prioritization Framework for transparency but will progress as planned as each have incurred significant investment in project costs and staff/community engagement and are nearing project completion. Newly identified projects will be evaluated by the framework and comparatively ranked among the others as they arise. Funding Funding considerations were an area of community interest throughout the update process. Some community members felt strongly that the utility needs to raise rates to “whatever is necessary” to complete major flood projects quickly. Other community members felt the city should exercise more caution and consider both the merits of specific projects and the affordability of rate increases when raising rates. The CWG reflected this difference of opinion in their Findings Report. Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 7 Packet Page 125 of 489 Major Flood Projects will continue to progress regardless of the funding level. However, to respond to community feedback that projects should proceed more quickly, the CFS Master Plan recommends moving from the current “Action Level” of funding to the “Vision Level” to increase the pacing of major flood project implementation from approximately 50 years to completion to 30-35 years to completion. It’s important to note that while funding certainly is a key element of project implementation, staffing levels and community engagement timeframes can frequently have more of an impact on project implementation timeframes than funding constraints. NEXT STEPS Upon plan approval, staff will proceed with populating the Project Prioritization Framework and developing a major flood project list. This project list, as well as work items related to other plan recommendations, will be incorporated into the department’s annual work planning and Capital Improvement Planning efforts for consideration by boards and council in 2023. ATTACHMENTS A - CFS Master Plan Volume I: Summary Plan B - CFS Master Plan Volume II: Technical Plan, including the CWG Findings Report FUNDING SCENARIO DESCRIPTION Fiscally Constrained This funding level provides approximately $5M in capital funds and reflects what is needed to maintain basic Utility services over the short term. This includes minimal rate increases (that keep up with the Consumer Price Index). Minor investment is made in capital improvement projects and maintenance and operations would be a priority. The city had generally maintained this funding level prior to 2015. Under this funding scenario the CIP might take 75 or more years to complete. Action This funding level assumes an average of $7M annually in 2022 dollars, and accounts for annual fluctuations and associated rate increases. Some capital improvements are debt-financed so debt service is included in utility rates. In addition, this funding level includes six Engineering/Project Managers as currently approved in the 2022 Budget Book. Under this funding scenario it may take more than 50 years to complete the CIP. This is where the city funding has been since 2015. Vision This funding level provides approximately $11M in annual capital funds and augments resources with additional engineers, project managers and/or consultants and capital available to complete one to two major flood projects per year. This level of funding supports an acceleration of the stormwater and major flood Capital Improvement Program and Utility maintenance so that the CIP can be completed within 30 to 35 years. These funds would be realized through a combination of continued rate increases to fund bond issuances; higher than estimated Plant Investment Fees; one-time federal grants; and higher interest on investments. This level requires sustained larger rate increases and additional staffing and resources to implement the projects. Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 8 Packet Page 126 of 489 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan VOLUME I - Summary Plan | July 2022 In association with: Tetra Tech Water Resource Associates Wright Water Engineers Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 9 Packet Page 127 of 489 II – Kimbal Musk Boulder should be next to the word ‘community’ in the dictionary. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 10 Packet Page 128 of 489 III Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan The Master Plan outlines a long-term vision for how to complete major projects and recommends guidelines and standards for carrying out day- to-day operations of the Utility. Key activities to update the Master Plan included policy review, developing program and process recommendations and providing a framework for evaluating priorities and projects. Because the resources needed to identify flood risk, mitigate flood damage and maintain flood and stormwater facilities are scarce in comparison with the need, an overarching objective of the policy evaluation was to assess program outcomes and impact through the following questions: ◼What are the program goals and objectives? ◼Which program actions drive results? ◼Where are the biggest areas of concern and do the current actions move the needle to solve them? ◼What data are available to determine effectiveness? ◼How should the Utility prioritize construction of major flood projects? The previous 2004 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan identified a project cycle of floodplain mapping, flood mitigation planning, design and construction for Boulder’s 16 major drainageways. Within this cycle, mapping and mitigation planning are precursors to the design and construction of large flood mitigation projects. Since 2004, Boulder has constructed flood mitigation projects and completed most of the remaining mapping and mitigation groundwork. The Utility is now positioned to begin design and construction of flood projects across ten additional major drainageways citywide. This updated plan provides a framework and decision-making tool to methodically prioritize pending flood mitigation projects in alignment with community values. The framework specifically incorporates racial and social equity as a consideration, which will function to repair systemic and institutional racial inequities. Throughout the CFS Master Plan development, the community clearly communicated an urgent need to accelerate the construction of flood and storm projects, especially in the context of a changing climate and more frequent and intense storm events . Utility staff have heard and agree with this assessment. With that in mind, this Master Plan includes a discussion of what it would take to accelerate flood mitigation projects, including associated funding, staffing needs and the need for community and political support. In a nutshell, the “Action” and the “Vision” funding scenarios below provide the ability to move capital projects forward at a more aggressive pace. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan (CFS Master Plan or “Master Plan”) provides the policy framework for implementing programs and projects in the City of Boulder’s Stormwater and Flood Management Utility (Utility). The purpose of the Master Plan is to improve the management of stormwater and drainageways to help protect people, places, property and ecosystems in a way that builds resilience and is consistent with community values. This Master Plan was informed by community input, lessons learned from the 2013 flood, Boulder’s Racial Equity Plan and the increasing evidence of climate change, among other considerations. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 11 Packet Page 129 of 489 IV FUNDING SCENARIO DESCRIPTION Fiscally Constrained This funding level provides approximately $5M in capital funds and reflects what is needed to maintain basic Utility services over the short term. This includes minimal rate increases (that keep up with the Consumer Price Index). Minor investment is made in capital improvement projects and maintenance and operations would be a priority. The city had generally maintained this funding level prior to 2015. Under this funding scenario the CIP might take 75 or more years to complete. Action This funding level assumes an average of $7M annually in 2022 dollars, and accounts for annual fluctuations and associated rate increases. Some cap- ital improvements are debt-financed so debt service is included in utility rates. In addition, this funding level includes six Engineering/Project Man- agers as currently approved in the 2022 Budget Book. Under this funding scenario it may take more than 50 years to complete the CIP. This is where the city funding has been since 2015. Vision This funding level provides approximately $11M in annual capital funds and augments resources with additional engineers, project managers and/or consultants and capital available to complete one to two major flood proj- ects per year. This level of funding supports an acceleration of the storm- water and major flood Capital Improvement Program and Utility mainte- nance so that the CIP can be completed within 30 to 35 years. These funds would be realized through a combination of continued rate increases to fund bond issuances; higher than estimated Plant Investment Fees; one- time federal grants; and higher interest on investments. This level requires sustained larger rate increases and additional staffing and resources to implement the projects. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 12 Packet Page 130 of 489 V Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Knowing that flooding can happen anytime and occur anywhere across Boulder, the city’s engagement and outreach efforts need to continually improve to reach shifting demographics, renters, those experiencing homelessness and non-English speakers. This Master Plan recognizes the role that individuals and community members have in flood preparedness and outlines specific responsibilities related to both institutions and the community. The Master Plan also includes discussion of important community issues that impact quality of life such as greenways, operations and maintenance, groundwater and efficiency measures. The community voiced strong support for maintaining what we already have and for programs and actions that protect and enhance our creeks while enhancing water quality and the environment. Although it was the right time to complete this Master Plan, the public engagement was done almost exclusively virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Whereas the team and the community rose to the challenge and engaged in crucial and meaningful dialogue, the Master Plan recognizes the importance of in-person engagement. Nevertheless, this Master Plan achieved significant outcomes that support the Utility in expediting progress towards meeting shared community and city goals. The CFS Master Plan contains two volumes. Volume I provides a summary level of detail aimed at a general audience and is consistent with other city master plans in format, content and level of detail. Volume II contains more detail on background, policy and regulations, issues, system management and recommendations. Volume II provides the framework necessary for implementing programs and projects and is prepared more for an audience having or desiring detailed knowledge of the flood and stormwater system. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 13 Packet Page 131 of 489 VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City Council: Matt Benjamin, Aaron Brockett, Lauren Folkerts, Rachel Friend, Junie Joseph, Nicole Speer, Mark Wallach, Tara Winer, Bob Yates Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB): John Berggren, Amy Broughton, Steve Maxwell, Gordon McCurry, Trisha Oeth, Ted Rose (term ended April 2022) City Manager: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde Deputy City Manager: Chris Meschuk Utilities Staff: Joe Taddeucci (Director of Utilities), Joanna Bloom, Chris Douville, Chris Douglass, Graham Clark, Brandon Coleman, Laurel Olsen, Meghan Wilson, Candice Owen, Kevin Koryto, Olivia Dawson, Shuangshuang Fan Thank you to the staff from Water Quality, Planning and Development Services, Water Resources, Utilities Engineering, Communications and Engagement, Climate Initiatives and the City Attorney’s Office for your participation and contribution. Consultants: Tetra Tech - Vicki Scharnhorst, Amy Murdick, Dan Christian, Bill Fullerton, Rob Flaner, Danny Hinson, Bob Mussetter Catalyst, Inc. - Barbara Lewis Water Resource Associates - Hector Cyre Wright Water Engineers - Jane Clary, Andrew Earles Community Working Group • Matt Benjamin • Elizabeth Black • Dylan Blaskey • Ana Casas Ibarra (Community Connector) • George Craft • Bruce Feinberg • Laurel Hodory • Tim Holbrook • Lillian Hoodes (Resigned) • Joan Lutz • Mar Matlak (Community Connector) • Phil Michael • RJ Pautsch • Liz Payton • Clancy Philipsborn • Steve Pomerance • Ann Quenzer • Ted Rose (WRAB Representative) • Mark Squillace • Paul Wallick Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 14 Packet Page 132 of 489 VII Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master PlanAttachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 15 Packet Page 133 of 489 VIII Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 16 Packet Page 134 of 489 IX Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................III The Stormwater and Flood Management Utility ....................................................................................1 Flood Management Program ..................................................................................................................................2 Project Life Cycle | Flood Mapping, Mitigation Planning and Construction .......................................2 Flood Preparedness, Response and Recovery .................................................................................................3 Stormwater Drainage Program ...............................................................................................................................4 Stormwater Quality Program ...................................................................................................................................5 Related Initiatives ........................................................................................................................................................5 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation .................................................................................................................................5 Greenways Program ....................................................................................................................................................6 Master Planning Process .............................................................................................................................7 Master Planning Framework ...................................................................................................................................8 Engagement ...................................................................................................................................................................9 Identification of Community Issues .....................................................................................................................9 Draft Master Plan .........................................................................................................................................................11 Key Outcomes & Recommendations.........................................................................................................13 Prioritize Projects to do the Greatest Good, First ...........................................................................................14 Criteria Selection and Weighting ...........................................................................................................................14 Key Recommendations: ............................................................................................................................................15 Provide Services, Equitably ......................................................................................................................................17 Key Recommendations: ............................................................................................................................................17 Make Infrastructure Resilient to Climate Change ..........................................................................................17 Key Recommendations: ............................................................................................................................................18 Prepare for the Extremes ..........................................................................................................................................18 Key Recommendations: ............................................................................................................................................18 An Informed Community is a Prepared Community .....................................................................................19 Key Recommendations: ............................................................................................................................................20 Maintain the System We Have ................................................................................................................................20 Key Recommendations: ............................................................................................................................................20 Implementation & Funding .........................................................................................................................26 20-year Flood and Stormwater CIP .......................................................................................................................28 Putting the Plan into Action ....................................................................................................................................29 Annual Work Planning Process ..............................................................................................................................29 Measuring Success .....................................................................................................................................................29 Equity Metrics ................................................................................................................................................................29 Resilience and Climate Change .............................................................................................................................29 Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 17 Packet Page 135 of 489 1 THE STORMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 18 Packet Page 136 of 489 2 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan PROGRAMS OF THE UTILITY Flood Management Program The Flood Management Program is responsible for programs and activities related to local flooding and Boulder’s floodplains. Stormwater Drainage Program The Stormwater Drainage Program is responsible for the network of underground pipes, structures and channels that convey stormwater or surface runoff to major drainageways within the city. Stormwater Quality Program The Stormwater Quality Program is responsible for managing local activities to preserve, protect and enhance water quality affecting Boulder’s streams and drainages. The Stormwater and Flood Management Utility (Utility) was established in 1973 to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community from damage caused by stormwater runoff and floods. Additionally, the Utility is tasked with protecting and enhancing the water quality of local receiving waters. Existing stormwater and flood systems were not built as the city grew. Instead, much of the city’s development happened in and around the natural floodplains prior to the establishment of the Utility. The Utility is responsible for the administration of the city’s flood management, stormwater quality and stormwater drainage programs. The Utility’s responsibilities include: • Administration and operations • Utility rates and finance • Program development and management • System maintenance and restoration • Stormwater quality management • Flood and stormwater regulation and compliance • Flood prediction and warning • Emergency preparedness and day-to-day operations • Public education and community outreach • System master planning and design • Capital improvements and land management Utilities Department Wastewater UtilityWater Utility Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 19 Packet Page 137 of 489 3 As shown in the figure, major flood projects follow a project lifecycle. The first step is floodplain mapping, which identifies and quantifies the flood risk. Following that, mitigation planning identifies the preferred alternative for specific flood projects that mitigate the risk. The final step is to design and then construct projects. Activities completed since the 2004 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan include: Ͱ Updated flood mapping for 15 of Boulder’s 16 major drainageways Ͱ Completed flood mitigation plans for 10 of the 16 drainageways: • Gregory Canyon Creek • Bear Canyon Creek • Fourmile Canyon Creek • Wonderland Creek • South Boulder Creek • Skunk Creek/Bluebell Canyon Creek/King’s Gulch – in progress/90% complete • Upper Goose Creek/Twomile Canyon Creek – in progress/90% completeDesign and Constru c tio n Flo o d pl ai n MappingMitigation P l a n n in g Flood Management Program Identify and Mitigate Flood Risk Floodp la in MappingDesign and ConstructionMitigation Planning THE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE Flood Mapping, Mitigation Planning, and Construction Boulder has extreme flood risk, primarily due to its location at the mouth of the Boulder Creek and its tributaries. With 16 major drainageways, about 16 percent of land within city limits - including around 2,600 structures - is located within the 100-year floodplain. The flood management program is responsible for floodplain mapping, risk assessments, regulations, flood information and insurance, emergency preparedness, property acquisition and flood mitigation capital improvements. FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 20 Packet Page 138 of 489 4 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Three mitigation plans were completed prior to 2004, and three remain to be completed for Boulder Creek, Boulder Slough and Sunshine Canyon Creek. The Boulder Creek Restoration Master Plan was completed in 2015, and some flood mitigation projects were identified for Boulder Creek and Boulder Slough. Ͱ Constructed major flood improvements as follows: • Elmer’s Two Mile ($9M) • Wonderland Creek ($30M) • Gregory Canyon Creek ($0.7M) • Boulder Creek bridge replacement ($6M) • Broadway Culvert at Fourmile Canyon Creek ($4M) Ͱ Acquired seven high hazard properties from the floodplain as part of the property acquisition program. Ͱ Added funding and staff resources for flood mitigation support, including GIS/mapping personnel. FLOOD PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY Planning and preparation play a critical role in flood safety and continuing operations after a disaster. Pre- flood readiness, ongoing monitoring, effective warning systems, trained response and post-flood recovery increase resilience in the community and mitigate the impacts of floods. Activities completed since 2004 include: ◼Enhanced the city’s website, communications and informational materials for public information, including regularly updating the Community Guide to Flood Safety. Examples of typical education and outreach materials include: Community Guide to Flood Safety Maintenance of flood information website (www.boulderfloodinfo.net) Direct mailings to properties in the 100-year floodplain Flood safety classroom programs for elementary school teachers Door hangers to University of Colorado off campus housing neighborhoods and high hazard residential properties Temporary and permanent signage located on underpasses and along creeks Annual utility bill inserts Water Festival Flood Safety Presentation Public events, open houses, workshops Flood safety sheets for elementary students Social media posts (Facebook, NextDoor, etc.)Daily Camera newspaper ads USB devices with flood safety material Brochures and programs for stormwater outreach ◼Increased the discount on flood insurance for community members from 10% to 25% by taking actions under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program to lower the Community Rating System class from a Class 8 to a Class 5. ◼Enhanced emergency alert capabilities in coordination with the Office of Disaster Management for City of Boulder & Boulder County (ODM) and Mile High Flood District (MHFD). Through the Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS), area police and fire departments can now send Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to cell phones within a certain geographic area without community members having to opt-in. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 21 Packet Page 139 of 489 5 Stormwater runoff from urbanized areas and impervious surfaces can produce localized and downstream flooding, as well as channel erosion and increased pollution to waterways. The Stormwater Drainage Program is responsible for the network of underground pipes, structures and channels that convey stormwater or surface runoff to major drainageways within the city. Managing this infrastructure requires master planning to guide upgrades and expansion of the system, inspections, maintenance, repairs, regulatory compliance and capital improvements. Activities completed since 2004 include: ◼Updated the Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) in 2007 and 2016. This plan serves as a long-term guide to address existing and future stormwater drainage and stormwater quality issues and to alleviate current capacity and flooding problems in the stormwater drainage system. ◼Completed several local drainage projects totaling over $2 million. ◼Updated the Design and Construction Standards (DCS) to clarify policies, including separating stormwater drainage from irrigation ditches and detention requirements. ◼Implemented a new asset management system (Beehive) and updated system mapping. Together, these tools provide a detailed system inventory and condition assessment information that supports proactive versus reactive maintenance approaches. ◼Aligned drainageways and greenways management practices with MHFD guidance to optimize maintenance and increase ecosystem benefits, including discontinuing certain mowing practices. ◼Centralized comment and complaint records related to storm and flood maintenance into one dataset with the Inquire Boulder system, which supports a coordinated response, enhances customer experience and identifies recurring problem areas. ◼Increased staffing and equipment and reorganized Utilities Maintenance teams into two separate groups: Stormwater (crew of 11 and supervisor), which is solely responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater drainage infrastructure, and Flood and Greenways (crew of four and supervisor), which is dedicated to flood and greenways maintenance, including responding to customer complaints. ◼Updated the storm system cleaning schedule from a 35-to-55 year cycle to a 15-year cycle (in other words, the entire system will be cleaned every 15 years). STORMWATER DRAINAGE PROGRAM Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 22 Packet Page 140 of 489 6 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan The built urban environment negatively impacts water quality in streams and drainageways in the forms of polluted runoff, spills and excess sediment. The Stormwater Quality Program seeks to preserve, protect and enhance surface water by complying with state water quality regulations and educating the community to foster shared stewardship of this natural resource. Since 2004 the following activities have been completed: ◼Updated stormwater quality requirements and regulations in the Boulder Revised Code and Design and Construction Standards to enhance the protection of water quality from stormwater discharges. ◼Constructed 60 stormwater control measures (SCMs) on city-owned properties. ◼Provided maintenance for approximately 85 city-owned SCMs, including rain gardens, bioswales and other water quality features. ◼Implemented the 2016 revised state municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit. ◼Conducted special studies and enhanced monitoring to better understand the E. coli Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) on Boulder Creek. This included the 2019 update to the 2011 TMDL Implementation Plan. ◼Developed the 2019 Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan to provide strategies for building green infrastructure, including on capital projects and public land. ◼Expanded the 2011 Greenways Master Plan to incorporate Boulder Creek and 14 of its tributaries. ◼Designed a project with MHFD to assess urban streams using MHFD’s Urban Stream Assessment Protocol to better understand relative stream health and plan for future management and projects (implementation in progress in 2022). STORMWATER QUALITY PROGRAM Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Although separate from the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility, the sanitary sewer system is also affected by heavy storms and flooding events. In severe storms, rainwater can enter and overwhelm the system through defects in pipes and manholes. Since 2004, activities included: ◼Lined approximately 45% of 1.3 million feet of pipe, according to a 2014 council decision to accelerate sanitary sewer rehabilitation by lining clay and reinforced concrete pipes within 20 years. ◼Replaced and lined undersized and failing sanitary sewer lines near Foothills and East Pearl, completing the first phase of the Goose Creek Interceptor project. The second phase is in preliminary planning phases. ◼Replaced approximately 7,300 feet of piping through the Baseline & Foothills Trunk Sewer Improvements Project (currently under construction with completion expected mid-2022). ◼Designed the Main Sewer Improvements Project, which replaces the primary conveyance from the city to the Water Resource Recovery Facility (design in progress, with construction starting in late 2022 and subsequent phases planned through 2025). Greenways Program The Greenways Program provides an opportunity to integrate multiple objectives within important riparian areas along Boulder Creek and its tributaries. The program was created in recognition that stream corridors are a vital link in the larger urban environmental system and that each stream is a natural and cultural resource. The Greenways Program is administered by Utilities, which works in conjunction with Planning & Development Services, Open Space and Mountain Parks, Parks and Recreation and other work groups within Public Works (Water Quality, Utilities Engineering and Transportation). Since 2004, the Greenways plan has been expanded to include all Boulder Creek tributaries. Additional Greenways Program objectives were accomplished in coordination with the Elmer’s Two Mile, Boulder Creek at Eben G. Fine Park and Wonderland Creek flood mitigation projects. As of summer 2022, the city is hiring a Greenways Program Manager Position to reevaluate program needs and a path forward. RELATED INITIATIVES Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 23 Packet Page 141 of 489 MASTER PLANNING PROCESS This Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan is an update to the previous document (October 2004) and provides a framework for implementing various programs and projects in the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. The key tasks completed as part of the master planning process included a review of existing polices, development of program and process recommendations and the provision of a framwork for evaluating priorities and projects. MASTER PLAN UPDATE KEY TASKS: • Review policies • Develop program and process recommendations • Provide a framework for evaluating priorities and projects ENGAGE IDENTIFY EVALUATE ANALYZE • CURRENT POLICY GUIDANCE • CURRENT POLICY INFLUENCE • ADHERENCE TO POLICY • POLICY BASED ON NECESSARY FUNCTIONS OF UTILITY • PROGRAM/POLICY EVALUATION CRITERIA • POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS • PROGRAM & POLICY ANALYSIS • ENCOURAGE ALL VOICES • FOSTER PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION • INTENTIONALLY ENGAGE WITH UNDERREPRESENTED COMMUNITIES 7 Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 24 Packet Page 142 of 489 8 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan MASTER PLANNING FRAMEWORK The city’s Community Sustainability + Resilience Framework defines community values that help set policies and priorities for the city. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) is the city’s primary policy and planning document and guides decisions about growth, development and preservation, as well as services such as utilities and flood mitigation. The CFS Master Plan is the overarching planning and policy document for the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility and guides the implementation and evaluation of programs and activities within the Utility. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan S u s t a i n a b i l i t y , Equity & Resilience F r a mework Stormwater Master Plan Drainageway Master Plans Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan Development Codes & Standards Policy Guidance COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD AND STORMWATER MASTER PLAN E. coli Implementation Plan Water Quality Strategic PlanCapital Improvement ProgramPrioritize & Implement *CITY WIDE STRATEGIES & COMMITMENTS • Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan • Greenways Master Plan • Resilience Strategy • Transportation Master Plan • Climate, Ecosystems & Community • Racial Equity Plan • Keep It Clean Partnership • Mile High Flood District Policy Influence* Environmentally Sustainable Community Safe Community Economically Vital Commuity Good Governance Livable Community Accessible & Connected Community Healthy & Socially Thriving Community Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 25 Packet Page 143 of 489 9 The Communications and Engagement Plan developed for this Master Plan update was designed to elicit and reflect public input on issues facing the community related to stormwater management and flooding, as well as how the city prioritizes projects. The engagement plan had an intentional focus on obtaining feedback from underrepresented communities and Spanish-speaking community members, in line with the city’s adoption of the Racial Equity Plan. To inform the community, the project team used a project website, project email address, Be Heard Boulder (an online community engagement tool), a video and a utility bill insert asking for volunteers for the Community Working Group (CWG). Many of the materials were translated into Spanish and delivered through neighborhood notifications and site visits. To help ensure the community’s values and priorities were fully considered in the Master Plan update, the city formed a Community Working Group (CWG) to advise staff during plan development and engage the community to learn about issues of concern. The CWG intentionally included City of Boulder residents with different perspectives from different areas of the city and with different backgrounds. The group included two Community Connectors who helped encourage engagement from typically underrepresented populations. Due to COVID 19, the majority of CWG involvement was virtual. The city project team held twelve online meetings, each of which included a 10-minute public comment period and one in-person walking tour. As summarized below, three phases of engagement provided opportunities for community members to learn about and provide input to Master Plan development: ◼Identification of Community Issues ◼Project Prioritization ◼Draft Master Plan ENGAGEMENT Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 26 Packet Page 144 of 489 10 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Identification of Community Issues In this phase, the project team sought to better understand which issues and values related to flood and stormwater management were important to the community. CWG members actively engaged in these efforts by: ◼Envisioning and developing two information flyers: an overview of the Master Plan and an English/Spanish one-pager on flood preparedness. ◼Conducting 28 interviews with community members in different geographic areas of the city. ◼Discussing the results from an issues questionnaire placed on the Be Heard Boulder website. The English site was visited 479 times with 187 responses received. The Spanish site was visited 120 times with no responses received. ◼Assisting staff in hosting pop-up events to introduce the plan and receive input on issues at the National Night Out, Amazing Duck Race, Hometown Festival and Farmer’s Market. With information from these activities, the CWG defined themes and suggested topics to be addressed through the Master Plan update. These discussions influenced the scope of the technical analysis, including the addition of a chapter on financial considerations. The themes included: ◼Project prioritization – maintenance, pacing/ timelines, prioritization criteria related to property, life safety, greenways, equity and need ◼Funding – adequacy of funding, rates and equity concerns and communication needs ◼Emergency preparedness - earlier warnings, preparation, life safety, communication needs, fears and needed support ◼Stormwater quality – encampments and public health and stormwater pollution ◼Stormwater drainage – maintenance, green infrastructure, irrigation and drainage ditches, sewer backups, equity, greenways and wildlife corridors ◼Flood mapping – flood risk and 2013 flood area ◼Flood regulation – maintenance, development regulations and enforcement ◼Flood mitigation – climate change impacts, urgency for mitigation, development restrictions, protecting life and property, leveraging existing infrastructure and equity ◼Other – groundwater, education and outreach and flood insurance Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 27 Packet Page 145 of 489 11 Project Prioritization In the second phase, engagement focused on learning what the community considered most important in a project prioritization framework. In response to community requests to provide neighborhood- specific outreach, the project team held five virtual creek-based meetings for community members to learn about issues in their area and to provide input on criteria for prioritizing projects (Table 1). The project team also hosted a sixth session about flood issues citywide, which was conducted in English and Spanish. Approximately 50 community and CWG members attended the six virtual meetings. Staff also met with community members at the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless to discuss stream safety. In addition, Be Heard Boulder provided an opportunity in English and Spanish to vote on criteria related to flood mitigation project prioritization. Community Connectors distributed paper copies of the survey in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. In total, about 90 people participated in the ranking exercise, including 18 Spanish-speaking community members, 55 English-speaking community members, 12 CWG members and 4 Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) members. As COVID-19 restrictions lifted, staff and CWG volunteers elicited additional input on community priorities at the Farmer’s Market. The project team used results from these activities to develop the proposed prioritization framework, as explained in detail in Volume II of the Master Plan. 2021 Date Regional Creek Meetings Oct 20 Fourmile Canyon Creek, Wonderland Creek Oct 21 Goose Creek, Twomile Canyon Creek, Elmer’s Twomile Creek Oct 25 Boulder Creek, Boulder Slough, Sunshine Canyon Creek, Gregory Canyon Creek Oct 28 Citywide Creeks: Spanish meeting option Nov 1 Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek, King’s Gulch Nov 3 South Boulder Creek, Bear Canyon Creek, Viele Channel, Dry Creek No. 2 Ditch Draft Master Plan In this phase, CWG members participated in topic-specific groups to perform detailed analysis and review draft materials on technical topics: ◼Floodplain and Hazards Mapping ◼Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery ◼Outreach, Education and Engagement ◼Watershed Management, Flood Mitigation, Property Acquisition, Floodplain Preservation & Restoration, Flood Insurance and the Community Rating System ◼Stormwater Drainage, Irrigation Ditches and Groundwater ◼Stormwater Quality The project team reviewed and posted CWG members’ comments and the resulting updates to draft documents in a log on the team’s private Be Heard Boulder site. Table 1 | Regional Creek Meetings Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 28 Packet Page 146 of 489 12 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master PlanAttachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 29 Packet Page 147 of 489 13 KEY OUTCOMES & RECOMMENDATIONS Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 30 Packet Page 148 of 489 14 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Inform the Community to Create a Prepared Community Maintain the System We Have Refined outreach and education efforts to reach targeted audiences with a focus on vulnerable populations and non-English speaking community members Defined support needs and public and private maintenance responsibilities for stormwater drainage systems and major drainageways Make Infrastructure Resilient to Climate Change Prepare for the Extremes Developed proactive measures to address climate change through infrastructure resilience Clarified roles and responsibilities for city staff and community members related to flood preparedness, flood warning and emergency response The project team evaluated current Utility programs and activities to develop goals and objectives that reflect future needs of the Utility and community values. As explained in more detail throughout this section, the following key outcomes emerged from the master planning process. Prioritize Projects to Do the Greatest Good, First Provide Services Equitably Created a Project Prioritization Framework to prioritize the order in which major flood mitigation projects should be funded and constructed Incorporated racial equity into policies, current and future outreach and education efforts and provision of services Adequately Fund the Program | Ensure financial resources are available to carry out stormwater and flood management program Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 31 Packet Page 149 of 489 15 PRIORITIZE PROJECTS TO DO THE GREATEST GOOD, FIRST The process of planning, designing and getting approval for a major flood project can take over a decade, with many projects taking 20 years from concept to construction. While this process allows for thorough community engagement and consideration of project options, these long timeframes also pose a risk to moving forward with projects if community or political interests shift. It is therefore critical to prioritize projects in a way that aligns with core community values and minimizes debate over which project should go next. Created during the Master Plan update, the Project Prioritization Framework for major flood projects provides numerous advantages, including: ◼The ability to accommodate multiple stakeholders for enhanced public participation ◼The ability to analyze multiple projects with complex benefits and attributes ◼Showing the impact of specific criteria on the project ranking and whether adjustments to the criteria impact the ranking ◼Providing a robust, defensible tool that allows fair and equitable decision making Based on substantial community input, the project team developed a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool (“Prioritization Framework”) that incorporates numerous project criteria (Figure 1). Including racial equity considerations in project prioritization was one of the primary objectives of this Master Plan update. Common prioritization methods use a “losses avoided” approach to calculate project benefits. This approach frequently results in benefit/cost ratios that favor projects in affluent areas with the highest property values as opposed to where the life safety risk and community needs are the highest. Life Safety Ability to Implement Efficiency & Cost Social Impact, Equity & Fairness Protect Property Cultural Resources Environmental Resources Infrastructure Resilience Protect Critical Facilities Figure 1 | Initial Project Prioritization Criteria Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 32 Packet Page 150 of 489 16 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Criteria Selection and Weighting Through the engagement efforts described in the Master Planning Process section, community members ranked the nine criteria shown in Figure 1. Life safety received the highest ranking, as public health, safety and welfare are fundamental goals of the city. Based on this feedback, the project team created the Project Prioritization Framework to enable sound decision-making around the effectiveness and efficiency, equity and environmental/cultural aspects of each project along with the ability to implement - attributes that are also critical to the success of the Utility and the community. The nine criteria were then combined into seven main criteria with associated sub-criteria to simplify model outputs and limit double counting of criteria. Figure 3 outlines the decision hierarchy used in the tool. City staff will use the Project Prioritization Framework to compare new and existing projects by first assigning a score for each of the project prioritization criteria, using both quantitative and qualitative information. The score for each individual criterion is assigned a weight based on relative importance to the community, and the overall score of a project is the weighted sum of all the criteria. Established weighting factors will not change during the prioritization process to remain objective. However, criteria selection and weighting will be reevaluated as part of the next Master Plan Update. By comparing the total scores for each project, city staff can then prioritize projects based on a consistent set of criteria that directly reflects community values and project benefits. Figure 2 provides an example of applying the Project Prioritization Framework to a set of projects. In this example, Project D received the highest score due largely to its impact on life safety and effectiveness, down to Project E1 that ranked sixth in priority . It’s worth noting that Project A might rank lower than other projects were it not for racial and social equity considerations. Additional information on weighting and the prioritization process is provided in Chapter 10 and Appendix D of Volume II. 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION SCOREPROJECTS Multiple Benefits Life Safety Equity Environmental/Cultural Resources Eectiveness Cost Ability to Implement Project A SCORE: 0.43 Project E2 SCORE: 0.49 Project D SCORE: 0.50 Project E1 SCORE: 0.29 Project C SCORE: 0.32 Project B SCORE: 0.41 Figure 2 | Overall Contribution by Criteria for each Project Key Recommendations: The Project Prioritization Framework is recommended for use to rank projects in the Utility’s 20-year CIP. As major flood projects are identified in the future, they should be ranked using the Project Prioritization Framework to inform the proposed CIP priorities and budget. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 33 Packet Page 151 of 489 17 MAJOR FLOOD PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Ability to Implement Cost Eff ectiveness Environmental / Cultural Resources Equity Life Safety Multiple Benefi ts Constraints Community Support Capital Cost O&M Cost Protect Property Level of Service Protection/Restoration of Environmental Resources Protect Cultural Resources Social Vulnerability Protect Critical Facilities Remove Residential Units from HHZ Road Level of Service Reduce Physical Damage Reduce Economic Loss Protect Existing Natural Features Restore or Reclaim Natural Features Critical Facilities Removed from HHZ Critical Facilities Removed from 500-yr fl oodplain Level 1 | Goal to prioritize major fl ood capital improvements Level 2 | Benefi ts and att ribute categories — Life Safety, Cost, Equity, etc. Level 3 | Sub-categories — Protect Property/Level of Service; Capital/O&M, Social Vulnerability Level 4 | Sub-Subcategories — Reduce Physical Damage, Reduce Economic Loss, etc. FUTURE MAJOR FLOOD CAPITAL PROJECTS Project A Project B Project C Project D Project E-1 Project E-2 Figure 3 | Decision Model Main Criteria and Sub-Criteria Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 34 Packet Page 152 of 489 18 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan MAJOR FLOOD PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Ability to Implement Cost Eff ectiveness Environmental / Cultural Resources Equity Life Safety Multiple Benefi ts Constraints Community Support Capital Cost O&M Cost Protect Property Level of Service Protection/Restoration of Environmental Resources Protect Cultural Resources Social Vulnerability Protect Critical Facilities Remove Residential Units from HHZ Road Level of Service Reduce Physical Damage Reduce Economic Loss Protect Existing Natural Features Restore or Reclaim Natural Features Critical Facilities Removed from HHZ Critical Facilities Removed from 500-yr fl oodplain Level 1 | Goal to prioritize major fl ood capital improvementsLevel 2 | Benefi ts and att ribute categories — Life Safety, Cost, Equity, etc. Level 3 | Sub-categories — Protect Property/Level of Service; Capital/O&M, Social Vulnerability Level 4 | Sub-Subcategories — Reduce Physical Damage, Reduce Economic Loss, etc. FUTURE MAJOR FLOOD CAPITAL PROJECTS Project A Project B Project C Project D Project E-1 Project E-2 Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 35 Packet Page 153 of 489 19 PROVIDE SERVICES, EQUITABLY As described in the Master Planning Process section, the project team made intentional efforts to incorporate the city’s Racial Equity work into the Master Plan process by engaging underrepresented communities and Spanish- speaking community members. The project team also reviewed existing policies, actions, regulations and regulatory enforcement to determine if inequitable impacts were evident (reference Volume II). This analysis and community feedback informed equitable policies, program goals and objectives that became part of the Master Plan and Project Prioritization Framework. EQUITY IN ENGAGEMENT • Translated outreach and engagement materials into Spanish • Attended in-person outreach events in predominantly Spanish-speaking neighborhoods • Held a regional creek meeting in Spanish language with the help of translators • Hand-delivered paper copies of a questionnaire to provide non-digital engagement opportunities • Incorporated community feedback to equitably prioritize projects by addressing systemic and institutional racism Key Recommendations: ◼Prioritize the design and construction of major flood mitigation projects in a way that incorporates racial equity through the use of the Social Vulnerability Index¹ (incorporated into the Project Prioritization Framework described in the previous section) ◼Establish policies and programs that focus on equitable outcomes for minority populations ◼Create emergency preparedness and post- emergency education and outreach resources that are culturally relevant for Spanish-speaking and other non-native English-speaking communities ◼Enhance outreach by maintaining and growing relationships in the Spanish-speaking community and distributing information at in- person events 1 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/fact_sheet/fact_sheet.html Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 36 Packet Page 154 of 489 20 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan MAKE INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENT TO CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is causing widespread disruption in natural systems that threaten the wellbeing of communities. In Colorado, we will continue to see increases in temperatures, heat waves and drought and storm intensity. These changes can lead to an increase in wildfires and change precipitation patterns in ways that pose risks to drinking water supplies and stormwater and flood infrastructure. While the specific magnitude and timing of future rainfall and flood events are not known, a proactive approach is still needed to address future extreme events. Constructing resilient infrastructure that is adaptive to changing conditions should become an integral part of the stormwater and major drainageway systems. To accomplish this, the performance of storm and flood systems will be evaluated over a wider range of possible storm events that are beyond the design capacity. A risk management approach will consider the consequence of flooding and adjust project designs based on the risks to people and property. Whenever possible, overflows beyond system capacity will be intentionally routed to areas that are least harmful to people and property. This approach places increased analysis and informed decision making in areas where the consequences of flooding are high and are commonly associated with critical infrastructure. Key Recommendations: ◼Implement projects expeditiously – Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent and more intense with human-induced climate change. The sooner projects are implemented, the better the community will be protected from frequently occurring storm events. ◼Maximize flood protection and/or storage in major flood mitigation projects – Address uncertainty by designing resilient infrastructure and implementing projects with the highest feasible and practical level of protection to best protect the community. ◼Be a leader in implementing climate science into Utility planning and engineering work – Continue the Utility’s reputation as a leader in planning for and adapting to climate change by closely following agency guidance as climate change science is integrated into flood regulations and Boulder-specific scientific studies performed by the Utility are completed. ◼Maximize natural features such as wetlands into flood mitigation projects – Throughout the master planning process, community input has indicated a continued need to prioritize environmental values. Implementing environmental features into projects to the extent feasible will help the city to restore creek corridors, improve water quality and offset its carbon footprint. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 37 Packet Page 155 of 489 21 Floods can happen anywhere. At any time. WITH LITTLE TO NO WARNING. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 38 Packet Page 156 of 489 22 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan PREPARE FOR THE EXTREMES Flood preparedness, flood warning and emergency response are all critical activities for life safety and property protection. Infrastructure alone cannot eliminate all dangerous flooding conditions. Therefore, the city and community members must prepare to be able to respond quickly when flooding occurs. City and community roles and responsibilities vary according to flood conditions, ranging from a focus on awareness and preparedness under normal conditions to coordinated response and action during life- threatening flash floods. The project team identified detailed roles, responsibilities and resources as part of this Master Plan and recommends incorporating them into plans and activities as described below. Key Recommendations: ◼Review and update existing city emergency response plans to confirm and clarify Utility staff roles and responsibilities. ◼Review and update emergency alert systems, emergency references available to the community and investigate potential upgrades to newer outdoor warning systems. ◼Apply the city’s Racial Equity Plan and Instrument to emergency preparedness and response plans and include specific strategies for reaching non-English speakers. ◼Clarify and communicate the roles and responsibilities of community members, such as buying flood insurance, developing personal emergency response plans and evacuation routes, signing up for emergency alerts, ensuring contact information is up to date and taking floodproofing precautions. AN INFORMED COMMUNITY IS A PREPARED COMMUNITY In the preparedness phase of flooding, the Utility engages in extensive public outreach and education efforts to educate the community about flood risks. However, demographics change and the need is ongoing, particularly considering the significant number of renters and short-term community members (e.g. college students). The Be Heard Boulder survey launched at the beginning of the Master Plan update process identified the following questions and interests about flooding: WHO IS AT RISK?HOW BIG IS THE RISK? PREPARATION IS KEY A DESIRE FOR EARLIER FLOOD WARNING Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 39 Packet Page 157 of 489 23 ◼Annually update a flood communications plan and schedule to include lessons learned during the COVID pandemic, including effective distribution methods, guidance and guidelines on hosting in person versus virtual events, evaluation methods and associated costs. ◼Periodically review and update city resources available to the community. ◼Identify evaluation metrics to better gage the impact of communications methods, resources and programs to reach target audiences, with an emphasis on community members that will mostlikely require additional support before, during and after a flood. ◼Develop a concrete approach for how the city and response agencies will reach non-English speaking residents with education and outreach materials, and especially when ordering evacuations. ◼Identify communication channels, stakeholders and partners that can help tailor and disseminate messaging. The CFS Community Working Group echoed these themes by noting the importance of focusing on equity and in reaching traditionally hard-to-reach populations. The Utility will use the city’s Racial Equity Instrument to inform outreach efforts and will continue to investigate effective and creative outreach strategies. Additionally, the city will evaluate the efficacy of current outreach and education efforts to continuously adapt and improve methods. Key Recommendations: TARGETED OUTREACH One of the most important aspects of the city’s education and outreach program is to connect with community members that will most likely require additional support before, during and after a flood with tools and resources for flood preparedness. Traditional outreach strategies and media can miss these populations. The city will develop and implement effective strategies such as in-person community meetings and include tools to remove language barriers, which is particularly important for the Spanish- speaking community. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 40 Packet Page 158 of 489 24 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM WE HAVE The community consistently voiced a desire to increase and enhance flood and storm maintenance activities throughout the public engagement process. City staff have also recognized the need for increased maintenance and have been actively investigating ways to address these needs. However, flood and storm maintenance can sometimes conflict with community expectations. Routine maintenance includes the removal of trees, vegetation and sediment, which can temporarily alter the look of surrounding neighborhoods. Engagement and outreach efforts will include information on what to expect during maintenance activities for both the community and decision-makers to minimize conflict. Boulder’s Utilities Maintenance work group is responsible for the maintenance of approximately 37 miles of open drainage channels and major drainageways and 160 miles of storm sewers in conjunction with regional partners like the MHFD. In addition to pipes and drainage channels, maintenance also includes structures, floodways, greenways and private irrigation ditch maintenance obligations. Since the 2004 Master Plan, significant advances have been made to increase maintenance frequency, efficiency and response to customer complaints. However, current Flood and Greenways staffing levels only allow for partial maintenance of open channels and do not support completion of system-wide maintenance on a recurring basis with any regularity. While not specifically governed by policies within the Utility, support for the required resources to perform these maintenance functions is essential to achieving maintenance goals. Key Recommendations: ◼Define public and private maintenance responsibilities for stormwater drainage systems, major drainageways and roadside ditches and culverts to ensure both Maintenance staff and community members understand and are maintaining their portions of the system. ◼Support staffing levels that provide for maintaining the 37 miles of open drainage channels and major drainageways, as well as adjacent greenways, on a regular recurrence interval. ◼Be supportive of maintenance and capital improvement actions related to the city’s stormwater and flood infrastructure. ◼Continue to improve maintenance response, frequency and efficiency through data collection and further implementation of the Utility’s asset management system. ◼Clarify under what circumstances the city may conduct emergency maintenance operations in a policy. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 41 Packet Page 159 of 489 25 IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 42 Packet Page 160 of 489 26 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Turning the policy items identified in this Master Plan into a concise roadmap, including a prioritized 20-year CIP, is the next phase of the project. 20-YEAR FLOOD AND STORMWATER CIP Following the Project Prioritization Framework described in Key Outcomes & Recommendations, city staff will prioritize remaining projects identified in flood mitigation plans². This includes approximately $350 million in about 30 projects, depending upon how and whether projects are bundled (see Table 2 below). Projects currently in design and construction will be scored using the Project Prioritization Framework for transparency but will progress as planned, as they have already incurred significant expense and are nearing project completion. Applying the Project Prioritization Framework to the project list in Table 2 will inform the CIP major flood project list presented as part of the annual budget process beginning with the 2024 budget cycle. To use the Project Prioritization Framework, staff will gather detailed data for each of the prioritization criteria to assess the relative benefit of each project. Of the seven criteria, 70% have quantitative metrics, while two (Multiple Benefits and Ability to Implement) are qualitative and more subjective. As described in Key Outcomes & Recommendations, the final seven prioritization criteria informed by the community voting exercise are: 1. Life Safety 2. Effectiveness (protect property and infrastructure resilience) 3. Social Impact, Equity & Fairness 4. Environmental and Cultural Resources 5. Cost 6. Ability to Implement 7. Multiple Benefits See Chapter 10 in Volume II for further discussion on how these criteria were incorporated into the Project Prioritization Framework. MAJOR FLOOD PROJECT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The process for review and approval of individual projects is identified in the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and budget approval process. Currently, various processes may be required for a specific project. For example: Concept Plan and Site Review: Concept Plans and Site Plans are reviewed by the interdepartmental staff Development Review Committee, departmental Advisory Boards, Planning Board and City Council (call-up option). Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP): The CEAP provides a framework for balanced and thoughtful consideration of environmental and social issues in the preliminary planning and design of capital projects. It also provides a forum for public discussion of broad level project issues relative to master plans and overall community goals. It is a tool to aid in the development and refinement of project design and impact mitigation options. Project-Specific Community Process and Design: Many projects are not required to go through concept and site review and would not benefit from a CEAP process. These typically have a project-specific design and public process to efficiently and appropriately identify community needs, concerns and preferences. Many projects have been assessed through facility studies, area or facility planning processes, mitigation plans or other studies. The processes are collaborative with multiple city and/or county departments. 2Mitigation plans for Upper Goose/Twomile and Skunk/Bluebell/Kings are at 90 percent complete as of spring 2022. Final approval of these plans will allow for proposed projects to be included in this prioritization effort. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 43 Packet Page 161 of 489 27 Table 2 | Boulder’s Major Flood and Stormwater Projects to Be Prioritized for 20-year CIP Major Drainageway Proposed Project Flood Mitigation Plan Bear Creek Culvert Improvements Channel Improvements Bear Canyon Creek (2016) Bluebell Canyon Creek Bluebell-01 Bluebell-02 Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek and King's Gulch Flood Mitigation Plan (DRAFT 2020) Boulder Creek Mitigation Plan not Completed Boulder Slough Mitigation Plan not Completed Dry Creek Mitigation Plan not Completed Elmer’s Two Mile Creek Completed Mitigation Plan Completed Fourmile Canyon Creek Fourmile @ Broadway Fourmile @ 19th Street Safer Schools Access Fourmile Upstream of 26th Fourmile Broadway to 19th Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek Major Drainageway Planning (2017) Goose Creek Goose-01 Goose-02 Goose-03 Goose-04 Goose-05 Goose-06 Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek (DRAFT 2020 – subject to change/pending approval) Gregory Canyon Creek Arapahoe to Pennsylvania* Upstream of Pennsylvania Gregory Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan (2015) King's Gulch King's-03 King's-04 Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek and King's Gulch Flood Mitigation Plan (DRAFT 2020 – subject to change/ pending approval) *Note: Projects currently in the design and construction phase of the project lifecycle will be shown in the context of the prioritization framework among all the other prioritized projects for transparency but will prog- ress as currently planned without delay as they have been in progress for some time and are nearing the end of the project cycle. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 44 Packet Page 162 of 489 28 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Major Drainageway Proposed Project Flood Mitigation Plan Skunk Creek Skunk-05 Skunk-06 Skunk-07 Skunk-08 Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek and King's Gulch Flood Mitigation Plan (DRAFT 2020) South Boulder Creek/Dry Creek Ditch No. 2/Viele Channel SBC Phase 1* SBC Phase 2 SBC Phase 3 South Boulder Creek Major Drainage Plan (2015) Sunshine Canyon Creek Mitigation Plan not Completed Twomile Canyon Creek Twomile-01 Twomile-02 Twomile-03 Twomile-04 Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek (DRAFT 2020) Wonderland Creek Foothills to Valmont 26th to 28th Street 19th Street Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek Major Drainageway Planning (2017) Stormwater Local Drainage Improvements Tier I Local Drainage System CIP Projects Stormwater Master Plan (2017) Stormwater Collector System Improvements Collector Storm Sewer System Tier 1 Hydraulic and Combined Hydraulic/Water Quality CIP Projects Stormwater Master Plan (2017) Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 45 Packet Page 163 of 489 29 The city will use the annual budgeting process in conjunction with the Project Prioritization Framework to implement project work. Storm and flood projects frequently require a longer timeframe to plan and construct than the city’s typical 6-year CIP timeframe, due largely to land owner negotiations, regulatory and stakeholder engagement processes. The Project Prioritization Framework will allow staff to create a 20-year Flood and Stormwater CIP and will serve as a defensible methodology for project selection as changes occur during long project cycles. The 20-year CIP will also communicate to staff and the community the location and schedule for near-term projects. Longer-term projects will be rank-ordered for future action. Achieving the Action or Vision Level of Funding Master plans within the city lay out strategic objectives that will be pursued at differing levels based upon the amount of additional investment appropriated by City Council through the annual budget process. The levels of funding for most city projects fall into three scenarios: Fiscally Constrained, Action or Vision. FUNDING SCENARIO DESCRIPTION Fiscally Constrained This funding level provides approximately $5M in capital funds and reflects what is needed to maintain basic Utility services over the short term. This includes minimal rate increases (that keep up with the Consumer Price Index). Minor investment is made in capital improvement projects and maintenance and operations would be a priority. The city had generally maintained this funding level prior to 2015. Under this funding scenario the CIP might take 75 or more years to complete. Action This funding level assumes an average of $7M annually in 2022 dollars, and accoutns for annual fluctuations and associated rate increases. Some cap- ital improvements are debt-financed so debt service is included in utility rates. In addition, this funding level includes six Engineering/Project Man- agers as currently approved in the 2022 Budget Book. Under this funding scenario it may take more than 50 years to complete the CIP. This is where the city funding has been since 2015. Vision This funding level provides approximately $11M in annual capital funds and augments resources with additional engineers, project managers and/or consultants and capital available to complete one to two major flood proj- ects per year. This level of funding supports an acceleration of the storm- water and major flood Capital Improvement Program and Utility mainte- nance so that the CIP can be completed within 30 to 35 years. These funds would be realized through a combination of continued rate increases to fund bond issuances; higher than estimated Plant Investment Fees; one- time federal grants; and higher interest on investments. This level requires sustained larger rate increases and additional staffing and resources to implement the projects. As reflected in the table above, the Utility has historically been operating under the Fiscally Constrained scenario. After 2015, the city increased rates by percentages in the double digits and has moved into the Action scenario and is just now starting to realize the outcomes of these rate increases and issuing of bonds. Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 46 Packet Page 164 of 489 30 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Community feedback throughout the Master Plan update consistently expressed the desire to accelerate the pace of project completion. To do so, the city would need to adopt the Vision funding scenario for the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. Implementing the Vision scenario would require: 1. Staff - Funding and filling project management and project engineering staff positions and/or provide increased consultant support. 2. Funds - Continued community and City Council support for funding projects via sustained rate increases and ability to bond major projects. 3. Support - Community support for major projects, recognizing that they benefit everyone in the city and understanding that there will be traffic, noise and aesthetic disruptions due to major project construction, sometimes within multiple drainageways simultaneously. As shown in Figure 4, monthly service charge fees are the primary source of funding for the Utility. Current funding is adequate to carry out the Action scenario and program as approved by City Council (2022 Budget Book). To achieve the Vision scenario for capital improvement, the Utility will need to increase customer rates and continue to issue bonds. With service fees providing over 90 percent of the Utility’s revenue, these remain the most stable and robust revenue source of funding. This plan recommends that any rate and service fee increases happen gradually on an annual basis (ramping) versus over a longer time interval (stepping). Bonding to fund major capital infrastructure allows the Utility to expedite project completion, while spreading out the associated cost to ratepayers over time. The city should also seek to maximize other sources of funding, such as cooperative cost sharing, and federal and state grants and loans. These sources include new grants that may be available through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. While these funding sources will benefit the community by offsetting rate increases, they will not by themselves expedite project completion. Maintaining adequate staff, combined with consultant resources, is necessary to manage projects and ensure funds are spent appropriately. Service Charge Fees 93% MHFD 4%Interest on Investments 1%PIF 2% Figure 4 | Sources of Funds Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 47 Packet Page 165 of 489 31 ANNUAL WORK PLANNING PROCESS In 2022 the city enhanced efforts to standardize and coordinate work planning efforts across departments. These enhancements will improve the city’s ability to identify opportunities to leverage and coordinate with other city work efforts. For example, aligning the timing of Transportation and underground Utility projects can decrease the number of times roads and other areas are disturbed. Equity in Decision Making To integrate equity into the decision-making process, projects will be prioritized for construction based on equity as an important criterion (see Project Prioritization Framework, above). In addition, the citywide Racial Equity Instrument will be used as one of the Utility’s decision-making tools. Developed as part of the city’s Racial Equity Plan, the Racial Equity Instrument actively inserts racial equity into decision making processes with a particular emphasis on public engagement. While the instrument can be helpful when used at any decision-making phase, it has the most impact when used at the forefront of planning for a project alternative analysis. Using best practices from the Racial Equity Instrument, the Utility will facilitate public engagement processes that include those in the Boulder community who have been historically left out or have not participated in planning processes. MEASURING SUCCESS The Utility should regularly measure progress toward completing objectives identified in the 2022 Master Plan. The Utility has well-defined processes to plan and implement projects, but through this master planning process, staff realized that they can develop a framework that provides specific, measurable, achievable and relevant metrics to determine if activities are attaining the desired goals and benefits. This update to the CFS Master Plan includes an initial evaluation framework, as outlined below, to assess current programs with the intent that the goals, objectives and associated metrics will be refined to reflect the forward-looking needs of the Utility and public sentiment. Progress toward completion of Master Plan goals and objectives will be measured through a combination of approaches, including CIP project completion and asset management software. Metrics to track progress toward achieving identified goals and objectives will be developed as part of annual work planning, and highlights will be reported annually to WRAB. Equity Metrics The city’s Racial Equity Plan identifies goals and strategies to achieve impactful outcomes that advance racial equity. Utility staff will further define metrics to measure progress toward outcomes identified in the Racial Equity Plan, including: ◼Racial equity instrument is used to establish organizational priorities, during decision making on projects and as part of all Master and Strategic planning processes ◼Improved use of data and analysis tools to identify racial equity trends ◼Impacted community members are engaged and provide input ◼Routine evaluation, modification and addition of policies to reinforce and build racial equity at all levels ◼Foster participation of historically excluded community members by designing new, inclusive engagement opportunities ◼Ongoing language access needs are addressed in communication and engagement processes ◼Projects and Utility funding are increased in areas that address racial equity ◼Number of people of color, including women of color, are increased in leadership positions within the Utility Resilience and Climate Change Desired outcomes and metrics will be further defined and may include: ◼Reduce the Utility’s greenhouse gas emissions ◼Prevent development in hazard-prone areas PUTTING THE PLAN INTO ACTION Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 48 Packet Page 166 of 489 32 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master PlanAttachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 49 Packet Page 167 of 489 33 ◼Reduce design, construction and maintenance costs as well as the cost of climate-related disasters ◼Increase ability to recover quickly from storm events ◼Implement adaptive management plans for the maintenance of natural systems, such as greenways and vegetated SCMs ◼Increase in the number of projects constructed to further the resilience of our major drainageways The Utility will continue to monitor updates to national codes and standards that provide for resilient infrastructure design and incorporate as appropriate. The Utility will assess innovations and design ideas as they arise. One example is to investigate the use of either “low-carbon” or “carbon-storing” concrete and measure the reduction in GHGs (see text box). Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 50 Packet Page 168 of 489 34 Comprehensive Flood And Stormwater Master Plan Public works projects use a significant amount of concrete. Production of concrete’s key ingredient, Portland cement, generates 7% of the world’s heat trapping carbon dioxide. “Low-carbon concrete” uses alternatives to Portland cement (such as slag, ground waste glass or new innovations such as injected carbon dioxide, creating a mix that’s strong and durable, while reducing carbon emissions). “Carbon-storing concrete” incorporates limestone aggregates and fillers made using carbon dioxide or creating new, biomineralized concrete alternatives that do not contain Portland cement so that the concrete becomes a net-carbon sink. Dr. Wil Srubar, CU Boulder Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 51 Packet Page 169 of 489 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan bouldercolorado.gov Attachment A - CSF Master Plan Vol I Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 52 Packet Page 170 of 489 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan VOLUME II - Technical Plan | July 2022 In association with: Tetra Tech Water Resource Associates Wright Water Engineers Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 53 Packet Page 171 of 489 PURPOSE STATEMENT: The purpose of this Master Plan is to improve the management of stormwater to help protect people, places, property, and ecosystems in the City of Boulder in a way that builds resilience and is consistent with community values. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 54 Packet Page 172 of 489 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Volume II Outline ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10 2 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (2015) .............................................................................................................................13 Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................................................13 Boulder Revised Code (1981) ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Design and Construction Standards (2019) ............................................................................................................................ 18 Flood Management ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018) .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration Plans .................................................................................................................. 19 Mile High Flood District .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Stormwater Management ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Stormwater Master Plan (2016) .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Stormwater Quality ........................................................................................................................................................................ 23 MS4 Permit [COR090000] (2016) ................................................................................................................................................. 23 E. Coli TMDL Implementation Plan (2019) ............................................................................................................................... 24 Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan (2019) ............................................................................................................................. 24 Keep It Clean Partnership Annual Water Quality Report (2018) .................................................................................... 25 Water Quality Strategic Plan (2009) ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Other Plans ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Greenways Master Plan (2011) ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 Resilience Strategy (2016) .............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Transportation Master Plan (2019) ............................................................................................................................................. 27 Climate, Ecosystems and Community (2018) ........................................................................................................................ 27 Racial Equity Plan (2021) ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Trends ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Flood Management .......................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Stormwater Management.............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Stormwater Quality........................................................................................................................................................................... 30 3 Stormwater Quality .......................................................................................................................... 33 Policy Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Policy and Program Goals .............................................................................................................................................................. 34 1. Reduce pollutant loading to streams. .......................................................................................................................... 35 2. Maintain and Enhance Urban Waterbodies (Streams, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands) ........................... 38 3. Monitor and Evaluate Urban Surface Water Quality ............................................................................................. 39 4. Adaptively Manage Stormwater Quality Program .................................................................................................. 40 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 42 References ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 55 Packet Page 173 of 489 - ii - 4 Stormwater Drainage ....................................................................................................................... 45 Policy Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Policy and Program Goals .............................................................................................................................................................. 47 Stormwater Collection System ........................................................................................................................................... 47 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................................................................................. 48 Level of Service Standards ............................................................................................................................................................ 48 Stormwater Master Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Climate Change and Resilience .................................................................................................................................................. 50 Operation and Maintenance .........................................................................................................................................................51 Customer Input from Inquire Boulder .......................................................................................................................................51 Continuous Improvement ............................................................................................................................................................. 52 Staggering and Sequencing Project Work .............................................................................................................................. 53 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 54 Stormwater Drainage System ...................................................................................................................................................... 54 Stormwater Master Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 55 Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................................................................................................ 55 References ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 57 5 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................... 59 Policy Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Policy and Program Goals .............................................................................................................................................................. 60 Regulating Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Alternatives to Regulations ........................................................................................................................................................... 62 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 63 6 Floodplain and Hazard Mapping .................................................................................................... 65 Policy Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Policy and Program Goals .............................................................................................................................................................. 66 Hydraulic Modeling ........................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................................................. 67 Mapping Update Frequency ......................................................................................................................................................... 67 Regulatory Mapping ......................................................................................................................................................................... 67 Hazard Mapping ................................................................................................................................................................................. 70 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 71 References ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 73 7 Modifications to Regulations ......................................................................................................... 75 Regulatory Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................. 76 Boulder Revised Code, 1981 .......................................................................................................................................................... 76 Floodplain Regulations ........................................................................................................................................................... 77 Drainage Ditches and Drainage Ponds ............................................................................................................................ 79 Design and Construction Standards ......................................................................................................................................... 79 Modifications to the DCS ...................................................................................................................................................... 80 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 56 Packet Page 174 of 489 - iii - As-Built Drawings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Stormwater Design Standards ............................................................................................................................................ 80 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 82 Boulder Revised Code, 1981 .................................................................................................................................................. 82 Design and Construction Standards ................................................................................................................................ 82 8 Flood Mitigation, Property Acquisition, and Watershed Management ................................ 83 Policy Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Policy and Program Goals .............................................................................................................................................................. 84 Flood Management .......................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Boulder’s History of Floodplain Management ............................................................................................................... 87 Property Acquisition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 88 Flood Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 89 Climate Change and Infrastructure Resilience ............................................................................................................ 90 Maintenance of Major Drainageways ....................................................................................................................................... 91 Watershed Management ................................................................................................................................................................ 92 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 93 Flood Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 93 Property Acquisition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 93 Watershed Management ................................................................................................................................................................ 94 References ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 9 Flood Preparedness, Warning, Response, and Recovery ......................................................... 97 Roles, Responsibilities and Resources ................................................................................................................................... 98 Public Outreach and Education ................................................................................................................................................ 103 Flood Insurance and the Community Rating System ...................................................................................................... 104 Emergency Warning Dissemination ........................................................................................................................................ 105 Everbridge .................................................................................................................................................................................. 107 Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) .................................................................................................................................... 107 Outdoor Warning Sirens ....................................................................................................................................................... 107 Flood Response Operations ....................................................................................................................................................... 108 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 110 References ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 10 Project Prioritization Framework ................................................................................................. 112 Major Flood & Stormwater Projects ― The CIP ................................................................................................................... 113 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 115 Project Prioritization Framework ............................................................................................................................................ 116 Criteria Selection and Weighting ............................................................................................................................................... 118 Cost ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Capital Cost ............................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Cost ....................................................................................................................... 120 Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Property Protection ................................................................................................................................................................. 121 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 57 Packet Page 175 of 489 - iv - Level of Service ........................................................................................................................................................................ 122 Environmental & Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 122 Environmental Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 122 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................................. 123 Social Impact, Equity and Fairness .......................................................................................................................................... 125 Social Vulnerability ................................................................................................................................................................. 125 Ability to Implement ....................................................................................................................................................................... 126 Project Constraints ................................................................................................................................................................ 127 Community Acceptance & Support ................................................................................................................................ 127 Life Safety ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 Protect Critical Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 127 Removal of Residential Units from the High Hazard Zone (HHZ) ....................................................................... 128 Road Level of Service ............................................................................................................................................................ 128 Multiple Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. 129 MCDA Tool ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 132 References ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 139 11 Financial Considerations ............................................................................................................... 140 Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................................................... 141 Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................................................................. 142 Monthly User Fees .................................................................................................................................................................. 142 Plant Investment Fees .......................................................................................................................................................... 142 Bonds ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 143 Other Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 143 Rate Comparisons & Methodologies ...................................................................................................................................... 143 Budget .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 146 Funding Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................... 149 Financial Implications and Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................... 149 Project-Level Funding Scenarios .............................................................................................................................................. 149 Fund Balance and Reserves ............................................................................................................................................... 150 Staffing Resources ................................................................................................................................................................. 150 Financial Policy Issues ................................................................................................................................................................... 151 Policy Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 152 Future Funding Methods and Mechanisms ......................................................................................................................... 152 Grants and Loans .................................................................................................................................................................... 152 Rate Methodologies ....................................................................................................................................................................... 153 Annual Service Charge Rate Adjustment / Biannual Update Analysis ..................................................................... 153 Debt Versus Expensed Funding for Major Capital Infrastructure ............................................................................... 154 Incorporating Sustainability and Resilience as Financial Considerations .............................................................. 154 Refinement of the Future Program Budgets through Cost of Service Analyses .................................................. 154 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 156 20-year CIP Development ............................................................................................................................................................ 156 Future Funding Methods and Mechanisms ......................................................................................................................... 156 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 58 Packet Page 176 of 489 - v - Rate Methodologies ....................................................................................................................................................................... 156 Annual Service Charge Rate Adjustment / Biannual Update Analysis ..................................................................... 156 Debt Versus Expensed Funding for Major Capital Infrastructure ............................................................................... 156 Incorporating Sustainability and Resilience as Financial Considerations .............................................................. 157 Refinement of the Future Program Budgets through Cost of Service Analyses .................................................. 157 References ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 158 12 Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................... 159 LIST OF TABLES Table 9-1 – Flood Preparation and Response Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................... 100 Table 9-2 – Emergency Alert Systems ............................................................................................................................................ 105 Table 10-1 – Boulder’s Major Flood and Stormwater CIP to be Prioritized .......................................................................... 113 Table 10-2 – Ranking Criteria by Attribute and Input Metrics to Decision Model ............................................................ 118 Table 10-3 – Criteria Scoring (Dotstorming and Model Inputs to Decision Model) ........................................................ 130 Table 10-4 – Scoring – revised MCDA Tool vs straight Benefit/Cost ratio ......................................................................... 134 Table 11-1 – Stormwater and Flood Utility Recent and Proposed Rate Increases ........................................................... 145 Table 11-2 – Flood and Stormwater Utility Actual and Projected Expenditures ................................................................ 147 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 – 2015 to 2019 Stormwater Drainage Complaints from Inquire Boulder ........................................................... 52 Figure 4.2 – Example Project Staggering and Sequencing ........................................................................................................ 53 Figure 10.1 – Major Flood Project Planning and Development ............................................................................................... 113 Figure 10.2 – Initial Project Prioritization Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 116 Figure 10.3 – Project Prioritization Criteria Voting using the Dotstorming Tool ............................................................... 117 Figure 10.4 – Voting results from stakeholder engagement meetings (n = 89, total votes = 1240) ............................. 118 Figure 10.5 – Example MCDA Tool outcome showing criteria contribution by project .................................................. 132 Figure 10.6 – Decision Model Main Criteria and Sub criteria .................................................................................................. 133 Figure 10.7 – Example ranking using BCR as primary criteria for project prioritization ................................................. 134 Figure 10.8 – Life Safety criteria scoring by project ................................................................................................................... 135 Figure 10.9 – Equity criteria scoring by project ........................................................................................................................... 135 Figure 10.10 – Effectiveness criteria scoring by project ........................................................................................................... 136 Figure 10.11 – Equity criteria scoring by project .......................................................................................................................... 136 Figure 10.12 – Ability to Implement criteria scoring by project ............................................................................................... 137 Figure 10.13 – Overall Contribution by Criteria for each Project ............................................................................................ 137 Figure 11.1 – Monthly Average 2021 Stormwater Rates ............................................................................................................. 141 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 59 Packet Page 177 of 489 - vi - Figure 11.2 – Sources of Funds .......................................................................................................................................................... 143 Figure 11.3 – Annual Average Rate Comparison (2003 to 2021) ............................................................................................. 144 Figure 11.4 – Historic Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Rate Increases by Year .......................................... 145 Figure 11.5 – Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Projected Overall Expense Categories ............................ 146 Figure 11.6 – Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Operating Expenses (2020-2027) ....................................... 146 Figure 11.7 – Summary of Projected Capital Expenditures (2022-2027) .............................................................................. 148 Figure 11.8 – Full-time Funded Positions (39 Total) by Work Group ...................................................................................... 151 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Policy and Program Evaluation APPENDIX B: Further Discussion of 1-D versus 2-D Modeling Approaches APPENDIX C: Community Working Group Findings Report APPENDIX D: July 18, 2022, WRAB Presentation Clarification of Project Prioritization Framework Example Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 60 Packet Page 178 of 489 - vii - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 61 Packet Page 179 of 489 - viii - Master Plan Update Key Tasks: This Master Plan provides a framework for implementing various programs and projects in the Stormwater & Flood Management Utility. Key tasks for the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan are:  Review policies  Develop program and process recommendations  Provide a framework for evaluating priorities and projects Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 62 Packet Page 180 of 489 - 9 - 1 Introduction The Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan (CFS Master Plan or “Master Plan”) is an update to the previous document (October 2004) and provides a framework for implementing various programs and projects in the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility (Utility). It is intended to be a policy document focused on improving the management of stormwater to help protect people, places, property, and ecosystems in the City of Boulder (city) in a way that builds resilience and is consistent with community values. This Master Plan was informed by community input, lessons learned from the 2013 flood, Boulder’s Racial Equity Plan, and the increasing evidence of climate change, among other considerations. The Master Plan outlines both a long-term vision for how to complete major projects and recommends guidelines and standards needed to carry out day-to-day operations of the Utility. Key tasks for this CFS Master Plan include a) review existing policies, b) develop program and process recommendations, and c) provide a framework for evaluating priorities and projects. The second volume of this Master Plan covers the technical detail on background, policy and regulations, issues, system management, and recommendations. Volume II provides the framework necessary for future execution of programs and projects. It is prepared more for an audience having or desiring detailed institutional knowledge of the flood and stormwater system. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 63 Packet Page 181 of 489 - 10 - Volume II Outline Chapter 2 summarizes background information concerning the city’s Stormwater and Flood Management Utility and related programs and policies. Review includes documents related to the city’s floodplain regulations, the Community Rating System, floodplain mapping, mitigation planning, property acquisition, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), stormwater quality, stormwater drainage system, flood recovery, and flood warning and response. Documents reviewed as part of this process are shown to the right. Chapters 3 through 9 discuss the improvement actions and programmatic requirements of the Utility as they relate to policy and operations. Topics also include areas where the Utility may not be directly responsible for implementation, but often plays a supporting role. This includes modifications to city regulations and emergency warning, response, and recovery efforts. Chapter 10 details the development of a Project Prioritization Framework and decision-making tool that will support the city in methodically prioritizing pending flood mitigation projects in alignment with community values. The framework specifically incorporates racial and social equity as a consideration, which will function to repair systemic and institutional racial inequities. Chapter 11 includes a discussion of financial considerations for the Utility including a funding and policy analysis. Funding scenarios are described to determine the resources needed to accelerate flood mitigation projects, including associated funding, staffing needs, and the community and political will to proceed with project implementation. Policies, Regulations and Plans Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Boulder Charter and Revised Code Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (MHFD) MS4 Permit (State of Colorado) National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA) Design and Construction Standards Stormwater Master Plan Greenways Master Plan Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Resilience Strategy Transportation Master Plan E. coli TMDL Implementation Plan Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan Keep It Clean Partnership Annual Water Quality Reports Water Quality Strategic Plan Bear Canyon Creek Mitigation Study Boulder Creek Restoration Master Plan Fourmile/Wonderland Mitigation Plan Gregory Canyon Creek Mitigation Plan South Boulder Creek Mitigation Plan Climate, Ecosystems and Community Racial Equity Plan Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 64 Packet Page 182 of 489 - 11 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 65 Packet Page 183 of 489 - 12 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 66 Packet Page 184 of 489 - 13 - 2 Background The city’s overarching approach to flood and stormwater management is established in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The plan is adopted by City Council, Planning Board, the Boulder County Commissioners, and the Boulder County Planning Commission. The BVCP is used by the City of Boulder and Boulder County to guide long-range planning, and to review development proposals and other activities that shape the built and natural environments in the Boulder Valley. The BVCP informs updates to the Boulder Revised Code (1981) and to master plans such as this Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan. City ordinances and master plans in turn inform implementation of regulations, projects, and programs. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (2015) Policies included in the BVCP guide decisions about growth, development, preservation, and environmental protection, and inform decisions about the manner in which urban services are provided, including stormwater utilities and flood control, as presented in the 2021 update. Policy 1.28 of the BVCP states that the city will consider the importance of the other objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in the planning and operation of the water, wastewater, stormwater, and flood management utilities. These other objectives include resilience, in-stream flow maintenance, floodplain preservation and flood management, enhancement of recreational opportunities, water quality management, preservation of natural ecosystems, open space and irrigated agricultural land, and implementation of desired timing and location of growth patterns. Guiding Principles The BVCP references the following guiding principles for managing the Utility: Floodplain Management The BVCP states that the city will manage the potential for floods by implementing the guiding principles: 1) Preserve floodplains 2) Preparation for floods 3) Help people protect themselves from flood hazards 4) Prevent unwise uses and adverse impacts in the floodplain 5) Seek to accommodate floods, not control them In addition, the city will prepare for, respond to, and manage flood recovery by implementing multi-hazard mitigation programs and projects, preparing flood response and recovery plans, and regulating the siting and protection of critical facilities in floodplains. The city seeks to manage flood recovery by protecting critical Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 67 Packet Page 185 of 489 - 14 - facilities in the 500-year floodplain and implementing multi-hazard mitigation and flood response and recovery plans. Stormwater Quality 1) Preserve our streams 2) Prevent adverse impacts from stormwater 3) Protect and enhance stream corridors Stormwater Drainage 1) Maintain and preserve existing and natural drainage systems 2) Reduce and manage developed runoff 3) Eliminate drainage problems and nuisances The following policies from the BVCP are applicable to the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility: Policy Summary Policy 2.23 Boulder Creek, Tributaries & Ditches as Important Urban Design Features Boulder Creek, its tributaries and irrigation ditches will serve as unifying urban design features for the community with multiple co-benefits for a resilient community. The city and county will support the preservation or reclamation of the creek corridors to provide flood management and improve water quality. The city and county will support agriculture by recognizing and accommodating irrigation ditch maintenance practices and operations. Policy 3.01 Incorporating Ecological Systems into Planning The city and county will approach planning and policy decisions in the Boulder Valley through an ecosystem framework in which natural regions like bioregions, airsheds and watersheds are considered into planning. Policy 3.05 Maintain & Restore Natural Ecological Processes & Natural Disturbances Recognizing that natural ecological processes, such as wildfire and flooding, are integral to the productivity and health of natural ecosystems, the city will work to maintain or replicate natural processes ensuring that appropriate precautions have been taken for human safety and welfare. Policy 3.06 Wetland & Riparian Protection Because wetlands and riparian areas are so scarce in the Front Range and are continually degrading, the city and county will develop programs to protect, enhance, and educate the public about the value of these features. The city will strive for no net loss and management of these areas. Policy 3.10 Climate Change Mitigation & Adaption & Resilience The city and county are working to help mitigate climate change and recognize that climate change adaptation is an important area for consideration. This includes specific management guidance and direction regarding climate change mitigation, adaptation, and resilience when city and county agencies prepare master plans. Policy 3.21 Preservation of Floodplains Undeveloped floodplains will be preserved or restored where possible through public land acquisition of high hazard properties, private land dedication and multiple program coordination. Comprehensive planning and management of floodplain lands will promote the preservation of natural and beneficial functions of floodplains whenever possible. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 68 Packet Page 186 of 489 - 15 - Policy Summary Policy 3.22 Floodplain Management The city and county will protect the public and property from the impacts of flooding in a timely and cost-effective manner while balancing community interests with public safety needs. The city and county will continue to monitor the effects of climate change on floodplain delineation and management and amend regulation and management practices as needed. The city and county will prepare for, respond to and manage flood recovery by implementing multi-hazard mitigation programs and projects, prepare flood response and recovery plans, and regulate the siting and protection of critical facilities within the 500-year floodplain. Policy 3.23 Non-Structural Approach to Flood Management Non-structural approaches should be applied to drainageway improvements whenever possible to preserve the natural values of local waterways while balancing private property interests and associated costs to the city. Policy 3.24 Protection of High Hazard Areas High hazard areas within the floodplain contain the greatest risk to loss of life due to floodwater velocity. The city will prevent redevelopment of significantly flood- damaged properties in high hazard areas. The city will prepare a plan for property acquisition and other forms of mitigation for flood-damaged and undeveloped land in high hazard areas. Policy 3.25 Larger Flooding Events The city and county will seek to better understand the impact of larger flood events beyond the 100-year event and evaluate context-appropriate, cost-effective policies and floodplain management strategies to address these risks. Policy 3.26 Protection of Water Quality The city and county will continue to reduce point and nonpoint sources of pollutants, protect and restore natural water systems and conserve water resources. Special emphasis will be placed on regional efforts, such as watershed planning, and priority will be placed on pollution prevention over treatment. Policy 3.29 In-Stream Flow Program The city will pursue expansion of the existing in-stream flow program consistent with applicable law and manage stream flows to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems within the Boulder Creek watershed. Policy 3.30 Surface & Groundwater Surface and groundwater are part of an integrated environmental system that will be protected as a resource and managed to prevent their degradation and to protect and enhance aquatic, wetland and riparian ecosystems. Land use, development, and public land management practices will consider potential impacts to these resources from pollutant sources, changes in hydrology, drilling, mining, and dewatering activities. The city will consider additional regulation of activities impacting groundwater that may create nuisances to other properties. Additional policies that are indirectly related to the operations of the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility include:  Policy 1.01 Regional & Statewide Cooperation  Policy 1.07 City’s Role in Managing Growth & Development  Policy 1.10 Growth Requirements Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 69 Packet Page 187 of 489 - 16 -  Policy 1.20 Definition of Adequate Urban Facilities & Services  Policy 2.04 Open Space Preservation  Policy 2.06 Preservation of Rural Areas & Amenities  Policy 2.22 Urban Open Lands  Policy 2.37 Environmentally Sensitive Urban Design  Policy 3.02 Adaptive Management Approach  Policy 3.03 Native Ecosystems  Policy 3.04 Ecosystem Connections & Buffers  Policy 3.07 Invasive Species Management  Policy 3.11 Urban Environmental Quality  Policy 3.18 Hazardous Areas  Policy 3.19 Erosive Slopes & Hillside Protection  Policy 3.20 Wildfire Protection & Management  Policy 3.27 Water Resource Planning & Acquisition  Policy 8.07 Safety  Policy 9.01 Support for Agriculture  Policy 10.02 Community Engagement In addition to policies, Chapter 7 Urban Service Criteria & Standards discusses minimum requirements and thresholds as a part of development projects. Stormwater and flood management standards are included to address responsiveness, funding, operational effectiveness, personnel, and equipment. The BVCP Mid-Term Update, a routine process to ensure the BVCP incorporates recent area plans and current maps, was approved on March 2, 2021. There were no substantive stormwater or flood management policy items contained in the update. Boulder Revised Code (1981) The Boulder Revised Code (BRC, 1981) contains ordinances adopted by City Council, including the city’s floodplain and wetland regulations (Title 9 – Chapter 3) and the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility (Title 11 – Chapter 5). These chapters outline the zoning, land use programs, construction of improved drainageways, stormwater conveyance, and stormwater quality. Regulations are informed by both the BVCP and the CFS and apply to both private development and city projects. The following policy statements are provisions included in the BRC specific to the Utility:  Promote public health, safety and welfare by permitting the movement of emergency vehicles during flooding periods and minimizing flood losses and the inconvenience and damage resulting from uncontrolled and unplanned stormwater runoff in the city.  Establish a master plan for stormwater and flood management and its implementation, including, without limitation, a coordinated program of creating upstream ponding or temporary detention of stormwater. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 70 Packet Page 188 of 489 - 17 -  Establish a Stormwater and Flood Management Utility to coordinate, design, construct, manage, operate and maintain the stormwater and flood management system.  Establish reasonable stormwater and flood management fees based on the use of stormwater and flood drainage facilities.  Encourage and facilitate urban water resources management techniques, including, without limitation, detention of stormwater and floods, reduction of the need to construct storm sewers, reduction of pollution and enhancement of the environment.  Prevent the introduction of pollutants to the municipal storm sewer system that may adversely affect the environment or may cause a violation of the city’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit or may contribute to the need for modification of that permit.  Establish standards for permanent stormwater runoff controls.  Establish requirements for the long-term responsibility for maintenance of structural stormwater control improvements and nonstructural stormwater management practices to ensure that they continue to function as designed, are maintained, and do not threaten public safety. Additionally, the BRC includes the following legislative intent statements related to floodplain management:  Restricting or prohibiting certain uses that are hazardous to life or property in time of flood  Restricting the location of structures intended for human occupancy and regulating the manner in which such structures may be built in order to minimize danger to human life within and around such structures  Requiring that those structures allowed in the floodplain be expanded or enlarged, and equipment and fixtures be installed or replaced, in a manner designed to prevent their being washed away and to assure their protection from severe damage  Regulating the method of construction and replacement of water supply and sanitation systems in order to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions  Maintaining for public inspection available maps delineating areas subject to such provisions in order to protect individuals from purchasing or using lands for purposes that are not suitable  Protecting and preserving the water-carrying and water-retention characteristics and capacities of watercourses used for conveying and retaining floodwaters  Obtaining and maintaining the benefits to the community of participating in the National Flood Insurance Program Title 9 – Chapter 3: Floodplain Regulations as Overlay Districts The floodplain regulations are adopted within the city’s land use regulations in the Boulder Revised Code as an “overlay district” in Sections 9-3-2 to 9-3-9 and function in a manner similar to zoning ordinances. They contain the city’s floodplain regulations that restrict or prohibit certain uses within the 500-year floodplain (applies to critical facilities and lodging only), the 100-year floodplain, the conveyance zone, and the high hazard zone. Additionally, this chapter includes provisions for the protection of streams, wetlands, and waterbodies, but does not apply to irrigation ditches. The regulations related to streams, wetlands, and waterbodies detail the activities that are prohibited within these areas, as well as encourage avoidance and minimization of other regulated activities. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 71 Packet Page 189 of 489 - 18 - Title 11 – Chapter 5: Stormwater and Flood Management Utility This chapter establishes requirements related to the management of stormwater within the city. It establishes the development of a master drainage plan to include all completed or proposed drainage facilities required to carry surface waters without overflow or discharge, as well as drainageways and basins that directly or indirectly affect drainage within the city. It requires that all land development activities within the city must ensure adequate drainage and management of stormwater and floods falling on or flowing onto the property. Construction and post-construction water quality design, inspection and maintenance, and other MS4 permit requirements are included as well. Design and Construction Standards (2019) The City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) provide minimum standards required for the design and construction of public infrastructure, improvements, and landscaping on city-owned property including rights-of-way and public easements, and the design of private transportation and utility improvements that are connected to or impact public infrastructure. Any privately owned property that discharges stormwater to the city’s drainage facilities is considered to be connected to public infrastructure. Chapter 7 of the Design and Construction Standards covers stormwater and provides design requirements for a stormwater utility system to mitigate safety hazards and minimize property losses and disruption during heavy stormwater runoff or flooding events. The intent is to maintain travel on public streets during storm events, enhance water quality of stormwater runoff, manage increased runoff due to development, establish long-term management of natural drainageways, and provide for ongoing and emergency maintenance of the public stormwater system. Additionally, the Design and Construction Standards identify which sites must comply with the above requirements and which sites are exempt. For example, stormwater detention requirements apply to development sites with the exception of single-family lots, single-family split lots (not part of a larger development), and projects that can convey runoff from the entire tributary basin directly to a major drainage system without adverse impacts to surrounding properties and facilities (including upstream and downstream). Post- construction water quality requirements only apply to new development or redevelopment sites that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. Further, four different sets of Stormwater Quality Design Standards and associated treatment approaches are detailed for use based on the presence of infiltration constraints. Large lot single family residential projects greater than or equal to 2.5 acres in size with less than 10% impervious area, and certain paving projects are exempt from the post-construction stormwater quality requirements. All projects must demonstrate the consideration of low impact development (LID) principles in their design. Topics Covered in DCS Chapter 7: Drainage Reports and Stormwater Plans Hydrology Design of open drainageways Storm sewer design Street drainage and inlet design Culvert design Detention system design Construction stormwater management Post-construction stormwater quality requirements, design, inspection, and maintenance Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 72 Packet Page 190 of 489 - 19 - Flood Management Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018) The purpose of this plan is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects in the city. It identifies several mitigation goals and objectives based on the results of a risk assessment and includes a review of the city's current capabilities to reduce hazard impacts and specific actions that the city can implement over time to reduce future losses from hazards. The plan was prepared to meet the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements in order to maintain the city's eligibility for FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration Plans Flood mitigation or restoration plans have been created for 9 of the 16 major drainageways within the Boulder Creek watershed. The purpose of these plans is to analyze existing conditions, develop drainageway planning concepts to mitigate anticipated flood damages, and to prepare and prioritize recommended flood mitigation improvements. Additionally, the restoration plan for Boulder Creek provides guidance to improve resilience and guide stream and ecological restoration along the creek. These plans are typically used to incorporate immediate changes into the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), to qualify for funds from the Mile High Flood District (MHFD), and Federal and State funding. Mile High Flood District The City of Boulder is part of the Mile High Flood District (formerly known as the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District), which was established in 1969 by the Colorado Legislature to assist local governments in the Denver metropolitan area with multi-jurisdictional drainage and flood management challenges. The MHFD receives funding for its programs through a mill levy on property taxes within participating communities. The mill levy for Boulder County is 0.608 mills. For example, a house with an assessed value of $500,000 would pay $304 per year based on the current mill. The MHFD coordinates the following four programs: Program Summary Master Planning Assists local agencies with flood mitigation planning efforts. Projects identified through master plans are eligible for design, construction, and maintenance funding through the MHFD. Design, Construction and Maintenance Projects identified through master plans are eligible for design, construction, and maintenance funding through the MHFD. The MHFD provides routine maintenance of designated drainageways, 100 percent of the funding for identified maintenance projects, and up to 50 percent of the funding for identified capital improvement projects or flood mitigation planning efforts. Floodplain Management Assists local governments with delineating flood risks through floodplain mapping efforts, including limited funding availability. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 73 Packet Page 191 of 489 - 20 - Program Summary Information Services and Flood Warning This program is responsible for contracting private meteorological services to provide daily forecasts of flood potential and notify local agencies when threatening conditions develop. The MHFD also installs and maintains a system of rainfall and stream flow gauges to help monitor the potential for flooding. As part of their work, the MHFD actively maintains policy and engineering standards through the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM). The policies, standards, and technical design criteria within the USDCM form the basis for many policies and design standards adopted by the City of Boulder for flood risk management, stormwater management, stormwater quality, and erosion control. The Master Planning program assists local agencies with flood mitigation planning efforts. Projects identified through the master plans are then eligible for design, construction, and maintenance funding through the MHFD. The Floodplain Management program focuses on assisting local governments with delineating flood risks through floodplain mapping efforts. The Information Services and Flood Warning program is responsible for contracting with a private meteorological service to provide daily forecasts of flood potential and notify local agencies when threatening conditions develop. The MHFD also installs and maintains a system of rainfall and stream flow gauges to help monitor the potential for flooding. Each year, the City of Boulder requests funding assistance from the MHFD for maintenance and capital improvement projects. The MHFD also provides routine maintenance of designated drainageways, which includes debris removal and mowing. The MHFD provides 100 percent of the funding for maintenance projects and up to 50 percent for capital improvements. Maintenance projects are managed and coordinated by the MHFD, whereas the city is responsible for the management and oversight of capital projects. The MHFD also provides up to 50 percent of the funding for flood mitigation planning efforts, which are coordinated by the city. Limited funding is available for floodplain mapping updates, which are also the responsibility of the city. The MHFD is currently providing financial assistance for capital improvement projects for South Boulder Creek, Gregory Canyon Creek, and Fourmile Canyon Creek; the flood mitigation planning studies for Upper Goose Creek, Twomile Canyon Creek, Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek, and King’s Gulch; and the floodplain mapping study for Sunshine Canyon Creek. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 74 Packet Page 192 of 489 - 21 - Stormwater Management The Utility is tasked with protecting public health, safety and welfare from damage caused by stormwater runoff and with protecting and enhancing the water quality of the local receiving waters in a manner consistent with the federal Water Pollution Control Act and the state Water Quality Control Act through the regulation of non- stormwater discharges to the municipal storm sewer system. A description of the master plans, permits and requirements is included below. Stormwater Master Plan (2016) This master plan provides the city with a guide to proactively address existing and future stormwater drainage and stormwater quality through a series of recommended improvements to the city's stormwater collection system. It develops a master plan for the collector and local drainage systems to alleviate current capacity and flooding problems, as well as evaluates the existing stormwater infrastructure with respect to system analysis criteria created as part of the master plan. Finally, it ranks problem areas for conveyance and water quality in terms of severity and provides a recommended plan with preferred alternatives, detailed cost estimates, and significant implementation. The following policy recommendations are included as part of this master plan: Policy Summary Policy 1 Stormwater Drainage System Infrastructure The city will provide an adequate stormwater collection and conveyance system for existing and future development within the city. Policy 2 Maximize Existing Infrastructure The city will maximize the use of existing storm drainage infrastructure and optimize the size of required drainage system improvements. Policy 3 Open Channel Drainage Systems The city will strive to minimize flooding, stream bank and channel erosion within the open channel stormwater drainage system by controlling the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from development and redevelopment projects. Policy 4 Stormwater Quality CIP Projects The city will strive to protect the quality of water in the stormwater drainage system and receiving waters, including Boulder Creek, to maintain and enhance the environment, quality of life, and economic well-being of the City of Boulder by identifying and implementing stormwater quality CIP projects. Policy 5 Stormwater Planning and Coordination The city will continue to integrate the quantity and quality aspects of stormwater in the planning, design, and construction of development and redevelopment projects, and will look for opportunities to address stormwater issues when planning and designing other capital projects in the city, including projects involving water, wastewater, transportation, and parks. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 75 Packet Page 193 of 489 - 22 - Policy Summary Policy 6 Separation of Stormwater Outfalls from Irrigation Ditches Storm sewer outfalls (point discharges) are to be separated from irrigation ditches within the city limits. Policy 7 Groundwater Impacts Resulting from Development The city will continue to address groundwater issues related to development proposals and the associated discharge locations of pump groundwater flows including water quality impacts due to potential groundwater quality issues at registered locations. Recommendations from this plan include improvements to the local and collector stormwater drainage system and water-quality problem locations using three tier prioritization systems. As a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 2 community, discharges from the city’s storm sewer system are regulated under an MS4 permit issued by the State of Colorado. Implementation and stormwater quality recommendations are presented as follows:  Develop a Program Description Document (PDD) and make it available to the public on the city’s website  Develop an enforcement escalation process for violations of city Code  Increase recordkeeping of illicit discharge detections to comply with the MS4 permit requirements  Set up a program to target hot spots and business types that are known to pollute  Improve the city’s construction procedures, including design review, methods for increased construction stormwater compliance, streamlining of requirements, and enforcement and inspection for erosion control permits and dewatering permits  Create a centralized database to track construction projects and instances of compliance/non- compliance  Implement oversight of sites that are less than one acre and require stormwater controls to prevent pollution  Implement standardized processes for permanent BMPs, including design, construction, maintenance, and inspection requirements  Streamline maintenance and inspection activities including implementing clear schedules, budget for and assign maintenance to specific city groups, provide and track training, improve or create computerized maintenance and inspection management systems, and develop standardized methodology for infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement program  Address possible future Regulation 85 requirements (Colorado regulation to reduce point sources of nutrient pollution) by updating GIS information on storm drains, outfalls, and land use data; and updating and maintaining the XPSWMM model for water quality  Set up additional flow monitoring and sampling in various locations throughout the city to evaluate E. coli and nutrient concentrations to develop storm-event based loadings from the MS4 to better understand the event mean concentration nutrient loadings associated with Regulation 85 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 76 Packet Page 194 of 489 - 23 -  Coordinate on protecting surface water in stormwater detention and infiltration facilities from water rights by documenting and reporting the facilities to the extent required by CRS 37-92-602  Look for additional ways to incorporate green infrastructure into both city and private projects Stormwater Quality MS4 Permit [COR090000] (2016) The city’s discharge from its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is authorized under General Permit COR090000 under the Colorado Discharge Permit System, originally issued in 2016 and since modified and expiring in 2021. The MS4 permit provides detailed administrative, programmatic, and recordkeeping requirements with the primary programmatic areas of focus including:  Public involvement and participation  Public education and outreach  Illicit discharge detection and elimination  Construction site stormwater management (e.g., erosion and sediment control)  Post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment  Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations Additionally, the city has specific requirements related to implementation of the Boulder Creek E. coli Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). These requirements include:  Monitoring to identify progress toward meeting the TMDL  Annual reporting requirements addressing:  Control measures implemented to reduce E. coli discharges  Identification of illicit discharges contributing E. coli  Actions taken or planned to control illicit discharges  Monitoring activities Under the MS4 permit, the city has substantial programmatic and technical requirements to protect water quality. The portion of the permit that is most directly related to future policy includes the city’s responsibility to address the selection, installation, implementation, and maintenance of permanent stormwater control measures (SCMs, also known as BMPs) at applicable development sites, which include new development or redevelopment that disturbs one acre or more of land. The city is also responsible for ensuring long-term operation and maintenance of permanent stormwater control measures. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 77 Packet Page 195 of 489 - 24 - E. Coli TMDL Implementation Plan (2019) Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assist states in listing impaired waters and developing TMDLs for the affected waterbody. TMDLs are created for surface waters that are impaired due to prior exceedances of water quality standards and serve as a starting point or planning tool for restoring water quality. These TMDLs establish the maximum amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive without exceeding water quality standards. The segment of Boulder Creek from North Boulder Creek to South Boulder Creek was placed on the State’s impaired waters list for bacteria in 2011 due to elevated E. coli levels. In 2019, the city updated its Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan. The primary focus of the updated TMDL Implementation Plan was elevated E. coli in dry weather flows from the storm drain system. Although the implementation plan is limited to the TMDL segment, concepts in the plan are also applicable to other stream segments that are currently identified as impaired on the 2020 Colorado 303(d) List for E. coli. Because E. coli originates from both natural and human sources and can persist in biofilms and sediment, it can be particularly challenging to understand and control in urban environments. The city’s Stormwater Quality Program includes a multi-pronged adaptive management approach to address E. coli, including systematically investigating sources of E. coli by sewershed, ensuring compliance with city codes, standards and policies, implementing of MS4 permit requirements, and on-going monitoring. Further, because the greatest health risk to recreators is exposure to E. coli from human sources, E. coli controls are prioritized to focus on human sources in dry weather discharges, controllability of E. coli sources, and recreation risk. The primary actions recommended in the 2019 TMDL Implementation Plan that may help to address controllable sources of E. coli loading to the stream include:  Infrastructure assessment to identify cross connections, sanitary sewer leakage, and septic systems  Non-structural control measures:  Pet waste disposal  Illicit discharge detection and elimination  Good housekeeping/trash management  MS4 facility inspection and storm drain/catch basin cleaning  Street sweeping  Assessment of water quality impacts from homeless encampments Once solutions are identified that are appropriate for a sewershed, a sewershed management plan can be developed, implemented, and assessed for effectiveness. Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan (2019) The Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan identifies and describes how the city can meet the post-construction requirements of the Phase II MS4 permit, proactively identifies future city projects that can be addressed by green infrastructure and promotes the use of green infrastructure throughout the city. Through the planning process with an internal stakeholder group, policy changes were proposed to meet MS4 permit requirements for post-construction through a tiered design approach that emphasizes the consideration of infiltration/green infrastructure first. In addition to focusing on process and policy, the plan Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 78 Packet Page 196 of 489 - 25 - also developed a prioritization tool to be used for the identification of green infrastructure pilot projects within the city that could be adopted as part of current and future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. To address process and policy objectives, the plan developed strategies for the integration of Low Impact Development principles and Green Infrastructure Stormwater Control Measures (GI SCMs) for both private and public land development projects including design, construction, and maintenance. Key recommendations include:  Update the Boulder Design and Construction Standards to address the post-construction requirements of the Phase II MS4 permit.  Development of interdepartmental Standard Operating Policy and Procedures for use on city land development projects The strategic plan recommended development of future work plans to support implementation of high priority strategies including:  Work Plan 1: Establish Water Quality and Environmental Services as the city authority for MS4 permit- required SCMs  Work Plan 2: Develop post-construction stormwater education and training  Work Plan 3: Upgrade long-term operation and maintenance program for city-owned SCMs  Work Plan 4: Further develop and implement a water quality CIP project Keep It Clean Partnership Annual Water Quality Report (2018) The Keep it Clean Partnership (KICP) is an organization made up of seven partner communities within Boulder County: the cities of Boulder, Longmont, Louisville, and Lafayette; the towns of Erie and Superior; and Boulder County. While these communities originally came together to collaborate on stormwater management, the organization’s focus has shifted to also include broader watershed level efforts. For example, the KICP coordinated monitoring program was initiated in 2014 in conjunction with a 319 non-point source management plan for the Boulder-St. Vrain Basin. The original objectives for the collaborative monitoring plan were to leverage data to target impaired stream reaches for improvement, identify changes in water quality, and evaluate the return on investment for capital improvements. Since 2015, the KICP has continued to pursue these objectives along with enhanced communication and integration of data with the public and other organizations. The KICP provides water quality data to the partnership on an annual basis to be included in the watershed level report. Recommendations pertinent to the city from the 2018 Water Quality Report include:  Continue to study, monitor, and analyze long-term water quality trends  Consider an active role in state water quality rulemaking hearings for new nutrient standards  Focus bacteria reduction efforts on source determination and mitigation  Further evaluate arsenic, silver, and selenium standards for appropriateness (given naturally occurring conditions) Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 79 Packet Page 197 of 489 - 26 - Water Quality Strategic Plan (2009) This plan was first prepared in 2009 to develop source water quality goals, outline strategies and performance measures to achieve these goals, and provide a process to address current and future water quality challenges. Water quality goals were developed using an inventory of existing water quality goal statements found in the city’s master plans, policies, and regulations, starting with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The following five goal statements were developed: 1) Provide safe and high-quality drinking water 2) Manage pollutants from wastewater and other point sources 3) Manage pollutants from stormwater and other non-point sources 4) Protect, preserve, and restore natural water systems 5) Conserve water resources Other Plans Greenways Master Plan (2011) The Greenways Master Plan applies to the riparian areas along Boulder Creek and the major tributaries of Boulder Creek. The plan provides a framework for implementation through coordination of planning, construction, maintenance, and funding sources of city departments and outside agencies. Objectives of the Greenways Program are to protect and restore riparian, floodplain, and wetland habitat; enhance water quality; mitigate storm drainage and floods; provide alternative modes of transportation routes or trails for pedestrians and bicyclists; provide recreation opportunities; and protect cultural resources. Resilience Strategy (2016) This document defines strategies to help the city adapt to and thrive in a changing climate, economy, and society by outlining a path forward to address major shocks and long-term stresses. Resilience strategies are identified to represent main action areas, along with actions and frontiers required to address the identified issues. Actions are defined as immediate priority activities to be implemented over the next two to three years, and frontiers are defined as transformative investments in community resilience that currently have no models to emulate. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 80 Packet Page 198 of 489 - 27 - The following actions and frontiers apply to the city’s stormwater and flood control infrastructure: Action/Frontier Description Action 1.2 Activate Volunteerism Develop a volunteer community preparedness training program Frontier 1 Invest in the Future Prioritize city investments to promote community resilience and proactively address future risks Action 3.2 Foster Climate Readiness Build climate preparedness capacity across the city organization Action 3.5 Manage Thriving Ecosystems Develop an integrated approach to managing ecosystems and green infrastructure Transportation Master Plan (2019) The Transportation Master Plan pursues two goals ― to provide mobility and access within the city in a way that is safe and convenient and to preserve Boulder’s quality of life by minimizing the impacts from auto traffic such as air pollution, congestion, and noise. The document provides a policy framework to create and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system that meets the city’s sustainability goals; however, stormwater is not addressed as part of this plan. The word ‘flood’ is only mentioned in reference to the Boulder Municipal Airport being able to provide disaster-related support for floods. Climate, Ecosystems and Community (2018) In 2018, the city formed a cross-departmental team to address connections between climate change, climate action, community, and ecosystems. As part of this work, they assessed existing and emerging ecological issues affecting Boulder and identified three categories of ecological change issues as outlined in the table below. The document describes initiatives that have been launched to address these issues and identifies areas for further action, particularly at the community level. Four major areas were targeted as part of a framework of action for future efforts and include: urban forest protection, species protection, soil regeneration and sequestration, and ecosystems monitoring and assessment. Issue Factors Land Cover Changes  Urban Cover: Loss of tree canopy primarily due to Emerald Ash Borer. Ash makes up 20-25% of Boulder’s urban tree canopy.  Wildland Cover: Climate change is resulting in increases in wildfires, both in frequency and in size. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 81 Packet Page 199 of 489 - 28 - Issue Factors Species Loss  Pollinators: Annual losses in pollinator colonies have increased dramatically over the last decade.  Aquatic Invertebrates: Climate change and anthropogenic factors are causing decreases in species.  Neonicotinoids: The use of neonicotinoid pesticides have major impacts on the decline of pollinators and aquatic invertebrates. Soils  Soil Loss and Desertification: Over 1,000 acres in Boulder’s 14,000 acres of open space agricultural lands are experiencing extensive soil and fertility loss.  Carbon Sequestration: Soil depletion diminishes or reverses the capacity of systems to absorb and hold carbon. Racial Equity Plan (2021) This plan was the result of a collaborative effort among city staff and several organizations to advance racial equity within the City of Boulder government and to transform Boulder into a more inclusive, safe, and welcoming environment for all who live, work, learn, or recreate in the community. Logic models were developed to determine desired short-term (2022), mid-term (2025), and long-term (2030) outcomes for the plan. Additionally, goals and strategies for staff, boards, City Council, as well as coordination with the community were developed to advance racial equity. Progress will be reported annually with the opportunity for amendments to the plan to reflect changes in circumstances and community desires every three years. It is anticipated that this plan will be updated annually to include accomplishments and results, how racial equity priorities determined budget decisions, challenges faced, proposed next steps, and adjustments to the short-term, mid-term, and long-term outcomes. Goal Description/Strategies Goal 1 Everybody gets it  The city will normalize and operationalize understanding of institutional and structural racism among people who work for or represent the City of Boulder, including city staff, City Council, Boards and Commissions, and ongoing program volunteers.  Strategies include developing equity-focused leadership at all levels, developing workplace-based equity teams, and providing racial equity training. Goal 2 Justly do it  The city will take action to end racial disparities in city services.  Strategies include achieving commitment at the department level, use of the Racial Equity Instrument, integrating racial equity into master and strategic plans, focusing on racial equity in stewarding public funds, and racial equity programming and city financial processes. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 82 Packet Page 200 of 489 - 29 - Goal Description/Strategies Goal 3 Community commitment  The city will strengthen partnerships and collaborate with community members and organizations that demonstrate a commitment to ending racism.  Strategies include partnering with the community, building community organizational capacity, seeking opportunities to support and promote the value of diversity and multiculturalism, and recognizing history of institutional racism within the City of Boulder. Goal 4 Power to all people  The city will build and maintain trust, expanding the influence of community members of color through inclusive and responsive engagement.  Strategies include improving access to decision-makers, supporting city- community relationships through staffing, focusing on high-quality community engagement, valuing lived experience, and addressing language, cultural and engagement barriers. Goal 5 Representation matters  The city will eliminate barriers and create opportunities to build a diverse workforce across the depth and breadth of local government including elected officials, boards, commissions, and working groups.  Strategies include addressing boards, commissions and working groups, and developing the City of Boulder’s workforce through hiring, recruitment, and retention. Trends This section discusses emerging regional and national trends in the topics relevant to this Master Plan. These are to be considered in concert with Boulder’s existing policies, initiatives, and master planning efforts. An overarching national trend is toward integrated resource planning of stormwater and flood management capital improvements. Flood Management Regionally, many surrounding communities are adopting standards that are more stringent than the state mandated minimum requirements to better suit the needs of the community. Because the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) is now encouraging nature-based solutions to flood mitigation that overlap with stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality issues, the issues discussed in the sections below also apply to flood management. Nationally, all communities that participate in the NFIP CRS will be subject to the new program requirements that are part of the 2021 Addendum to the 2017 CRS Coordinator’s Manual which went into effect January 2021. Additionally, a more comprehensive update to the NFIP is expected to follow. While the City of Boulder currently receives more than 50% of the possible credit for its stormwater management program under CRS Activity 450 (Stormwater Management), this is expected to decrease with the revised requirements, and this decrease could impact Boulder’s community rating and the discounts that the community received on NFIP policies. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 83 Packet Page 201 of 489 - 30 - Additional flood management activities that are occurring nationally include accounting for the varying effects of climate change. Examples of this include modification to runoff hydrographs and estimation of debris flows caused by drought and significant forest fires in impacted watersheds. Some cities with significantly forested watersheds are requiring that hydrologic conditions account for effects of forest fires by producing hydrographs that reflect 100% deforestation. Management strategies for increased sediment and debris that may be generated from burned areas are used to increase resilience. Boulder has completed similar work related to source water protection for drinking water. Climate change has also resulted in an increase of frequency and intensity of storm events in United States. Houston, TX, has experienced a 500-year flood event three times since 2015, and Hurricane Harvey caused more than $180 billion in damage. Both Harris County and the City of Houston have since enacted regulations that require new construction to build to the current 500-year base flood elevation (BFE). Examples of regulations to increase resilience include requiring new construction and additions larger than one-third of the existing footprint to be at least 3 feet above the 500-year BFE in the floodway, 2 feet above the 500-year BFE in the 100-year and 500-year floodplains, and restrictions on fill within the 500-year floodplain. In areas across the United States that deal with alluvial floodplains and deep glacial till, channel migration zones have been mapped using historic data and soil type. These migration zones are characterized as either severe or moderate, and development within these zones is regulated accordingly. Additionally, channel migration is considered a special hazard under the CRS program. By mapping and regulating these zones, additional credit is available as part of the CRS program. Stormwater Management The main trend in stormwater drainage is a continued emphasis on reliable, resilient, and sustainable urban drainage systems. Adaptation for changing rainfall patterns due to climate change is a global trend in stormwater drainage management. Engineers and climate change scientists should collaborate to observe and model climate, weather, and extreme events. This would serve to improve the relevance of the modeling and observations for use in the planning, design, operation and maintenance, and renewal of the built and natural environment. There is a trend toward the use of stormwater control measures that provide greater benefits. Multi-functional practices to achieve water quality benefits for an increasing range of precipitation events (including flood management) is gaining traction. One green infrastructure trend is to increase co-benefits to meet multiple community goals (e.g., enhance wetlands, reduce heat island effects, etc.) and mitigate the effects of climate change. Stormwater Quality The city’s stormwater quality plans and programs are generally aligned with regional and national trends. In Colorado, most Phase II MS4 permittees, like Boulder, focus on the required programs necessary to maintain compliance with their MS4 permits. Municipalities such as Fort Collins and Denver are increasingly focusing on, and gaining experience with, green infrastructure strategies, considering not only the water quantity and quality benefits of green infrastructure but also other co-benefits to the community. This is in line with national trends, where communities are using green infrastructure to target not only permit requirements and consent decrees, but also to focus on maximizing other community co-benefits that these practices typically offer. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 84 Packet Page 202 of 489 - 31 - One significant area in which the city is less stringent than some other Front Range communities, is the threshold at which post-construction stormwater quality requirements beyond Low Impact Development standards are triggered. “Applicable development sites” are based on a one-acre disturbance threshold, which is consistent with the MS4 permit. However, a growing number of communities are using much lower thresholds, such as 10,000 square feet, to trigger implementation of some level of stormwater quality controls. Given that much of the development occurring in the city is smaller-scale redevelopment, many sites are anticipated to fall below the one-acre threshold. Over time, the increases in imperviousness from small projects that fall below the threshold for requiring SCMs will be significant due to the amount of small-lot redevelopment that will occur in Boulder. Based on trends in recently drafted MS4 permits for Denver and Non-Standard Phase 2 MS4 permits, the city should expect increasingly stringent requirements driven not only by TMDLs, but also by impairment designations on the Colorado 303(d) List. This also includes stream standards for nutrients, specifically total phosphorous and total nitrogen. The city’s work related to the E. coli TMDL for Boulder Creek is generally more advanced than what has been implemented in many other Front Range communities with E. coli impaired streams, with the possible exception of Denver. Because E. coli originates from human as well as natural sources, it can be difficult to determine which set of controls will be sufficient to attain instream standards. The extent to which homeless encampments affect instream E. coli exceedances has not been fully characterized but represents a broader social issue in the city that extends beyond the realm of stormwater controls. Nationally and regionally, there is increased recognition that stream health is affected not only by discharges to the stream, but also the condition of the stream channel itself. Historically, master drainage plans have focused more significantly on flood-related problems and solutions. However, more recently, stormwater quality and “greener” strategies for stream health are being implemented in master plans. Over the last several years, Mile High Flood District has significantly revised guidance related to channel improvements that are more holistic, integrating both instream and upland strategies to protect streams. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 85 Packet Page 203 of 489 - 32 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 86 Packet Page 204 of 489 - 33 - 3 Stormwater Quality In built urban environments, stormwater runoff must be actively managed to minimize adverse impacts to streams and drainageways. The city’s Stormwater Quality Program works to preserve, protect, and enhance stream water quality and habitat by implementing a multi-faceted program to control pollutants at their source, attenuate and treat stormwater runoff from frequently occurring storm events, and implement stream health improvements. The major goals of the program include: 1) Reduce pollutant loading to streams. At a minimum, this includes complying with the city’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit certification and addressing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements such as those in place for E. coli. This also includes watershed improvement program measures that go beyond the minimum requirements of the MS4 permit. 2) Educate the public on the role they play in preventing and addressing pollution in Boulder. 3) Maintain and enhance urban waterbodies, including streams, riparian areas and wetlands. This includes collaborating across city teams and departments to implement a greenways1 management program that improves and maintains the health of stream channels, wetlands and the riparian corridor, as well as provide enjoyable public spaces for the Boulder community. 4) Monitor and evaluate urban surface water quality. This goal recognizes the importance of evidence- based decision-making to guide assessment of water resource health, priorities and effectiveness of programs, capital improvements and maintenance approaches. 5) Adaptively manage the Stormwater Quality Program. Evolving regulatory requirements and environmental conditions require that the Stormwater Quality Program be managed in an adaptable and collaborative manner that engages in broader regional efforts and lessons learned related to stormwater quality. 1 The City of Boulder Greenways system is comprised of a series of corridors along riparian areas including Boulder Creek and 14 of its tributaries, which provide an opportunity to integrate multiple objectives, including habitat protection, water quality enhancement, storm drainage and floodplain management, trails, recreation and cultural resources. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 87 Packet Page 205 of 489 - 34 - Policy Discussion Many aspects of Boulder’s Stormwater Quality Program are mandated by regulatory requirements under its MS4 Permit. The city also routinely looks for and takes opportunities to optimize the existing program and go beyond minimum permit requirements. Effective policies, therefore, are those that support meeting regulatory requirements; align with community needs and values; and incorporate flexibility to meet changing demands related to regulatory requirements, climate change, resiliency, and other considerations. Policy and Program Goals The mission of the city’s Stormwater Quality Program is to preserve, protect, and enhance stream water quality and habitat by implementing a multi-faceted program to control pollutants at their source, attenuate and treat stormwater runoff for frequently occurring storm events, and implement stream health improvements. A series of working meetings among city staff, Community Working Group representatives, and the consultant team, resulted in the development of four overarching program goals, ten supporting goals (sub-goals) and associated objectives as summarized below. Recommendations to achieve each programmatic goal follow. Mission: Preserve, protect, and enhance stream water quality and habitat by implementing a multi-faceted program to control pollutants at their source, attenuate and treat stormwater runoff for frequently occurring storm events, and implement stream health improvements. Maintain compliance with current MS4 requirements Reduce sources of E. coli in Boulder Creek to meet TMDL requirements Promote the effective design, implementation, and maintenance of low impact development (LID) & green infrastructure approaches to stormwater management Protect & enhance water quality and urban stream health through strategic collaboration, data collection, programmatic planning & implementation of water quality projects Support the preservation, restoration, & maintenance of greenways, creek corridors, and wetlands for the protection and improvement of water quality Support compliance related to surface water permitting and regulations Seek to better understand surface water quality, dynamics, and impacts related to stream health and regulations Actively engage in water quality planning, policy, and regulation in Colorado Actively engage in regional collaboration efforts and research related to stormwater quality Adaptively manage Boulder’s stormwater program to maintain regulatory compliance and adapt to changing climate conditions Adaptively Manage Stormwater Quality Program Maintain and Enhance Urban Waterbodies (Streams, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands Reduce Pollutant Loading to Streams Monitor & Evaluate Urban Surface Water Quality Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 88 Packet Page 206 of 489 - 35 - 1. Reduce pollutant loading to streams GOAL: Maintain compliance with current MS4 permit requirements. Objective: Meet or exceed regulatory requirements for minimum control measures. Compliance requirements for the city’s Stormwater Quality Program are clearly defined under its MS4 permit certification. Requirements include public involvement, public education and outreach, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction-related erosion and sediment control, post-construction stormwater control measure (SCM) installation and maintenance, and municipal good housekeeping. The program is also clearly described in the program description document (PDD) and annual reports. It is recommended that the city continue with the current approach to MS4 compliance as the baseline for controlling stormwater-related polluted loading to streams. Opportunities to go above and beyond these minimum requirements are discussed further below. In 2022-2023, Colorado’s Standard Phase 2 stormwater MS4 permit is expected to undergo a substantive update that will likely include a series of more prescriptive “clear, specific and measurable” permit requirements. It is recommended that the city actively engage in stakeholder meetings and public comment on the draft permit to provide input to Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) regarding expected benefits of potential new requirements so that efforts remain focused on actions that are most effective in reducing pollutant loading to streams. The city should anticipate increased administrative and monitoring requirements under the forthcoming MS4 permit renewal. GOAL: Reduce sources of E. coli contributions to Boulder Creek to meet TMDL requirements. Objective: Work to identify potential E. coli sources and determine controllability. Objective: Identify and implement strategies to reduce controllable sources of E. coli in stormwater runoff entering Boulder Creek. Objective: Implement studies, policy initiatives and projects in coordination with other city initiatives that improve urban stream conditions and reduce E. coli loading to Boulder Creek. Experience in Boulder and in other communities across the country has shown that there are no easy answers for E. coli. For more than 10 years, the city has actively engaged in E. coli source identification studies and implementation of appropriate abatement strategies to control E. coli. The city’s program is relatively advanced in comparison to other communities in Colorado and on par with communities in other states that are faced with similar challenges to comply with E. coli TMDLs. Based on the results of both outfall and instream monitoring, the city has begun developing and implementing sewershed management plans, as laid out in the Boulder Creek E.coli TMDL Implementation Plan, to target storm drainage outfall networks with persistently elevated E. coli concentrations (GEI, 2019). Additionally, the city has used the latest scientific techniques such as using human DNA markers (e.g., Bacteroides HF183) to identify areas where possible sanitary sources could be contributing to elevated E. coli. The city should continue to use this science-based approach to prioritize areas for further investigation, focusing first on dry weather sources and highest risk sources such as sanitary sewage leakage from aging infrastructure or illicit discharges (WWE and Geosyntec, 2016). It is recommended that the city address potential water quality impacts from encampments through continued coordination with the citywide Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 89 Packet Page 207 of 489 - 36 - encampment abatement approach 2, through expeditious clean-up of trash and debris along waterways and further analysis of other potential water quality impacts. Based on outcomes of sewershed management plans and monitoring efforts, the city should work to address controllable sources of E. coli discharged from the city. Solutions for E. coli load reductions are likely to be iterative. In some cases, E. coli loading may be reduced, but it is unrealistic to remove all E. coli loading due to natural sources (e.g., birds, raccoons) present in the watershed. While there are examples of E. coli load reduction strategies that can help to reduce E. coli loads, there are few, if any, examples of urban streams that have 100% compliance with E. coli TMDL targets. In summary, it is recommended that the city continue with source identification and load reduction strategies as dictated in the TMDL Implementation Plan. Completion of this systematic approach should trigger an update to the implementation plan that evaluates regulatory requirements, limited resources, and overall water quality improvement opportunities combined with realistic expectations of what may be achievable. Currently, the city’s MS4 permit has prescriptive E. coli-related requirements that apply to Boulder Creek between 13th St and the confluence with South Boulder Creek. The city should continue to evaluate E. coli impairments and sources on stream segments outside of the current TMDL reach, including Boulder Creek upstream of 13th St and South Boulder Creek between Highway 93 and the confluence with Boulder Creek, and should anticipate the need for outfall monitoring for these stream segments. If revised permits or new TMDLs are proposed, the city should actively participate in regulatory processes to share information and assist the state in developing meaningful requirements that recognize the advanced status of the program and avoid duplicating prior monitoring and investigation efforts. The city should actively participate, where the opportunity allows, in research and state and national policy discussions related to E. coli to stay current with various trends and know best how and when to engage. GOAL: Promote the effective design, implementation, and maintenance of green infrastructure approaches to stormwater management. Objective: Promote infiltration/green infrastructure as the preferred stormwater management strategy through policies for capital project and private development implementation. Objective: Conduct education/training both internally and externally to improve SCM design and installation. Objective: Enhance SCM maintenance and inspection program. Objective: Evaluate options for implementation of SCMs for small sites <1 acre. Given that most of the city’s developable area has been developed, some of the most significant opportunities for improving stormwater quality are through incorporating SCMs into redevelopment sites, capital projects, and sites with less than one acre of disturbance, which is the threshold of applicability of MS4 permit requirements. Infiltration-based strategies that incorporate use of receiving pervious areas and filtration-based practices such as bioretention are particularly well suited to smaller sites. These practices are part of green infrastructure and low impact development (LID) approaches that provide stormwater quality benefits and often have other co- benefits for the community such as green space, cooling effects, and can assist the city in meeting its climate action goals. As Front Range developers and contractors are still gaining experience with design and 2 Regulations governing camping bans are codified in BRC 8-3-21. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 90 Packet Page 208 of 489 - 37 - implementation of such approaches, the Utility has identified an ongoing need for training for designers and installers so that these systems are properly designed and constructed. Additionally, existing, poorly maintained SCMs can become public nuisances and export pollutants. For this reason, focusing on enhanced maintenance and inspection of SCMs, with emphasis on educating owners on appropriate operation and maintenance practices is expected to reduce stormwater related pollutant loading, even without the construction of new control measures. The city should explore the benefits of adopting SCM requirements for areas with less than one acre of disturbance in the city code. Currently, the city uses a review checklist approach to encourage use of LID on all development projects. However, formally defined upper and lower thresholds for which the city requires LID or green infrastructure could help to promote more widespread implementation of these approaches. Several other cities of comparable size to Boulder now require runoff reduction approaches to be implemented for development and redevelopment projects less than one acre. The thresholds of added impervious area triggering these requirements vary (e.g., 500 square feet to 5,000 square feet) and would warrant further analysis prior to adoption of revised thresholds in the city. Additionally, the city’s Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan (Wood, 2019) provides a solid framework for the city to continue moving forward with green infrastructure implementation and should continue to be used as a guiding document for green infrastructure. A special emphasis for the incorporation of green infrastructure should be placed on projects constructed on city owned properties and as part of future capital improvements. Colorado Municipality with Recently Updated Criteria Threshold Triggering Stormwater Quality Control Measures* Fort Collins > 1,000 square feet impervious area increase Denver** Project > 0.5 acre Commerce City Projects with a cumulative disturbed area of > 5,000 square feet Greenwood Village > 500 sf impervious area increase *Some exceptions apply. **Draft; proposed threshold. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 91 Packet Page 209 of 489 - 38 - 2. Maintain and Enhance Urban Waterbodies (Streams, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands) GOAL: Protect and enhance water quality and urban stream health through strategic collaboration, data collection, programmatic planning, and implementation of water quality projects. Objective: Identify and track the health and function of Boulder’s urban streams. Objective: Develop and implement stream management plans that identify in-stream and riparian maintenance protocols and restoration needs by stream reach. Objective: Implement studies, policy initiatives, and construction projects in coordination with other city initiatives and work groups that improve urban stream conditions. In 2021, the city initiated the Boulder Urban Stream Health program. This innovative program provides a substantial opportunity to improve water quality, enhance habitat for aquatic life and increase community enjoyment of local waterways throughout the city. For effective maintenance and enhancement of urban streams, an orderly, watershed-based approach is essential ― basing stream improvement plans on scientific and engineering analysis so that needed stream improvements are prioritized and implemented in a manner that is sustainable and integrated in the overall stream network. The plan to first develop a scientific approach to assess and document stream conditions enables an objective and holistic evaluation of potential stream enhancement projects. Nationally, the water quality benefits of stream restoration are increasingly recognized as part of a sound water quality improvement strategy (Bledsoe et al., 2022); as such, it is recommended that the city continue to pursue this program. Implementation of the program should be an iterative and adaptive process. Regular, periodic evaluation of the program’s benefits is recommended, with recognition that the benefits of stream management occur over a longer timeframe than other types of projects. As a baseline understanding of urban stream health and as a framework for interdepartmental collaboration on stream enhancement projects is developed, it is recommended that the city continue to collaborate with external organizations, and in particular the Mile High Flood District to:  formulate restoration plans for consistency with regional master planning efforts  identify funding opportunities, and  confirm eligibility for maintenance support Through this collaboration, the city benefits from experience gained regionally with High- Functioning Low-Maintenance Stream (HFLMS) design approaches. The urban stream health program should include a framework to track effects of climate change and actions that can minimize and/or respond to climate change in the context of stream health. Examples of impacts include increased water temperature; changes in spring runoff patterns and lower instream flows; effects of drought on riparian vegetation; insect Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 92 Packet Page 210 of 489 - 39 - damage to riparian trees, changes in species composition, including invasive species; increased frequency of extreme runoff events; and wildfire-related impacts to stream health. Given that the city is located at the wildland- urban interface, planning for wildfire-related impacts includes coordination with Boulder County to reduce debris flows, water quality pollutants and increased flood risk (Williams, et al, 2022). Efforts include previous risk evaluations (JW Associates, 2012) and Boulder County’s Wildfire Hazard Identification and Mitigation System. GOAL: Support the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of greenways, creek corridors, and wetlands for the protection and improvement of water quality. Objective: Support management of greenways and riparian zones to protect ecological function and community values. Objective: Protect and preserve wetlands. Currently, the city’s organizational structure includes several separate programs related to urban stream health, greenway maintenance and wetland programs. These programs are important given the interrelated nature of instream conditions, riparian corridors, and wetlands and warrant further coordination. Additionally, as stream enhancements are planned and implemented, long-term sustainability requires maintenance such as weed control, trash pickup and removal of dangerous conditions (e.g., eroded banks, fallen trees) that can arise periodically from hydrologic events. Protection of wetlands for their water quality and ecological benefits is a priority for multiple city departments. The city has adopted stream, wetland and water body regulations that are administered through the city’s Planning and Development Services (P&DS) Department. The city’s program goes above and beyond baseline federal regulations by protecting both the wetland area in addition to buffer zones around the wetland. The city also maintains open data layers in GIS identifying the location and boundaries of regulated wetlands known to exist within the city and provides public outreach to homeowners related to minimizing impacts to wetlands. In support of the city’s existing efforts related to the protection and preservation of wetlands, it is recommended that the Utility incorporate these efforts as part of the Boulder Urban Stream Health program and in conjunction with stormwater quality project planning initiatives. 3. Monitor and Evaluate Urban Surface Water Quality GOAL: Support compliance related to surface water permitting and regulations. Objective: Collect and evaluate water quality data in support of surface water permits and regulations. The city maintains a long-term surface water monitoring program, including water chemistry, flow measurements and biological health assessments (benthic macroinvertebrates). This long-term monitoring program provides valuable information on current water quality and changes to water quality over time. This program also provides a scientific basis for assessment of stream impairments and informed input regarding future water quality regulations and permits. The monitoring program is one of several advanced long-term monitoring programs in the state, and should be continued, including regular data analysis and synthesis to determine long-term water quality trends. Additionally, integration of stormwater outfall special project monitoring with instream data is an important aspect of assessing the extent to which the MS4 program affects instream water quality, as well as providing an opportunity to link SCM performance with receiving water benefits. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 93 Packet Page 211 of 489 - 40 - The sampling program parameters, locations and frequencies should be periodically reviewed to ensure that the monitoring program is meeting applicable regulatory and science-based objectives. For example, if the city implements a runoff control or stream improvement project, then upstream-downstream (or before-after) monitoring related to such projects could be beneficial for quantifying the benefits of the projects. GOAL: Seek to better understand surface water quality, dynamics, and impacts related to stream health and regulations. Objective: Implement projects and studies to inform regulatory decisions related to city surface water permits. The Stormwater Quality Program will benefit from special projects, studies and/or modeling efforts that evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater quality improvements. For example, the city can take advantage of regional and national SCM performance studies, but the program could benefit from watershed-scale modeling to evaluate the expected benefits of stormwater improvements implemented at scale in Boulder. The city should continue to promote the use of green infrastructure approaches on capital projects and should consider revisiting the water quality modeling efforts and recommended water quality installation projects listed in the stormwater master plan to incorporate infiltration-based approaches. Additionally, the city may want to monitor SCM installations to obtain locally based data on SCM performance, particularly if data gaps are identified for certain SCMs. Boulder has also participated in national nutrient-related modeling research with the Water Research Foundation; such projects can provide an opportunity to leverage directed research for the benefit of the city. Research projects, if implemented, should have well defined, hypothesis driven work plans and study objectives. From time to time, the city has conducted special studies on pollutants of concern such as neonicotinoids. The Stormwater Quality Program should maintain flexibility for studies related to emerging contaminants (with PFAS as a recent example), microplastics, and other topics. The city has a history of partnering with the U.S. Geological Survey and other research entities on such topics. 4. Adaptively Manage Stormwater Quality Program GOAL: Maintain a dynamic and compliant stormwater management program by engaging in state and regional regulatory and research efforts. Objective: Actively engage in water quality planning, policy and regulation in Colorado. Objective: Actively engage in regional collaborative efforts and research related to stormwater quality. Objective: Adaptively manage Boulder’s Stormwater Quality Program to maintain regulatory compliance and adapt to changing climate conditions. The city should continue its active involvement in regional stakeholder groups including the Colorado Stormwater Council, the Mile High Flood District, and targeted stakeholder groups related to water quality and permit issues through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Water Quality Forum. Early and active participation in these efforts helps to ensure that the city’s interests are represented in regulatory actions. Additionally, regionally collaborative research can fill data gaps on topics such as the role of urban stormwater in nutrient loading to streams, design and performance of SCMs in space-constrained sites, evaluation of maximum extent practicable (MEP) performance standards for pollutants such as E. coli, and other Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 94 Packet Page 212 of 489 - 41 - topics. Such regionally collaborative efforts enable higher quality studies to be conducted through pooled resources and generally leverage regional knowledge to avoid duplication of efforts. For example, in Washington State MS4 permit requirements included SCM monitoring; however, a regionally coordinated approach resulted in each MS4 monitoring a specific type of SCM to fill specific data gaps, which minimized cost and provided a more complete data set. Climate resilient infrastructure is a priority for the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility and should be incorporated into the Stormwater Quality Program to minimize risk and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Analysis of factors that lead to resiliency and sustainability in SCMs is a topic of national research. Ongoing planning and evaluation are occurring to develop tangible recommendations for SCM design, implementation and maintenance (e.g., vegetation selection, irrigation requirements). The city should continue to participate in regional efforts to develop low-regret adaptive strategies and support SCM maintenance. It is recommended that the Utility evaluate its programs to identify changes needed to maintain regulatory compliance and to properly resource active programs. For example, the impact of climate change on urban streams is a rapidly evolving topic, and may require adjustment to policies, practices, and research priorities related to stormwater quality. Climate Change and SCMs Heat stress on vegetation and greater evapotranspiration is expected from wetlands and ponds with permanent water surfaces due to warming temperatures caused by climate change. Other potential system stresses include more frequent summer runoff events and reduced inter-event time. Consequently, increased maintenance may be required. Temperature has many effects on biological, chemical and physical processes in green infrastructure stormwater controls. Temperature increases are expected to modify the plant palette for many green infrastructure practices. Furthermore, runoff temperature moderation effects and non-stormwater urban heat island benefits are likely to become increasingly important if temperatures increase. Increased runoff frequency and extended dry periods and/or heat waves have the potential to affect vegetation and maintenance (from Earles et al., 2015). Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 95 Packet Page 213 of 489 - 42 - Recommendations The city’s Stormwater Quality Program has a solid approach in place to comply with MS4 permit requirements. Additionally, the program has a clear vision to improve stormwater quality and stream health and provides a framework that allows flexibility to use evidence-based decision-making to refine specific actions. It can take some time for the efficacy of stormwater quality measures within a watershed to be demonstrated. Non-point source treatment requires numerous SCMs across the watershed; and, given the diffuse and episodic nature of stormwater pollution, results are more likely to be observed as gradual improvements. It is recommended that the Stormwater Quality Program conduct the following high priority actions to further enhance the program beyond regulatory compliance efforts:  Increase the number of green infrastructure facilities on capital projects by participating and co- sponsoring projects to incorporate a runoff control component. This effort should aim for early integration of stormwater quality objectives into projects at the planning and conceptual stage and consider the co-benefits of green infrastructure approaches to develop multifunctional drainage solutions on city-led projects.  Update the stormwater quality section of the Stormwater Master Plan to incorporate updated stormwater quality modeling techniques and identify priority stormwater quality treatment areas and projects using green infrastructure and infiltration-based approaches. Currently, the Stormwater Master Plan focuses on underground SCM water quality project locations which should not be considered the only possible approach.  Develop and implement a systematic approach to evaluating and managing Boulder’s urban streams and riparian areas through monitoring, management planning, and restoration/maintenance project completion. This effort should aim to integrate with flood management planning and consider the hydrology, hydraulics, vegetation, geomorphology, and community values functions of urban streams.  Evaluate E. coli load reduction goals for Boulder Creek based on feasibility and cost-benefit of control measure implementation. This effort should be conducted following the completion of monitoring and evaluation efforts conducted as part of the TMDL Implementation Plan and consider the controllability of sources, risk to public health, and regulatory requirements.  Encourage the community to take action in their neighborhoods and on their own properties to reduce stormwater runoff and mitigate pollutant sources through robust education and outreach programs. Corresponding with the goals and objectives of this chapter, the following stormwater quality policies and supporting actions are recommended for incorporation into the Master Plan:  Maintain compliance with current MS4 permit requirements.  Meet or exceed regulatory requirements for minimum control measures.  Reduce sources of E. coli contributions to Boulder Creek to meet TMDL requirements.  Work to identify potential E. coli sources and determine controllability.  Identify and implement strategies to reduce controllable sources of E. coli in stormwater runoff entering Boulder Creek. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 96 Packet Page 214 of 489 - 43 -  Implement studies, policy initiatives and projects in coordination with other city initiatives that improve urban stream conditions and reduce E. coli loading to Boulder Creek.  Promote the effective design, implementation, and maintenance of green infrastructure approaches to stormwater management.  Promote infiltration/green infrastructure as the preferred stormwater management strategy through policies for capital project and private development implementation.  Conduct education/training both internally and externally to improve SCM design and installation.  Enhance SCM maintenance and inspection program.  Evaluate options and feasibility for implementation of SCMs for small sites <1 acre.  Protect and enhance water quality and urban stream health through strategic collaboration, data collection, programmatic planning, and implementation of water quality projects.  Identify and track the health and function of Boulder’s urban streams.  Develop and implement stream management plans that identify in-stream and riparian maintenance protocols and restoration needs by stream reach.  Implement studies, policy initiatives, and construction projects in coordination with other city initiatives and work groups that improve urban stream conditions.  Support the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of greenways, creek corridors, and wetlands for the protection and improvement of water quality.  Support management of greenways and riparian zones to protect ecological function and community values.  Protect and preserve wetlands.  Support compliance related to surface water permitting and regulations.  Collect and evaluate water quality data in support of surface water permits and regulations.  Seek to better understand surface water quality, dynamics, and impacts related to stream health and regulations.  Implement projects and studies to inform regulatory decisions related to city surface water permits.  Maintain a dynamic and compliant stormwater management program by engaging in state and regional regulatory and research efforts.  Actively engage in water quality planning, policy and regulation in Colorado.  Actively engage in regional collaborative efforts and research related to stormwater quality.  Adaptively manage Boulder’s Stormwater Quality Program to maintain regulatory compliance and adapt to changing climate conditions. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 97 Packet Page 215 of 489 - 44 - References Bledsoe, B., Lammers, R., Clary, J., Jones, J., Earles, A., Leisenring, M., Struck S., and Strecker, E. 2022. Stream Restoration as a BMP: Crediting Guidance. The Water Research Foundation: Denver, CO. City of Boulder (n.d.) Boulder Targeted Homelessness Engagement and Referral Effort. https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/boulder-targeted-homelessness-engagement-and-referral-effort City of Boulder (n.d.) Wetland Permits. https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/wetland-permits City of Boulder (2021). Wetland Tips for Homeowners. April 7. https://bouldercolorado.gov/news/wetland-tips- homeowners Boulder County (n.d.). Wildfire Hazard and Mitigation System. https://www.bouldercounty.org/disasters/wildfires/mitigation/wildfire-hazard-identification/ Earles, T.A., MacKenzie, K., Bennetts, D., and Traylor, J. (2015). Planning for Variability and Uncertainty: Climate Change and UDFCD Urban Drainage System. Accessible at: https://mhfd.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/12/Climate_Change_and_the_Urban_Drainage_System.pdf. GEI. (2019). E coli TMDL Implementation Plan, City of Boulder. JW Associates Inc. (2012). Saint Vrain Wildfire/Watershed Assessment. Accessible at: https://www.jw- associates.org/projects/saint-vrain-wildfirewatershed-assessment Washington Department of Ecology (n.d.). Stormwater Action Monitoring. Accessible at: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Reporting-requirements/Stormwater- monitoring/Stormwater-Action-Monitoring Williams, A. P., Livneh, B., McKinnon, K. A., Hansen, W. D., Mankin, J. S., Cook, B. I., Smerdon, J.E., Varuolo-Clarke, A.M., Bjarke, N.R., Juang, C.S. & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2022). Growing impact of wildfire on western US water supply. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(10). Accessible at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2114069119 Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (2019). City of Boulder Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan. Prepared for the City of Boulder. Wright Water Engineers and Geosyntec Consultants. (2014). Colorado E. coli Toolbox: A Practical Guide for MS4s. Prepared for Mile High Flood District. Accessible at: https://mhfd.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/12/Denver-E-coli-Toolbox-08-5-2016.pdf Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 98 Packet Page 216 of 489 - 45 - 4 Stormwater Drainage Urbanization increases direct stormwater runoff caused by land use change and must be actively managed to minimize local flooding and impacts to streams and drainageways. Stormwater drainage systems traditionally consist of a minor system for modest size rainfall events and a major system for emergency flows. The City of Boulder follows Mile High Flood District policy for the sizing of stormwater drainage systems. This includes sizing the minor system to convey the 2-year storm event in residential areas and the 5-year storm event along collector and arterial roads and in commercial areas. The minor system is the conventional drainage system designed to minimize disruptions and safely allow the movement of pedestrians and traffic. This system includes gutters, roadside ditches 3, culverts, catch basins, storm drains, detention ponds, and open channels. Minor systems have been expanding in recent years to include green infrastructure elements such as bioretention practices and porous pavements. Green infrastructure components are often focused on meeting stormwater quality improvement and climate objectives; however, many communities also include meeting hydrologic objectives for small storms. Boulder’s history of flash flooding associated with the major drainageways often overshadows the fact that flooding can happen anywhere, regardless of proximity to waterbodies. When extreme rainfall events occur, stormwater runoff can cause localized flooding on streets and in neighborhoods that happens independent of an overflowing waterbody. Major systems are designed to convey flows from the 100-year storm event in Boulder and include the use of streets, urban streams and drainageways, and larger detention ponds. While the major system is intended to direct and route these emergency flows, residents and businesses also have a role in protecting their properties and ensuring the safe flow of water around structures when storm events result in unusually long or intense rainfall. 3 Sometimes called a “borrow” ditch, a roadside channel is dug for drainage purposes. These are different from irrigation ditches, which deliver water associated with water rights to a downstream beneficial use. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 99 Packet Page 217 of 489 - 46 - Current Stormwater Conveyance Network Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 100 Packet Page 218 of 489 - 47 - Policy Discussion The current policies related to stormwater drainage are mostly contained within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and in the Stormwater Master Plan. Since the Mile High Flood District sets policy standards for the communities it serves, variations between the two sets of policies will be evaluated and updated where necessary. The CFS Master Plan establishes standards and considerations that inform the development of project specific planning efforts, including updates to the Stormwater Master Plan. The following section discusses issues and approaches to address identified improvement actions from a policy perspective. Policy and Program Goals The policy and program evaluation (Appendix A) identified a set of goals and objectives that could be used to evaluate the existing programs within the Utility. As part of the analysis on stormwater drainage policy, these goals and objectives were reviewed and refined where necessary to meet the current and future needs of the Utility. Stormwater Collection System GOAL: Provide an adequate stormwater collection and conveyance system for existing and future development within the city Objective: Size the stormwater collection and conveyance system to convey runoff from a 2-year storm event in residential areas, and from a 5-year storm events for collector and arterial roadways and in commercial areas Objective: Focus on problem areas created by smaller storms to address localized flooding GOAL: Control the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from development and redevelopment projects to minimize impacts of localized and downstream flooding and stream bank and channel erosion Objective: Limit post-development peak flow conditions to match pre-development 4 peak flow conditions GOAL: Provide a connected and continuous stormwater collection and conveyance system that does not discharge into irrigation ditches, where practical. Objective: Identify stormwater connections into irrigation ditches Objective: Identify irrigation ditches having insufficient capacity for stormwater conveyance Objective: Identify and manage modifications that may impact irrigation ditches in partnership with irrigation ditch companies 4 Pre-development peak flow conditions refer to existing conditions prior to redevelopment, not green field conditions. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 101 Packet Page 219 of 489 - 48 - Operations and Maintenance GOAL: Ensure the stormwater collection and conveyance system functions properly and yields expected capacity to protect public safety and the city's investment in the system Objective: Provide routine inspections and assessments of the entire system Objective: Provide routine maintenance of pipes, structures, natural and man-made channels including irrigation ditches, and public detention facilities Objective: Provide minor repairs to existing pipes and structures GOAL: Provide maintenance accessibility to the entire stormwater collection and conveyance system Objective: Identify reaches of the stormwater collection and conveyance system lacking adequate maintenance access Objective: Provide permanent access to reaches of the stormwater collection and conveyance system, detention facilities, and other drainage facilities for routine and major maintenance activities GOAL: Provide irrigation ditch maintenance per existing maintenance agreements with irrigation ditch companies Objective: Identify tasks for irrigation ditch maintenance in current asset management system to develop a predictive maintenance plan in partnership with irrigation ditch companies GOAL: Ensure resources are available to provide emergency maintenance on the stormwater collection and conveyance system Objective: Identify resources required to provide emergency maintenance during and after storm events Level of Service Standards It is often not economically feasible to design stormwater collection and conveyance systems to fully manage extreme precipitation events without overflow. For that reason, it is necessary to determine what level of service this system will provide. During storm events that occur frequently, but result in moderate and more manageable flow rates, it is expected that the stormwater system will collect and convey excess stormwater runoff in a way that provides public convenience, minimally interferes with traffic, and prevents property damage caused by excess ponding of stormwater runoff. This system is often referred to as the initial drainage system, or the minor system. When larger storm events occur, some degree of flooding is expected, and major systems then convey runoff that exceeds the capacity of the minor system. Major systems are not always intentionally designed and are often incorrectly assumed to consist only of the major drainageways. During major storm events, flooding can occur anywhere in the watershed when emergency overflows are not intentionally designed to safely convey excess runoff to the major drainageways. When this happens, flooding impacts property and can threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Major drainage systems, regardless of type, should be capable of conveying water without flooding buildings or impacting life safety and remain relatively stable during major Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 102 Packet Page 220 of 489 - 49 - runoff events. Major systems should provide the same level of service irrespective of whether the cause of flooding is rainfall or out-of-bank river flooding. Design storm frequencies are selected to determine the peak flow rate that should be managed by various parts of the stormwater drainage system for both the minor storm and the major storm. It is recommended that design storm frequencies be reported in the city’s Design and Construction Standards. Stormwater Master Plan The city’s Stormwater Master Plan (SMP), last updated in 2016, serves as a long-term guide to address existing and future stormwater drainage and stormwater quality issues. It contains a plan for the stormwater drainage system to alleviate current capacity and flooding problems. It also evaluates the existing stormwater infrastructure with respect to system analysis criteria created as part of the master plan. The SMP also recommends further improvements to address future conditions more thoroughly and evaluate the impacts of stormwater runoff on the entire watershed. Data Collection and Continuous Improvement. Section 3 of the 2016 Stormwater Master Plan notes several limitations with the input data. For example, limited survey information was available for the major roadside ditches and the irrigation ditches. Today’s hydrologic and hydraulic models are highly integrated with geographic information systems. This plan recommends that a GIS database containing the conveyance assets be continuously improved in a format directly compatible with the hydraulic model. Updates to the model can then be processed quickly and efficiently and become a continuous improvement process as well. The recommended long-term goal should be to include the entire collection system and irrigation ditches in the model. Model Calibration. Calibration of the hydrologic and hydraulic model to both measured flow data in the collection system and reported flooding complaints provides increased accuracy. Data collection and calibration efforts can be costly. However, when the estimated investments needs are over $114M, consideration of model calibration may be warranted. Synergies with outfall monitoring efforts conducted by the stormwater quality program could be explored to use collected flow data for environmental monitoring and model calibration purposes. Model Approach. Incorporate a 2-dimensional (2-D) modeling approach to combine a 1-D model of the minor conveyance system (storm sewer pipes) and a 2-D surface model which routes overland flow. There are several benefits to using a 2-D stormwater model. The primary benefit is to map the overland flow like a floodplain along a river. Mapping the overland flow improves the overall understanding the system which leads to better alternative improvement analysis. Mapping the overland flow is also beneficial for communicating with decision makers and the community to convey risk. Additionally, areas of the city which do not have storm sewers, and hence are not included in typical 1-D model analyses, are easily included in a 2-D model approach. This approach would also allow for the incorporation of irrigation ditches into the model to improve the understanding of the relative importance of irrigation ditches for urban drainage and alternatives analysis. Furthermore, knowledge of irrigation ditch conveyance would inform stormwater carriage agreement negotiations with irrigation ditch companies. Analyze a Range of Scenarios. As part of the hydraulic analysis, a range of design storms up to and including the 1-percent chance recurrence interval (100-year) should be modeled. The resilience of the system should also be evaluated over a range of scenarios. This could include modeling a range of tailwater conditions as part of a sensitivity analysis and evaluating the system response to historical storm events either as discrete events or as a continuous simulation. In the evaluation of alternatives, increasing the level of service provided should be Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 103 Packet Page 221 of 489 - 50 - evaluated. Often going up a single pipe size for conveyance of the minor storm event has a significant impact on the level of service provided but only results in a marginal impact on the capital costs. Multifunctional Solution Approach. Look for ways to provide community benefits beyond just drainage, such as recreational value, biodiversity, social resilience, improved microclimates, environmental sustainability, and vibrant economic growth. Look for synergistic solutions with other projects in the city. The identified water quality improvement projects in the Stormwater Master Plan are predominantly manhole treatment devices that prevent pollutants from entering into the stormwater collection and conveyance system. These improvements do not incorporate multifunctional benefits like low impact development and green infrastructure approaches and should be revisited. Climate Change and Resilience Climate model projections for Colorado agree on a warming average annual temperature, with temperatures already rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of the twentieth century (Frankson, et al., 2022). There is a high degree of uncertainty in precipitation projections. Urban drainage systems are designed using rainfall intensity, and when rainfall events become more intense, the system’s level of service will decrease. Engineers and climate change scientists must work collaboratively to observe and forecast changes in intensity- duration-frequency estimates and develop strategies to make infrastructure more resilient. Examples of strategies from around the country and world include:  Change the level of service criteria: Madison, WI, increased their target level of service standards for culverts, drainage of enclosed depressions, detention basins, and road surfaces as an interim step while a state initiative evaluates climate change impacts. Another similar approach is to add an additional level of service criteria, for example Copenhagen, Denmark, added a criterion for considering cloudbursts (defined as a 100-year storm event for Copenhagen).  Apply confidence intervals to precipitation frequency estimates: Another approach which relies only on historical rainfall data, is to consider the confidence intervals associated with the precipitation frequency estimates rather than just the most frequently occurring number. For example, NOAA publishes 90% confidence intervals with the estimates (NOAA, 2013).  Implement a risk management approach in design: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) promotes a risk-based approach where climate analysis is based on the infrastructure design life and the use or occupancy of buildings and structures served by the drainage infrastructure. Communities like Boston, MA, New York, NY, and Washington, DC, have incorporated risk management components into their programs and commonly associate this with critical infrastructure or critical facilities. Due to significant uncertainty and variability in climate change science along the Front Range, best engineering practices to account for the uncertainty associated with climate change impacts are recommended over specific design requirements for all stormwater drainage infrastructure. A risk management approach that considers the design life of infrastructure and the use or occupancy of buildings and structures served by the drainage infrastructure is recommended. This approach places increased analysis and informed decision making in areas where the consequences of flooding are high and are commonly associated with critical infrastructure (ASCE, 2018). Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 104 Packet Page 222 of 489 - 51 - In general, agencies are finding that the current codes are inadequate both in coverage and applicability for their assets and many are navigating through the effort to write standards and guidelines (ASCE, 2018). A comprehensive assessment should be undertaken to understand and reshape the guidance as it relates to stormwater and flood mitigation. Operation and Maintenance All infrastructure requires maintenance. However, there is no industry standard on the recommended frequency of maintenance within a stormwater collection and conveyance system. Rather inspection and maintenance should be done at a frequency that is necessary to keep the system functioning as intended. This may start at a set schedule but is often adjusted based on repeated findings through the use of an asset management system. In 2021, Boulder’s Utilities Maintenance work group continued to make major changes to increase maintenance efficiency and frequency by splitting into two separate groups, one of which is solely responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater drainage infrastructure. Additional staffing resources were dedicated to support this area of maintenance, which also includes responding to customer complaints related to the stormwater drainage system. Current policies do not definitively define all roles and responsibilities related to operations and maintenance of the stormwater drainage system, including defining what constitutes public maintenance responsibilities and what constitutes private maintenance responsibilities in some cases. It is recommended that operations and maintenance policies be included in the CFS Master Plan to achieve the following: 1) Define what constitutes the public stormwater drainage system versus a privately owned stormwater drainage system 2) Support the city staff in making maintenance and capital improvement decisions related to the city’s stormwater collection and conveyance system 3) Define public and private maintenance responsibilities for stormwater drainage systems 4) Clarify that the city may conduct emergency maintenance operations when warranted 5) Ensure that property owners understand their operation and maintenance responsibilities The specification of detailed maintenance activities, including frequency of occurrence, is best discussed in an operation and maintenance manual instead of at the policy level. Customer Input from Inquire Boulder Resources needed to address customer inquiries places a significant demand on many communities. Records of comments and complaints should be centralized into one dataset, which the city has done with the Inquire Boulder system. For the five-year period from 2015 through 2019, a total of 469 storm drain problems were recorded in the Inquire Boulder system (Figure 4.1). The frequency of records is highest in May (18 per month) and June (14 per month) and the least frequent in September thru February (averaging 3 to 6 per month). This Master Plan recommends that a policy be included to specify how inquiries will be handled and what response will be provided. Target times for response to inquiries will vary based on the volume and severity of issues raised. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 105 Packet Page 223 of 489 - 52 - Figure 4.1 – 2015 to 2019 Stormwater Drainage Complaints from Inquire Boulder It is recommended that Inquire Boulder be expanded to include links for more information like upcoming storm conditions, what residents need to do to prevent local flooding, quick facts, requesting assistance, opportunities to volunteer, and general education about stormwater which is tied to the MS4 permit. This could also include information such as where to route downspouts and sump pump discharges along with legal implications if runoff is mismanaged. The city’s website for snow and ice removal already contains examples of this, as does Seattle Public Utilities’ website focused on Wet Weather Preparation Tips. Continuous Improvement Maintaining information on the stormwater infrastructure is best thought of as a continuous improvement process. All data associated with surveys, inspections, assessments, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, design, construction, and maintenance should have a process by which data is continuously updated in a master database. To accomplish this, contracts with outside agencies should include provisions of deliverables to provide the data in a compatible format. To aid with this process, it is beneficial to have a standardized data format. Coordination with Planning and Development Services (P&DS) will be required for projects related to private development. Additionally, hydrologic and hydraulic models should be the property of the Utility and should be clearly stated as such in all contract documents. It’s often beneficial for a community to adopt modeling guidelines which specify modeling requirements, methods, naming conventions, submittal requirements, and other technical details. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) has a robust example of modeling guidelines. Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling software packages are continuously evolving and updating. Standardizing the software package(s) used is often desirable but can be challenging. Most of the modeling software makes use of GIS data, often directly linking with the GIS files. Data collected as part of the model analysis (e.g., surveyed pipe and channel data) should be updated in the master database. Model results such as pipe capacity information, peak flow rates from design storms, and other pertinent data should also be included in the GIS database format for sharing and storing information. 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 10 20 30 Jan-2015May-2015Sep-2015Jan-2016May-2016Sep-2016Jan-2017May-2017Sep-2017Jan-2018May-2018Sep-2018Jan-2019May-2019Sep-2019Cumulative InquiresInquires by MonthAttachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 106 Packet Page 224 of 489 - 53 - Staggering and Sequencing Project Work The existing Stormwater Master Plan is a good overarching plan with conceptual designs and project prioritization. Prior to construction of the prioritized projects, additional modeling will be necessary to refine the designs. Oftentimes, the accepted approach is to collect the data necessary to understand the condition of the existing infrastructure followed by a period of monitoring to refine and calibrate the hydraulic and hydraulic models, which then become the basis for design. Not every project will require model calibration. However, based on the substantial investments needs, collecting monitoring data to calibrate the model is often cost effective. Additionally, the collected data can also be used to update the city’s asset management database. Since these phases can take a significant amount of time, it is prudent to stagger multiple projects at different points within their individual sequence. By developing a formal sequence, projects can be staggered to account for public engagement, coordination between departments, budget cycles, and typical timeline required for each project phase. A formal project flowchart may be beneficial which identifies all the various steps and coordination required (Figure 4.2). Project Time 1 Data Collection Monitoring Model Design Construction 2 Data Collection Monitoring Model Design Construction 3 Data Collection Monitoring Model Design Construction Figure 4.2 – Example Project Staggering and Sequencing Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 107 Packet Page 225 of 489 - 54 - Recommendations The following stormwater drainage policies and general suggestions are being recommended: Stormwater Drainage System  Provide a comprehensive and integrated stormwater drainage system for existing and future development to adequately convey and manage stormwater runoff. This includes systems to mitigate safety hazards, protect property, and minimize disruption during and after minor and major storm events.  Design storm frequencies for the minor and major storm events and associated design criteria shall be as defined in the latest edition of the Design and Construction Standards.  Minor storm event criteria are designed to maintain travel on public streets and provide public convenience, minimally interfere with traffic, and prevent property damage during frequently occurring storms.  Major storm event criteria are designed to prevent building flooding and minimize danger to human life when the rate or volume of runoff exceeds the capacity of the system designed for the minor storm event.  Manage a GIS database related to stormwater collection and conveyance assets to be maintained in a format that is directly compatible with the hydraulic model for the stormwater drainage system and current asset management software.  Develop guidelines related to data quality  Identify necessary information needed to update the GIS database to be requested upon completion of construction projects, inspections, or repairs to the system.  Require projects that include modifications or additions to the public or a private stormwater drainage network to provide updated GIS stormwater network files conforming the city’s GIS database guidelines as part of project closeout information.  The stormwater drainage system is not a standalone network but is a subsystem of the city’s overall stormwater and flood management system. Stormwater system planning and design should include evaluation of broader impacts to interrelated systems and functions, such as stormwater quality, protection of natural drainageways, and flood mitigation. Multifunctional solutions should be considered to benefit the quality and performance of the overall drainage infrastructure.  The city will strive to minimize flooding, stream bank and channel erosion within the major drainageway system by controlling the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from development and redevelopment projects.  Adaptive risk management should be used to achieve climate resilience of infrastructure. It is recommended that the city adopt a policy that adaptive risk management be considered for inclusion in currently used standards.  Uncertainty associated with future climate conditions is not completely quantifiable, leading to considerable engineering judgement to balance the cost of mitigating risk through adaptation against the potential consequences of failure. Stakeholders should be informed about the Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 108 Packet Page 226 of 489 - 55 - uncertainty of the projections and the reasons for the uncertainty as described by the climate science community.  Acknowledge that there is a high degree of uncertainty and consider the feasibility to use low-regret adaptive strategies to make a project more resilient to future climate and weather extremes.  Continue to identify critical infrastructure that is most threatened and evaluate the costs and benefits for projects and strategies to protect this infrastructure (including the use of the Project Prioritization Framework, which provides significant opportunity to identify and discuss the merits and priority of projects to protect critical infrastructure). Stormwater Master Plan  For the purposes of evaluating and improving the stormwater drainage system’s performance during both the minor and major storm events, the Utility will maintain and update a stormwater master plan, also known as a master drainage plan. This plan must identify the infrastructure required to provide for the drainage and management of surface waters within the city’s watersheds in a way that protects people, prevents property damage, minimizes interference with traffic, mitigates increases in stormwater runoff due to land use changes, and prevents increases in flooding, by carrying such waters to designated points without overflow or discharge.  Include the entire collection system and irrigation ditches in a hydrologic-hydraulic model that is calibrated to both measured flow data in the collection system and reported flooding complaints.  Model the system with a 2-dimensional (2-D) approach, which combines a 1-D model of the minor conveyance system (storm sewer pipes) and a 2-D surface model which routes overland flow.  Analyze a range of design storms up to and including the 1-percent chance recurrence interval (100-year event).  Adopt modeling guidelines which specify modeling requirements, methods, naming conventions, submittal requirements, and other technical details. Require that the hydrologic and hydraulic models become the property of the Utility as part of submittal requirements. Operation and Maintenance  Public stormwater drainage infrastructure consisting of stormwater inlets including catch basins, storm sewers, and storm sewer appurtenances such as manholes, junctions, etc., are considered part of the public stormwater system and shall be maintained by Utilities. Staff shall conduct periodic inspections and routine maintenance of the public stormwater drainage infrastructure at a frequency necessary to ensure its continuing and proper function. Privately owned stormwater drainage infrastructure, the major drainageway system, irrigation ditches, and irrigation laterals are not part of the public stormwater drainage infrastructure and are to be maintained by others except in the case of a contractual obligation.  Clearly define infrastructure that shall be maintained by the Utilities Maintenance work group.  Clearly define infrastructure that shall be maintained by private property owners. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 109 Packet Page 227 of 489 - 56 -  Information collected during inspection and maintenance activities will be used to support the Utility’s asset management system, by evaluating the condition of the assets and setting priorities for operational and maintenance work, as well as identifying capital improvement project needs.  Inspection, cleaning, and maintenance frequencies will be updated as needed based on system needs, the probably of failure, and the consequence of failure.  Identify the information to be included in the stormwater drainage GIS database and when it is to be updated  Property owners are required to maintain culverts that extend under private driveways and natural or artificial drainageways conveying open channel flow contained within drainage easements or within public rights-of-way free from obstruction to ensure maximum designed flow may pass at all times. Property owners may not alter drainage improvements, drainageways contained within drainage easements or within public rights-of-way. Under current practice, property owners are required to maintain the roadside ditches adjacent to their properties in areas without curb and gutter and should not block such drainages. (B.R.C. 9-12-12(c)).  The Utility may perform emergency maintenance on privately owned stormwater drainage systems when necessary to protect the common good. Emergency maintenance applies to conditions which may be potentially damaging to life, property, or public roads and rights-of-way. Emergency maintenance should not be construed as the city accepting maintenance obligations for privately maintained infrastructure.  Reports for maintenance requests received by phone or through Inquire Boulder will be relayed to on- call personnel for response and recorded for use by the Utility’s asset management system. Maintenance necessary during large-scale events with high volumes of maintenance requests may be contracted to private contractors through existing service contracts to respond to situations that require immediate attention.  Stormwater problem investigations (i.e., local ponding or flooding). City crews will investigate reported problems. Develop a timeline for contacting the individual regarding the complaint and schedule an investigation time as appropriate. Problems originating in the public drainage system are addressed by the city in a prioritized fashion. Some solutions may be the property owner’s responsibility. When solutions are the responsibility of the property owner, city staff may offer available resources for more information.  Street flooding during, or immediately after, a storm event. City crews will respond and alleviate maintenance-related street flooding as soon as possible. Residents should be informed that they may not be contacted directly or observe crews working on problems during heavy storm events, as crews are moving quickly to resolve issues.  Dry weather conditions problem reporting, such as blocked storm drain inlet, or broken, dislodged or missing inlet grates and manhole covers. City crews will respond and address problems as necessary. Residents may not receive a call-back.  The city may elect to not respond to complaints regarding privately owned drainage systems, e.g., a detention or retention basin that is the responsibility of a subdivision or neighborhood. From a public relations standpoint it is often good to respond to these types of complaints and a phone call should be sufficient over an on-site visit. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 110 Packet Page 228 of 489 - 57 - References ASCE. (2018). Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 140, Climate-Resilient Infrastructure, Adaptive Design and Risk Management. American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Adaptation to a Changing Climate. City of Boulder and Boulder County. (2015). Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2015 Major Update. Adopted 2017. FEMA. (2017). National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Coordinator's Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Frankson, R., Kunkel, K. E., Stevens, L. E., Easterling, D. R., Umphlett, N. A., Stiles, C. J., . . . Goble, P. E. (2022). Colorado State Climate Summary 2022. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 150-CO. Retrieved from NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information: State Climate Summaries 2022: https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/co/ HDR. (2016). City of Boulder 2016 Stormwater Master Plan. City of Boulder, Colorado. Mahoney, K., Lukas, J., & Mueller, M. (2018). Colorado - New Mexico Regional Extreme Precipitation Study: Summary Report, Volume VI. Considering Climate Change Estimation of Extreme Precipitation for Dam Safety. Colorado Division of Water Resources. MHFD. (2021). Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1, 2, & 3. Mile High Flood District. NOAA. (2013). Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States. NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2.0: MIdwestern States (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wisconsin). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA. (2022). Analysis of Impact of Nonstationary Climate on NOAA Atlas 14 Estimates: Assessment Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service Office of Water Prediction. URS. (2004). Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan. City of Boulder. Wobus, C., & Bash, R. (2020, December 31). Memorandum to Coleman, B., City of Boulder. Incorporating Climate Change into Flood Control Along South Boulder Creek: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Guidance. Lynker Technologies. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 111 Packet Page 229 of 489 - 58 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 112 Packet Page 230 of 489 - 59 - 5 Groundwater Much of the City of Boulder is built in areas where groundwater can be within a few feet of the ground surface, depending on the season. This can present issues with short-term dewatering during construction and longer- term dewatering associated with permanent, subterranean structures (i.e., basements and underground parking garages). In the latter instance, the most common method to limit water damage is a permanent footing drain system connected to a sump pump. Water is collected by the footing drains and then either pumped to the surface where it is discharged at grade or pumped into a nearby storm sewer. Although not all sump pump discharge is a problem, it can become a nuisance when improperly discharged. Note that for the purposes of this document, the word “groundwater” is used generically to mean any underground water which is not exclusively regulated by the State. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) issues permits related to groundwater discharge that focus on discharge volume and water quality5. Activities associated with single family residential buildings are generally exempt from these permits, which make a distinction between infiltration from stormwater and groundwater. If stormwater infiltrates into the ground and is dewatered prior to reaching the zone of saturation, it is not considered groundwater by the State. Therefore, it is presumed that if a typical residential basement construction requires dewatering, it is in direct response to precipitation events and the pumped water is assumed to be stormwater; thus, requiring no permit. Discharging stormwater comingled with groundwater does require a state Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) discharge permit and is not required to meet the criteria and provisions of WQP-27, Low Risk Discharges Policy when discharging to the surface. Per City of Boulder regulations, infiltrated stormwater or uncontaminated groundwater can either be discharged to grade with no permit or to the city storm sewer with a city permit 6 as long as the discharge complies with state regulations. City of Boulder permitting includes a review of system capacity among other considerations. Discharges to grade must generally follow historic drainage patterns and should not leave the property in such a way that it creates adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the public right-of-way7. The improper discharge of sump pumps can create nuisance drainage that may negatively impact adjacent properties and create hazards in the rights-of-way, such as the formation of ice and slime on sidewalks and roads. 5General Permit No. COG603000 for Discharges from Subterranean Dewatering Activities 6 BRC 11-5-5 (d)(2) relates to storm sewer discharge regulations 7 BRC 8-2-8 details water discharges that are prohibited, required remediation, and city enforcement actions Groundwater Groundwater exists in the voids present in the layers of soil and rock and is typically defined by areas where all the spaces and cracks are completely filled with water, also called the zone of saturation. Locating and mapping depths to groundwater can be tricky because the composition and depths of soil and rock can vary substantially, even within a few lateral feet. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 113 Packet Page 231 of 489 - 60 - Policy Discussion Both the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the 2004 CFS Master Plan recommended the consideration of additional regulations related to groundwater. This section identifies and compares potential regulation and policy options to address the identified issues. Policy and Program Goals The policy and program evaluation (Appendix A) identified goals and objectives that could be used to evaluate the existing groundwater programs within the Utility. As part of the analysis on groundwater policy, these goals and objectives were reviewed and refined to meet the current and future needs. GOAL: Mitigate impacts on groundwater or surface water quantity and quality, groundwater recharge, local water wells, wetlands, and ecosystems Objective: Minimize subsurface structures that require ongoing dewatering GOAL: Address the unintended consequences created by dewatering activities that cause harm to adjacent properties or create hazards in the public right-of-way Objective: Reduce the number of complaints related to improper groundwater discharge Objective: Identify and publish mitigation and remediation measures that can be implemented by private property owners to encourage compliance with state and local regulations The following section includes discussion of approaches used in other locations throughout the United States to address issues similar to the identified improvement actions. Right-of-Way Hazard Created by Improper Discharge Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 114 Packet Page 232 of 489 - 61 - Regulating Groundwater The city has given much consideration to the regulation of groundwater dewatering activities8. However, nuisance problems persist due to limited options for lawful discharge of pumped subsurface water. Small lot sizes or lots with little pervious area are common to Boulder and result in a lack of space for onsite infiltration of sump pump discharge that leads to nuisance runoff. Residents may be unaware of regulations and/or effective means to discharge sump water. This runoff can cause private property damage, both at the discharge site and to properties adjacent to the discharge site, especially during times of high groundwater or large precipitation events. Nuisance runoff that crosses the public right-of-way creates resource demands on city staff who are frequently called to investigate sump pump discharge complaints. Additionally, groundwater in Boulder naturally contains elements like arsenic, silver, and selenium that could be considered pollutants at higher concentrations. Increasing discharge of sump pumps into the storm sewer system raises concerns about whether these storm sewer inputs may create future problems with the city’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. While individual sump pump discharge locations may not require State permitting, the cumulative effects of these discharges could become significant contributors of future pollutants that the city would be required to manage. Many other communities across the United States experience similar issues with both short-term and long-term dewatering activities and have tried increasing dewatering regulations to address the problem. In 2016, the City of Palo Alto, California, began requiring groundwater dewatering mitigation measures as part of their construction dewatering regulations. These measures include either constructing a cutoff wall or undergoing a hydrogeologic study, installation of a groundwater monitoring well, a dewatering plan, and a groundwater use plan to address the method and location of discharge. Although Palo Alto is seeing some initial benefit from such measures, the long-term groundwater impacts are still unknown. Additionally, building construction costs have increased substantially due to the significant costs associated with the cutoff wall and hydrogeologic study. Elsewhere, communities have considered enacting a wholesale prohibition of subterranean structures for all new construction to reduce issues associated with dewatering. However, no successful examples of implementing this type of citywide regulation were found. For example, West University Place, Texas, proposed banning the construction of all residential basements in 2011, but met opposition from the community and was ultimately unsuccessful in getting the measure passed. Therefore, they instead passed a regulation limiting the size, location and use of new basements below residential and commercial structures. Lastly, there is also precedent for regulating basement depths based on the widespread presence of high groundwater. Multiple cities in Wisconsin and in coastal areas have regulations that require basement floors to be constructed one or two feet above the seasonal-high groundwater elevation. Within the City of Boulder, the claim is often made that building height restrictions limit the final construction size, and therefore, basements are necessary to increase livable area beneath houses. The cities mentioned above do not have the same height restrictions as Boulder. Therefore, their regulations may not be as limiting in terms of final construction size. In Boulder, the construction of residential subterranean structures is currently prohibited within the 100-year floodplain. This regulation could potentially be expanded to include other areas with high groundwater outside the 100-year floodplain, but determining these areas can be problematic. Mapping Boulder’s groundwater depths would provide an increased degree of accuracy in determining areas of high groundwater but is resource- and cost-prohibitive such that the gain achieved in reducing nuisance sump pump discharges does not justify the 8 Until 2019, the city had a groundwater discharge permit that was subsequently discontinued due to its duplicative nature with State permits. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 115 Packet Page 233 of 489 - 62 - cost. Boulder could consider whether the application of more stringent regulations on groundwater impacts should be applied on a case-by-case basis dependent on engineering reports. However, this approach may not achieve consistent, equitable, or practical resolution to groundwater discharge issues. Alternatives to Regulations There are, of course, areas of the U.S. where basements are not commonplace. This practice is often driven not by regulations, but rather by foundation and constructability issues. For example, areas with excessively high groundwater or expansive clays such as “caliche” soils can experience interior flooding and problems with damp walls. Dewatering systems in these areas can often prove inadequate in handling the high volume of water and are not reliably covered by insurance when they fail. These issues are frequently avoided altogether by eliminating construction of subterranean structures in these areas. In locations where soil and groundwater conditions make the construction of basements unfavorable, cities may find it necessary to educate builders and the community about challenges and potential risks related to subterranean construction. Education efforts result in more informed home buyers and potentially a diminished desire to construct a home with a basement. However, this approach does not eliminate the problems altogether. Rather, dewatering activities become something to manage versus something to eliminate. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 116 Packet Page 234 of 489 - 63 - Recommendations Ongoing dewatering activities associated with subterranean construction including those from single family residential basements can create unintended consequences that can harm adjacent properties or present hazards in the public rights-of-way. The location and movement of groundwater varies significantly throughout the city, and mapping and identifying the depths of seasonally high groundwater can be costly and impractical. Increasing regulations may be marginally effective in reducing dewatering issues but can increase construction costs and raise equity concerns. Therefore, because of the questionable benefit and potential for limited return on investment, this Master Plan does not recommend that Boulder pursue further regulation at this time. It is therefore recommended that Boulder enhance education of the community on the public and personal hazards associated with subterranean construction in an equitable manner, including:  Educate the community on groundwater risks, dewatering systems, and to give a better understanding of operation and maintenance requirements for a dewatering system.  Update and keep current education materials related to localized options for addressing sump discharges and share interdepartmentally to ensure consistent messaging. Knowledge about the proper discharge from dewatering systems may lead to a reduction in nuisance drainage and associated damage to private property and hazards in the public rights-of-way. New construction of subterranean features could be discouraged in an education campaign. Additionally, private property owners with sump pumps and those looking to build can be made aware of the hazards associated with improper discharge and could be encouraged or incentivized to properly discharge. The desired outcome of this policy is to discourage new subterranean construction and to correct problems associated with existing improper sump pump discharge. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 117 Packet Page 235 of 489 - 64 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 118 Packet Page 236 of 489 - 65 - 6 Floodplain and Hazard Mapping The City of Boulder is situated at the base of the Rocky Mountain Foothills where large drainage areas associated with the city’s major floodways are predominantly located. These drainage areas can generate considerable stormwater runoff that is conveyed through steep canyons prior to entering the city limits. As a result, Boulder is highly susceptible to flash floods that carry large volumes of sediment and debris, resulting in hard to predict flooding conditions. Boulder’s current floodplain mapping studies meet or exceed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Guidelines and Standards in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and are based on inundation potential as is typical for standard flood hazard maps. This floodplain mapping forms the basis for the city’s floodplain management and mitigation, floodplain regulations, and the NFIP. Therefore, it is important that current floodplain maps accurately reflect existing conditions. The community has expressed a desire for access to a higher level of hazard mapping that more accurately represents the flooding conditions and hazards within the city for flood-preparation and decision-making purposes. Programs and Initiatives Supported by Floodplain and Hazard Maps  National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)  NFIP Community Rating System (Flood Insurance Premium Reductions)  Federal, State, and Regional Funding  Future Land Use Planning  Flood Hazard Risk Assessment  Floodplain Regulations  Floodplain Mitigation Efforts  Outreach and Education  Flood Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Debris Carried by Flooding in 2013 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 119 Packet Page 237 of 489 - 66 - Policy Discussion Although the city's floodplain mapping must meet FEMA standards, the city has discretion about which methods to use to develop these maps. For example, the city takes guidance provided by FEMA, Colorado Water Conservation Board, and Mile High Flood District (MHFD) into consideration when setting modeling and mapping standards. Although this flexibility still meets federal regulations, the resulting variability can present challenges when comparing and prioritizing flood mitigation needs across Boulder’s drainages. Improvements in the accuracy of available data and modeling software will continue to add further options for mapping procedures and parameters. Therefore, policies and practices that promote consistent methodologies and uniform mapping are recommended to better support comparison of flood risk across drainages. Policy and Program Goals The policy and program evaluation (Appendix A) identified a set of goals and objectives that could be used to evaluate the existing policies and programs related to floodplain and hazard mapping within the Utility. As part of the analysis, these goals and objectives were reviewed and refined to meet the current and future needs. The following policy analysis and recommendations support the goals and objectives listed below. GOAL: Provide floodplain mapping throughout the city to inform land use decisions Objective: Comply with current FEMA and city standards for updating and adopting regulatory floodplain maps Objective: Identify areas subject to the greatest risk of flooding within the city GOAL: Inform the community of floodplain risks and areas prone to hazards Objective: Identify areas subject to flood-related hazards to reflect flood risks in Boulder Hydraulic Modeling Hydraulic modeling incorporates simulation and analysis to identify how likely it is for an area to flood. For example, areas within the delineated 100-year floodplain have 1 percent chance or higher of experiencing a flood each year, whereas the delineated 500-year floodplain represents a 0.2 percent chance or higher of experiencing a flood each year. This information is then used to design mitigation approaches to reduce the negative impacts of flooding. Hydraulic models can be either one-dimensional (1-D) or two-dimensional (2-D) for flood hazard studies, and the decision of which to use depends on a variety of factors including technical and regulatory considerations. In general, 1-D models are most appropriate where flood flows are oriented along streamlines that run approximately parallel to the primary stream channel. Two-dimensional models are most appropriate where there is significant flow in both the streamwise and cross-stream directions, there are multiple flow splits 9, and/or overbank flows are disconnected from the main channel. The vast majority of existing Special Flood Hazard Areas 9 A flow splits exists when floodwater junctions with one upstream reach and multiple downstream reaches. “Junctions and Flow Splits”. USACE. https://www.hec.usace.army.mil. Accessed 14 Feb 2022. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 120 Packet Page 238 of 489 - 67 - (SFHAs)10, which define areas where floodplain management regulations must be enforced, were developed based on 1-D modeling. Two-dimensional models have, however, become more prevalent over the past few decades with continued refinement of modeling techniques and increases in computational and data management capability. Whereas 2-D models can more accurately reflect the flooding hazard in reaches with the conditions mentioned previously, the structure to support their regulatory use is relatively new and is still being refined. Therefore, Boulder primarily uses a 1-D modeling approach when identifying Special Flood Hazard Areas. Modifying this approach by using new mapping technologies and methodologies that are not currently included in FEMA’s Guidelines and Standards has historically delayed construction of flood and storm projects on the order of years. It is therefore recommended that the city prepare for the adoption of 2-D modeling procedures. This includes following FEMA’s most recent guidance for 2-D modeling at the time of the project. Climate Change The Utility recognizes that it has a role in addressing uncertainty due to climate change, including changes in frequency and magnitude of precipitation events. The hydrologic analysis required for regulatory mapping is based on an approach that minimizes uncertainty in data and engineering calculations. How these maps are applied to inform flood mitigation planning and other Utility activities should account for uncertainties related to climate change. Approaches to best address this uncertainty are addressed by the Utility through infrastructure resilience in design, as discussed in Chapters 4 and 8. As global temperatures continue to rise, the resulting effects of a changing climate should be incorporated into mapping practices based on the best available science. Most global and regional climate models project increased warming, droughts, and wildfires in this region (Lukas, et al, 2014). Mapping Update Frequency The frequency of mapping updates should be driven by the need to have accurate flood hazard data for the community and the public. Information concerning the flood hazard on riverine systems within the city influences multiple aspects of the city’s long-range planning. Flood risk is constantly changing due to physical and climatic changes. As data collection and methods of assessment change, the understanding and accuracy of flood risk also changes. However, there is not a timeline on which hydrologic and hydraulic analyses become inaccurate, and as such, a frequency for mapping updates is not recommended. Instead, the Utility should consider implementing a map review schedule to confirm whether existing maps still best represent current conditions. FEMA’s Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) provides an approach to evaluate physical and method changes that should inform the determination of when to update existing maps. The CNMS Map Viewer provides information on assessments already being completed at the national level for streams within Boulder. Regulatory Mapping FEMA publishes standards and guidelines that apply to floodplain mapping used for the NFIP. Although floodplain maps produced by the city must ultimately be accepted by FEMA, there are varying ways to accomplish this. The Utility should clearly outline the process for developing, reviewing, and adopting regulatory data and products to limit unintended variations between studies and to support prioritization of projects based on common 10 The SFHA is the area where the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) floodplain management regulations must be enforced, and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. “Special Flood Hazard Area”. FEMA, https://www.fema.gov/glossary/special-flood-hazard-area-sfha. Accessed 14 Feb 2022. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 121 Packet Page 239 of 489 - 68 - parameters. Documentation of methodologies and assumptions for floodplain mapping products would build consistency for comparison across the city’s watersheds. Additionally, referring to guidelines that are recommended or required by MHFD and FEMA would minimize the need for a lengthy document while still identifying the Utility’s preferences for data sources and methods. To simplify the review process and use of resulting floodplain analyses, the following guidelines should be considered for identification: 1) Products to be developed for each project type 2) Requirements for evaluating or updating hydrologic studies 3) Preferred used of 1-D or 2-D hydraulic models, including preferred or approved software for hydraulic modeling 4) Hydraulic modeling assumptions, including culvert blockages and breakaway bridge structures 5) Requirements for High Hazard Zone calculations 6) Return periods of flood events to be mapped Adoption of floodplain mapping by the city for floodplain regulation or submittal to FEMA to update the FIRMs should be an identified decision point for each floodplain assessment after preliminary results are available. As the process can delay timelines and require additional internal resources, the regulatory adoption process should be completed when it supports flood risk reduction and should not be completed without evaluation. The decision should be informed by how the results of the new floodplain mapping product support the city’s goal of flood risk reduction. For example, when the results do not indicate a significant increase or decrease in risk has occurred, it may better serve the city to complete the FEMA regulatory floodplain mapping process after a mitigation project has been completed. On the other hand, if base flood elevations have significantly increased but mitigation projects are anticipated to have a long duration, adoption of the mapping by the city for regulatory purposes would support the Utility’s hazard reduction objective. On average, it takes the city about a decade of mapping activity in a watershed to provide a full update to the floodplain maps using the current process. However, without significant changes in land use and development, topography, channel modification or hydrology, updates to the regulatory floodplain maps may not be necessary. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 122 Packet Page 240 of 489 - 69 - The City of Boulder’s Floodplains Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 123 Packet Page 241 of 489 - 70 - Hazard Mapping Property damage and other flood-related public safety issues can result from a variety of factors, including inundation, deposition of sediment and other debris, and erosion. Although mudslide and erosion hazards were added to the NFIP by Public Law 91-152 in 1969 and Public Law 93-234 in 1973 respectively, standard flood hazard (SFHA) maps are typically based only on inundation potential caused by clear water flooding, with erosion and deposition rarely included. The extraordinary flooding that occurred along the Colorado Front Range in September 2013 exposed a key limitation of over-reliance on inundation-based SFHA mapping to identify community risk. While the resulting peak discharge frequencies at many locations within the City of Boulder were generally below the adopted 100-year peak flow rates (WWE, 2014), 63 percent of insurance claims paid by FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program were outside of the delineated 100-year floodplain. Much of the damage in the areas outside this floodplain not related to groundwater or sewer backups resulted from flood-related debris deposits and inundation due to flow diversions by the debris deposits. Although they may by laterally stable, channels that transition from a confined valley to an alluvial fan surface near the western city limits (e.g., Bear Canyon Creek, Twomile Canyon Creek, and Fourmile Canyon Creek), are subject to debris flows that can cause blockage which limits capacity and send floodwaters and debris into unexpected paths away from the primary channel. While FEMA provides guidance and technical procedures for mapping areas subject to uncertain flow paths (i.e., alluvial fan flooding) (44 CFR 65.13; FEMA, 2016), the procedures do not generally apply to urbanized areas where development has altered the pre-development flooding characteristics (Fuller, 2013, p30). FEMA (2016, Sect 2.3.4) recognizes this limitation by noting that two- dimensional models may be appropriate for determining flood hazards on alluvial fans, particularly those involving complex urban flooding. Because of the uncertainty in where debris deposits and debris blockages will occur during any particular flood, worst-case analyses that sequentially block different, possible blockage locations should be considered in identifying the limits of the fluvial hazard zone in these areas. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Fluvial Hazard Zone Delineation Protocol (Blazewicz, et al., 2020) defines the fluvial erosion hazard zone (FHZ) as the area a stream has occupied in recent history, may occupy, or may physically influence as it stores and transports water, sediment and debris. The FHZ, thus, includes not only the areas subject to inundation, but also those outside the inundation zone subject to erosion or deposition of sediment and other debris. Sediment Deposition along Fourmile Canyon Creek Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 124 Packet Page 242 of 489 - 71 - Recommendations Mitigation projects often drive the priority of when floodplain analyses occur. Consistent procedures and timelines for assessing the basis of selection of hazard mitigation are beneficial in understanding existing hazards. Confirming that current flood hazard assessments accurately represent existing conditions ensures mitigation efforts address the most significant risks. In addition to identifying the need to update existing studies, a policy to assess and update flood hazards should include a review of new community issues and priorities. A review of non-mapped urban and riverine flood hazard areas and the future climate impact on flood hazards are examples of flood hazards that could be included in the process. It is recommended that the Utility evaluate and clearly document the parameters and methods used for current hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and floodplain mapping the city uses for planning and flood risk mitigation on a 5-year interval. A decision to update the mapping can be made whenever significant changes are encountered. This will ensure that decisions are based on an updated flood hazard assessment and that consistent practices are being followed. The following mapping policies are recommended:  Adoption of new floodplain mapping for regulatory purposes will be evaluated and completed when new flood hazard information supports flood risk reduction and mitigation. Unless physical changes within the watershed (i.e., land use, topography) or channel (i.e., flood mitigation improvements, changes to hydraulic structures) result in a change that modifies the extent of the floodplain more than 10 percent or the depth of the base flood elevation by more than 0.5 feet, regulatory floodplain maps may not be updated.  Provide a uniform method of mapping that identifies the greatest risks to people and property to support mitigation planning; floodplain management; public awareness; and flood preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.  Consider identifying site-specific hazards that may require additional mapping (i.e., fluvial erosion, avulsion, sedimentation, channel blockages, modifications to hydrologic analyses to include future conditions scenarios like effects from wildfires).  Review existing maps to evaluate when hydrologic and hydraulic analyses or physical changes to a watershed may result in a substantive difference in the current flood hazard of a major drainageway.  Develop an evaluation cycle and framework to evaluate potential changes in flood hazard that indicates what warrants the need to update flood hazard analysis and map updates.  Standardize floodplain analysis and mapping procedures to uniformly incorporate local guidance with regional, state, and federal requirements.  Incorporate information on data and assumptions used as part of current floodplain mapping studies into the city’s online Map of the Floodplains and printed maps.  Continue to address the effects of climate change on floodplain delineation based on the best available scientific data.  Due to the devastating effects that can be caused by climate-related disasters, the Utility should proactively incorporate floodplain mapping guidance produced by state, regional, and local organizations related to climate change. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 125 Packet Page 243 of 489 - 72 -  Continue to use one-dimensional (1-D) models for floodplain hazard mapping to regulate floodplain development where a reach assessment indicates a 1-D model is appropriate  Prepare for adoption of 2-D modeling for regulatory mapping when reach based evaluation indicates a 2-D analysis is appropriate and when following FEMA Guidelines and Standards can be efficiently incorporated into the project. Preparation could include:  Adopting FEMA guidance on defining the regulatory floodway using 2-D models as it continues to evolve  Identifying how to evaluate floodway development with 2-D models  Developing a list of city-approved hydrologic and hydraulic models  Aligning any approach with MHFD and FEMA requirements  Stay abreast of developments in this area and provide input, as appropriate, to ensure that challenges specific to conditions in the city are reflected in forthcoming standards and guidance. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 126 Packet Page 244 of 489 - 73 - References Blazewicz, M., K. Jagt and J Sholtes, 2020. Colorado Fluvial Hazard Zone Delineation Protocol Version 1.0, Colorado Water Conservation Board, 212 pp. Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Conservation Board, DRAFT Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado, November 19, 2021. 2 CCR 408-1 Floodplain Rules_FINAL REDLINES.pdf (state.co.us) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2019. Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) Technical Reference, CNMS Database User’s Guide. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2016. Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping, Alluvial Fans, November, 36 pp. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2015. Final Report Reducing Losses through Higher Regulatory Standards Best Practices and Cost-Effective Strategies Report, FEMA-DR-4145-CO, March, 97 pp. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2016. Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping, Alluvial Fans, November, 36 pp. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2019. 2D Models and Floodways: Challenges, Benefits and Considerations- DRAFT Version 0.1 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2020. Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping, Hydraulics: Two-Dimensional Analysis Hydraulics Two-Dimensional Analysis Guidance (fema.gov) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2020. Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping, Floodway Analysis and Mapping Floodway Analysis and Mapping Guidance (fema.gov) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Website accessed December 2, 2021. Announcements for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping Activities | FEMA.gov Fuller, J.E., 2013. Gaps in FEMA Guidance for Delineating Flood Hazards on Active Alluvial Fans, Journal of Flood Engineering, 4(1), June, pp 29-38. Lukas, J., Barsugli, J., Doeksen, N., Rangwala, I., and Wolter, K. 2014. Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation, Second Edition. Colorado Water Conservation Board. Mile High Flood District, Flood Hazard Area Delineation (FHAD) Guidelines, Website accessed December 2, 2021. NONSTRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (mhfd.org) Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2014. Rainfall-Runoff Analysis for September 2013 Flood in the City of Boulder, Colorado, prepared for City of Boulder Utilities, October, 79 pp. Wobus, C. and Bash, R., Lynker Technologies to Coleman, B., City of Boulder. December 31, 2020. Incorporating Climate Change into Flood Control Along South Boulder Creek: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Guidance. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 127 Packet Page 245 of 489 - 74 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 128 Packet Page 246 of 489 - 75 - 7 Modifications to Regulations The Boulder Revised Code (BRC), first published in 1981, is the official book of laws of the City of Boulder that is updated quarterly by City Council. Updates to the BRC are approved by City Council through the adoption of ordinances. Draft flood and stormwater management ordinances are informed by extensive community engagement and Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) and Planning Board recommendations. If approval is recommended, the draft is submitted to City Council for a study session to debate the merits and content of the ordinance. If changes to the draft are recommended by Council, they must be incorporated and reviewed by WRAB and Planning Board again. The draft ordinance is then presented to the public for a comment period lasting fifteen days. Following public comment, adjustments may or may not be made, and the ordinance must then be adopted by City Council and approved by the city attorney prior to publishing in the BRC. The Design and Construction Standards (DCS) is an extension of the BRC used to provide minimum standards for the construction of public infrastructure and private improvements that either connect to or may impact public infrastructure. Currently, any updates to the DCS, including modifications, additions, or clarifications, must also go through the same approval process prior to being adopted through an ordinance by City Council. Flood and stormwater regulations have the primary function of protecting public health, safety and welfare, and endeavor to reflect community values. Oftentimes, floodplain management regulations face the challenge of balancing competing interests including environmental protection, recreation, preservation of open space, individual property rights, and economic impacts. Instituting new regulations involves careful consideration of the proposed change and any potential unintended consequences, which takes time. Code: Compilation of municipal ordinances Ordinance: Local law adopted by a municipality Regulation: Official rule that supports the enforcement of a law Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 129 Packet Page 247 of 489 - 76 - Regulatory Discussion The introduction of new regulations or modification to existing regulations requires thorough evaluation of anticipated positive and negative impacts and outcomes. Generally, the process to vet regulatory proposals begins with understanding the need and goals of the regulatory action. Regulatory alternatives are then developed and evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively against a ‘no change’ scenario based on benefits, costs, and consequences. Of specific importance are anticipated burdens, fiscal impacts, legal ramifications, and the distribution of these impacts. Benefits are then weighed against the initial goals to determine whether there will be an appreciable effect and if the costs or burdens are justified. Additionally, reasonable alternatives that might achieve the same or similar goals without the need for added regulation should also be evaluated. The reason for this rigor is to fully understand the benefit and burden of regulatory changes. The following section identifies regulatory modifications to either the BRC or the DCS for future consideration by the city. Examples of potential impacts and desired outcomes are discussed, but a full regulatory impact analysis is beyond the scope of this Master Plan and should be conducted prior to formal proposal. Boulder Revised Code, 1981 Ordinances that relate to the function and operation of the Utility are contained in a few locations within the BRC, as shown in the table below. During recent public engagement, community members asked whether strengthening floodplain regulations is warranted. This concept was investigated from a regulatory standpoint to determine if gaps are present in existing regulations. A discussion of possible regulations to address gaps follows the table. Boulder Revised Code Chapter Summary of Relevant Content Title 8: Parks, Open Spaces, Streets, and Public Ways Chapter 2: Streets and Sidewalks  Requires property owners to maintain ditches and drainage ponds  Prevents the discharge of water onto sidewalks, streets, alleys, or rights-of- way  Describes enforcement actions Title 9: Land Use Code Chapter 3: Overlay Districts  Identifies floodplains and wetlands as overlay districts 11  Includes regulations for development within regulatory floodplains and within streams, wetlands, waterbodies and associated buffer zones Chapter 12: Subdivision  Requires the provision of utility, drainage, irrigation ditch, and maintenance easements for subdivisions and lots Chapter 16: Definitions  Defines relevant terms used throughout Chapter 9 (mostly relates to floodplain, stream, wetland, and waterbody regulations) 11 Overlay districts provide restrictions or additional requirements for all development within a geographic area, irrespective of the basic zoning standards. These districts “overlay” or can cross existing zoning. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 130 Packet Page 248 of 489 - 77 - Boulder Revised Code Chapter Summary of Relevant Content Title 11: Utilities and Airport Chapter 5: Stormwater and Flood Management Utility  Establishes the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility as an enterprise and allows for the collection of fees  Describes functions of the Utility  Establishes land development regulations for stormwater quality and conditions regulating the use of the stormwater utility system  Authorizes the Utility to inspect private property  Requires the provision of construction and maintenance easements on natural drainageways as a condition of issuing building permits  Requires property owners to maintain flood channels  Describes enforcement actions  Provides MS4 permit required regulatory language related to illicit discharge, pollution prevention, enforcement, etc. Floodplain Regulations Floodplain regulations restrict or prohibit certain uses within the city’s regulatory floodplains. These regulations should periodically be reviewed and updated to reflect changing community needs and to ensure that floodplain management and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) objectives are achieved. To accomplish this, existing floodplains regulations could be reviewed against higher regulatory standards discussed under the Community Rating System (CRS) Activity 430. It is not recommended that increases in regulations be made solely for the purpose of receiving CRS credits. However, the CRS Coordinator’s Manual is often viewed as a resource for nationally accepted floodplain best practices. Resources and recommendations found in Activity 430 could be used to identify potential areas where higher standards may support community values and the intended purpose of the city’s floodplain regulations. Addressing Development in the Floodplain Highly developed floodplains present community-wide challenges. Prevention and regulation of development within the floodplain results in significant burdens and impacts on private property owners, developers, and local economies. However, the benefits to public health, safety, and welfare can outweigh the costs and impacts when they have the intended effect. Communities must therefore carefully consider the many complexities surrounding floodplain regulations prior to adopting or amending regulations to ensure they best fit a community’s needs and values and to analyze the tradeoffs and unintended consequences that accompany these types of restrictions. Prevention of all new construction within regulatory floodplains can work well in communities that have a fair amount of privately-owned, undeveloped land remaining in floodplains. The city of Fort Collins, for example, prevented the construction of new residential structures in the Poudre River 100-year floodplain following the 1997 flood. As a result, only eight structures were damaged during the 2013 flood, even though nearly 14,000 structures had been constructed between the two floods (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2019). Boulder has different circumstances that would likely make increased regulations less effective. Extensive development already exists in Boulder’s floodplains, and current day construction primarily consists of redevelopment and expansions to existing structures versus new construction. As noted in the policy and program evaluation (Appendix A), the Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 131 Packet Page 249 of 489 - 78 - area of building footprint within the 100-year floodplain only increased by 0.1% between the years of 2014 and 2018. Further regulations on new development activities, therefore, would not play a major role in achieving regulatory goals of floodplain management, and the result would likely be a small cumulative benefit at the cost of relatively large regulatory and administrative burden. The community has also wondered whether stricter limitations on redevelopment of the approximately 2,600 structures in the regulatory 100-year floodplain would be worthwhile. Imposing such regulations on redevelopment may offer limited flood risk benefit and the move could exacerbate Boulder’s current housing challenges and further narrow the demographic of who is able to live in Boulder. Additionally, the effect of more stringent regulations on entities like churches, schools, or medical care facilities may be unmanageable such that they choose to relocate outside of Boulder. The city’s Racial Equity Tool provides a structured approach to considering benefits and burdens of any proposed regulatory changes and is for recommended for future use when evaluating new regulations. Legislative Intent Section 9-3-2(a) of the BRC defines the legislative intent of Boulder’s floodplain regulations, which includes protecting health, safety, and welfare by focusing on property protection and minimizing danger to human life. While other functions are mentioned, the legislative intent may not fully capture community values or policies within the BVCP that focus on preservation of natural floodplains and the associated social and economic benefits. The city may consider whether to add these elements. 500-Year Floodplain In 2011 the WRAB and Planning Board both unanimously voted to approve a draft ordinance for critical facilities and mobile populations in the 500-year floodplain. Mobile populations refer to groups of people who may be present in a location that is not their place of permanent residence, such as hotel guests or convention attendees. This draft ordinance included language that required facilities used for group assembly located in the floodplain to develop emergency management plans and provide a flood warning system to ensure that flood protection information is disseminated to facility users. Group assembly typically includes gathering for the purposes of social, civic, religious, or other functions. City Council raised concerns about the ordinance’s potential impact on the business community and provided feedback for modifications in 2012. In 2013, the modified draft ordinance that exempted facilities used for group assembly was approved by City Council. Evacuations during emergency situations are often complicated and can become hazardous when large numbers of people are present. It is recommended that language removed from the 2011 draft ordinance be reevaluated for inclusion into the standards for critical facilities and lodging facilities in the 500-year floodplain ordinance. This evaluation should also include a review of an occupancy threshold to reduce impacts to the business community while still protecting vulnerable groups. 100-Year Floodplain Development in the 100-year floodplain is permitted as long as required flood protection measures are provided. However, the addition of structures and fill materials reduces floodplain storage capacity and can deflect waves onto neighboring properties. While storage losses are likely minimal on individual properties, the cumulative impacts of continued development can cause rises in flood depths and potentially increase the extents of the 100-year floodplain boundaries. It is recommended that provisions to limit or reduce flood storage losses be evaluated. Approaches often used include prohibiting fill or requiring compensatory storage (meaning no net storage loss). These restrictions can be quite difficult to implement, regulate, and enforce on smaller sites, which may not be practical if the anticipated future flood storage losses are minimal. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 132 Packet Page 250 of 489 - 79 - High Hazard Zone Currently, the regulations for BRC 9-3-8 (b) state that in the event of a flood, any structure located in the High Hazard Zone intended for human occupancy that is damaged more than 50 percent of its pre-flood market value cannot be repaired, reconstructed, or used for human occupation. For example, housing units valued at $200,000 cannot sustain more than $100,000 worth of damage, and a $5 million house cannot sustain more than $2.5 million worth of damage and be reconstructed or inhabited. The even application of this 50 percent standard across all home values may unfairly disadvantage lower income populations, who may already possess fewer resources to recover from natural disasters. Across the United States and within the City of Boulder, marginalized populations have historically been pushed to the least desirable or higher risk locations for housing. Meaning that people of color and lower-income populations often live in floodplains 12. Therefore, to meet the intent of the city’s racial equity policy, it is recommended that alternative metrics or socio-economic weighting factors be evaluated to assess whether a structure can be repaired or reconstructed. For example, FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis program uses a Depth-Damage Function, or Depth-Damage Curve to express damage based on the percentage of the structure, contents, and functions impaired or destroyed and not the percentage of market value (FEMA, 2009). Additionally, BRC 9-3-8 (b) also states that the city may contract or purchase flood-impacted land at its fair market value after damage has occurred. In instances where flood insurance does not fully cover losses, this has the function of dissolving pre-flood equity. It is recommended that programs or modifications to the purchase price of flood damaged land be investigated to address equity and the disproportionate effects associated with this regulation. Drainage Ditches and Drainage Ponds In some locations within the city, drainage ditches convey stormwater. Where these ditches exist, BRC 8-2 states that any required maintenance is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. This includes the requirement that no person who owns a ditch or drainage pond shall fail to maintain it in good repair and in a safe and unobstructed condition (BRC 8-2-8). Chapter 8-2 also includes requirements of property owners to maintain sidewalks, including the removal of hazards such as snow, ice, and improper discharge of water. In these instances, the code includes enforcement provisions for required corrective actions by the property owner and subsequent fines and actions the city may take to correct the violation. It is recommended that similar provisions for corrective actions and associated fines be evaluated for failure of property owners to maintain roadside ditches and drainage ponds. Design and Construction Standards The Design and Construction Standards apply to the comprehensive design and construction of adequate and functional public improvements associated with development, redevelopment, and subdivision of lands; and providing necessary right-or way, transportation, and utility services. The document also provides minimum standards required for the design and construction of privately owned transportation and utility improvements that are connect to or impact public infrastructure. Chapter 7 of the DCS covers stormwater and provides design requirements for a stormwater utility system to mitigate safety hazards and minimize property losses and disruption during heavy stormwater runoff or flooding events. The intent is to maintain travel on public streets during storm events, enhance water quality of 12 See redlining practices discussed in the city’s Racial Equity Plan. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 133 Packet Page 251 of 489 - 80 - stormwater runoff, manage increased runoff due to development, establish long-term management of natural drainageways, and provide for ongoing and emergency maintenance of the public stormwater system. Modifications to the DCS Per BRC Section 9-9-4 (a), the DCS is adopted as a part of code by reference, meaning that it functions as though it were written into the BRC. Therefore, it subject to the same process of adoption as the BRC for additions, revisions, or corrections, however minor. Section 1.05 of the DCS states that the Director of Public Works (referred to in this document as the Director of Utilities) may alter or modify standards in the DCS when specific practical difficulties are involved in their execution. However, it is often the case where corrections are needed for minor errors, or revisions are warranted for the purposes of clarification or to better conform with the intent of existing standards and policies. In instances where additions, revisions, and corrections are consistent with existing policies and do not alter the intent of the standard nor the cost of its implementation, it is recommended that the Director of Public Works be given the authority approve these changes. Some municipalities elect to allow departments to update design standards without needing City Council approval, as long as the design standards are in support of the ordinances that govern those activities. This is especially useful in instances where changes in in federal or state regulations require modifications to design standards for compliance. While this option was considered for stormwater design standards, especially as they relate to MS4 permit requirements, it was recommended for the purposes of regulatory transparency that the existing process requiring City Council approval still be followed whenever changes to the DCS substantively modify existing standards, impose new standards, or result in modifications that would increase the cost of implementation. As-Built Drawings Section 1.03 of the DCS details submittal requirements for construction approval, including as-built drawing submittal requirements. Section 7.17(B), “Stormwater As-Built Drawings” is also referenced in this section for drawings pertaining to the construction of stormwater control measures. It is recommended that as-built submittal requirements include the submission of GIS files to Information Services for all stormwater quality, stormwater collection and conveyance, and flood mitigation improvements on both private and public property. Submittal requirements should include standardized data formats for the inclusion into the city’s existing GIS database. Additionally, the inclusion of materials, invert elevations, date of installation, inspections, peak flow rates from design storms, and hydraulic design capacities could further assist in the updating of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling as well as the city’s asset management system. Stormwater Design Standards A general review of Chapter 7 is recommended for correction of minor errors, clarity, specificity, and intent. Recommendations include the following:  Review for consistency in terminology. Multiple terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same design standard or system infrastructure and could be clarified. For example, the use of initial storm and minor storm, and various labels for the stormwater collection and conveyance system and associated subsystems. Terms used include stormwater drainage system, stormwater utility system, stormwater drainage facilities, open stormwater systems, open drainageway system, and minor stormwater system. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 134 Packet Page 252 of 489 - 81 -  Further define the term historic conditions. Historic runoff volume and runoff rates are currently used as the basis for the design and sizing of detention practices. However, it is not clear whether historic conditions refer to what existed prior to any development on the site, as used by MHFD, or if it refers to the conditions present prior to the start of the proposed construction.  Further define materials and installation methods in Section 7.06, “Materials and Installation.” As currently written, the section allows the use of all materials and methods that have adequate strength to support trench and AASHTO HS-20 loadings. Some materials may not be suitable for use in the city, and preferred materials should be indicated where necessary.  Review sections that overlap with the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM) published by the Mile High Flood District (MHFD). The USDCM is used as a referenced standard that is applied when standards for design and construction of stormwater improvements are not specified directly in the DCS. There are instances where information in the USDCM is repeated directly in the DCS and should be referenced to eliminate conflicts as the USDCM is updated. Additionally, some language in the USDCM often reflects a suggestive rather than definitive tone, making standards difficult to interpret and enforce. Clarification should be provided in the DCS where this occurs. Detention It is recommended that design requirements in Section 7.12, “Detention” be reviewed. There are significant differences between the DCS and the USDCM for both detention pond design and exemptions for detention requirements. The USDCM recommends the use of full spectrum detention design, whereas the DCS requires detention be sized to contain 110 percent of the difference between the historic runoff and the initial and major storm runoff projected for the ultimate developed conditions. It is not clear from this requirement whether release rates must also be controlled to match historic conditions. Applicable Development Site Currently, the city’s MS4 Permit requires that any new development or redevelopment site resulting in land disturbance greater than or equal to one acre must comply with the city’s stormwater quality design standards. Several other cities of comparable size to Boulder now require runoff reduction approaches to be implemented on sites disturbing less than one acre. It is recommended that the current one-acre threshold be evaluated to determine if a lower threshold is warranted, as discussed in Chapter 3, Stormwater Quality. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 135 Packet Page 253 of 489 - 82 - Recommendations Modifications to regulations can be a lengthy task involving thorough evaluation of the benefits and tradeoffs experienced by all who will be impacted. Therefore, recommended modifications to regulations are not within the scope of this document. However, the identified areas below are recommended for further evaluation through regulatory impact analyses to better determine whether additional regulations may be warranted. It is recommended that the following regulations be further evaluated, including use of the city’s Racial Equity Tool, for potential modification. Additionally, code development and revision cycles should spring-board off of current applied knowledge (i.e. 2013 Flood and other “lessons learned”). Boulder Revised Code, 1981  Evaluate existing floodplain regulations to consider the following:  Refine the legislative intent of floodplain regulations to incorporate community values associated with flood mitigation, response, and recovery  Include assembly group facilities in the 500-year floodplain regulations for emergency management plans and flood warning systems  Evaluate regulations that would prevent or limit flood storage losses in the 100-year floodplain  Consider limiting or preventing fill within stream buffers to preserve the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains, with consideration for potential exemptions, such as ditch company operations and maintenance practices  Evaluate the incorporation of enforcement actions and fees for the failure to maintain drainage ditches and drainage ponds. Design and Construction Standards  Allow the Public Works Director to make minor changes to the DCS that do not increase cost or alter the intent of the Standards.  Review Chapter 7, “Stormwater Design” for correction of minor errors, clarity, specificity, and intent.  Require as-built submission of GIS files for all stormwater quality, stormwater collection and conveyance, and flood mitigation improvements on both private and public property.  Review detention pond design standards and design exemptions for consistency with MHFD requirements.  Consider regulation of sites creating less than one-acre of disturbance and applicability of associated stormwater quality design standards.  Incorporate more stringent stormwater quality design and construction requirements for city projects to lead by example. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 136 Packet Page 254 of 489 - 83 - 8 Flood Mitigation, Property Acquisition, and Watershed Management Floods are one of the costliest natural disasters in terms of economic losses and human hardship. One of the principal functions of the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility is to reduce risk and losses caused by floods. A variety of tools are employed by the Utility to achieve this. The construction of major drainageway flood mitigation projects is one of the primary ways in which this is accomplished. The Utility has been working for many years to reduce the threat of floods through the implementation of flood mitigation projects by first planning, evaluating, and then constructing these projects through the city’s Capital Improvement Program. Additionally, it is understood that floodplains provide several natural and beneficial functions for both humans and surrounding ecosystems. As Boulder’s population expanded rapidly, development was pushed further into the floodplains. Because the majority of this development happened prior to the existence of floodplain regulations, it became increasingly difficult to provide floodplain protections while adequately addressing societal needs and challenges. Therefore, Boulder uses a combined approach involving a variety of programs to identify and address the tradeoffs associated with comprehensive floodplain management. In addition to flood mitigation projects, the Utility also seeks to manage flood risk through property acquisition and watershed management. Property acquisition seeks to reduce the exposure of flooding to high-risk structures by removing them from the flood path. This further reduces flood risk to life and property in dangerous flood prone areas. Watershed management, on the other hand, manages increases in stormwater runoff caused by development such that flood risks do not increase. When unmanaged, stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment in a watershed can result in more frequent flooding, greater flood depths, and longer-lasting floods. Watershed master planning is a progressive way to address these issues, providing a plan of action to address current and expected problems and a tool to make decisions based on the data and science of a watershed’s behavior. Flood Impacts Injury or loss of life Property damage Infrastructure damage and road closures Economic losses Housing displacement Erosion and landslides Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 137 Packet Page 255 of 489 - 84 - Policy Discussion The City of Boulder’s policies are aimed at supporting proactive flood management projects and programs that can adapt to changing conditions. Many of the improvement actions identified during the policy and program evaluation point to a need to formulate specific policies that support and formalize work currently performed by the Utility. The following section discusses issues and approaches to address the identified improvement actions from a policy perspective. Policy and Program Goals The policy and program evaluation (Appendix A) identified a set of goals and objectives that could be used to evaluate the existing policies and programs related to flood mitigation, property acquisition, and watershed management within the Utility. As part of the analysis, these goals and objectives were reviewed and refined to meet the current and future needs. The following policy analysis and recommendations support the goals and objectives listed below. GOAL: Identify, evaluate, design, and construct improvements within the floodplain to mitigate damages to property and protect the public. Objective: Develop flood mitigation plans for major drainageways in the city Objective: Provide standardized guidance for the creation of mitigation plans Objective: Select, design, and construct flood mitigation projects that incorporate nature-based solutions to remove people and property from the floodplain GOAL: Remove structures and acquire privately owned properties in areas prone to flooding, especially within the city's High Hazard Zone, for the purposes of flood mitigation Objective: Develop a prioritized list of high-risk properties to inform property acquisitions Objective: Prevent reconstruction of structures that have sustained significant flood damage Objective: Retain undeveloped high hazard flood areas in their natural state whenever possible GOAL: Ensure that major drainageways are maintained to accommodate the passage of floodwaters Objective: Routinely clear nuisance vegetation and sediment from channels and debris buildup from culverts and bridges Objective: Provide satisfactory maintenance access and public access easements or rights-of-way for the purposes of maintenance activities Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 138 Packet Page 256 of 489 - 85 - GOAL: Preserve and protect the natural resources and beneficial functions of floodplains Objective: Preserve undeveloped floodplains through public land acquisition, private land dedications and multi-agency coordination GOAL: Reclaim and restore floodplains and their functions Objective: Incorporate floodplain restoration measures into flood mitigation projects Objective: Restore habitat for native species GOAL: Protect cultural and recreational resources associated with stream corridors and floodplains Objective: Identify and protect historic resources within the floodplain Objective: Limit open space development to trails, trail linkages, and open recreational facilities that do not impede flood flows Boulder Creek Improvements at Eben G. Fine Park Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 139 Packet Page 257 of 489 - 86 - Flood Management As part of the flood management planning process, floodplains are first mapped prior to implementing any mitigation strategies. It is the Utility’s policy to first implement nonstructural measures whenever feasible to mitigate risks associated with flooding. A particular advantage of nonstructural measures is their ability to be sustainable over the long term with minimal costs for operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement. Once viable nonstructural solutions have been implemented, the Utility then identifies reaches of mapped creeks where structural modifications are most feasible for the mitigation of flood risk. When implementing structural measures, the Utility does not consider the use of concrete lined channels, dams, levees, or floodwalls unless there is a clear threat to life safety and other mitigation alternatives have been determined infeasible. In close coordination with community members and partner organizations like the Mile High Flood District, flood mitigation plans are developed to identify and evaluate the benefits and costs of potential major drainageway mitigation projects for design and construction. Due to the city’s high risk for flash flooding and many tradeoffs associated with flood risk mitigation, it is not feasible to eliminate all risk within the City of Boulder. The Utility implements nonstructural systems and programs to further reduce risk where more targeted approaches are not warranted. However, flood risk reduction is most effective when community members also understand their responsibility and take action to continue to proactively address individual risk. This includes implementing nonstructural measures as needed to further protect themselves from harm and their property from damage. Nonstructural Measures for Flood Risk Management A set of techniques that do not change the physical shape of natural drainage channels and have little to no impact on the characteristics or extent of the flood itself. Methods are designed to alter the impact or consequences of flooding by eliminating exposure (i.e., removing structures) or reducing vulnerability of people and the built environment within the floodplain as it currently stands. Examples include:  Advanced flood warning systems  Flood preparedness education  Floodplain regulations  Obtaining flood insurance  Floodproofing structures  Removing structures from the floodplain Structural Measures for Flood Risk Management A set of techniques that modify the natural channel and/or associated riparian (overbank) area to reduce flooding extents and allow adequate room for the passage of floodwaters for the purposes of protecting people and property. Examples include:  Channel and overbank modifications: widening, deepening, or straightening  Dams  Floodwalls  Levees  Concrete lined channels Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 140 Packet Page 258 of 489 - 87 - Boulder’s History of Floodplain Management The City of Boulder has a history of destructive flooding, and Boulder Creek is considered to have the highest flood risk in the State of Colorado based on population and property values (Pettem 2016, Truby and Boulas 1983). Throughout this history, the city has been both praised for a progressive and proactive stance on flood management and criticized for not doing more to heed early recommendations and warnings to limit development in the floodplains. During the first three quarters of the 20th century, more than twenty flood studies were conducted in which recommendations to either cease all building in the floodplains or to construct structural modifications to the creeks themselves were made to prevent future losses (Pettem 2016). However, without floodplain regulations in place, development in the floodplains continued. Following a series of floods in 1965 and 1969, many communities along the Front Range, including the City of Boulder, began to shift their approach to floodplain management (see timeline). The establishment of a Flood and Stormwater Utility and the development of floodplain regulations enhanced protections for people and Boulder’s valuable environmental resources while still meeting the needs of a growing population. The Utility continues to strive for balance when planning for flood mitigation while recognizing that achieving all values may not be possible under any particular circumstance. Therefore, careful consideration of tradeoffs is necessary. Many of the early flood mitigation plans proposed in Boulder included structural measures such as channel straightening and widening, concrete floodwalls, and levees. These plans were rejected due to a lack of local support for structural modifications to Boulder Creek (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1977). As a response, the city adopted Boulder Floodplain Management: 1969-1977 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 141 Packet Page 259 of 489 - 88 - several policies to recommend nonstructural mitigation strategies that would preserve the existing character of creeks and associated flooding patterns. Property Acquisition The removal or relocation of structures from the floodplain is an example of a nonstructural measure implemented by the Utility. The Utility’s property acquisition program has been successful in acquiring multiple high-risk properties comprising over 200 dwelling units. However, as property values continue to increase within the city, the effectiveness of this program will decrease without significant increases in funding sources. At most, current funding allocation under this program only allows the pursuit of potentially one or two opportunities per year. This limited funding does not provide the latitude to pursue multiple property acquisition opportunities when opportunities arise, and opportunities are assessed only after targeted properties come on the market for sale. With the availability of additional funding, the program could expand significantly and allow a shift to a more proactive approach by actively engaging target property owners ahead of time for more large-scale or impactful acquisitions. One way to do this would be to leverage the Utility’s available funding for this program by continuing to evaluate whether grants such as FEMA’s suite of Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs, or the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) and Mitigation (CGBG-MIT) programs could be used to significantly increase the overall funding for the program. An example of a city that has shown great success with this approach is Portland, Oregon. In 1997, the city’s department of Environmental Services developed the Johnson Creek Willing Seller Program to help move people and property out of areas that frequently flood. Restoration projects on land acquired through the program are used to increase flood storage, improve fish and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands, and create passive recreational activities for city residents. Portland staff contacts targeted property owners and offers willing sellers fair market value for their property. Owners are under no obligation to sell to the city. Following property purchases, the city uses deed restrictions to designate properties as open space in perpetuity, ensuring no future expenditure of federal disaster assistance funds in those locations. The Johnson Creek Willing Seller Land Acquisition Program is an implementation strategy for the 2001 Johnson Creek Restoration Plan, which addresses nuisance flooding, water quality problems, and fish and wildlife declines as related issues. The plan identifies common solutions to restore natural floodplain functions. Environmental Services land-banks acquired properties while designing floodplain management projects and securing funding. Through the Johnson Creek willing seller program, Portland has acquired over 100 acres of land at a cost of $8.48 million since 1997 by leveraging local, state, and federal funding. Nonstructural and Non-Containment Policies 1977: Resolution No 141 Nonstructural Flood Control Policies for Boulder Creek City Council adopts a policy that recommends guidelines for preservation and restoration over structural changes to Boulder Creek’s channel or floodplain. Includes flood proofing, early warning systems, flood insurance, land use management, and floodplain filling restrictions. 1978: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan City Council adopts “non- containment” policy for Boulder Creek to restrict development within the floodplain of Boulder Creek and its tributaries. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 142 Packet Page 260 of 489 - 89 - Flood Mitigation Due to development patterns that started prior to the enactment of floodplain regulations and continued within the confines of existing regulations, flood mitigation solutions must now balance a wide range of community interests with public safety needs. To allow adequate room for the passage of floodwaters to protect people and property, natural channels are enlarged to reduce flooding extents. By reducing flooding extents, the floodplains are then reduced in size. Flood mitigation alternatives that preserve existing floodplains without altering the shape of the creek channel often require extensive removal of existing structures to increase the space needed for floods to spread out as they naturally do within the city. Existing structures that remain within the floodplain can be floodproofed to a certain degree, but this approach frequently does not address protection of the public infrastructure required to serve these areas during and after flood events. Therefore, flood mitigation plans are completed for the major drainageways to analyze existing drainage conditions within the floodplain, develop mitigation alternatives, and select preferred conceptual designs that oftentimes include structural improvements. Structural flood mitigation includes measures like concrete lined channels, dams, levees, and floodwalls. Additionally, methods that refine the shape of the channel or adjacent riparian areas to convey floodwaters more efficiently within the confines of the open space that is available are also considered structural measures. Many organizations including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUNC) and FEMA have adopted what are called nature-based solutions for the mitigation and management of floods (FEMA 2021, Miles, et al. 2021). Nature-based solutions incorporate engineering practices to design modified channels and associated floodplains that protect people and property while also restoring or creating adaptive ecosystems. MHFD has similarly adopted high-functioning and low maintenance stream design to mimic natural processes through the design of engineered channels and floodplains. These approaches generally align with Boulder’s community values, as space is limited, and ecological improvements can be incorporated into the new channel and riparian design. In the future, a realistic and practical option may be to continue to incorporate nonstructural approaches and emphasize nature-based solutions that change the channel and floodplain but continue to mimic natural processes and incorporate natural systems. This has the added benefit of supporting the city’s climate goals. Conceptual Rendering of Future South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 143 Packet Page 261 of 489 - 90 - Regardless of the specific mitigation alternative, the city would benefit from establishing a more standardized approach to flood mitigation planning to support easy comparison of proposed flood mitigation projects citywide. The 16 major drainageways that run through the city can have significant variations in their physical, hydraulic, and hydrologic characteristics, as well as physical constraints like proximity of structures or important site features to the stream channel. These characteristic differences have led to differences in flood mitigation analysis approaches. Additionally, urban service criteria and standards within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan state that the major drainageway system should be designed to transport the 100-year flood event unless a modified standard is approved (City of Boulder and Boulder County 2015). Given the physical and design constraints that are often present in many of the major drainageways, transporting the 100-year event is not always feasible. Therefore, the Utility works with community members to develop mitigation alternatives that best represent channel and floodplain characteristics, as well as community desires. Prioritizing the conceptual designs generated by these basin-specific mitigation plans can be challenging. Therefore, the Utility needs a consistent approach to support uniform evaluation of projects for prioritization that can also accommodate changes in process and methodology as data and technology improve. Chapter 10 provides a set of criteria to be used for city-wide project prioritization that should be incorporated into the mitigation planning process as metrics to provide a consistent basis for comparison. This type of standardization will better allow the Utility to compare future projects and evaluate the functionality of projects once they are constructed. Climate Change and Infrastructure Resilience While major flood mitigation projects are typically designed to reduce risks associated with the 100-year flood event, it is also understood that larger events can happen. Boulder should anticipate and proactively address uncertainty due to climate change in engineering design methodology based on the best available scientific data and industry accepted practices. The Utility also recognizes that impacts of extreme weather events attributable to climate change can occur before changing conditions are observed in the data. To address this, infrastructure resilience should become an integral part of the flood mitigation planning process. Preferred flood mitigation design alternatives should achieve the highest level of protection feasible and be evaluated over a wider range of events to model performance. This should include performance of the system in a 100-year flood event and a 500-year flood event, regardless of design level of service. Whenever possible, exceedance flows should be intentionally routed in areas that are least harmful to people and property. Incorporating a risk management approach that considers the design life of infrastructure and the use or occupancy of buildings and structures served by major flood mitigation projects is also recommended. This approach places increased analysis and informed decision making in areas where the consequences of flooding are high and are commonly associated with critical infrastructure. The intent of a risk management approach is to consider the consequence of exceedance and adjust the design accordingly based on risk. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 144 Packet Page 262 of 489 - 91 - Maintenance of Major Drainageways Routine maintenance is necessary to preserve the function and conveyance capacity of the major drainageways. The community consistently voiced a desire to increase and enhance flood and storm maintenance activities throughout the public engagement process associated with this Master Plan. City staff also recognize the need for increased maintenance and have been actively investigating ways to more proactively address and resource maintenance of the major drainageways, irrigation ditches 13 and the stormwater collection and conveyance system. In 2021, the Utilities Maintenance work group continued to make changes to increase maintenance efficiency and frequency by splitting into two separate groups, one of which is solely responsible for maintenance of open drainageways, greenways, and irrigation ditch obligations citywide. Shortly thereafter, City Council approved the addition of three new staff positions that allowed for the dedication of five total staff to this area to support enhanced maintenance. Although this staffing level supports the beginnings of more routine open channel maintenance, it is insufficient to perform a complete maintenance cycle of the approximate 37 miles of floodway, 451 acres of greenways, and additional miles of irrigation ditches with contractual obligations on a recurring basis with any regularity. Currently, maintenance is limited to irrigation ditch obligations and known open channel hot spot areas that may or may not be coincident with storm- driven events. While not specifically governed by policies within the Utility, support for the resources required to perform these maintenance functions is essential to achieving maintenance goals. It is recommended that data collected by this newly formed maintenance group be used to track maintenance activities and evaluate further resourcing needs going forward. The Mile High Flood District (MHFD) contributes to drainageway maintenance throughout Boulder County both through direct maintenance efforts such as mowing, dredging, and vegetation removal, but also through monetary contributions to maintenance efforts. The contributions are in the range of approximately 8-10 % of the city’s maintenance workload. The city should continue to look for opportunities to enhance this relationship and leverage MHFD’s support wherever possible. At times, flood and storm maintenance impacts conflict with community expectations. For example, maintenance can include tree, vegetation, and sediment removal. Such activities can result in resident calls to stop or intervene in the maintenance, often requesting that trees remain. Engagement and outreach efforts should include information on what to expect during flood maintenance for both the community and decision makers to minimize conflict. Of important note, the city does not have access easements to all reaches of Boulder’s major drainageways. The city typically receives easements as part of annexations, development, redevelopment, or by voluntary participation by landowners, but easement acquisition is not possible in all cases. Maintenance crews may only access creeks with easements or with landowner permission, and lack of access can delay or prohibit maintenance activities. Additionally, to be effective, creek maintenance should occur in a continuous fashion, 13 City maintenance of private irrigation ditches occurs when there is a contractual obligation in place. Otherwise, the irrigation ditch maintenance obligation remains with the irrigation ditch company. Flood Maintenance Routine maintenance is necessary to ensure unobstructed flow of water. Such maintenance may include brush and tree removal, dredging, and other cleanup activities. Major maintenance work may occur once every one or two decades and may include the removal of large trees and more extensive dredging and sediment removal. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 145 Packet Page 263 of 489 - 92 - versus sporadically along the length of a creek. Therefore, it is recommended that a plan and approach be developed for how to address obtaining outstanding easements along Boulder’s 47 miles of stream so easements can be secured. Watershed Management Watershed management encompasses the functions of many programs within the Utility and does not fit neatly under any specific topic area. While discussed in this Chapter for its contribution to flooding reduction, many stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality benefits are also incorporated into watershed management and planning. Managing increases in stormwater volume and peak flow caused by urbanization is one of the biggest problems in floodplain management. To address future flood risk, flood management and mitigation needs to take a holistic approach to excess stormwater runoff generated by the entire watershed. Floodplain management is typically understood as the programs and activities that address riverine flooding which happens when streamflow overtops adjacent banks. However, excess stormwater runoff that originates in urban areas floods stormwater management infrastructure, which ultimately increases the extent and duration of flooding associated with the city’s major drainageways. For this reason, the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (CRS) includes a Class 4 prerequisite of a watershed master plan that accounts for the management of increased runoff from a developing watershed. Essentially, it is the management of all flooding sources within a major drainageway’s contributing watershed, regardless of where they originate. The CRS Program encourages watershed management planning and provides guidance on best practices for watershed-based master planning. The objective is to provide guidance on how to reduce increased flooding from future conditions, including new development, redevelopment, and the impact of climate change throughout a watershed or community. Best management practices include:  Evaluation of future conditions and long-duration storms  Evaluation of the impact of climate change  Identification of wetlands and natural areas  Protection of natural channels  Provision of a dedicated funding source for implementing the plan The CRS Program requires that a watershed master plan, at a minimum, address future development and redevelopment within the watershed and the impact of these activities on flows during a 100-year event. These plans go a step beyond stormwater regulations in locating and addressing existing problems and identifying potential future problems. Associated modeling may show that different standards are needed for different watersheds, or for different parts of the watershed. Communities may also discover that existing stormwater management regulations are adequate or need to be more stringent to prevent development from increasing the frequency and severity of existing and future problems. For the purposes of the CRS Program, stating that both the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan and the Stormwater Master Plan are linked as pieces of an inclusive watershed management plan is recommended for future CRS technical review and scoring under the Watershed Master Plan element. Pierce County, Washington, also has a similar basin planning approach that it has implemented for over 15 years. This program has many similarities with the City of Boulder’s basin-wide flood mitigation planning and has received credit for the Watershed Master Plan prerequisite with CRS. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 146 Packet Page 264 of 489 - 93 - Recommendations Many of the components necessary for a well-rounded flood mitigation, property acquisition, and watershed management program are already in place within the Utility. Ensuring that these components are well-integrated, standardized, and consistently proactive will strengthen the work that is already being done. The following policies and supporting actions are recommended: Flood Mitigation  Identify flood mitigation measures using standardized methodology and a robust public engagement process in a way that incorporates best practices identified by MHFD and the CRS.  Standardize inputs, methods, and outputs from mitigation studies to reflect current available data and industry accepted standards. Provide requirements that allow for comparison of alternatives between drainage basins. Examples of standardized outputs include floodplain models, GIS files for selected design concepts, and metrics for city-wide prioritization.  Incorporate future conditions into hydraulic and hydrologic models, including recommendations related to climate change based on scientific evidence and relevant climate science data.  As part of flood mitigation planning, assess flood mitigation resilience measures in extreme flood events. Evaluate impacts of selected alternatives, regardless of design level of service, over a range of flood events up to and including the 500-year flood event.  Emphasize the use of nature-based solutions for flood mitigation to protect people and property in a way that preserves or restores the ecological functions of creek and riparian corridors while offsetting the city’s carbon footprint.  To address uncertainty related to climate change, preferred flood mitigation design alternatives should achieve the highest level of protection feasible.  It is the policy of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan that the major drainageway system will be designed to transport the 100-year flood event or a modified standard in an approved plan. All mitigation plans are required to model and evaluate the 100-year flood event. However, physical characteristics vary greatly by major drainageway such that 100-year flood protection may not be feasible. In these situations, proposed mitigation alternatives shall strive to mitigate to the highest degree feasible based on drainageway characteristics and community preference. Property Acquisition  Promote open space uses of floodplains by removing existing structures through pre-flood and post- flood property acquisition. Purchases should be prioritized in locations that threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community.  Identify, target, and seek funding from outside sources (i.e., state or federal grant funding such as FEMA’s suite of Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs) to leverage existing funding for larger scale property acquisition. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 147 Packet Page 265 of 489 - 94 -  Create a prioritized list of structures to make the best use of existing funds and resources. Prioritization criteria should include consideration for racial and economic equity as well as risk to life safety.  Develop and deploy an outreach program to targeted properties that promotes “willing sellers”. Maintain a list of properties willing to participate should funding become available.  Include the identification of properties that would be useful for flood mitigation as part of mitigation planning efforts. Maintain an updated list of properties targeted for acquisition to include value of property and how much the city would be willing to pay for this property. Proactively track real estate market to identify when these properties will be available before they come on the market. Watershed Management  Flooding occurs when the volume and rate of stormwater runoff exceeds the capacity of the infrastructure intended to convey runoff. The Utility is committed to a comprehensive and interconnected approach to watershed management in all 16 of its major drainage basins that identifies and mitigates both sources of excess runoff and damaging effects of flooding, regardless of where they occur.  Continue to advance basin-wide flood mitigation studies. Include an intentional integration of the stormwater collection and conveyance system and natural drainageways in flood mitigation planning.  Evaluate the impact of future conditions on watersheds and the receiving major drainageways for multiple storm events, including the 100-year storm.  Establish an evaluation protocol every 5 years to evaluate whether the data used for watershed master planning are still appropriate and whether the plan effectively manages stormwater runoff.  Remain aware of major changes that occur in watersheds, such as droughts, invasive species, and fires. Coordinate with stakeholder agencies within the watersheds to proactively address these conditions. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 148 Packet Page 266 of 489 - 95 - References City of Boulder and Boulder County. 2015. "Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2015 Major Update. Adopted 2017." City of Boulder. 2020. "City of Boulder Flood Management Program." Committee on Adaption to a Changing Climate. 2018. Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: Adaptive Design and Risk Management. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Environmental Services, City of Portland, OR. 2022. The Johnson Creek Restoration Plan In Action: Willing Seller Program. Accessed January 27, 2022. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/106234. FEMA. 2021. "Building Community Resilience with Nature-Based Solutions: A Guide for Local Communities." Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA. 2017. National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Coordinator's Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency. MHFD. 2021. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1, 2, & 3. Mile High Flood District. Miles, L., R. Agra, S. Sengupta, A. Vidal, and B. Dickson. 2021. Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Change Mitigation. United Nations Environment Programme and International Union for Conservation of Nature. Pettem, Silvia. 2016. Boulder's Floods and Flood Management: Past & Present. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder. Pierce County, WA. 2022. Pierce County Document Center. Accessed January 27, 2022. https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/4522. Truby, J., and L. Boulas. 1983. Colorado's Vulnerability to Very High Risk Natural Hazards, Revised. Division of Disaster Emergency Services. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. "Boulder's Flood Protection Decision: A choice to live with." Omaha, NE. URS. 2004. Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan. City of Boulder. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 149 Packet Page 267 of 489 - 96 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 150 Packet Page 268 of 489 - 97 - 9 Flood Preparedness, Warning, Response, and Recovery The City of Boulder is one of the highest flash flood risk communities in Colorado (Pettem 2016, Truby and Boulas 1983). Floods can happen at any time with little or no warning. City floodplains and stormwater infrastructure are designed to convey water during storm events in a way that reduces flood risk to the community. Infrastructure alone cannot eliminate all dangerous flooding conditions, however, and it is important for the city and community members to prepare in advance and be able to respond when conditions warrant. This Chapter summarizes roles, responsibilities, and community resources available for the various phases of a flood, including:  The city’s flood education and outreach efforts  Flood insurance  Emergency warning and alert resources  Emergency operations and associated organizational structure  Recommendations Floods can happen anywhere. At any time. With little to no warning. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 151 Packet Page 269 of 489 - 98 - Roles, Responsibilities and Resources Many structures within the City of Boulder were constructed prior to the mapping of Boulder’s floodplains, the enactment of floodplain regulations, and the development of a Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. Because the city is prone to flash flooding along with various other hazards, flood preparedness, flood warning, and emergency response are all critical for life safety and property protection. National and regional agencies generally identify four levels of flooding as defined below, and the city and community members both have a role to play in each phase. Under Normal Operating Conditions, city staff review emergency response plans and functions, and participate in emergency preparedness exercises. Community members should consider buying flood insurance, develop and discuss personal emergency response plans and evacuation routes, sign up for emergency alerts and ensure contact information is up to date, and take floodproofing precautions such as those described by the National Weather Service (NWS) in this resource. When a potential flood scenario is developing, the Office of Disaster Management for City of Boulder & Boulder County (ODM) coordinates with Mile High Flood District (MHFD), Skyview Weather, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Service (NWS), and others on weather forecasting, patterns, predictions, and probability of impact information. Primary data sources used by these agencies include radar, lightning detection software, gauge-adjusted radar rainfall software, rain gauges, streamflow gauges, and topography, including drainage boundaries. Key severe storm characteristics of concern include slow moving storms, the presence of lightning indicating convection-based thunderstorms, rain intensity of two inches or more per hour, and storm events that cause ground saturation. Additionally, MHFD has developed a Flash Flood Prediction Program (F2P2) which runs April through September in the Denver/Boulder metropolitan area. This program uses information from MHFD’s partnership with NWS and local governments to provide notifications of heavy rain and flood threats. 1. Normal Operations ∣| Be aware and prepare 2. Heightened Readiness or Low Impact Flooding ∣| Be aware and prepare – flooding is possible and/or low impact flooding is imminent or occurring 3. Flash Flood Watch |∣ Life-threatening flash flood may occur 4. Flash Flood Warning |∣ Life-threatening flash flood is imminent or occurring Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 152 Packet Page 270 of 489 - 99 - These agencies may issue a Flood Advisory indicating a Heightened Readiness stage, which typically indicates nuisance flooding conditions. Both City of Boulder and ODM staff monitor conditions and NWS and MHFD activity during this stage. Additionally, city staff respond to nuisance flooding and other issues as they arise and begin flood response preparations. Preparations include referring to flood action plans, ensuring resources and materials are readily available, and identifying critical system components that may be impacted and/or may need to be operated. Community members should stay aware, review preparedness plans, and sign up for emergency notifications. In a Flood Watch, where weather conditions are favorable for flooding and life-threatening flash flooding may occur, city preparation activities increase. City staff continue to respond to nuisance flooding and additionally prepare to shut valves and headgates, set up barricades, and identify critical system components that may be impacted and/or may need to operate. These activities are largely performed by Utilities Maintenance staff, with support from technical experts as needed. Community Members should continue to monitor weather, prepare household members (including pets) for possible evacuation or moving to higher ground, and charge electronic devices to stay connected to alerts and other notifications. Community members should also identify potential evacuation routes and be prepared to re-route if flood waters are encountered. Under a Flood Warning where life-threatening flash flood is imminent or occurring, a more comprehensive response and event management structure is needed. In this situation, ODM activates the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to coordinate flood response efforts with the support of Emergency Support Functions (ESF) described below. During such an event, city public works personnel staff the ESF 3 – Public Works position in the EOC. Utilities staff responsibilities and involvement are largely situationally dependent, as no two events are the same. As a guide, Utilities has established high-level actions and duties for various departmental workgroups including the Engineering / Flood and Stormwater team for different flood threat levels. This guide and set of actions are summarized under the Emergency Operations Plan and the Public Works’ operational response plans, as defined by the city in conjunction with ODM. Specific actions and tasks in the response plan should be annually reviewed and updated as needed to stay current and practiced. The internal emergency operational plans utilize an All-Hazard Alert (AHA) framework to assist with defining roles and responsibilities and providing clarity for the four levels/phases of flooding. When either Flood Watch or Flood Warning conditions are issued by the weather agencies, or demonstrated conditions warrant, the City of Boulder Police and Fire Communication Center (BPFC) will send a message to the Boulder Fire Department and Boulder Police to indicate flood status. The BPFC issues emergency notifications to the public and activates the public warning sirens as directed by incident command. ODM will activate the Emergency Operations Center if a flash flood warning is imminent or issued and provide coordination and manage capabilities that are needed to support response and the community. Depending on the scale of flooding, alerts may be issued city-wide or to a specific area. BPFC has pre-planned polygon maps in Everbridge associated with flooding in areas. Additionally, Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) may also be broadcast to anyone with a WEA capable cell phone within a geographic radius of a specific area. The alerting systems described in Table 9-1 below can be tied to polygons if alerts are issued to a particular area and wireless emergency alerts will bleed over Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 153 Packet Page 271 of 489 - 100 - beyond the intended polygons at least 1/10 of a mile- and as far as citywide, depending on individuals’ cellular handset technology. As noted above, one important distinction once active flooding is occurring, is that the response management structure varies depending on the magnitude of the storm. City staff take the lead in small to medium-scale flood events involving low impact, localized flooding. For such events, Boulder’s Utilities staff response includes providing engineering expertise, construction management, technical support, and maintenance services to alleviate the impacts of flooding. Utilities also has a key supporting role in larger flood emergencies. In such events, ODM leads disaster response and recovery efforts in coordination with the State Emergency Management Agency. During a large-scale event, ODM activates the EOC with support from various ESFs. City of Boulder Utilities staff support Emergency Response Function 3: Public Works and Engineering Annex during EOC activation, including providing flood modeling information upon request during an emergency. The other roles described for a small to medium event are also provided. Table 9-1 below summarizes the various roles and responsibilities described in this section. Table 9-1 – Flood Preparation and Response Roles and Responsibilities Flooding Phase City Utilities Staff Responsibilities* Community Member Responsibilities Other Key Agency Contributions Available Community Resources Normal Operations Be aware and prepare 1. Update and maintain Emergency Response Plans, including updating contact lists and confirming /clarifying roles 2. Perform Emergency Response Exercises 3. Update and maintain public education and outreach materials 4. Maintain equipment and supplies needed for emergency response 5. Perform routine maintenance on flood and storm infrastructure and systems 1. Prepare and know your risk 2. Obtain flood insurance 3. Sign up for alerts 4. Have an emergency preparedness kit ready 5. Ensure your sump pump is functioning properly 1. ODM supports emergency response training and planning. Monitors for developing situations. 2. MHFD manages stream gages and related data, provides flood preparedness and response materials, and coordinates with municipalities on flood maintenance projects. 3. NWS monitors weather and provides weather- related information, provides flood preparedness and response materials. 1. Boulderfloodinfo.net 2. Community Guide to Flood Safety 3. Flood Awareness Flash Drive (handed out at various city events) 4. City of Boulder and related flood preparedness information 5. NWS Before a flood actions Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 154 Packet Page 272 of 489 - 101 - Flooding Phase City Utilities Staff Responsibilities* Community Member Responsibilities Other Key Agency Contributions Available Community Resources Heightened Readiness or Low Impact Flooding Be aware and prepare - flooding is possible and/or low impact flooding is imminent or occurring 1. Respond to nuisance flooding and issues 2. Alert work groups of potential needs and EOC staffing assignments 3. Identify critical system components that may be impacted 1. Account for all members of your household (including pets) 2. Stay tuned to local weather networks 3. Be prepared to evacuate or seek higher ground 1. ODM, MHFD, and NWS monitor weather and provide weather- related alerts and notifications as situation warrants. 2. ODM staff monitor conditions and NWS and MHFD activity under these conditions. 1. Report non- emergency flooding on Inquire Boulder 2. NWS radio weather reports Flash Flood Watch Life- threatening flash flood may occur later in the day 1. Oversee resource acquisition for Utilities Maintenance 2. Employ specific plan of action: i.e., bridges to monitor, water valves to shut down, evaluate conditions of water resources, monitor dam safety, and implement dam emergency action plans as needed. 3. Coordinate with ditch companies for head gate closures and/or emergency operations by ditch company personnel. 4. Monitor water quality and quantity issues. 5. Staff ESF3 if EOC is activated. 1. Account for all members of your household (including pets) 2. Stay tuned to local weather networks 3. Be prepared to evacuate or seek higher ground (there may be only moments to react) 1. ODM coordinates with Boulder Police and Fire to indicate flood status. Police and Fire determine the need for emergency notifications. 911 center issues the emergency notifications to the public and activate sirens as situation warrants. 2. ODM activates the EOC as needed to coordinate flood response and recovery activities, including coordination with local, State, and Federal agencies. 3. MHFD and NWS continue to monitor weather and provide weather-related alerts and notifications as situation warrants. 1. NWS radio weather reports 2. City communication networks, including social media accounts Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 155 Packet Page 273 of 489 - 102 - Flooding Phase City Utilities Staff Responsibilities* Community Member Responsibilities Other Key Agency Contributions Available Community Resources Flash Flood Warning Life- threatening flash flood is imminent or occurring 1. Oversee resource acquisition for Utilities Maintenance 2. Oversee damage/repairs to water distribution and wastewater collection systems. 3. Assess immediate and residual field damages; assists and prioritize crews as needed. 4. Employ specific plan of action: i.e., bridges to monitor, water valves to shut down, evaluate conditions of water resources, monitor dam safety and implement dam emergency action plans as needed. 5. Coordinate with ditch companies for head gate closures and/or emergency operations by ditch company personnel. 6. Monitor water quality and quantity issues. 7. Provide staffing and situational awareness for ESF3 at the EOC . 1. Stay tuned to local weather networks 2. Follow any evacuation orders 3. Seek higher ground (never walk or drive through floodwaters) 4. Practice electrical/gas safety, particularly at night. Have battery operated flashlights available as part of your preparedness kit. 1. Same as Flash Flood Watch 1. City communication networks, including social media accounts 2. Emergency services, such as ODM 3. NWS during a flood actions * This table primarily focuses on City Utilities staff responsibilities. Numerous other city departments also have significant roles in natural disasters. Fire/Flood – One element of emergency response not covered in the above table relates to runoff and debris flow following a wildland fire. Post-fire drainage evaluation is necessary when a fire occurs in drainages in and surrounding Boulder. Fires of different magnitude involve different scales of incident management. Large fires will likely be managed by state or federal agencies, including resources to manage runoff and debris flow. For such Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 156 Packet Page 274 of 489 - 103 - significant events, city staff may play a minor supporting role in providing drainage information to the managing agencies. For events of smaller scale, city staff may play a more direct role in evaluating the situation and making and implementing recommended erosion control measures. Staff from Utilities Flood and Stormwater Engineering and/or Water Quality in cooperation with Open Space and Mountain Parks staff and ODM, among other departments will often need to coordinate on recommended erosion control measures. Dam Safety - Boulder is situated downstream of water supply dams. Dam owners, including Boulder, coordinate with the State of Colorado and other regulatory agencies on dam safety, emergency preparedness exercises and other management activities. Dam safety is a component of infrastructure management and is outside the scope of this master plan. The responsibility for flood preparedness remains the same for dams and hydrologic flooding. Community members should refer to recommendations in this chapter. Public Outreach and Education In the preparedness phase of flooding, the Utility engages in extensive public outreach and education efforts to educate the community about flood risks. However, demographics change, and the need is ongoing, particularly considering the significant number of renters. The ‘Be Heard Boulder’ questionnaire launched at the beginning of the master plan update process identified the following community concerns and perceptions about flooding:  Who is at risk?  How big is the risk?  Preparation is key  Warn the community earlier The CFS Community Working Group echoed these same themes by noting the importance of focusing on equity and in reaching traditionally hard to reach populations. To do this, the Utility should routinely use the city’s new Racial Equity Instrument and continue to investigate effective and creative outreach strategies and develop a mechanism to understand the efficacy of outreach and education efforts being conducted. 1. The public outreach and education strategy should be updated to provide structure and process for aligning activities with the overall CFS Master Plan goals. The city’s approach currently aligns with Community Rating System (CRS) Activity 330. The city should maintain this approach and continue to identify and evaluate additional applications that could result in broader public awareness and involvement. As part of a public outreach and education strategy, the following actions should be considered for inclusion: 7) Identify goal and objective evaluation metrics, including outputs (i.e., administrative and programmatic activities) and anticipated outcomes (i.e., changes in awareness and behavior). 8) Conduct a target audience characterization to identify subgroups of the community that have shared characteristics and communication needs/preferences/capabilities. These audiences exist within different geographic areas of the community that require targeted messaging based on flood risk, vulnerability and neighborhood. The use of existing or new survey tools could be used to determine awareness and communication preferences. 9) Align with city’s Racial Equity Plan and consider the following outreach strategies for Spanish-speaking residents 14: 14 Recommendations developed by the CWG Community Connectors Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 157 Packet Page 275 of 489 - 104 - a) Maximize in-person outreach opportunities, including having a presence at community events, manufactured housing communities, and through partnerships, such as those with Boulder’s Neighborhood Services team, Boulder Housing Partner, Intercambio de Communidades, El Centro AMISTAD, and schools b) Offer opportunities and assistance for people to sign up for emergency alerts during community events/ informational sessions c) Where possible, hold public meetings in Spanish, versus using Spanish language interpretation d) When using interpretation services in a Community Working Group setting, have a dedicated interpreter for the duration of the outreach period, that is embedded in the team and learns the technical terms e) Provide translated infographics, flyers, and pamphlets f) Consider developing short, catchy informational videos and social media posts 10) Identify communication channels, stakeholders, and partners that can help tailor and disseminate messaging. Specifically, develop a concrete approach for how the city and response agencies will reach non-English speaking residents when ordering evacuations. Identify and disseminate resources for the Spanish-speaking and other non-English speaking communities to access in an emergency. 11) Develop key messaging which can be tailored by theme (i.e., preparedness, response, and recovery) and by key target and sub-target audiences. Identify messaging gaps. Specifically include information about how these efforts relate to personal safety, and how this subject is relevant to residents. For example, flood mitigation and preparation can save lives, and can keep access to places like schools and hospitals open. 12) Organize existing messaging by format and distribution channel (i.e., print, electronic, in-person events, virtual events, innovative formats) by phase and by sub-target audiences to identify messaging gaps or oversaturation. Schedule routine debriefs related to these efforts to establish continuous improvement. Additionally, the city should update its annual flood communications plan and schedule to include lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, including effective distribution methods, guidance and guidelines on hosting in-person or virtual events, evaluation methods, and associated costs. Flood Insurance and the Community Rating System Another preparedness activity involves flood insurance. The City of Boulder participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances and providing public education to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes federal government-backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters 15, and business owners regardless of whether they are in the floodplain. The NFIP also has a voluntary incentive-based program called the Community Rating System (CRS), which ranks communities on a 1-10 scale (Class 1 being the ‘best’) and allows communities to obtain discounts on flood insurance premiums if community floodplain management activities exceed minimum NFIP standards. Participation in the CRS Program generally involves receiving points for performing flood management activities that reduce and avoid flood damage to insurable property and that foster comprehensive floodplain management in exchange for insurance discounts. Boulder first entered the CRS Program in 1992 as a Class 9 community, which provided a 5% discount on flood insurance premiums. Since then, the city has maintained an active floodplain 15 Typically, renters or mobile home insurance policies do not cover flood damage, so community members should be aware of what coverage is provided under individual policies. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 158 Packet Page 276 of 489 - 105 - management program and now holds a CRS Class 5 rating, providing NFIP flood insurance policy holders with up to a 25% discount 16. Ability to recover from flood damages can be a major consideration for residents who do not have access to Federal insurance programs, and/or who lose childcare, income, or struggle to pay for flood repairs on top of monthly bills. The city should use the Racial Equity instrument to evaluate how best to support residents who do not, or cannot, qualify for FEMA backed flood insurance after a flood. In addition to providing communities with discounts on flood insurance rates, FEMA’s CRS program is nationally recognized as being a comprehensive guide for best practices related to floodplain management, stormwater drainage, and stormwater quality. The city’s commitment to implementing diverse and comprehensive programs in this arena is recognized through its current Class 5 rating under the CRS program. The Community Working Group has expressed a desire to maximize insurance benefits. One option would be to move to a Class 4, which would increase reductions by approximately 5% to a total of up to 30% on NFIP flood insurance premiums for community members. A significant hurdle for communities in achieving the Class 4 rating is the prerequisite requirement for Watershed Master Planning (WMP) under CRS Activity 450, which entails completing a unified plan that addresses both storm and flood management. Approval of the CFS Master Plan update would likely meet this “CRS Activity 450 WMP” criteria. However, additional prerequisites and 500 additional CRS points would be needed to achieve a Class 4 rating. Significant additional staff and financial resources would be needed to refine existing programs or implement new programs that would garner the necessary Class 4 credit points. Therefore, these improvements should be considered when implementing priority flood and storm projects and programs based on staff capacity and in comparison to community benefits associated with other work plan priorities. Emergency Warning Dissemination Early warning systems are a critical life-safety aspect of flood management, some of which require community member sign-up, which ideally would occur in the preparedness phase of a flood. Boulder Police and Fire use the Emergency Warning alerts summarized in Table 9-2 below in coordination with ODM when forecasted or actual current conditions warrant. Evaluation of how to optimize emergency warning dissemination, including addressing language access issues, should continue to be considered and refined to ensure coverage in areas where most needed, particularly when considering socially vulnerable individuals who may be less likely to receive warning messages. Table 9-2 – Emergency Alert Systems Mechanism Audience Benefits Drawbacks Everbridge (Auto) Landline phones The communications centers/ dispatch centers receive quarterly updates on landlines from Century Link and Comcast to ensure landline numbers are current. Few residents have landlines; if solicitor-block features are present, the emergency telephone notification will not go through to warn the resident. 16 The maximum discount for CRS applies to properties in the FEMA defined Special Flood Hazard Area, generally in the 100-year flood plain. Other properties receive a lower discount of 10%. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 159 Packet Page 277 of 489 - 106 - Mechanism Audience Benefits Drawbacks Everbridge (Opt-In) Residents and commuters Notifications are received by cell, home, and work phones; text message; and email. Can sign up for multiple locations (i.e., work and home). Webpage for signup is available in multiple languages Allows for Spanish messaging Requires action from the public to sign up online; those wary of providing personal information, may not be inclined to opt-in; if cell phone numbers or locations registered in the system change, then the residents may not get the notifications as expected. Spanish messaging may depend on cell carrier Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS) / Wireless Emergency Alerts (Auto) Anyone with a WEA capable cell phone, television, radio, or NOAA weather radio. Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) Broadcasts messages to anyone located in the city or a specified polygon with a WEA capable cell phone. Allows for Spanish messaging Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts notifications to television and radio stations. NOAA Weather Radio broadcasts to weather radios in the range of the radio system. A cell phone tower must be within the polygon. Therefore, the locations of all cell phone towers should be linked into the Everbridge system. Spanish messaging may depend on cell carrier EAS only reaches viewers or listeners of TV and radio stations and is not required to be transmitted by the stations once received. NOAA Weather Radio will only be received by public who have a NOAA weather radio turned on. The system also can be used by proprietary platforms and apps causing changes to the notification content and warning areas. Sirens (Auto) People outdoors or in cars Notifies people recreating in or near waterways and commuters May not be heard indoors (particularly in apartment buildings); can be difficult to decipher audio message associated with the alert; depending on location relative to the siren, the sound may not be heard and/or the message can sound distorted Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 160 Packet Page 278 of 489 - 107 - Mechanism Audience Benefits Drawbacks Door-to-Door Notifications (Auto) Local residents Experience demonstrates that during an emergency, residents may not get the warning even if all systems are used. First responders will need to deploy to the hazard area to set up roadblocks and go door to door, if possible, to warn and assist residents. There will be areas inaccessible to first responders and door-to-door notifications will not be made. Spanish speaking residents may not understand English-only evacuation directions. Note: (Auto) indicates no community member action is needed to receive an alert; (Opt-In) requires community member registration. Everbridge Currently, the city has access to and uses the Everbridge platform, which is recognized as a top platform across the country. The redundancy and speed are currently unmatched by competitors, as the total number of activations “pushed out” by phone, email, text to the community far exceeds any other platform. Additionally, when an alert message is acknowledged by the intended recipient, the system does not continue to send same message. This keeps the system from duplicating unwanted messages to an inbox, phone or text. Although this system is currently the most successful at sending targeted alerts, the “opt-in” feature can be a challenge as it requires community member action to register. The city should keep apprised of technological improvements to all alert systems and consider upgrades as they become available. Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) In early 2022, Boulder gained new emergency alert capability that allows police and fire departments to send Integrated Public Alert Warnings (IPAWS), including Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), to the public. These messages activate all enabled cell phones in a specific geographic area with sounds and text, similar to Amber Alerts and National Weather Service emergency notices, without requiring users to opt-in or subscribe to the service in advance. When possible, these alerts include direction from emergency responders on what steps to take. While the city still strongly encourages individuals to register through Everbridge opt-in notifications for the most targeted emergency messaging, the use of WEA will allow officials to reach out-of-town visitors, unhoused individuals, and people outside of their opt-in addresses during a life-threatening emergency. ODM holds the administrative responsibility for the WEA service, which can be activated by individual jurisdictions that are part of sender groups. In Boulder, the sender group is led by the 911 Communications manager with input from Public Safety PIOs and other communications staff. Outdoor Warning Sirens The ODM coordinates with BPFC for activating the outdoor warning sirens in the event of an outdoor emergency. These sirens are owned and maintained by the City of Boulder. Boulder’s current sirens are aging, and some are approaching the end of their useful life. The city should investigate potential upgrades to newer outdoor warning systems, as well as available federal funding sources, which can be used to help offset purchase costs if new Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 161 Packet Page 279 of 489 - 108 - sirens are warranted. Additionally, siren coverage is currently determined using a proximity function that sets a fixed distance surrounding each siren. Since these sirens are intended to warn people who are outdoors at the time of an emergency, variables such as weather conditions, prevailing wind directions, and building and terrain heights should all be incorporated into an updated coverage analysis. Flood Response Operations As noted previously, once an emergency event reaches a certain threshold, a more formal and comprehensive incident management structure is necessary and requires an activation of the EOC. The overarching EOC framework and comprehensive set of ESFs are shown in the figure below. For the Utilities Department, main duties and responsibilities fall under ESF 3 – Public Works. ESF 3 duties are described as: ESF 3 is structured to provide public works / public utilities and road and bridge-related support for the changing requirements of incident management, to include preparedness, prevention, response, recovery and mitigation actions. Public utilities includes city-provided water, wastewater, and stormwater/flood systems and infrastructure. Activities within the scope of this function include conducting pre-and post- incident assessments of public works and infrastructure and reporting damage; executing emergency contract support for life-saving and life-sustaining services; providing technical assistance to include engineering expertise, construction management, contracting and real estate services; providing emergency repair of damaged infrastructure and critical facilities; recovery programs including coordinating the restoration and recovery of the transportation and public utility infrastructure; and coordinating and supporting prevention, preparedness and mitigation among transportation infrastructure stakeholders at the local and State levels. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 162 Packet Page 280 of 489 - 109 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 163 Packet Page 281 of 489 - 110 - Recommendations To proactively address Boulder’s flood risk, the following recommendations for emergency preparedness and response activities should be considered:  Emergency Response and Roles - Review and update existing city emergency response plans. Confirm and clarify city Utilities staff response roles internally and with partnering agencies for small to medium events (no EOC activation) and for large events (full EOC activation) and update accordingly in the Emergency Operations Plan and operational response plans.  Education and Outreach – City staff should periodically review and update city resources available to the community. Consider education and outreach goals and objectives; target audiences (especially vulnerable and non-English speaking audiences); communication channels, stakeholders, and partners that can help tailor and disseminate messaging.  Emergency Alert Systems – City staff should periodically review and update emergency alert systems and references available to the community and should investigate potential upgrades to newer outdoor warning systems.  Equity – City staff should apply the city’s Racial Equity Plan and Instrument to emergency preparedness and response plans and activities and consider whether identifying and evaluating outside resources, programs or partnerships could provide support to community members that don’t qualify for FEMA programs because of lack of information, documentation, or immigration status.  Community Members – Consider buying flood insurance, develop and discuss personal emergency response plans and evacuation routes, sign up for emergency alerts and ensure contact information is up to date, and take floodproofing precautions such as those described by the National Weather Service (NWS) in this resource. Targeted Outreach One of the most important aspects of the city’s education and outreach program should be to connect with community members that will most likely require additional support before, during, and after a flood with equitable distribution of tools and resources for flood preparedness. Traditional outreach strategies and media often overlook or miss such populations, and it is important for the city to develop and implement effective strategies such as in-person community meetings and include tools to remove language barriers, which is particularly important for the Spanish- speaking community. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 164 Packet Page 282 of 489 - 111 - References Boulder County CO use of alert notification system. Emergency Mass Notification System - Boulder County Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2003. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, To enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents by establishing a single, comprehensive national incident management system. FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) 2017 Manual and 2021 Addendum. The CRS Coordinator’s Manual - CRSresources Pettem, Silvia. 2016. Boulder's Floods and Flood Management: Past & Present. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder. Truby, J., and L. Boulas. 1983. Colorado's Vulnerability to Very High Risk Natural Hazards, Revised. Division of Disaster Emergency Services. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 165 Packet Page 283 of 489 - 112 - 10 Project Prioritization Framework The process to bring a major flood project from planning and design to approval can take over a decade, and numerous projects have had more than a 20-year span from concept to construction. While these processes afford ample time to engage stakeholders and consider various project aspects, they are a contributing factor to the extensive timeframes associated with implementation of capital projects that protect the public and prevent property damage. The question then arises of which projects to tackle first. This Master Plan seeks to establish a defensible Project Prioritization Framework that supports prioritization of projects in a way that fairly meets community needs. Identified projects undergo extensive assessment and refinement to determine location, function, and design alternatives (reference Figure 10.1 – “Major Flood Project Planning and Development”). Smaller, straightforward projects often go through the Project-Specific Community Process, which is a mechanism to construct the projects in a timely manner. Major flood project approval is more thorough due to the larger impact and costs. These projects benefit from a systematic approach to analyze the project portfolio against multiple criteria and prioritize projects in keeping with community values. To guide project prioritization framework development, the project team distilled information collected from the policy review and issues identification work with the CWG into Stormwater and Flood Management Project Prioritization Goals: Stormwater and flood management projects should… Protect people from harm, educate the community, reduce risks, and… Preserve, protect, and restore the natural resources associated with creeks and wetlands for the multiple benefits they provide to support a resilient community Provide resilient infrastructure that addresses uncertainty, including climate change considerations Provide access for emergency response and recovery efforts Minimize property damage Provide efficient and cost-effective solutions … in ways that are mindful and equitable to our entire community. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 166 Packet Page 284 of 489 - 113 - These Goals serve as guiding principles for the Project Prioritization Framework, and a multi-criteria decision analysis tool has been developed to aid in the prioritization decision making. Major Flood & Stormwater Projects ― The CIP The city has developed a capital improvement program (CIP) that includes 32 projects in the 16 major drainageways and incorporates local drainage and collector system improvements from the 2016 Stormwater Master Plan (Table 10-1). After final approval and adoption of the CFS Master Plan, staff will apply the Project Prioritization Framework to major flood projects as part of routine Utilities operations beginning with the 2024 CIP budget cycle. The Prioritization Framework will be applied to the projects included in Table 10-1 below. As additional mitigation plans are completed and approved by City Council, the identified projects from approved mitigation plans will be added to the list of CIP projects, and the updated list of projects will be reprioritized. With a quick review of this list, it is easy to understand the value of employing a logical method to prioritize projects. Table 10-1 – Boulder’s Major Flood and Stormwater CIP to be Prioritized Major Drainageway Proposed Project Flood Mitigation Plan Bear Creek Culvert Improvements Bear Canyon Creek (2016) Channel Improvements Bluebell Canyon Creek Bluebell-01 Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek and King's Gulch Flood Mitigation Plan (DRAFT 2020) Bluebell-02 Boulder Creek Mitigation Plan not Completed Boulder Slough Mitigation Plan not Completed Dry Creek Mitigation Plan not Completed Elmer ’s Two Mile Creek Completed Completed The process for review and approval of individual projects is identified in the annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and budget approval process. Currently, various processes may be required for a specific project. For example: Concept Plan and Site Review: Concept Plans and Site Plans are reviewed by the interdepartmental staff Development Review Committee, departmental Advisory Boards, Planning Board, and City Council (call-up option). Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP): The CEAP provides a framework for balanced and thoughtful consideration of environmental and social issues in the preliminary planning and design of capital projects. It also provides a forum for public discussion of broad level project issues relative to master plans and overall community goals. It is a tool to aid in the development and refinement of project design and impact mitigation options. Project-Specific Community Process and Design: Many projects are not required to go through concept and site review and would not benefit from a CEAP process. These typically have a project-specific design and public process to efficiently and appropriately identify community needs, concerns, and preferences. Many projects have been assessed through facility studies, area or facility planning processes, mitigation plans, or other studies. The processes are collaborative with multiple city and/or county departments. Figure 10.1 – Major Flood Project Planning and Development Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 167 Packet Page 285 of 489 - 114 - Major Drainageway Proposed Project Flood Mitigation Plan Fourmile Canyon Creek Fourmile @ Broadway Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek Major Drainageway Planning (2017) Fourmile @ 19th Street Safer Schools Access Fourmile Upstream of 26th Fourmile Broadway to 19th Goose Creek Goose-01 Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek (DRAFT 2020 – subject to change/pending approval) Goose-02 Goose-03 Goose-04 Goose-05 Goose-06 Gregory Canyon Creek Arapahoe to Pennsylvania* Gregory Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan (2015) Upstream of Pennsylvania King's Gulch King's-03 Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek and King's Gulch Flood Mitigation Plan (DRAFT 2020 – subject to change/ pending approval) King's-04 Skunk Creek Skunk-05 Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek and King's Gulch Flood Mitigation Plan (DRAFT 2020) Skunk-06 Skunk-07 Skunk-08 South Boulder Creek/Dry Creek Ditch No. 2/Viele Channel SBC Phase 1* South Boulder Creek Major Drainage Plan (2015) SBC Phase 2 SBC Phase 3 Sunshine Canyon Creek Mitigation Plan not Completed Twomile Canyon Creek Twomile-01 Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek (DRAFT 2020) Twomile-02 Twomile-03 Twomile-04 Wonderland Creek Foothills to Valmont Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek Major Drainageway Planning (2017) 26th to 28th Street 19th Street Stormwater Local Drainage Improvements Tier I Local Drainage System CIP Projects Stormwater Master Plan (2017) Stormwater Collector System Improvements Collector Storm Sewer System Tier 1 Hydraulic and Combined Hydraulic/Water Quality CIP Projects Stormwater Master Plan (2017) *Note: Projects currently in the design and construction phase of the project lifecycle will be shown in the context of the prioritization framework among all the other prioritized projects for transparency but will progress as currently planned without delay as they have been in progress for some time and are nearing the end of the project cycle. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 168 Packet Page 286 of 489 - 115 - Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a general term to describe a set of methods used to support decision- making processes by considering multiple and often conflicting criteria through a structured framework. This framework can then be used for the prioritization of complex alternatives. The use of an MCDA tool for prioritization of the city’s major flood capital projects provides numerous advantages, including:  The ability to accommodate multiple stakeholders for enhanced public participation  The ability to analyze multiple alternatives with complex benefits and attributes  Allows for evaluation of the impact that criteria weighting have on outcomes and perform real-time sensitivity analyses  Provides a robust, defensible tool that allows fair and equitable decision making Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 169 Packet Page 287 of 489 - 116 - Project Prioritization Framework The purpose of the Project Prioritization Framework is to aid in good decision making, build projects that align with community values, and meet the Utility’s goals and objectives. Characteristics of an effective framework include:  A clear and defensible framework  Incorporation of community values identified through stakeholder engagement and constructive dialog  Ability to rank major capital projects that have been developed from multiple studies, CEAP, and master plan outcomes Public input was sought by inviting residents to participate through Be Heard Boulder, six basin-specific meetings, and several in-person meetings (e.g., National Night Out, Duck Race, Hometown Festival, Farmer’s Market), as well as input from the Community Working Group and WRAB members, to confirm the criteria of greatest importance. In total, about 90 people participated in a ranking exercise to provide input on the criteria: this included 18 Spanish-speaking public; 55 English-speaking public, four WRAB members, and 12 CWG members. Project prioritization criteria are shown in Figure 10.2. The addition of racial equity considerations, as described in Boulder’s Racial Equity Plan, to project prioritization metrics is one of the primary objectives of this Master Plan update. The methodologies of the past used a “losses avoided” approach to calculate project benefits resulting in Benefit/Cost ratios that typically favor projects in areas with the highest property values as opposed to where the life safety risk and community needs are highest. Figure 10.2 – Initial Project Prioritization Criteria Criteria voting was done using a “dotstorming exercise” where community members were asked to rank project prioritization criteria with respect to their importance (reference Figure 10.3). The results of the Dotstorming exercise provided weighted values for each attribute are shown in Figure 10.4. To simplify the model outputs and to limit double counting of criteria, “protection of critical facilities” was tucked under the Life Safety category; “infrastructure resilience” and “protect property” were combined under an Effectiveness category; and “environmental” and “cultural” resources were combined into one category (with each being a sub category). Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 170 Packet Page 288 of 489 - 117 - Figure 10.3 – Project Prioritization Criteria Voting using the Dotstorming Tool Click yellow stars to remove a vote Click light grey stars to vote You’re done when all 20 votes have been applied (0 votes available) Red stars tally your total votes for the card Click here for more information on the card Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 171 Packet Page 289 of 489 - 118 - Figure 10.4 – Voting results from stakeholder engagement meetings (n = 89, total votes = 1240) Criteria Selection and Weighting The city reviewed the weighting criteria to ensure strategic alignment with the overall mission of the Utility. Acknowledging that public health, safety, and welfare are fundamental project goals, as well as the highest ranking attribute from the community, the city embarked on building the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to provide a Project Prioritization Framework. The framework will enable sound decision-making around the effectiveness and efficiency, equity, and environmental/cultural aspects of each project along with the ability to implement ― attributes that are also critical to the success of the Utility and the community. A basic MCDA tool was used to compare projects by taking the relative weight of multiple criteria (including quantitative, qualitative, and semi-quantitative information). The community scoring was used to assign the relative weight of each criterion in terms of importance to the community, and the overall “score” of a project is derived from totaling the weighted sums for all of the criteria. The ordering of a project’s benefit is taken to be the project ranking by preference. The following sections further describe the criteria, the metrics used to compare each project, and the scoring framework. Criteria shown in the table are described in more detail below. Table 10-2 outlines the units used in the MCDA model. Table 10-2 – Ranking Criteria by Attribute and Input Metrics to Decision Model Attributes Placed in Model for Assessment Associated Units (Quantitative, Qualitative or Semi-Quantitative) LIFE SAFETY 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Voting Results Total Votes English Language Voting Spanish Language Voting Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 172 Packet Page 290 of 489 - 119 - Attributes Placed in Model for Assessment Associated Units (Quantitative, Qualitative or Semi-Quantitative) Protect Critical Facilities Critical Facilities removed from HHZ # of Structures removed Critical Facilities removed from 500-yr floodplain # of Structures removed Remove Residential Units from HHZ # of Structures removed Road Level of Service Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) COST Capital Costs $ O&M Costs $ EFFECTIVENESS Protect Property Reduction in Physical Damage Potential # of Structures removed from 100-yr floodplain Reduction in Damage to Structures (from Hazus 17) $ Level of Service % Increase ENVIRONMENTAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES Protection/Restoration of Environmental Resources Protect Existing Natural Features & Habitat Acres Restore/Reclaim Natural Features Acres Protection of Cultural Resources 1 to 5 ranking (5 is important) SOCIAL IMPACT, EQUITY AND FAIRNESS Social Vulnerability (from Social Vulnerability Index 18) 0 to 1 ranking (1 is vulnerable) ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT Constraints Easy / Neutral / Difficult Community Acceptance & Support 1 to 5 ranking (5 is full support) MULTIPLE BENEFITS Protect Critical Facilities 1 to 5 ranking (5 is important) 17 Hazus, a nationally standardized risk modeling methodology managed by FEMA’s Natural Hazards Risk Assessment Program, is a GIS-based desktop software with a collection of inventory databases across the U.S. Hazus identifies areas with high risk for natural hazards and estimates physical, economic, and social impacts of floods. What is Hazus? | FEMA.gov 18 The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) uses 15 U.S. census variables to help local officials identify communities that may need support before, during, or after disasters. Social vulnerability refers to the potential negative effects on communities caused by external stresses on human health. Such stresses include natural or human-caused disasters, or disease outbreaks. CDC/ATSDR's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 173 Packet Page 291 of 489 - 120 - Cost Evaluation of a project’s cost includes all costs incurred by the Utility through the duration of the life of the project. Capital Cost Capital cost represents estimated cost of construction incurred by the Utility. To determine this, proposed cost, including contingency factors, of a project is obtained from the most recent planning or design document. Typically, this information will be found in the mitigation plan for the proposed alternative. Any anticipated or secured funding through grants, federal, regional, or city partners will be deducted from the proposed cost of construction. Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Capital Cost ($) Capital cost to the Utility in present year dollars Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Cost Operations and maintenance costs represent a significant portion of the Utility’s annual budget. The O&M costs for a project are estimated costs to occur annually, with the annual O&M cost calculated as 0.5% of the constructed cost. The present worth of a uniform recurring annual O&M cost is: PW (Present Worth) = O&M cost x UPW (uniform present worth, conversion factor) UPW = (1+𝑟𝑟)𝑛𝑛−1𝑟𝑟∗(1+𝑟𝑟)𝑛𝑛 Where: r = 2.7% discount rate (based on the annualized ENR Construction Cost Index from 2010 to 2020) n= 50 years (average useful life of major flood projects) Effectiveness Flood mitigation studies typically use a Benefit/Cost ratio to determine the effectiveness of a project. These ‘benefits’ are often calculated by determining the present-day dollar value of losses avoided. Therefore, flood mitigation projects constructed in areas with high property values score very well. Often, these are the same areas that possess the greatest means for recovery in the event of flood losses. To distribute this benefit more equitably, the value of losses mitigated was separated from the number of structures protected. Additionally, the city strives to provide conveyance of the 100-year flood event through each of the major drainageways. The Utility endeavors to make the greatest practicable progress toward this benchmark as is feasible for these projects. Ranking Factor Semi-Quantitative Metric Estimated Present Worth ($) Present worth of annualized O&M cost to the Utility Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 174 Packet Page 292 of 489 - 121 - Property Protection Reduction of flood risk to property is one of the main drivers for the construction of flood mitigation projects. Between the years of 2010 and 2018, floods have caused approximately $17 billion dollars of damage annually in the United States (Duguid, 2021). Additionally, flooding disproportionately affects individuals with lower incomes and lower levels of economic security, as they possess less means to recover losses. Physical Damage Reduction Physical damage reduction is calculated based on the number of structures that a project removes from the 100-year floodplain. A combination of publicly available GIS data and proposed floodplain limits delineated as part of flood mitigation studies or design projects are used to calculate this value. City of Boulder Datasets. The City of Boulder maintains a Building Footprints GIS dataset that is housed on the city’s Open Data Hub. Information in this dataset includes building type, building height, building area, and a ground elevation value. This information is reduced to include only the structures located within the regulatory floodplains in question through the city’s following datasets: Current High Hazard Zone, Current 100-Year Extent, and Current 500-Year Extent. This results in a number of structures identified for potential flooding impacts and damage/benefit calculations. Economic Loss Reduction RECOMMENDED: GIS-based flood modeling outputs are used to prepare HAZUS reports — a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assessment tool that estimates losses associated with floods. HAZUS provides a quantification of the loss of essential structures as well as a total monetary loss due to structural damage and resulting effects on commerce for a given flood inundation area. A NOTE ABOUT FLOOD MITIGATION PLANS: Mitigation Plans provide data for the alternatives of major flood improvements and their proposed impacts. Hydraulic floodplain models provide an estimate of existing flooding and “with project” proposed conditions that include flooding extents, inundation depths, and flooding impacts to properties and buildings. The information contained in the Mitigation Plans can be used for some of the project data as described below. Damage Assessment Approach. Damage assessments are completed for existing and proposed conditions to determine the potential benefits of implementing a flood mitigation project. This analysis is limited to calculating damages related to buildings and content value. Additional damages such as displacement costs and loss of Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Number of Structures Removed from 100-Year Floodplain Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Flood Damage Avoidance ($) Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 175 Packet Page 293 of 489 - 122 - function impacts, and non-traditional damages (landscaping and agricultural equipment, outbuildings, vehicles, traffic function, and public safety or loss of life) are not included in the analysis. The approach to assessing damages typically follows FEMA Benefit-Cost-Analysis (BCA) guidance, with modifications to best consider the unique landscape within the watershed. Annualized and Present Value Damages. Typically, the mitigation plans provide the total damage to each structure for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year events are annualized to estimate the expected damages per year. Expected annualized damages are used to estimate the total damages that would be expected over project lifetime. The present value (PV) of damages represents the total damage value over the life of the project in current day value. The standard FEMA discount rate of 7% and a useful life of a major drainage system of 50-years are used for these calculations. Flood risk reduction benefits were calculated based on the number of structures as well as the value of structures. Benefit cost ratio metrics are provided in each mitigation plan, which equals the value of losses avoided divided by the mitigation costs. A ratio of less than 1 indicates a project with costs that exceed the benefits, while a ratio greater than 1 indicates a project with costs that are less than the benefits. However, for the Project Prioritization Framework it was determined that using the benefit cost ratio alone provides the greatest benefit for those who own/occupy the most expensive structures. These are also often the population who have the greatest means to recover. As a proxy to benefit cost, the Project Prioritization uses the number of structures removed and economic loss reduction metrics. Level of Service The level of service (LOS) standards discussed in the BVCP goals are for protection from a 100-year storm event. The calculation for the improvement in LOS is: [(Proposed LOS ― Existing LOS) / Recommended LOS] * 100 = percent improvement in LOS This attribute is expressed as a percentage. Environmental & Cultural Resources Criteria voting showed a high interest in projects that protect and restore wetland, floodplain, and riparian areas; protect and improve water quality; protect threatened and endangered (sensitive) species, and increase habitat connectivity. In addition, the community values protection of cultural resources including structures listed on the National Register (includes National Landmark and Listed Historic District); centennial farms, local landmarks, and other eligible sites as defined by the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Environmental Resources The Utility is committed to working with local and regional partners to protect and restore environmental resources within the city. In addition to recognizing the benefits of protecting riparian, floodplain, and wetland habitat, projects will also strive to protect threatened and endangered species habitat. Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Percent Increase (%) From 0 to 100 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 176 Packet Page 294 of 489 - 123 - Protect Existing Natural Features Areas considered as existing natural features include wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas based on City of Boulder GIS data; and threatened and endangered species habitat based on Boulder County GIS data. If locations of natural features were surveyed for a project, the use of project-specific survey data is preferred. Area quantities reported for protection of existing natural features must be based on net protected values. The calculation for this value is as follows: Acres Protected = Existing natural features protected (acres) – Existing natural features disturbed or lost (acres) Restoration or Reclamation of Natural Features Areas considered restored or reclaimed include natural features that were disturbed and restored during construction, as well as any additional restoration or reclamation areas included as part of a project. Cultural Resources Inundation zone maps from the mitigation plan are submitted to Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) for query of their GIS cultural data (previously recorded sites and conducted surveys within each inundation area). After the OAHP provides this data, each site and survey are queried in OAHP’s COMPASS online database to obtain site forms and survey reports. From this, chronological information as well as the National Register for Historic Places status can be obtained for sites as well as the survey report information. Each site is ranked based on three important criteria: degree of impact, the significance of the resources, and land management. Individual site rankings are on a 10 to 1 scale, 10 being the most important and 1 as the lowest importance. An explanation of the individual site ranking is provided below. Impact The potential impact on cultural resources ranked based on where they fall within the inundation zones. The ranking of the potential impact is as follows: 10 — “Full” impact 5 — “Partial” impact 1 — “Near” the inundation zone – This ranking identifies important resources that are close to the inundation zone that could potentially be impacted. Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Acres Protected Net area of natural features protected in acres; value may be negative if net losses are incurred Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Acres Restored or Reclaimed Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 177 Packet Page 295 of 489 - 124 - Eligibility Eligibility is a field or official assessment assigned to professionally inventoried sites. Eligibility will be extracted from the data based on the location of cultural resources relative to the inundation zones. The ranking of these assessments are as follows: 5 — Listed on the National Register; National Landmark; Listed Historic District. 4 — Listed on the State Register; Centennial Farms; Local Landmark; Supports Linear Resource; Contributing to Existing District. 3 — Eligible (Officially and Field) 2 — No assessment; Needs Data (Officially and Field) 1 — Not Eligible (Officially and Field); Does not support linear resource; Delisted Land Management Land management is determined by the laws and regulations that each land manager is obligated to follow to appropriately preserve and protect cultural resources. The ranking based on land management is as follows: 5 = State Parks; BLM; USFS 4 = State Wildlife Areas (SWA); State Land Board (SLB) 3 = Land Trust (Nature Conservancy); City and County 2 = Department of Defense (DoD) 1 = Private Step-by-step project ranking procedures based on their potential benefit to protect cultural resources in the path of the current inundation zones is provided below. 1) Once sites were pulled from the GIS data, they were then grouped by current inundation zone and a calculation was performed to determine how many sites would be protected. 2) Many sites are within properties that are managed by more than one entity; as a result, some sites were duplicated during the land management analysis. a) The average for each duplicated individual site was calculated and the duplicates were then removed (only the average for each duplicated site was used in the following steps). 3) An average for all the cultural resources within each current inundation zone was then calculated to determine the resources that would be protected by the Project. 4) Each project was then grouped based on: a) The Sum of High Priority Significant Resources in the path of the current inundation zone and how many would be removed from the inundation area. b) If there was more than one project that had the same number of significant resources within each of these groups, the Sum of Eligible (Field or Officially) Resources - Potentially Significant Sites was then used to further sort the Projects. c) Similarly, if there was the same number of eligible sites within each of these groups the Site Ranking Average for Each Project was used for the final ranking of each capital project. NOTE: Field and officially not eligible, no assessment, and no data sites are only used during the average ranking for each site and therefore, the Site Ranking for Each Project. It is assumed that not eligible, no assessment, and Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 178 Packet Page 296 of 489 - 125 - no data sites are not as significant as the Eligible sites, nor are they as significant as the High Priority Significant Resources, which were given a “5” or a “4” in the individual Eligibility site ranking. While the methods for ranking the projects are somewhat subjective, an exclusively quantitative ranking is not possible at this time. Ranking Factor Semi-Quantitative Metric Scale of 1 to 10 0 indicates slightly important; 10 indicates significantly important Social Impact, Equity and Fairness Flood damages have different impacts across the community, and people do not have the same ability to recover when impacted. Understanding these differences will help identify the areas with the highest needs and assist in prioritizing these projects. Social Vulnerability Social vulnerability refers to the potential negative effects on communities caused by external stresses on human health. Such stresses include natural or human-caused disasters, or disease outbreaks. Reducing social vulnerability can decrease both human suffering and economic loss. Several factors, including poverty, lack of access to transportation, and crowded housing may weaken a community’s ability to prevent human suffering and financial loss in a disaster (CDC, 2021). The Centers for Disease Control / Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Social Vulnerability Index (CDC/ATSDR SVI) uses U.S. Census data to determine the social vulnerability of every census tract. Census tracts are subdivisions of counties for which the Census collects statistical data. The CDC/ATSDR SVI ranks each tract on 15 social factors and groups them into four related themes (shown below). Each tract receives a separate ranking for each of the four themes, as well as an overall ranking. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 179 Packet Page 297 of 489 - 126 - Source: CDC/ATSDR SVI Fact Sheet | Place and Health | ATSDR Ability to Implement Design and construction projects can encounter many obstacles that can prevent a project from happening or greatly lengthen the time it takes to fully complete a project. This criterion identifies whether a project is expected to encounter obstacles that would hinder or prevent its design and construction, such as institutional, legal, or other practical constraints; ability to permit; whether the city owns the land/holds easements or rights-of-way; and if there is political will and community acceptance and support. These factors are described in more detail below. Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric SVI Range 0 to 1 0 indicates least vulnerability; 1 indicates greatest vulnerability Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 180 Packet Page 298 of 489 - 127 - Project Constraints Typical project constraints that increase the difficulty of bringing a project to fruition include institutional, legal, or other practical constraints; ability to permit the project or how long it may take for permitting on a local, state, or federal level; whether the city owns the land/holds easements or rights-of-way; anticipated difficulty obtaining privately owned land or easements for construction; or others. Ranking Factor Qualitative Metric Easy / Neutral / Difficult Community Acceptance & Support The Utility relies on robust community engagement throughout the flood mitigation planning process to develop selected alternatives that align with community needs and values. The community acceptance & support criterion evaluates the results of these engagement efforts. Life Safety City of Boulder GIS building datasets include: basic information on each structure including a building type and a ground elevation value. This information is reduced to include the structures located within the High Hazard Zone, the 100-year floodplain, and the 500-year floodplain, and results in a number of structures identified for potential flooding impacts and damage/benefit calculations. Protect Critical Facilities In 2014, the city enacted new floodplain regulations to ensure community safety, protect vulnerable populations, and maintain essential services during and after a major flood. Critical Facilities are defined as: at-risk populations such as schools, daycares, and senior care facilities; essential services such as fire and police stations, and water and wastewater treatment facilities; and hazardous materials facilities located within the 500-year floodplain. Critical Facilities Removed from the High Hazard Zone (HHZ) The High Hazard Zone is defined as the area of the floodplain that has the greatest risk for loss of life. Critical facilities identified through City of Boulder GIS data will be used in conjunction with the existing and proposed HHZ boundaries to determine the number of critical facilities anticipated to be removed due to project improvements. Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Number of Facilities Removed from High Hazard Zone Ranking Factor Qualitative Metric Scale of 1 to 5 1 indicating little community support; 5 indicating broad community acceptance Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 181 Packet Page 299 of 489 - 128 - Critical Facilities Removed from the 500-Year Floodplain Critical facilities identified through City of Boulder GIS data will be used in conjunction with the existing and proposed 500-year floodplain boundaries to determine the number of critical facilities anticipated to be removed due to project improvements. Removal of Residential Units from the High Hazard Zone (HHZ) The High Hazard Zone is defined as the area of the floodplain that has the greatest risk for loss of life. Residential units identified through City of Boulder GIS data will be used in conjunction with the existing and proposed HHZ boundaries to determine the number of residential units anticipated to be removed due to project improvements. Road Level of Service Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data were collected from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Online Transportation Information System (OTIS). AADT represents the average daily traffic count for a particular highway segment, in both directions, representing an average 24-hour day in a year and was used as an indicator of road usage and quality. These data were queried against the “without project” inundation maps to characterize the effects of flooding to road closures and road loss due to flooding. AADT is entered into the decision model with values ranging from less than 10,000 to more than 75,000. County counts are 24-hour daily volumes taken mid-week (Tues – Thurs) on county roads during the summer months. An adjustment factor is applied to each raw count based on the time of the year the count was taken (using factors from CDOT). Additional data was collected from the City of Boulder to ascertain the AADT information within city limits. Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Number of Facilities Removed from 500-Year Floodplain Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Number of Residential Units Removed from High Hazard Zone Ranking Factor Quantitative Metric Highest AADT Value Nearest proximal AADT value of road segment receiving benefit from project improvements Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 182 Packet Page 300 of 489 - 129 - Multiple Benefits Some projects provide multiple benefits over and above recognized attributes. Examples of multiple benefits may include: Incorporation of water quality or stormwater drainage project components Multi-agency benefits Piloting of emerging technologies or demonstration projects Alternative transportation (steer residents in a particular direction such as walking/cycling instead of driving) Co-benefits with other proposed projects (e.g., building a project when another project will already be performing road reconstruction) Incorporation of recreation or education components Enhanced permit compliance (water quality) Ranking Factor Qualitative Metric Range 1 to 5 0 indicates few benefits; 5 indicates greatest high level of benefits Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 183 Packet Page 301 of 489 - 130 - Table 10-3 – Criteria Scoring (Dotstorming and Model Inputs to Decision Model) Dotstorming Votes % of Vote Criteria Possible Weight Sub Criteria Weight Sub Sub-Criteria Weight Overall Weight Ability to Implement 92 7% Ability to Implement 7% Constraints 50% 3.5% Community Support 50% 3.5% Efficiency & Cost 88 7% Cost 10% Capital Cost 60% 6.0% O&M Cost 40% 4.0% Effectiveness 20% Protect Property 154 12% Protect Property 80% Reduce Physical Damage 60% 9.6% Reduce Economic Loss 40% 6.4% Infrastructure Resilience 179 14% Level of Service 20% 4.0% Environmental/ Cultural Resources 11% Environmental Resources 141 11% Protection/ Restoration of Environmental Resources 70% Protect Existing Natural Features 75% 5.8% Restore or Reclaim Natural Features 25% 1.9% Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 184 Packet Page 302 of 489 - 131 - Dotstorming Votes % of Vote Criteria Possible Weight Sub Criteria Weight Sub Sub-Criteria Weight Overall Weight Cultural Resources 59 5% Protect Cultural Resources 30% 3.3% Social Impact, Equity, Fairness 161 13% Equity 18% Social Vulnerability 100% 18.0% Life Safety 224 18% Life Safety 29% Protect Critical Facilities 162 13% Protect Critical Facilities 40% Critical Facilities Removed from HHZ 60% 6.9% Critical Facilities Removed from 500- yr floodplain 40% 4.6% Remove Residential Units from HHZ 40% 11.6% Infrastructure Resilience Metric Road Level of Service 20% 5.8% Multiple Benefits 5% 5.0% Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 185 Packet Page 303 of 489 - 132 - MCDA Tool The decision hierarchy (Figure 10.6) illustrates the structure used to support decision-making, outline the criteria and sub-criteria used to rank one project to another. Example projects were placed into the MCDA tool to ascertain its usefulness in assessing project prioritization. An example of how this tool is applied, as discussed in the July 18, 2022, Water Resources Advisory Board meeting, is provided in Appendix D. The model provides a ranking of projects by overall score and can show the respective contribution of the different criteria as shown in Figure 10.5. In this instance, Project D scores higher in Life Safety and Effectiveness categories, and when all scoring is considered, it scores highest. However, Project E2 scores nearly as well, due to its relatively high score in Effectiveness, Equity, and Cost. Figure 10.5 – Example MCDA Tool outcome showing criteria contribution by project 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.070.04 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.060.09 0.09 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.06 0.14 0.04 0.03 0.19 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 Project D Project E2 Project A Project B Project C Project E1Project Prioritization Score(0-1)Projects Multiple Benefits Ability to Implement Cost Environmental/Cultural Resources Equity Effectiveness Life Safety Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 186 Packet Page 304 of 489 - 133 - Figure 10.6 – Decision Model Main Criteria and Sub criteria Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 187 Packet Page 305 of 489 - 134 - As mentioned earlier, historically project alternatives were considered from a Benefit/Cost ratio (BCR) aspect with priority given to those projects that had the highest ratios. In the example projects, if the historic BCR were used to prioritize this suite of projects, Project B would rank higher (as opposed to Project D, which is shown as a second preference, below). Figure 10.7 – Example ranking using BCR as primary criteria for project prioritization Table 10-4 shows the difference in scoring between the revised MCDA Tool vs a straight Benefit/Cost ratio method: Table 10-4 – Scoring – revised MCDA Tool vs straight Benefit/Cost ratio Project Priority using BCR Priority using MCDA Tool Project D 2 1 Project E2 3 2 Project A 6 3 Project B 1 4 Project C 4 5 Project E1 5 6 Figure 10.8 through Figure 10.12 provide further granularity regarding scoring on a project-by-project basis as demonstrated for some of the criteria, below. 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Project B Project D Project E2 Project C Project E1 Project ABenefit Cost RatioAttachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 188 Packet Page 306 of 489 - 135 - Figure 10.8 – Life Safety criteria scoring by project Figure 10.9 – Equity criteria scoring by project 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 0.200 Project D Project E2 Project A Project B Project C Project E1 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION SCORE (ENVIRONMENTAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES)PROJECTSLife Safety 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 0.200 Project D Project E2 Project A Project B Project C Project E1 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION SCORE (EQUITY)PROJECTSEquity Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 189 Packet Page 307 of 489 - 136 - Figure 10.10 – Effectiveness criteria scoring by project Figure 10.11 – Equity criteria scoring by project 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 Project D Project E2 Project A Project B Project C Project E1 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION SCORE (EFFECTIVENESS)PROJECTSEffectiveness 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 Project D Project E2 Project A Project B Project C Project E1 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION SCORE (COST)PROJECTSCost Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 190 Packet Page 308 of 489 - 137 - Figure 10.12 – Ability to Implement criteria scoring by project Figure 10.13 portrays the overall contribution by criteria for each Project for a quick assessment of “why” one project scored better than another. Figure 10.13 – Overall Contribution by Criteria for each Project 0.035 0.044 0.018 0.035 0.035 0.018 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 Project D Project E2 Project A Project B Project C Project E1 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION SCORE (ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT)PROJECTSAbility to Implement 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 Project D Project E2 Project A Project B Project C Project E1 Project Prioritization ScoreProjects Multiple Benefits Life Safety Equity Environmental/Cultural Resources Effectiveness Cost Ability to Implement 0.50 0.49 0.41 0.32 0.29 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 191 Packet Page 309 of 489 - 138 - The decision model is dynamic, and weighting values can be easily modified to create “what if” scenarios. As additional information becomes available for major flood projects, the model will be further developed to inform the proposed capital improvement expenditure priorities and budget. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 192 Packet Page 310 of 489 - 139 - References Boulder County Traffic Counts. Retrieved on February 16, 2022 from Boulder County Traffic Counts (arcgis.com) Centers for Disease Control/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (CDC/ATSDR). Retrieved on February 16 from CDC/ATSDR's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) City of Boulder Traffic Count Data. Retrieved on February 16, 2022 from Boulder Traffic Count (bouldercolorado.gov) Deguid, Kate. (2021, February 21). Cost of Flood Damage to US Homes Will Increase by 61% in 30 Years. Rueters. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cost-flood-damage-us-homes-will-increase-by-61-30- years-2021-02-22/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazus Program retrieved from Hazus | FEMA.gov Madruga de Brito, M., M. Evers. (2016). “Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16, 1019–1033, 2016. Accessed at www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/16/1019/2016/ doi:10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016 Mustajoki, J., M. Marttunen. (2017). “Comparison of multi-criteria decision analytical software for supporting environmental planning processes”, Finnish Environment Institute, 2017. Accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.02.026 1364-8152. Water Research Foundation. (2018). “Recommended Operation and Maintenance Activity and Cost Reporting Parameters for Stormwater Best Management Practices Database,” 2018. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 193 Packet Page 311 of 489 - 140 - 11 Financial Considerations There are many critical factors which may either facilitate or limit the Utility’s ability to adequately manage stormwater runoff and mitigate the effects of floods. The Utility requires administrative, planning, engineering, operational, regulatory, and infrastructure management functions that demand a substantial financial investment. Drivers for additional capital requirements include aging infrastructure, escalating construction costs, community values, and new regulations. This Chapter discusses financial considerations including the types of costs likely to be incurred by the Utility in the future. Since approval of the 2004 Flood and Stormwater Master Plan, the Utility has completed flood mapping for nearly all of Boulder’s 16 major drainageways, constructed major flood improvements on Elmer’s Two Mile ($9M), Wonderland Creek ($30M), and Gregory Creek ($735K), among others, and completed 75 percent of remaining flood mitigation studies. These mitigation studies are prepared to identify the preferred flood mitigation projects to be designed and constructed. Using information from the completed mitigation plans and the Stormwater Master Plan (2016), Utilities has estimated that the cost to complete the remaining storm and flood mitigation capital improvements across the city’s 16 drainageways is roughly $355 million (2022 dollars). This accounts for construction of over $47M in stormwater projects and $308M in major flood projects. In implementing past projects, the time required to perform permitting, approvals, and the community engagement process has resulted in completion of a major flood project about every seven to ten years. Simply put, if the pace for construction of major flood projects remains the same, it could take more than 50 years to complete the current list of capital projects that have been identified through the mitigation plans and Stormwater Master Plan. Impediments to CIP construction include: staff resources (additional Project Managers and/or consultant staff are required); the project lifecycle requirements (permitting, approvals and community engagement); need for community support (at the project level, and for rate increases); and continued ability to bond the work. A public engagement process was conducted during the spring of 2015 in support of the latest Utility Rate Study (Raftelis, 2017). In June 2015, the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) was provided the results of the public engagement process, and the WRAB, followed by the City Council, adopted the following Utility rate guiding principles (Boulder, City of, 2017):  Be effective in yielding total revenue requirements  Provide revenue stability and predictability for the utilities  Fairly allocate the total cost of service across customer classes to attain equity  Encourage low-impact development to decrease stormwater impacts Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 194 Packet Page 312 of 489 - 141 - Funding Sources Stormwater and flood management are critically important city functions, reflecting the city’s standing as a highly flood-prone community. The Utility serves a customer base of 29,579 properties (as of December 31, 2021) and provides a multi-million dollar operational and capital infrastructure program, at about $10 to $15 million annually. Rates and fees are annually assessed to fund activities of the Utility and to ensure that required reserves are maintained and debt service coverage requirements are met. Adequate reserves are required for bond issues and for other outstanding liabilities. The Utility strives to maintain a 25% operating reserve over a six-year planning period. Current reserves are estimated to be above 25% over a six-year planning period. In addition, the Utility also has a $1,050,000 reserve available for the property acquisition program. Debt service coverage requirements are established as part of the Utility’s bond covenants. Planning for issuing debt for projects includes consideration of maintaining coverage ratios as required by bond covenants and maintaining strong bond ratings to keep interest rates and costs low. On an annual basis, the Utility is required, per bond covenant requirements, to generate net revenues (before debt service) equal to 1.25 times its annual debt service requirements. The Utility currently generates net revenues that average about four times this requirement. In addition to the City’s annual review of rates and fees, a financial and rate consulting firm is hired periodically to conduct a comprehensive rate and fee review. The last rate review was completed in 2017 by Raftelis Financial Consultants (Raftelis, 2017). Results of this rate study included a revision to the fee calculation methodology for non-single family residential customers to include a simple fixed charge in addition to a charge for each square foot of impervious area. The fee and rate structure went into effect on January 1, 2018. A comparison of monthly stormwater utility fees for Colorado municipalities is presented in Figure 11.1. Of particular note is that, prior to the 2013 flood, average utility fee was markedly lower (about $8 per month), but a substantial rate increase was enacted in 2014 to cover community investment in flood mitigation and reduce risk. This is further illustrated in Figure 11.4. Figure 11.1 – Monthly Average 2021 Stormwater Rates $22 $19 $15 $15 $15 $12 $11 $11 $10 $8 $6 $6 $5 $5 $2 $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 Monthly Avg 2021 Stormwater Rates Front Range Communities Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 195 Packet Page 313 of 489 - 142 - Funding Sources The Utility’s funding is comprised of service fees, Plant Investment Fees (PIF), bond proceeds, funding for limited purposes from the regional Mile High Flood District (MHFD), and occasional grants, loans, and cost sharing. The charges to commercial, industrial, and institutional properties are based on their impervious coverage and gross property area in relation to that of the average conditions present on single-family residential properties. Basically, more heavily developed properties pay more. The charges to non-residential properties vary significantly, as there exists a wide variation in impervious coverage and property area. In total, the charges to customer classes reflect the demands imposed by existing land conditions on the stormwater and flood management infrastructure and associated programs. Monthly User Fees Monthly Utility service charges (fees) are the primary source of funding for the Utility. Initially set in 1973 at $1.00/month for residential customers, service charges were intended to recover the costs of administration, operations, maintenance, and system replacement over time, plus construction of additional infrastructure. However, revenue collected in the early years of the Utility was insufficient to fully fund those needs. To address this deficit, service charges were allocated to new construction and General Fund appropriations were used to fund operational programs as the Utility programs were established. To allow the Utility to fully fund its operations and construction, the Utility’s service charge rates were increased in 1982, 1987, 1989, 1990, and repeatedly thereafter. The Utility’s current rate methodology consists of a fixed service charge and an area charge which are billed to customers within the city limits. The area charge for single-family residential customers is based on their lot size. All other customers pay an area charge based on the impervious area (driveways, parking lots, roofs, etc.) contained on their lot. These fees are codified in the Boulder Revised Code (BRC), under Section 4-20-45 Stormwater and Flood Management Fees. The 2022 fixed service charge for all accounts is $3.53 per month. Residential area charges average $22.00 per month, and owners of all other parcels pay an area charge of $0.008005 per square foot of impervious area. Plant Investment Fees In 1989, the city adopted a Stormwater and Flood Management Plant Investment Fee (PIF) to assist in the funding of growth or expansion-related facilities for the collection and conveyance of stormwater runoff. The PIF is a one- time fee collected when an annexed, developed, or redeveloped property requires access to flood control or stormwater collection and conveyance infrastructure. From 1989 to 1996, the PIF was calculated in a manner similar to the non-residential monthly user fees. In 1998, the PIF calculation was adjusted to more accurately reflect the wide range of residential development happening in the community. Prior to 1998, residential property paid a PIF using a sliding scale dependent only upon property size. In 2001 this was modified so that each residential property paid a PIF based upon both its calculated runoff coefficient and property size. The PIFs are calculated based upon the new replacement value of the Utility assets less depreciation and are found in BRC 4-20-46 Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee. The PIF is currently set at $2.39/square foot of impervious area (2022). As the city sees less net new impervious area in development projects, it is anticipated that these fees will diminish in their overall contribution to revenue. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 196 Packet Page 314 of 489 - 143 - Bonds The Utility issues bonds to pay for major flood improvements that typically have long useful life, so that the debt can be spread out over several years (usually over a 20-year period). The Utility continues to maintain a high bond rating, most recently Aa1 from Moody’s and AAA from Standard and Poor’s. The ratings report for the 2018 Water and Sewer Bonds stated this is due in part to “strong fiscal management” and maintaining sufficient reserves. Other Funding Sources The Utility is also supported by funding from the MHFD for certain qualifying expenditures. MHFD funds are generated by a special mill levy (property tax), with the objective that they be returned proportionally to their geographic area of origin over time. Apportionment of the funds across the MHFD is not required to reflect revenue origin in any given year. It is estimated that funding from MHFD will average between $1M to $2M annually in the next six years. A general breakdown of funding sources is shown in Figure 11.2 below. Figure 11.2 – Sources of Funds Rate Comparisons & Methodologies The current method of apportioning the Utility’s costs across the community supports the program’s initial focus on stormwater collection and conveyance and flood management. Although refinements have been enacted from time to time, the funding structure and resulting cost apportionment have remained relatively constant. Increases to service charges and PIF have kept pace with program growth. Service Charge Fees 93% PIF 2% MHFD 4% Interest on Investments 1% SOURCES OF FUNDS Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 197 Packet Page 315 of 489 - 144 - Residential service fees in Boulder have increased significantly since the 2013 flood. Figure 11.3 provides a comparison of Colorado-based programs and shows that Boulder, followed by Loveland, Longmont, Denver, and Fort Collins have the highest flood utility fees in comparison with other Front Range municipalities. In comparison, in 2003 Fort Collins had the highest reported average annual residential fee at about $155 per year as they had adjusted their rates following to a major flood event (1997). Over the past two decades, Fort Collins invested substantial resources into their program, gaining a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) Class 2 rating, which provides a significant reduction in flood insurance premiums for the community’s property owners, among other benefits. The 2013 flood in Boulder came 16 years after the 1997 flood in Fort Collins, and the Utility continues to make strides toward financing major flood improvements. Figure 11.3 – Annual Average Rate Comparison (2003 to 2021) Subsequent to the 2013 floods, Boulder similarly embarked on a program to systematically and consistently raise rates to provide additional flood protection, including mapping and mitigation studies, and construction of flood infrastructure. A one-time, significant rate increase of 75% occurred in 2015 and annual rate increases have averaged about 8% since then. Figure 11.4 shows the historic Utility rate increases since the previous Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan was prepared. $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 Annual Avg Rate Comparison (2003 to 2021) 2021 2003 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 198 Packet Page 316 of 489 - 145 - Figure 11.4 – Historic Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Rate Increases by Year Recent and proposed rate increases are included in Table 11-1. Table 11-1 – Stormwater and Flood Utility Recent and Proposed Rate Increases 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Rate Increases (Current / Proposed) 7% 12% 12% 12% 12% Boulder’s service charge rate methodology is generally consistent with industry practices. PIFs ensure that over time, new development financially participates in the cost of capital infrastructure that was built in anticipation of the storm and flood management demands created by the increase in impervious surfaces. The basic parameters employed in the Utility’s service fee and PIF rate methodologies are impervious area and, to a lesser degree, gross property area. Both factors increase the rate and volume of stormwater runoff, especially in severe storms when the initial mitigating effects of vegetation and soil absorption are overwhelmed. Historically, the Boulder community has consistently supported increases in utility service charges and plant investment fees to meet demonstrated needs. A public engagement process was conducted during the spring of 2015 in support of the latest Utility Rate Study (Raftelis, 2017). It included the city mailing 26,000 postcards to notify customers of the opportunity to provide input. The resulting feedback did not indicate the need to make largescale changes to the rate structures. As such, the Utility has opted to ramp rates up each year; this smoothing rate setting approach is preferred as it avoids large one-time rate increases in any given year which can shock ratepayers. Stepping up service charge rates infrequently also demands that a substantial fund balance be created in the first few years after a rate is in place. The accumulated fund balance would subsequently erode as expenditures overtake and eventually exceed revenues. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 6%3%3%3%3%3%3%0%0%3%3%3% 75% 4% 8%7%5%7% 12%12% Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 199 Packet Page 317 of 489 - 146 - Budget The Utility’s approved budget in 2022 fiscal year was about $17.67M (reference Table 11-2). This includes $6.58M for operational expenses, $8.64M for capital expenditures, $0.86M for departmental transfers, and $1.59M for debt service on existing bonds (essentially long-term loans that are paid off over time). Operating and emergency reserves are budgeted at $5.25M. The Utility’s fund balance at year’s end is projected to be $13.2M. A summary of the breakdown of the Utility’s recent and projected budget/expense categories is shown in Figure 11.5, below. The percentages are an average of actuals (2020, 2021); approved (2022); and projected (2023 through 2027) expenses. Figure 11.5 – Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Projected Overall Expense Categories As shown above, the budget is primarily used for capital improvement program expenses. A further breakdown of the Utility’s current operating budget/expenses is shown in Figure 11.6, below. The percentages are an average of actuals (2020, 2021); approved (2022); and projected (2023 through 2027) operating expenses. Figure 11.6 – Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Operating Expenses (2020-2027) Operating 18% Debt Payments 18%Capital Improvement Program 64% STORMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY PROJECTED OVERALL EXPENSE CATEGORIES Administration (15%) Planning and Project Management (17%) Stormwater Contract Management (2%)Stormwater Quality (18%) System Maintenance (43%) Public Space Reclamation (4%) STORMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY OPERATING EXPENSES (2020 -2027) Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 200 Packet Page 318 of 489 - 147 - Table 11-2 provides the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility 2022 fund financial information (Source: Approved 2022 City Budget). Table 11-2 – Flood and Stormwater Utility Actual and Projected Expenditures 2020 Actual 2021 Revised 2022 Approved 2023 Projected 2024 Projected 2025 Projected 2026 Projected 2027 Projected Operating Uses of Funds $ 4,410,085 $ 5,180,622 $ 6,579,730 $ 6,321,515 $ 6,447,945 $ 6,582,630 $ 6,720,732 $ 6,862,349 Debt Services $ 1,589,163 $ 1,591,688 $ 1,590,188 $ 1,588,088 $ 10,165,776 $ 10,167,726 $ 10,168,626 $ 10,167,476 Transfers Out $ 665,902 $ 985,714 $ 857,957 $ 874,794 $ 892,049 $ 914,150 $ 936,826 $ 960,092 Capital Projects** $ 2,703,640 $ 31,004,029 $ 8,637,500 $ 16,787,500 $ 96,190,700* $ 4,117,500 $ 4,297,500 $ 5,517,500 Total Uses of Funds $ 9,368,790 $ 38,762,053 $ 17,665,375 $ 25,571,897 $ 113,696,470 $ 21,782,006 $ 22,123,684 $ 23,507,417 Total Reserves $ 4,646,321 $ 4,922,021 $ 5,252,168 $ 5,204,138 $ 13,818,235 $ 13,760,296 $ 13,812,848 $ 13,866,443 ENDING FUND BALANCE (after Reserves) $ 35,947,434 $ 13,309,182 $ 13,189,050 $ 8,703,734 $ 308,573 $ 1,347,391 $ 3,085,425 $ 4,661,370 * This is predominately capital outlay with bond proceeds. **Capital projects also include capital carry-over from multi-year projects. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 201 Packet Page 319 of 489 - 148 - In past years, the CIP program has emphasized major drainageway improvements and property acquisition. Over the next five years, capital expenditures for major drainageways are projected to be the highest outlay (>60%) of the budget followed by stormwater management (>30%), as shown in Figure 11.7, below. Figure 11.7 – Summary of Projected Capital Expenditures (2022-2027) Major Drainageways 64%Drainageway Maintenance / Enhancements 1% Property Acquisition 4% Stormwater Management 31% SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (2022 -2027) Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 202 Packet Page 320 of 489 - 149 - Funding Analysis Underlying factors, such as inflation and construction costs, aging of legacy stormwater infrastructure, and new regulations will influence the Utility’s future programs. Evolving risks due to climate change uncertainty and the city’s sustainability and resilience objectives may justify significant changes in Utility funding. Additional factors that must also be accounted for include: 1) the community’s ability and willingness to pay for program expansion and upgrades of both physical systems and operational capability, and 2) practical limits on the Utility’s ability to mount and manage the increasing effort required. Financial Implications and Scenarios The following provides a starting point for examining the strategic decisions and implications on the future Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. A highly detailed program strategy supported by a refined cost of service analysis is required (often presented in a rate analysis) to provide a current financial template of stormwater and flood management costs and revenues. Project-Level Funding Scenarios Flood mitigation projects undergo extensive assessment and refinement to determine location, function, design alternatives, and preferred design approaches. Smaller, straightforward projects often go through the Project- Specific Community Process, which is a mechanism to construct the projects in a timely manner. Major flood mitigation project approval is more thorough due to the larger impact and costs. These projects benefit from a multi-criteria decision making process (Project Prioritization Framework) to analyze the project portfolio and prioritize projects in keeping with community values. Master plans within the city lay out strategic objectives that will be pursued at differing levels based upon the amount of additional investment appropriated by the City Council through the annual budget process. The levels of funding for most city projects fall in to three categories: Fiscally Constrained, Action, or Vision. Funding Scenario Description Fiscally Constrained This funding level provides approximately $5M in capital funds and reflects what is needed to maintain basic Utility services over the short term. This includes minimal rate increases (that keep up with the Consumer Price Index). Minor investment is made in capital improvement projects and maintenance and operations would be a priority. The city had generally maintained this funding level prior to 2015. Under this funding scenario the CIP might take 75 or more years to complete. Action This funding level assumes an average of $7M annually in 2022 dollars, and accounts for annual fluctuations and associated rate increases. Some capital improvements are debt-financed so debt service is included in utility rates. In addition, this funding level includes six Engineering/Project Managers as currently approved in the 2022 Budget Book (Figure 11.8). Under this funding scenario it may take more than 50 years to complete the CIP. This is where the city funding has been since 2015. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 203 Packet Page 321 of 489 - 150 - Funding Scenario Description Vision This funding level provides approximately $11M in annual capital funds and augments resources with additional engineers, project managers and/or consultants and capital available to complete one to two major flood projects per year. This level of funding supports an acceleration of the stormwater and major flood Capital Improvement Program and Utility maintenance so that the CIP can be completed within 30 to 35 years. These funds would be realized through a combination of continued rate increases to fund bond issuances; higher than estimated Plant Investment Fees; one-time federal grants; and higher interest on investments. This level requires sustained larger rate increases and additional staffing and resources to implement the projects. Fund Balance and Reserves The Utility maintains an adequate fund balance year-over-year (reference Table 11-2) but the carry-over balance will diminish when large capital projects are constructed. The fund balance in a utility’s accounting unit is a critically important management tool for strategizing the pace and form of the evolution of the program and associated funding. Because a fund balance carries over from one year to the next, the Utility’s budgeted income does not have to match projected expenditures in any given year. The unrestricted fund balance, along with reserves, allows flexibility from the impact of one-time costs incurred in a given year (particularly emergency responses and cash-expensed capital improvement spending), and maintains reserves that are required under the bond covenants. Stormwater and flood management is a recognized “high risk” activity. The Utility must have adequate reserves to deal with evolving, inconsistent, and uncontrollable natural forces. Legacy stormwater and flood management systems constructed decades ago remain in place today in much of the city, but the possibility of extreme storm events and associated design standards have changed. In such an environment, both adequate operational and emergency reserves are prudent along with a fund balance that provides an additional layer of resilience which could be appropriated during a natural disaster. Staffing Resources The Utility has budgeted for adequate staffing levels, which are currently set at 39 full-time equivalents (FTEs)19 (reference Figure 11.8 for an overview of personnel by Work Group), an increase of 8 FTEs over the prior year. The latest increase is in Stormwater maintenance in response to increased MS4 permit requirements and in the addition of five Public Space Reclamation staff. However, like other utilities across the U.S., there are a number of open, un-filled positions that cause additional workload for the existing staff. Additionally, although the piped stormwater is now adequately resourced to complete a 15-year system maintenance cycle, open-channel flood, greenways, and irrigation ditches are currently only resourced to address contractual obligations, known hot- spots, and/or coincident with storm-driven events. Although the two systems have similar volumes of maintenance demands, they are not similarly allocated staff and equipment resources and would benefit from resources that would allow a complete preventive and proactive maintenance cycle every 10 to 15 years. 19 Does not include support staff in neighboring departments such as Planning and Development Services Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 204 Packet Page 322 of 489 - 151 - The Utility has budgeted for six project engineers and project managers and current staffing level is three FTEs. The Utility is endeavoring to fill these positions and can use additional consultant support as a stopgap measure. However, the Utility may not be able to advance the planned capital improvement program unless the engineering staffing complement is augmented (i.e., several open positions must be filled). Source: Approved 2022 City Budget Figure 11.8 – Full-time Funded Positions (39 Total) by Work Group Financial Policy Issues Stormwater and flood management are critically important city functions, reflecting the city’s standing as a highly flood-prone community. The Utility provides a multi-million dollar operational and capital infrastructure program, at about $20 million annually. Four attributes of effective utility funding are:  Funding must be stable over time so a reasoned and efficient program can be delivered  Funding must be adequate to meet the identified needs  Funding must be sufficiently flexible to serve the diverse elements of the program and, especially, changing priorities over time  Funding must be equitable to ensure long-term community acceptance and support Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 205 Packet Page 323 of 489 - 152 - Policy Discussion The level of funding, resources, and tools needed to carry out the required functions of the Utility is a fundamental consideration. Three aspects should be considered:  How much is currently spent on operations, capital infrastructure improvement, debt financing, allocations to operating and emergency response reserves, and bond debt coverage? Is that level of funding adequate to get the job done?  What type and amount of funding will be needed in the future to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in this and the Stormwater Master Plans?  In the context of future program expectations, management policies, and risk exposure, what is a prudent / appropriate year-end balance in the Utility’s accounting fund? The purpose of funding policy is to provide funding guidance and ensure associated financial management resources are available to carry out the stormwater and flood management program. Policy recommendations in furtherance of these objectives is included below. Future Funding Methods and Mechanisms Additional funding methods and financial management tools may be available that could buttress the Utility’s funding, such as cooperative cost sharing and federal and state grants and loans. With the service fees providing over 90% of the Utility’s revenue, these remain the singular most stable and robust revenue source. Grants and Loans There are continued and new opportunities for federal and state grants and loans, which can augment the Utility’s funding capacity. For instance, the Utility recently obtained grant funding from HUD and the Federal Highway Administration for approximately 35 percent of the Wonderland Creek flood mitigation project. Other grants and loans that the city may wish to pursue include: BRIC Grants City staff routinely evaluate and apply for federal grants like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant through FEMA. BRIC is FEMA’s pre-disaster hazard mitigation program that replaces the existing Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program. IIJA Loans and Grants The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is a five-year, $1.2 trillion infrastructure package that was signed into law in November 2021. The first-year allotment of the nearly $43.5 billion in total SRF funding that has been provided to the State of Colorado is a total of $121,347,000 with $14,354,000 dedicated to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). EPA encourages states to strategically use funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) as a catalyst to continue building and maintaining a robust project pipeline of SRF projects. EPA recommends states use practices already exemplified in some SRF programs, such as simplifying and streamlining their application process and encouraging integrated and regional approaches (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law | US EPA). High-level outcomes of the law include: Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 206 Packet Page 324 of 489 - 153 -  WIFIA. Reauthorizes the Water Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan program at $50 million annually for U.S. projects.  Provides $1.4 billion over five years for Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse municipal grants.  Storm Act. Provides $100 million annually, over five years for the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation (STORM) Act. The STORM Act was enacted earlier this year and creates a Resilience Revolving Loan Fund.  BRIC Funding. Makes an additional $1 billion available in grants for the FEMA BRIC Program. All of these are highly competitive grants or loans, and staff endeavor to apply for these when a project is well positioned for award. Before applying, the city considers how the grant is structured and evaluated and applies when positioned to submit a qualified/competitive proposal. Staff will continue to monitor city projects for funding program applicability and apply when appropriate. Rate Methodologies The Utility conducts regular rate methodology reviews and adopts updates as needed. In the case of utilities (e.g., water, wastewater, stormwater) that provide a commodity or service, utility service charges are based on the ratepayers’ service demands which means the more demand or use a customer makes of the services, the more they should pay. Service charges can also be augmented with modifications and other funding methods. Similar to the city, some utilities use a combination of a fixed base charge per account with variable charges that reflect differences in service demands across customer classes (e.g., single-family residential versus commercial, industrial, and institutional groups). Fixed base charges may also vary among different classes of customers. Many stormwater utilities provide a system of credits and offsets against service charges to recognize unusual property conditions or activities that reduce the demands imposed on the utility program and facilities and it’s cost of service. Data associated with each class of customer, and even individual customers, can be manipulated in various ways in a service charge calculation. Over eighty percent (80%) of stormwater utilities use impervious coverage as the primary, or even sole, parameter for calculating stormwater service charges. Some have just one customer class encompassing all single-family residences. Others group residential customers in tiers. Customers may be grouped in a few classes, or several dozen. Impervious area has been the primary parameter employed in Boulder since the initial rate methodology was adopted in 1973. The manner in which impervious area is measured, estimated, or calculated and how it is treated in the service charge calculation has evolved over the past fifty years. The city needs to periodically reassess how the service charge and PIF rate methodologies fit with the changing program and costs. Annual Service Charge Rate Adjustment / Biannual Update Analysis The city’s primary financial management tool is the annual budget process, which addresses both costs and revenues. The city’s approach is to conduct the analyses and formally appropriate funding for the following calendar year. In addition, the city forecasts future operating, capital budgets, and revenues for a six-year period in less detail for financial planning purposes, providing a glimpse of the future budget but only locking in the first year by formal City Council adoption. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 207 Packet Page 325 of 489 - 154 - The city has routinely adjusted service charge and/or PIF rates annually (ramping) rather than on a longer interval (stepping), consciously integrating the rate analysis process into the budget process. Management of the Utility during the year benefits from linking rate management with budgeting. To maintain that connection with the city’s budget process, an annual rate evaluation should also incorporate a projection for the next year. Debt Versus Expensed Funding for Major Capital Infrastructure The city employs both annually budgeted (cash funded) and debt-financed funding of major capital infrastructure. The latter allows the Utility to expedite property and equipment acquisitions and to make costly improvements to the stormwater and flood management facilities. When very costly improvements must be built, like major flood improvements, bonding is the practical funding mechanism. Debt funding can enhance the equity of cost apportionment over time by extending the payment period for capital infrastructure that has a service life over several generations and future land development conditions. Given that the Utility’s stormwater and flood management service charges are limited to developed properties with impervious area, undeveloped properties don’t participate financially. The city normally sells revenue bonds with a twenty-year repayment schedule, which allows the Utility to spread costs across both currently developed properties and those that will be developed during that bonding period. Incorporating Sustainability and Resilience as Financial Considerations Leadership in fiscal resilience is making the city better equipped to respond to and recover from economic shocks, whether this is withstanding a global recession or responding to a major event (Boulder, 2016). One of the city’s primary financial policies is that one-time revenues shall only be used to cover one-time expenses and that ongoing costs should not be greater than ongoing revenues. Recognizing that the utilities around the world are facing a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous landscape, creating and maintaining a sustainable and resilient community requires a keen understanding of current impact and future financial implications over the long-term. Sustainability and resilience require both the capacity to respond quickly and the ability to do so over years. The functionality of stormwater and flood management systems must be maintained over time, which requires a complex and dynamic set of activities ranging from inspection to cleaning, repair, and replacement. However, the sustainability of a stormwater and flood management program is not solely a matter of ensuring that the systems and services provided continue to function effectively; it also involves financial sustainability. Income from various sources must be sufficient to pay for operational and capital costs and meet operating and emergency reserve objectives far into the future. For example, the asset management system has illuminated the challenge of maintaining and replacing legacy stormwater systems. The asset management system should be elevated as a priority with continued resources applied to the stormwater and flood management facilities as soon as practicable. Refinement of the Future Program Budgets through Cost of Service Analyses Cost of service analyses serve other purposes beyond budgeting and program management. Reasonably detailed and accurate cost projections are essential when service charge and PIF rate studies are conducted. They also foster effective use of the Utility’s asset management system. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 208 Packet Page 326 of 489 - 155 - This Master Plan provides abundant information that would inform a cost of service analysis, including both the current functions performed by the Utility as well as major trends in flood management, stormwater drainage, and stormwater quality. That look into the future illuminates emerging issues and opportunities that may impact the city and the Utility in the future. Future costs can be more easily and reliably forecast with regular updates. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 209 Packet Page 327 of 489 - 156 - Recommendations The Utility’s financial strategy is to provide adequate resources to support the planning, construction, and operations and maintenance of capital improvement projects and meet regulatory compliance requirements. Revenues are tied to a “user pays” model largely around the amount of impervious surface area. The recommendations presented herein address funding and financial management. They support the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility, policy issues addressed above, and the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. 20-year CIP Development  Apply the Prioritization Framework to remaining projects to develop a 20-year CIP for the Utility, including evaluation of external funding sources.  Annually update the Prioritization Framework and, upon City Council approval of the Budget Book, commence design and construction of the approved, prioritized, projects. Future Funding Methods and Mechanisms  Assess a range of potential funding methods and mechanisms to optimize and diversify funding sources. Rate Methodologies  Continue to review and update service charges and rate methodologies to: 1) maintain currency of the structure with industry practice and standards; 2) reflect strategic objectives and costs; and, 3) ensure that apportionment of costs across the community equitably reflect the service demands and impacts. Annual Service Charge Rate Adjustment / Biannual Update Analysis  Adjust service charge rates annually as part of the budget process to meet program strategy, expenditure, and fund balance objectives.  Conduct an analysis of the rates on an annual planning timeframe to assess short-term revenue sufficiency to meet strategic, operational, capital investment, and fund balance objectives.  Reassess the technical structure of the service charge rate methodology and the PIF methodology every five to eight years to determine consistency with city policies, evolving functions of the Utility, availability of other funding mechanisms, other policy objectives, and the BVCP requirements. Debt Versus Expensed Funding for Major Capital Infrastructure  Use revenue-bonded debt funding for an increasing portion of the Utility’s capital infrastructure needs, reducing reliance on the Utility’s annually budgeted expenditures to fund capital infrastructure, expediting improvements in operational functions, improving asset management, and enhancing the temporal equity of capital infrastructure cost apportionment. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 210 Packet Page 328 of 489 - 157 - Incorporating Sustainability and Resilience as Financial Considerations Incorporate the city’s sustainability and resilience objectives and their impact on financial considerations in the Utility’s policies, strategic program planning, budgeting process, and operations. In coordination with the city’s budget process, the Utility should perform a regular assessment of possible service charge and PIF rate adjustments necessary to maintain a sustainable utility. Refinement of the Future Program Budgets through Cost of Service Analyses Undertake a long-range but relatively detailed cost of service analysis to refine future financial planning and budgeting.  Examine a five to eight-year time frame on cost of service analyses.  Include a level of detail that is sufficient to support annual service charge and PIF rate reviews. Cost of service projections should be reassessed every two years in coordination with city’s annual budget process (which provides a one-year appropriation with a subsequent 5-year CIP projection) and refined as needed through service charge and PIF rate studies. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 211 Packet Page 329 of 489 - 158 - References Barnes, G. (2015). Key Financial Indicators for Water and Wastewater Systems: Debt Service Coverage Ratio. Accessed at: Key Financial Indicators for Water and Wastewater Systems: Debt Service Coverage Ratio - Environmental Finance Blog (unc.edu). Boulder, City of. (2021). City of Boulder 2022 Approved Budget. Accessed at Budget | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov) Boulder, City of. (2021). Prior Year Budgets. Accessed at Prior Year Budgets | City of Boulder (bouldercolorado.gov) Boulder, City of. (2021). Water Resources Advisory Board Agenda Item “Draft Proposed 2022-2027 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Water, Wastewater and Stormwater/Flood Management. Boulder, City of. (2017). City Council Agenda Item, “Utility Rate Structures Study Update”, Meeting date May 2, 2017. Boulder, City of. (2016). City of Boulder Resilience Strategy Boulder, City of (1981, as revised). Boulder Charter and Revised Code. Accessed February 2, 2022 at BOULDER CHARTER AND REVISED CODE | Municipal Code | Boulder, CO | Municode Library. Boulder, City of. (2004). Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan. Chapter 7 – Financial Considerations, 6 pp. McCartney, A. (2019). Enhancing Your Utility’s Long-Term Financial Sustainability & Resilience through Cash Reserves. Water Finance and Management. Accessed from: Enhancing Your Utility’s Long-Term Financial Sustainability & Resilience through Cash Reserves - Water Finance & Management (waterfm.com). Enhancing Your Utility’s Long-Term Financial Sustainability & Resilience through Cash Reserves - Water Finance & Management (waterfm.com) McCartney, A. (2019). Capital Reserves, Debt Service & Rate Stabilization Reserves. Water Finance and Management. Accessed at: Cash Reserves Pat. 2: Capital Reserves, Debt Service & Rate Stabilization Reserves - Water Finance & Management (waterfm.com). Cash Reserves Pt. 2: Capital Reserves, Debt Service & Rate Stabilization Reserves - Water Finance & Management (waterfm.com) National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. (2006). Guidance for Municipal Stormwater Funding. Accessed at: Guidance for Municipal Stormwater Funding (epa.gov). Raftelis Financial Consultants. (2017). Draft Memorandum entitled “Utility Rate Analysis Phase 2 – Analysis of Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Alternatives, dated January 9, 2017. Royster, S. (2013). More on Reserve Funds: How Much is Too Much, accessed at: More on Reserve Funds: More on Reserve Funds: How Much Is Too Much? - Environmental Finance Blog (unc.edu) Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 212 Packet Page 330 of 489 - 159 - 12 Glossary of Terms Acronym Term Definition 100-Year Flood/ Base Flood / 1% Annual Chance A flood event that statistically has a 1 out of 100 (or one percent) chance of being equaled or exceeded on a specific watercourse in any given year. The term does not imply that the flood will necessarily happen once every one hundred years. 100-Year Floodplain All land areas subject to inundation by floodwaters in a flood event having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. A structure in the 100-year floodplain has a 26 percent chance of flooding at least once over a 30-year mortgage. 500-Year Floodplain All land areas subject to inundation by floodwaters in a flood event having a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year. Alluvial Fan A geomorphologic feature characterized by a cone or fan-shaped deposit of boulders, gravel, and fine sediments that have been eroded from mountain slopes, transported by flood flows and then deposited in the valley floors and which is subject to flash flooding, high velocity flows, debris flows, erosion, sediment movement and deposition, and channel migration. As-Built Plans A community may require submission of “as-built” plans to certify that a project was built in accordance with the permit. A registered professional architect or engineer certifies the actual construction. Atlas 14 Precipitation frequency estimates for selected durations and frequencies based on statistical analysis performed by NOAA. Eleven volumes are published and updated for the United States and selected territories. This information is used in the sizing and design of stormwater and flood infrastructure. BFE Base Flood Elevation A base flood elevation is the height of the base flood, usually in feet, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum o f1929, the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, or other datum referenced in the Flood Insurance Study report, or the depth of the base flood, usually in feet, above the ground surface. BMP Best Management Practice Methods for preventing or reducing non-point source pollution from entering adjacent water bodies. Borrow Ditch A roadside drainage ditch. (see Channel) BRC Boulder Revised Code A document that contains ordinances adopted by City Council, including the City’s floodplain regulations and the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 213 Packet Page 331 of 489 - 160 - Acronym Term Definition BVCP Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan A comprehensive plan that includes policies to guide decisions about growth, development, preservation, environmental protection, economic development, affordable housing, culture and arts, urban design, neighborhood character, and transportation within the Boulder Valley. It serves to inform decisions about the manner in which urban services are provided, including water utilities and flood control. Braided Stream A stream whose flow is divided at normal stage by small islands. Capacity The volume of water stored by a dam at the emergency spillway elevation, usually expressed in acre-feet. It differs from storage, which is the volume of water stored at any specific elevation. CIP Capital Improvement Program A six-year plan for all City departments which identifies physical public projects or equipment purchases, provides a planning schedule, estimates costs, and forecasts available funding. Catch Basin A chamber or well, usually built at the curb line of a street, for the admission of surface water to a storm sewer or sub-drain. Channel An open conveyance of surface stormwater having a bottom and sides in a linear configuration. Channels can be natural or man- made. Channels can have levees or dikes along their sides to build up their depth. Constructed channels can be plain earth, landscaped, or lined with concrete, stone, or any other hard surface to resist erosion and scour. CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment A State department that serves Coloradans by providing public health and environmental protection services that promote healthy people in healthy places. CDPHE is responsible for services related to this Plan, such as water quality protection, emergency preparedness, and pollution prevention. CRS Community Rating System A program administered by FEMA that recognizes and rewards communities working to reduce flood damages through a variety of approved floodplain management and flood awareness activities. Through the program, a community can reduce the flood insurance premiums that flood prone property owners pay. Discounts can range from 5% to 45% based on CRS credit points that are awarded under 19 public information and floodplain management activities. CFS Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan Document that provides a framework for implementing various programs in projects in the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. Conveyance Zone The areas in the floodplain that are reserved for the main passage of the entire 100-year flood flow when the 100-year floodplain is artificially narrowed until a maximum six-inch increase in flood water depth is created. This zone is delineated to allow development to occur up to the narrowed floodplain and still provide passage of 100- year storm flows. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 214 Packet Page 332 of 489 - 161 - Acronym Term Definition cfs Cubic Feet per Second Typical unit of measure to quantify the flow rate of water or the amount of flow in a wash. One cubic foot is equivalent to 7.5 gallons of water. Thus, 1 cfs is 7.5 gallons of water passing by a reference point every second. Culvert A hydraulically short conduit which conveys surface water runoff through a roadway embankment or through some other type of flow obstruction. Delineation Defining the physical boundaries of a stream, floodplain, jurisdictional wash, etc. Design Discharge The nth-year storm for which it is expected that the structure or facility is designed to accommodate. Detention Basin A basin or reservoir where water is stored for regulating a flood. It has outlets for releasing the flows during the floods. Discharge The amount of water that passes a specific point on a watercourse over a given period of time. Rates of discharge are usually measured in cubic feet per second (cfs). Drainage Basin A geographical area which contributes surface water runoff to a particular point. The terms “drainage basin”, “tributary area”, and “watershed” can be used interchangeably. Drainage Ditch (see Channel) Ecosystem Services Benefits provided to the human population by functioning and healthy ecosystems. Examples of benefits include access to clean water, temperature regulation, and resistance to the effects of climate change. Elevation Certificate The Elevation Certificate is an important administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It is to be used to provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain management ordinances, to determine the proper insurance premium rate, and to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment or Revision (LOMA or LOMR-F). Download the Elevation Certificate Instructions or Form from FEMA. Embankment A man-made earth structure constructed for the purpose of impounding water. Emergency Spillway An outflow from a detention/retention facility that provides for the safe overflow of floodwaters for large storms that exceed the design capacity of the outlet or in the event of a malfunction. The emergency spillway prevents water from overtopping the facility. Encroachment The result of placing a building, fence, berm or other structure in a floodplain in a manner that obstructs or increases the depth (or velocity) of flow on a watercourse. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 215 Packet Page 333 of 489 - 162 - Acronym Term Definition Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration is the sum of water lost to the air via transpiration by plants and evaporation from water surfaces and soils. FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency An independent federal agency established to respond to major emergencies that state and local agencies don't have the resources to handle. FEMA seeks to reduce the loss of life and protect property against all types of hazards through a comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program. FEMA website FEMA Flood Zones: Zone A (unnumbered) Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas; no depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. Mandatory flood insurance requirements apply. Zone AE and A1-30 Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. In most instances, base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. Mandatory flood insurance requirements apply. Zone AH Areas with a 1% annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. Mandatory flood insurance requirements apply. Zone AO River or stream flood hazard areas, and areas with a 1% or greater chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are shown within these zones. Mandatory flood insurance requirements apply. Zone B, C, and X Areas outside the 1-percent annual chance floodplain, areas of 1% annual chance sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1% annual chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the 1% annual chance flood by levees. No Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone. Insurance purchase is not required in these zones. Zone D Areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards. No flood hazard analysis has been conducted. Flood insurance rates are commensurate with the uncertainty of the flood risk. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 216 Packet Page 334 of 489 - 163 - Acronym Term Definition FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas A flood prone area that has been mapped and accepted by FEMA as the result of a flood insurance study (FIS) for a watercourse and surrounding areas. Mapped floodplains are used for flood insurance needs and for other regulatory purposes. Fill Material Any material used for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dry land or for changing the bottom elevation of a waterbody. This includes both natural materials (silt, sand, gravel, rock, and wood) and manufactured materials (concrete, plastic, steel, treated wood). Flood Mitigation Measures, Nonstructural A set of techniques that do not change the physical shape of natural drainage channels and have little to no impact on the characteristics or extent of the flood itself. Methods are designed to alter the impact or consequences of flooding by eliminating exposure (i.e., removing structures) or reducing vulnerability of people and the built environment within the floodplain as it currently stands. Flood Mitigation Measures, Structural A set of techniques that modify the natural channel and/or associated riparian (overbank) area to reduce flooding extents and allow adequate room for the passage of floodwaters for the purposes of protecting people and property. Floodplain Areas adjacent to a stream or river that are subject to flooding during a storm event. Floodplain Management A program that uses corrective and preventative measures to reduce flood and erosion damage and preserve natural habitat and wildlife resources in flood prone areas. Some of these measures include: adopting and administering Floodplain Regulations, resolving drainage complaints, protecting riparian habitat communities, and assuring effective maintenance and operation of flood control works. Floodplain Regulations Adopted policies, codes, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to the use and development of lands that lie within a regulatory floodplain. Floodplain Development Permit An official document which authorizes specific activities within a regulatory floodplain or erosion hazard area. Floodway The channel of a watercourse and portion of the adjacent floodplain that is needed to convey the base or 100-year flood event without increasing flood levels by more than one foot of floodwater. Floodway Fringe The areas of a delineated floodplain adjacent to the Floodway where encroachment may be permitted. Flow Split When floodwater junctions with one upstream reach and multiple downstream reaches. Fluvial Flooding Flooding that occurs due to water overtopping the banks of rivers and creeks. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 217 Packet Page 335 of 489 - 164 - Acronym Term Definition FHZ Fluvial Hazard Zone The area a stream has occupied in recent history, may occupy, or may physically influence as it stores and transports water, sediment, and debris. Grade Control Structure A structure used across a stream channel placed bank to bank to control bed elevation, velocity, pressure, etc. GI Green Infrastructure An approach to stormwater management that protects, restores, or mimics the natural water cycle. Greenways The City of Boulder Greenways system is comprised of a series of corridors along riparian areas including Boulder Creek and 14 of its tributaries, which provide an opportunity to integrate multiple objectives, including habitat protection, water quality enhancement, storm drainage and floodplain management, trails, recreation and cultural resources. Groundwater Water within the earth that supplies wells and springs; water in the zone of saturation where all openings in rocks and soil are filled; the upper surface of which forms the water table. High Hazard Zone The area of the floodplain where water depth and velocity pose a threat to life and safety. This area is delineated for areas in the floodplain where water velocity multiplied by water depth equals or exceeds the number four or where flood waters are predicted to be over four feet deep. Hydraulic Structures The facilities used to impound, accommodate, convey, or control the flow of water, such as dams, intakes, culverts, channels, and bridges. Hydraulics A field of study dealing with the flow pattern and rate of water movement based on the principles of fluid mechanics. Hydrograph A graph of flow, or discharge over time. Hydrology A field of study concerned with the distribution and circulation of surface water, as well as water dynamics below the ground and in the atmosphere. Hyetograph A graph of rainfall intensity over time. Impoundment Floodwater stored in a basin or behind a dam. It can be described in terms of a water depth (ft) or a volume (acre-ft). Infiltrated Stormwater Precipitation that infiltrates into the ground but is located above the zone of saturation. Infiltration The downward movement of water from the surface into the soil, as contrasted with percolation which is the movement of water through soil layers. Intensity When applied to rainfall, intensity is the depth of rain in a specified time. Examples are 1 inch per hour or ½ inch in 20 minutes. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 218 Packet Page 336 of 489 - 165 - Acronym Term Definition Irrigation Ditch A channel owned by a private irrigation company to deliver water associated with water rights to a downstream beneficial use. Lateral Stream Migration Change in position of a channel by lateral erosion of one bank and simultaneous deposition on the opposite bank. LOMA Letter of Map Amendment An official amendment of a current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) accepted by FEMA for a property or a structure. The LOMA verifies that the structure or portions of the property have been removed from a designated-floodplain area. LOMR Letter of Map Revision An official revision of a current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) accepted by FEMA, which reflects changes in mapped areas for flood zones, floodplain areas, floodways and flood elevations. LOMR-F Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill An official revision of a current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) accepted by FEMA, based on the placement of fill outside of the regulatory floodway (Conveyance Zone). Often used to remove an area of land from an existing regulatory floodplain. Levee A man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment often reinforced with soil cement, that is designed to contain or divert the flow of water. Low Flow Channel A channel within a larger channel which typically carries low and/or normal flows. LID Low Impact Development Stormwater management and land development strategies that emphasize conservation and the use of onsite natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely reflect pre-development hydrologic functions. MHFD Mile High Flood District An independent, special district that assists local governments in the Denver metropolitan area with multi-jurisdictional drainage and flood control challenges. MHFD offers numerous services that cover flood management, stream mitigation, stormwater, research, and more. (Previously called Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, UDFCD). MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System A single conveyance or a network of conveyances such as storm drains, pipes, gutters, streets, ditches, and others owned by a public entity which is designed or used to collect or convey stormwater runoff to be discharged into local water bodies. NFIP National Flood Insurance Program A federal program that allows property owners to purchase insurance protection against losses due to flooding. In order to participate in this program, local communities must agree to implement and enforce measures that reduce future flood risks in special flood hazard areas. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 219 Packet Page 337 of 489 - 166 - Acronym Term Definition NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration A federal agency established to forecast weather, monitor oceanic and atmospheric conditions, and perform other functions related to the exploration and protection of oceans. NOAA is responsible for the National Weather Service, publishing Atlas 14, and researching climate change. NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System A permit program established by the Clean Water Act which addresses water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The program is administered and enforced by states under the direction of the EPA. Nature-Based Solutions Structural flood mitigation measures that incorporate engineering practices to design modified channels and associated floodplains to protect people and property while also restoring or creating adaptive ecosystems. O&M Operations and Maintenance Required maintenance activities and measures associated with infrastructure. Outlet Structure A hydraulic structure placed at the outlet of a channel, spillway, pipe, etc., for the purpose of dissipating energy and providing a transition to the channel or pipe downstream. Pre-Development Conditions Existing conditions that are present prior to pending development or redevelopment on a site. Does not refer to fully undeveloped conditions that existed prior to any previous development. Pluvial Flooding Localized flooding that is independent of an overflowing water body, often caused by intense precipitation events. Point Source Pollution Any discernible, confined, or discrete conveyance such as a pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, or other, that discharges an industrial, municipal or agricultural waste into a water of the United States. ROW Right-of-Way The entire width of land between the public boundaries or property lines that is acquired for or devoted to the construction of roads. TM Technical Memorandum TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load The total amount of a pollutant that a stream can contain in a day. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time, toxicity, or other appropriate measures that relate to a state’s water quality standard. TSS Total Suspended Solids The total amount of particulate matter that is suspended in the water column. Peak Flow The maximum rate of flow through a watercourse for a given storm. Percolation The movement of water through the subsurface soil layers, usually continuing downward to the groundwater or water table reservoirs. Precipitation All forms of water that fall to the earth’s surface - including rain, snow, sleet, and hail. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 220 Packet Page 338 of 489 - 167 - Acronym Term Definition Regulatory Floodplain A portion of the geologic floodplain that may be inundated by the base flood where the peak discharge is 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater. Regulatory floodplains also include areas which are subject to sheet flooding, or areas on existing recorded subdivision plats mapped as being flood prone. Retention Basin A basin or reservoir where water is stored for regulating a flood. Unlike a detention basin, it does not have outlets for releasing the flows, the water must be disposed by draining into the soil, evaporation, or pumping systems. These facilities are not used in Boulder. Recurrence Interval / Return Period The average time interval between occurrences of a hydrological event of a given or greater magnitude, usually expressed in years. It is a statistical measurement typically based on historic data denoting the average recurrence over an extended period of time. Technically, it is the inverse of the probability that the event will be exceeded in any one year. Riparian Habitat Plant communities that occur in association with any spring, cienega, lake, watercourse, river, stream, creek, wash, arroyo, or other body of water. Riparian habitats can be supported by either surface or subsurface water sources. Riparian Zone A stream and all the vegetation on its banks. Runoff The portion of precipitation on land that ultimately reaches streams, especially water from rain or melted snow that flows over ground surface. Sediment Soil particles, sand, and minerals washed from the land into aquatic systems as a result of natural and human activities. Sheet Flow Very shallow overland discharge. SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area The area where NFIP floodplain management regulations must be enforced, and where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies for federally backed mortgages. Spill A predicted flow of water that escapes the stream channel and flows in a different direction. Spillway An outlet pipe or channel serving to discharge water from a dam, ditch, gutter, or basin. Storage The volume of water stored in a basin or behind a dam – usually expressed in acre-feet. It differs from capacity, which is the volume of water stored at the emergency spillway elevation. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 221 Packet Page 339 of 489 - 168 - Acronym Term Definition Stormwater Precipitation mostly from rain or snow that that falls onto the land’s surface where it either infiltrates into the soil, accumulates in depressed areas, or contributes to surface runoff. In urban areas, this surface runoff is collected and conveyed in a stormwater drainage system to a natural or man-made watercourse or conveyance system. SCM Stormwater Control Measure Any structure, feature, or practice that is designed, constructed, operated, practiced, or adopted to reduce the quantity, lower the rate, improve the quality, or otherwise control stormwater runoff through detention, infiltration or other stormwater management techniques. Synonymous with best management practice (BMP) Stormwater Drainage System Drainage facilities, both natural and constructed, designed to collect and convey stormwater runoff to a receiving waterbody or point of infiltration. The system includes municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, storm sewers, ditches, culverts, detention basins, and others. The system is designed to minimize disruptions and safely allow the movement of pedestrians and traffic. Stormwater and Flood Management Utility City utility responsible for the administration of the city’s flood management, stormwater quality, and stormwater drainage programs. Surface Water Water that flows in streams and rivers and in natural lakes, in wetlands, and in reservoirs constructed by humans. Tailwater The water surface elevation in the channel downstream of a hydraulic structure. Thalweg The line of maximum depth in a stream. The thalweg is the part that has the maximum velocity and causes cut banks and channel migration. Trash Rack A metal bar or grate located at the outlet structure of a detention or retention basin which is designed to prevent blockage of the structure by debris. Tributary A stream that contributes its water to another stream or body of water. USEPA or EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency A federal agency that is tasked with environmental protection through maintaining and enforcing national standards established through environmental law, conducting environmental assessments and research, and developing environmental education programs. USDCM Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual A collection of policies, standards, and technical design criteria used by the communities within the Mile High Flood District for flood risk management, stormwater management, stormwater quality, and erosion control. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 222 Packet Page 340 of 489 - 169 - Acronym Term Definition Water of the United States (Waters of the State) Defined by the Clean Water Act as navigable waters, tributaries to navigable waters, interstate waters, and waterbodies used by interstate commerce including recreation, fishing, and industry. Water Table Level below the earth's surface at which the ground becomes saturated with water. The surface of an unconfined aquifer which fluctuates due to seasonal precipitation. Watershed An area from which water drains into a lake, stream, or other body of water. A watershed is also often referred to as a basin, with the basin boundary defined by a high ridge or divide, and with a lake or river located at a lower point. Zone of Saturation Layers of soil and rock where all the spaces and cracks are relatively completely filled with water. Depth may fluctuate with season and in response to precipitation patterns. Zoning A set of regulations and requirements which govern the use, placement, spacing, and size of land and buildings within a specific area (zone). Zoning regulations serve to promote the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, and to protect and preserve places and areas of historical, cultural, or architectural importance and significance. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 223 Packet Page 341 of 489 APPENDIX A: Policy and Program Evaluation Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 224 Packet Page 342 of 489 - 1 - Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 225 Packet Page 343 of 489 - 2 - Policy and Program Evaluation The Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan is the overarching planning document for the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility (Utility). This document provides a framework for the implementation and evaluation of the various programs and activities within the Utility. A necessary part of the evaluation is to assess both the effectiveness of these programs and activities and to determine if they are in alignment with current city policies. Within the City of Boulder, the Community Sustainability + Resilience Framework defines community values which help set policies and priorities for the city. This includes the main guiding document, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), which guides decisions about growth, development, and preservation, as well as what services the city provides, such as utilities and flood mitigation. Policies are assessed as to whether the programs and activities within the Utility meet the intent of the policies presented in the BVCP and associated community values based on current implementation. An evaluation of the programs themselves will be completed to identify policy gaps to then assess whether the current policies and guiding documents adequately cover the necessary functions of the Utility. A framework for evaluation will be established with metrics to determine whether the current programs and activities are adequate to meet the objectives of the Utility. This has not been established to date, and this update to the CFS Master Plan includes an initial evaluation framework to assess the current programs with the intent that the goals, objectives, and associated metrics will be refined to reflect the forward-looking needs of the Utility and public sentiment. A Community Working Group has been assembled to assist with the process and provide input on these items. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 226 Packet Page 344 of 489 - 3 - Policy Evaluation Each of the BVCP policies identified in Chapter 2 were evaluated to determine whether the programs and activities in the Utility meet the intent of the identified policies. Relevant actions that relate specifically to the Utility were extracted from each policy and grouped under related policy themes to eliminate any redundant actions. As part of this exercise, nine themes were identified that relate to specific programs within the Utility; each of these themes are discussed in greater depth below. Wonderland Creek Greenways Improvements Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 227 Packet Page 345 of 489 - 4 - Floodplain Preservation and Restoration A large number of policies within the BVCP relate to the preservation and restoration of floodplains, suggesting its importance within the city. In support of floodplain preservation and restoration, the Utility employs multiple approaches that often incorporate floodplain restoration efforts with other floodplain mitigation projects or when partnering with other departments and work groups within the city. Typical partners include the Greenways Program, Open Space and Mountain Parks, Transportation, and Parks and Recreation. Additionally, properties located in areas prone to flooding are actively purchased by the Utility, especially within the High Hazard Zone, for structure removal and use for floodwater conveyance. Restoration of land following removal of structures on these properties typically occurs as part of larger flood mitigation projects. Figure 1 – Floodplain Preservation and Restoration as related to BVCP Policies Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 228 Packet Page 346 of 489 - 5 - Floodplain Preservation and Development Regulations The preservation of natural floodplains, including creek corridors and riparian areas is a clear priority within the BVCP for a multitude of social, environmental, and economic reasons. Currently streams, wetlands, and water bodies are delineated and mapped with an inner and outerbuffer of 25-ft for a 50-ft total buffer area applied outside of the wetland or water body. Riparian areas are not delineated or mapped separately. Riparian areas that are located on city-owned property, on private property with conservation easements, or those with purchased development rights are protected. Creek corridors and associated buffers are protected under the Stream, Wetlands, and Water Body Protection regulations in Chapter 9-3 of the Boulder Revised Code. However, there are no protections for riparian areas that extend beyond the regulated buffers. Floodplain regulations are used within the city to regulate land use and the type of development activities that can occur within each of the mapped floodplain zones. Current floodplain regulations in Chapter 9-3 of the Boulder Revised Code make no mention of preserving existing undeveloped floodplains or riparian areas. Instead, these regulations are used to guide development within the floodplains in a manner that primarily protects public safety and limits property damage. Regulations governing the High Hazard Zone are by far the most restrictive on development for public safety reasons and prohibit the construction of new structures in this zone. However, construction of new structures, additions onto existing structures, and floodplain fill are allowed in some form within much of the mapped floodplain zones. In an analysis of city GIS data from 2014 to 2018, a pproximately 117 additional structures and roughly 1.5 acres of impervious surface area have been constructed within the 100-year floodplain. It was not possible to determine the area of fill permitted within the 100-floodplain from available GIS data. Elmer’s Two Mile Creek Greenway The Elmer’s Two Mile Creek Greenway Project, which was completed in 2010, is an example of the type of floodplain restoration projects constructed by the Utility. This project was a multi- departmental effort, including assistance from the Mile High Flood District to replace an undersized, fenced-in concrete channel. The improvements included sections with a widened natural channel bottom and an expanded naturalized floodplain in conjunction with structural drainageway improvements that could convey the 100-year flood. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 229 Packet Page 347 of 489 - 6 - Table 1 – 2014 to 2018 Change in Buildings and Impervious Cover within Mapped Floodplains Mapped Floodplain Zone Building Count Building Footprint Impervious Cover Number % Change sft % Change Ac % Change 500-Year Floodplain +206 +3.9% +396,790 +2.4% +10.1 +0.9% 100-Year Floodplain +117 +3.4% +6,699 +0.1% +1.5 +0.3% Conveyance Zone +15 +2.3% -53,934 -4.9% -2.4 -1.0% High Hazard Zone +15 +4.2% -27,074 -6.8% -2.2 -1.4% NOTES: The conveyance zone includes the high hazard zone; the 100-year floodplain includes the conveyance zone and the high hazard zone; and the information reported for the 500-year floodplain does not include information within the 100-year floodplain Use of Non-Structural Drainageway Improvements Existing policies mention emphasizing the use of non-structural measures over structural methods, such as levees and constructed channels, but there exists no clear guidance within the city as to how non-structural measures are defined and when they should be used. Also, it is not clear whether these types of solutions are emphasized in planning and design or how they are prioritized. Non-structural solutions do not appear within the CIP prioritization goals for mitigation plans used by the city. Since development within these floodplains largely occurred prior to the adoption of regulations, retroactively requiring the use of non -structural drainageway improvements to expand the natural floodplain in fully developed watersheds would be impractical. Because of this, the majority of non-structural practices include floodproofing or raising of existing structures, enhanced warning systems, flood education programs, development of evacuation plans, and flood insurance. Alternatives such as naturalized channels and wide riparian areas where floods are naturally conveyed are often not feasible due to existing development within the floodplain or because the required property acquisition is prohibitive. Stormwater and Flood Management CIP Prioritization Guiding Principles  Life Safety (High Hazard) Mitigation  Flood Emergency Response Capability  Critical Facility (Vulnerable Population) Hazard Mitigation  Property Damage Mitigation  Collaboration with other Greenways Program Objectives  Potential for Operation and Maintenance Cost Savings  Accommodating New Growth and Development  Opportunities to Leverage Outside Funding Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 230 Packet Page 348 of 489 - 7 - Flood Mitigation The flood management program within the Utility is primarily tasked with the mitigation of damage caused by floods. The BVCP addresses flood mitigation through four separate policies (Figure 2). Major activities conducted by the Utility include floodplain mapping, development of flood mitigation plans, design and construction of flood mitigation projects, and review and development of floodplain regulations. Figure 2 – Floodplain Preservation and Restoration as related to BVCP Policies Floodplain Mapping and Regulations The city delineates four distinct flood zones as part of floodplain mapping: High Hazard Zone, Conveyance Zone (Floodway), 100-yr floodplain (1% annual chance of occurrence), and 500-yr floodplain (0.2% annual chance of occurrence). These floodplain maps form the basis for the city’s floodplain regulations and flood management program. The city’s floodplain regulations are contained in Chapter 9-3 of the Boulder Revised Code and detail land use regulations intended to reduce risk to people and property in areas along drainageways prone to flooding. In 2014, the city enacted new floodplain regulations to require emergency management plans and provide additional flood protection for critical facilities, such as hospitals, police and fire stations, day care facilities, and water treatment facilities in the 500-year floodplain. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 231 Packet Page 349 of 489 - 8 - The City of Boulder’s Floodplains Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 232 Packet Page 350 of 489 - 9 - Development of new structures and additions within the 100-year floodplain are permitted as long as the lowest floor of any residential structure is elevated to or above the flood protection elevation, which is two feet above the floodwater surface elevation. Residential basements are not permitted on residential structures in the 100- year floodplain. Non-residential structures may be constructed below the flood protection elevation as long as floodproofing, not requiring human activation, is installed up to the flood protection elevation. Permitting of new structures requires installation of measures to protect against sanitary sewer backup. Parking lots are allowed in the 100-year floodplain as long as the predicted 100-year flood depths do not exceed 18 inches. Development within the Conveyance Zone must comply with the 100-year floodplain regulations. Additionally, a private engineering analysis is typically required to ensure that flooding conditions are not worsened (i.e., that the floodplain will not expand or get deeper). Flood mitigation measures may be used to offset these conditions. Regulations within the High Hazard Zone are the most restrictive due to life safety concerns. No new structures intended for human occupancy are permitted. Additionally, no new parking lots or changes of use from non- residential to residential are allowed. Regulations pertaining to any overlaying zones, such as the 100-year floodplain or the Conveyance Zone, apply as well. Property Acquisition The Utility’s Capital Improvement Program provides funding for property acquisition in the amount of about $700,000 annually with an escalation for inflation and rising property costs. This fund allows for the purchase of properties in areas prone to flooding, especially in the city’s High Hazard Zone. High-risk properties have been identified and prioritized for purchase along each of the city’s major drainageways, and the Mile High Flood District has the ability to partner with the city on high-risk purchases through their Property Acquisition Reserve Fund. The city’s property acquisition program has been “opportunity-based” in working with willing sellers and targeting properties that become available on the real estate market. Since 2004, seven properties have been acquired with the most recent purchases along Gregory Canyon Creek (Figure 3). Purchase of these properties serves to accommodate future flood mitigation improvements. Additionally, floodplain regulations for the High Hazard Zone prevent reconstruction of flood damaged properties if the property has incurred damage equal to an amount that is more than 50% of the structure’s pre-flood market value. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 233 Packet Page 351 of 489 - 10 - Figure 3 – Locations of Properties Purchased Since 2004 Flood Mitigation Planning Process The flood management process is cyclical in nature, beginning with floodplain mapping to identify flood risk while mitigation planning identifies measures to reduce these risks. Flood mitigation plans identify and evaluate the benefits and costs of potential improvement projects; subsequently, projects are placed into the Capital Improvement Program for design and construction. Following significant construction projects, floodplain maps are updated to reflect the changes to the flood area. Since 2004, floodplain mapping updates have been completed on nearly all of the city’s 16 major drainageways with several mitigation plans and construction projects either completed or currently in progress. The flood mapping, mitigation planning, design, and construction process takes years to complete due to a thorough planning and public engagement process (Figure 4). Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 234 Packet Page 352 of 489 - 11 - Note: Some drainages are grouped for mapping and mitigation purposes. Additionally Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 and Viele Channel are included in the mapping and mitigation studies for South Boulder Creek. Figure 4 – Floodplain Mapping, Mitigation Planning, Design and Construction Project Life Cycle Flood Response and Recovery Plans The City of Boulder works with the Office of Disaster Management for City of Boulder & Boulder County (ODM) to provide emergency response and recovery services. As part of this work, ODM maintains an Emergency Operations Plan that covers the City of Boulder and the All-Hazards Recovery Plan. Stormwater Quality Protection The City of Boulder holds a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit (No. COR090000), and many of the activities to support the protection and improvement of water quality are governed by MS4 permit regulations. The current MS4 permit includes substantial programmatic and technical requirements for the protection of water quality. These minimum MS4 requirements alone likely meet the intent of the existing policies in the BVCP as shown in Figure 5. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 235 Packet Page 353 of 489 - 12 - Figure 5 – Stormwater Quality Protection as related to BVCP Policies In addition to the minimum requirements of the MS4 program, the city is actively pursuing efforts to further stormwater quality initiatives by expanding the green infrastructure program, implementing a multi-pronged adaptive management approach to identify and address sources of E. coli, and the Boulder Urban Stream Health Program. This program is a framework for collaboratively identifying and implementing projects to improve urban waterways in the city. The goal of this program is to most appropriately use Utility funds and resources to enhance urban stream health and achieve optimal outcomes through studies, projects, education, and collaboration between Utilities staff and other city partners. The program was initiated in 2021. Figure 6 – Boulder Urban Stream Health Program Groundwater Dewatering Current BVCP policy guidance suggests the need to address and potentially regulate groundwater dewatering activities. Additionally, the last update to the CFS Master Plan identified recommended actions related to groundwater dewatering and sump systems which have not yet been addressed. Stormwater Quality Protection Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 236 Packet Page 354 of 489 - 13 - Figure 7 – Groundwater Dewatering as related to BVCP Policies Wetland Preservation and Restoration Efforts to preserve and restore wetlands are undertaken by the Planning and Development Services Department (through plan reviews), the Greenways Program, Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. While the functions of wetlands relate to stormwater quality, their preservation and protection is not currently managed within the Stormwater Quality Program. Existing regulations governing the protection of wetlands are located in 9-3 of the Boulder Revised Code. These regulations seek to find a reasonable balance between a property owner’s desire to make reasonable uses of their property and the public’s interest in preserving and protecting wetlands. Therefore, development is discouraged but when it is unavoidable, regulations indicate that impacts should be minimized, and mitigation is required for losses. Construction of buildings, additions, accessory structures, fences, impervious surfaces, and detention or retention facilities are prohibited within regulated wetlands. Additional regulations apply to inner and outer buffer areas based on whether the wetland is considered high functioning. Wetlands less than 400 square feet are exempt from regulations unless a plant, animal, or other wildlife species is listed as rare, threatened, endangered, or as a species of special concern in the BVCP or by a government agency. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 237 Packet Page 355 of 489 - 14 - Figure 8 – Wetland Preservation and Restoration as related to BVCP Policies In 2004, wetlands within the city were mapped and evaluated. Since then, the GIS database has only added records of wetlands that have been annexed, restored, or enhanced, and does not include wetlands that have been lost. Because of this, current data show a 25% increase in wetlands since 2004. However, using an impervious cover dataset from 2018, a roughly 3.5-acre increase of impervious cover in wetlands has occurred. Due to these discrepancies in the data, it cannot readily be determined whether there has been a net loss of wetlands. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 238 Packet Page 356 of 489 - 15 - Change in Wetlands from 2004 - Present Stormwater Sub- Catchment Basins Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 239 Packet Page 357 of 489 - 16 - Integrated Planning The City of Boulder actively works with multiple regional and state organizations to effectively engage on flood management and stormwater quality issues. Partner organizations include the Colorado Department of Transportation, Boulder County, and Keep it Clean Partnership, among others. Additionally, the city is a part of the Mile High Flood District (MHFD), which assists local governments with multi-jurisdictional drainage and flood management issues. The Utility works closely with MHFD on flood mitigation planning, design, construction, maintenance of drainageways, stormwater quality criteria for MS4 Permit requirements, and the Information Services and Flood Warning program. The Keep it Clean Partnership is an organization of seven partner communities within Boulder County that coordinates on stormwater quality activities, including education, outreach, and monitoring to provide an integration of data and studies to analyze long-term water quality trends. Figure 9 – Integrated Planning activities as related to BVCP Policies Wonderland Creek Greenways Improvements Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 240 Packet Page 358 of 489 - 17 - Multi-Objective Planning, Design, and Operation Programs within the Utility often partner with other city departments, regional and state organizations in the design and construction of projects to achieve multiple objectives. A typical example is combining stormwater and flood improvements, stream restoration, and/or trail linkages with transportation projects. Additionally, the Greenways Program is comprised of an interdisciplinary staff work group to integrate multiple objectives along the city’s major drainageways. Planning and design for projects along the greenways incorporates objectives such as habitat protection, water quality enhancement, storm drainage and flood mitigation, integration of trails and recreation, and preservation of cultural resources. Additionally, maintenance along the greenways is coordinated between multiple city departments and property managers such as the Boulder Valley School District, University of Colorado, and Boulder County Transportation Department. Figure 10 – Multi-Objective Planning, Design and Operation as related to BVCP Policies Climate change, resilience, and the application of an ecosystem framework are objectives identified in the BVCP (Figure 10). It is not clear whether addressing these items and applying an ecosystem framework that considers effects on entire watersheds has been applied in the past, other than following MHFD guidance on floodplain mapping and construction of urban drainage improvements in a way that provides an additional level of Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 241 Packet Page 359 of 489 - 18 - conservatism. The Utility has not previously conducted an evaluation of current policies, planning and decision- making through the lens of geographic and socioeconomic equality. The following section on program evaluation incorporates the use of this lens where applicable. This approach is in alignment with the Racial Equity Plan recently adopted by the city and meets the intent of the policies within the BVCP. Provision of Services When it comes to the provision of stormwater and flood management services, BVCP policies largely relate to new urban development. However, because the majority of development within the city consists of infill or redevelopment, the construction of stormwater and flood management services for what would be considered new development rarely occurs. Figure 11 – Floodplain Preservation and Restoration as related to BVCP Policies Public Engagement and Outreach Activities related to public engagement and outreach are discussed in Policy 3.22 Floodplain Management that states: “Developing public awareness to flood risks and encouraging the public to proactively implement protective measures that reduce the risk to themselves and their property.” Figure 12 – Floodplain Preservation and Restoration as related to BVCP Policies The Utility reaches out to community members, boards, commissions, and elected officials in a variety of ways to educate and raise awareness of flood risk and provides resources to help prepare for floods. The table below provides examples of typical education and outreach tools that are often used. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 242 Packet Page 360 of 489 - 19 - Table 2 – Typical Education and Outreach Tools Community Guide to Flood Safety www.boulderfloodinfo.net Direct mailings to properties in the 100-year floodplain Flood safety classroom programs for elementary school teachers Door hangers to University of Colorado off campus housing neighborhoods and high hazard residential properties Temporary and permanent signage located on underpasses and along creeks Annual utility bill inserts Water Festival Flood Safety Presentation Public events, open houses, workshops Flood safety sheets for elementary students Social media posts (Facebook, NextDoor, etc.) Daily Camera ads USB devices with flood safety material Brochures and programs for stormwater outreach Twomile Canyon Creek Flooding in 2013 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 243 Packet Page 361 of 489 - 20 - Program Evaluation Program evaluation requires systematic methods to investigate the effectiveness of actions that are aimed at ameliorating stormwater and flooding problems. Unlike the previous master plan, which did not endeavor to evaluate the programs within the Utility, an initial assessment of the Utility’s work was c onducted to inform the Master Plan going forward and to identify areas where additional information and data would be useful to city staff in the goal of continuous improvement. To conduct this evaluation, goals and objectives were created based on existing policy language, recommendations from other reference documents reviewed in Chapter 2, and conversations with city staff. These goals and objectives were assembled with associated evaluation metrics in a logic model for each program. Current metrics were selected based on the presence of quantitative data and actions that had been completed in support of each objective. Recognizing that resources to identify flood risk, mitigate flood damage, and maintain flood and stormwater facilities are scarce in comparison with the need, an overarching objective of the evaluation was to assess program outcomes and impact through the following lenses:  What are the program goals and objectives (as largely outlined in the BVCP)?  Which program actions drive results?  Where are the biggest areas of concern, and do the current actions move the needle to solve them?  What data are available to ascertain effectiveness? This evaluation included participation by a cross section of city departments and staff, the Office of Disaster Management for City of Boulder & Boulder County, and the Community Working Group (CWG). The CWG provided valuable input regarding community perceptions, values, and program elements of interest including project prioritization; funding; flood warning, response and recovery; public education and outreach; drainage system maintenance; and setting goals that are specific and measurable. Flood Management Program Evaluation The City of Boulder has significant flood risk, primarily due to its location at the mouth of the Boulder Creek and its tributaries. With 16 major drainageways, approximately 16 percent of land within city limits ― including around 2,600 structures ― are located within the regulatory 100-year floodplain. The flood management program is responsible for programs and activities related to local flooding and the floodplain, including floodplain mapping, risk assessments, regulations, flood information and insurance, emergency preparedness, property acquisition, and flood mitigation capital improvements. Capital projects are managed by two full-time engineering project management staff dedicated to both flood management and stormwater drainage. The Utilities Maintenance work group is responsible for maintenance of the floodways with four full-time staff and four part-time staff. The following sections identify the goals and objectives of the existing flood management program that were used as evaluation criteria and to identify program efficacy and opportunities. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 244 Packet Page 362 of 489 - 21 - Floodplain & Fluvial Hazard Mapping Floodplain mapping provides the basis for flood management by identifying areas subject to the greatest risk of flooding. This information is essential for determining areas where life safety is threatened and property damage is most likely. Floodplain mapping forms the basis for the city’s floodplain regulations and the National Flood Insurance Program. GOAL: Provide floodplain mapping throughout the city to inform land use decisions Objective: Comply with current FEMA, state, and city standards for updating and adopting floodplain maps Objective: Identify areas subject to the greatest risk of flooding within the city Objective: Identify areas prone to fluvial hazards All 16 floodplains have been mapped within the city. Since the previous CFS update, ten floodplain mapping projects have been completed and have provided revised and updated maps for 80% of the major drainageways by drainageway length. Current floodplain mapping has been accepted by FEMA. An area for policy analysis includes modeling methods that might better determine flood risk as well as fluvial hazard mapping. Fluvial Hazard Zone The area a stream has occupied in recent history, may occupy, or may physically influence as it stores and transports water, sediment, and debris. Source: www.coloradofhz.com Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 245 Packet Page 363 of 489 - 22 - Flood Preparedness, Response & Recovery Planning and preparation can make a big difference in flood safety and continuing operations after a disaster. The more prepared the community is with pre-flood readiness, ongoing monitoring, effective warning systems, trained response, and post-flood recovery, the better the chances are for management and mitigation of flooding impacts. GOAL: Provide resources to help people prepare for floods and to recover in the event of a flood Objective: Ensure people are aware of their flood risk and flood preparation measures Objective: Maintain a response team within the Utility Objective: Ensure that adequate resources are provided to socially underrepresented populations for preparedness and response The Utility currently maintains a robust education and outreach program, and annually performs multiple activities as listed in Table 2 above to provide information in a variety of forms to the community. Since the City of Boulder has one of the highest flash flood risks of any municipality in the State, the Utility places significant importance on flood education and outreach programs. GOAL: Provide resources immediately before, during, and after flood emergencies to promote safety and infrastructure resilience Objective: Ensure adequate and resilient outdoor emergency warning systems are provided throughout the city Objective: Maintain a current operations plan for response and recovery related to flood emergencies As its name implies, the purpose of the outdoor warning system is to alert people of flood risk when they are outside. As such, systems are evaluated for coverage using distance-based buffers in GIS. This method does not account for people who are indoors, or impacts caused by physical or environmental factors, such as building obstructions or noise caused by hail or high winds. Additionally, the city maintains a Continuity of Operations Plan in the event of emergencies. Program capacity would be enhanced by routine communication and closer coordination with the ODM, who have resources to support preparedness, response (i.e., the Incident Management Team, Incident Command) and recovery. For greatest impact, it is recommended that city leadership work more closely with the ODM to build capacity. Flood Mitigation Most work completed by the Flood Management Program is related to the mitigation of damages to property caused by floods and the reduction of risks to people during flood events. This includes identifying measures for reduced risk through mitigation planning, construction of mitigation projects, regulating development in areas prone to flooding, and ensuring that major drainageways are maintained to accommodate floodwaters. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 246 Packet Page 364 of 489 - 23 - Current Conveyance Level of Major Drainageways Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 247 Packet Page 365 of 489 - 24 - GOAL: Identify, evaluate, design, and construct improvements within the floodplain to mitigate damages to property and protect the public. Objective: Develop flood mitigation for major drainageways in the city Objective: Provide standardized guidance for the creation of mitigation plans Objective: Prioritize flood mitigation improvement projects with an emphasis on the use of non - structural approaches whenever possible Objective: Select, design, and construct flood mitigation projects to remove people and property from the floodplain The Utility is developing mitigation plans for all major drainageways, but it is a lengthy process that often takes many years to fully complete. Since publishing the 2004 CFS Master Plan, mitigation plans have been updated, created, or are in progress for 80% of the major drainageways in the city. These mitigation plans follow general guidance provided by the city to individual consultants. While the hydrologic and hydraulic methodologies used must be based on FEMA approved methods, there is no standardization between the mitigation plans for this or for the development and prioritization of alternatives. Because of this, there are many variations in the methods used; non-structural approaches are sometimes discussed, but do not appear to be prioritized; and conveyance of the 100-year flood event is not always evaluated if it is determined infeasible. Discrepencies between mitigation studies make it difficult to adequately and equitably prioritize projects on a city-wide basis. After completing mitigation plans, projects are then selected for design and construction as part of the city’s CIP process. Since 2004, seven mitigation projects have been completed to increase flood conveyances from less than 10-year event flood capacity to 100-year event flood capacity in some cases. In additon to those seven projects, another seven more are currently in the design or construction phases. GOAL: Remove structures and acquire privately owned properties in areas prone to flooding, especially within the city's High Hazard Zone, for the purposes of flood mitigation Objective: Develop a prioritized list of high-risk properties to inform property acquisitions Objective: Prevent reconstruction of structures that have sustained significant flood damage Objective: Retain undeveloped high hazard flood areas in their natural state whenever possible A prioritized list of high -risk structures has been created to inform property acquisitions. Additionally, current floodplain regulations prohibit the redevelopment of flood-damaged structures that are damaged more than 50% of pre-flood market value. They also prohibit construction of parking lots or residential structures in the High Hazard Zone. Review of GIS data from 2014 to 2018 showed that there has been a 6.8% reduction of structures (in square feet) in the high hazard zone and a 1.4% reduction of overall impervious cover. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 248 Packet Page 366 of 489 - 25 - GOAL: Ensure that major drainageways are maintained to accommodate the passage of floodwaters Objective: Routinely clear nuisance vegetation from channels and debris buildup from culverts and bridges Objective: Provide satisfactory maintenance access and public access easements or rights-of-way, including during annexation, for the purposes of maintenance activities The Utilities Maintenance work group is responsible for the maintenance of 36.5 linear miles of open drainage channels that make up part of the major drainageways. Maintenance also includes associated structures and floodways, as well as irrigation ditch maintenance where maintenance agreements are in place with private ditch companies. This work is supplemented through the use of contractors and by maintenance projects overseen by the Mile High Flood District. In past years, flood maintenance activities have been predominantly reactive. Responding to emergency maintenance needs, known problematic areas, and irrigation ditches with maintenance agreements has left little time for proactive maintenance. Irrigation ditch maintenance is not a function of the Flood Management Program, but since the activities and required resources are similar, staff maintaining floodways also maintain irrigation ditches, as required. A complete maintenance cycle of city flood facilities has not been completed in recent decades. An asset management system was recently employed to track time and equipment for required tasks. To better address the maintenance needs of the major drainageways, in 2021 the Utilities Maintenance work group was split into a stormwater group and a flood and greenways group, and additional staff have been hired to proactively address maintenance needs of the flood and greenways infrastructure. It is the goal of the Utilities Maintenance work group to complete future maintenance cycles in 10-12 years. Sediment Removal in an Open Drainage Channel Irrigation Ditches Since the 1860s, development has occurred near existing private irrigation ditches. As such, ditches located within the City of Boulder have been opportunistically used as default stormwater drainage systems, although not designed for this purpose. This legacy issue, while beneficial in many aspects for stormwater conveyance, also mandates ongoing city maintenance. Sediment Removal in an Open Drainage Channel Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 249 Packet Page 367 of 489 - 26 - GOAL: Reduce risks to people and property by regulating land use in areas along drainageways that are prone to flooding Objective: Regulate development within the 100-year floodplain to mitigate risk of property loss or damage Objective: Reduce impacts to critical facilities and services in the 500 -year floodplain Objective: Evaluate policies intended to address damages caused by floods larger than the 100 -year event Floodplain regulations are in place to meet the intent of the above objectives. However, further review should be undertaken to determine if the regulations and program activities achieve the floodplain management goals listed below. Additionally, these policies have not been evaluated to address damages caused by larger flood events. Floodplain Management In addition to protecting people and property from damaging floods, there is a strong community desire to protect the floodplains themselves due to the many social, environmental, and flood mitigation benefits they provide. As part of the community engagement process linked with this Master Plan update, it is clear that public sentiment is aligned with the policies in the BVCP to preserve and protect these floodplains. GOAL: Preserve and protect the natural resources and beneficial functions of floodplains Objective: Define and implement non-structural measures within floodplains Objective: Preserve undeveloped floodplains where possible through public land acquisition, private land dedications and multiple program coordination Non-structural measures have not been defined by the Utility, so it is unclear whether the intent is to naturalize floodplains or if floodproofed structures and enhanced flood warning systems meet this intent. Regardless, non-structural measures are currently incorporated as part of mitigation projects on an opportunistic basis. Floodplain preservation efforts are a function of the Parks and Recreation Department and the Utilities property acquisition program. While the Utility supports these initiatives, the level of involvement in this activity has not been clearly defined. GOAL: Reclaim and restore floodplains and their functions Objective: Incorporate floodplain restoration measures into flood mitigation projects Objective: Restore habitat for native species Floodplain restoration is often included as part of mitigation projects whenever feasible. Of the mitigation projects that have been constructed since 2004, only the projects involving simple replacements of bridges or culverts did not include some form of habitat or floodplain restoration work. Similar levels of restoration efforts are also proposed in the projects that are still in design and construction phases. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 250 Packet Page 368 of 489 - 27 - GOAL: Protect cultural and recreational resources associated with stream corridors and floodplains Objective: Identify and protect historic resources within the floodplain Objective: Limit open space development to trails and trail linkages Many of the actions completed to achieve these objectives are carried out by the Greenways Program and OSMP. Cultural resources within floodplains were identified in the 2011 Greenways Program Master Plan update. OSMP limits development within the floodplains they manage to trails and other recreational features. However, these limitations on open space development do not currently extend to privately owned properties. Public Education and Flood Insurance The City of Boulder participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances and providing public education to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes federal government-backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners whether they are in the floodplain or not. The NFIP also has a voluntary incentive program called the Community Rating System (CRS), which allows communities to obtain discounts on flood insurance premiums if the community floodplain management activities exceed minimum NFIP standards. GOAL: Increase public awareness of flood risk and safety measures Objective: Provide bilingual public education events and materials through a variety of platforms to inform the public of flood risks and available community resources Objective: Seek to broaden outreach efforts as community needs and habits change In 2021, the City Council adopted a Racial Equity Plan and hired a language access program manager who is responsible for developing the city’s language access plan. Work is ongoing on these efforts to continue to reach as many community members as possible. These efforts were hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need to provide continuity during times of disruption. GOAL: Reduce associated flood risks and related insurance costs by participating in the NFIP CRS Program Objective: Engage in community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum National Flood Insurance Program requirements to obtain discounted rates on flood insurance premiums for homeowners, renters, and business owners Objective: Maintain the lowest feasible CRS class The city has an active floodplain management program and its progressive approach to managing flood risk is well recognized with a CRS Class 5 rating. Since the last CFS Master Plan update, the Utility has lowered its CRS rating from a Class 8 in 2004 (providing a 10% discount on community flood insurance policies) to a Class 5 (providing a 25% discount on certain flood insurance policies held by community members). Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 251 Packet Page 369 of 489 - 28 - Stormwater Drainage Program Evaluation As urbanization and impervious surfaces increase, less stormwater infiltrates into the ground, resulting in increased runoff. This increased stormwater runoff can produce localized and downstream flooding, as well as channel erosion and increased non-point source pollution. The Stormwater Drainage Program is responsible for the network of underground pipes, structures, and channels that convey stormwater or surface runoff to major drainageways within the city. Activities necessary to ensure the management of this infrastructure include master planning to guide upgrades and expansion of the system, inspections, maintenance, repairs, regulations, and stormwater collection and conveyance system capital improvements. At the time of this publishing, the breadth of this work is managed with two full-time equivalent (FTE) staff dedicated to both flood management and stormwater drainage engineering, and nine full-time staff in the Utilities Maintenance work group dedicated to stormwater infrastructure maintenance. Stormwater Collection System The city currently operates a stormwater collection and conveyance system to minimize impacts of localized and downstream flooding caused by stormwater runoff. Per the 2016 Stormwater Master Plan, this system consists of 713 detention ponds and approximately 160 miles of storm sewer, including associated structures and outfalls as part of the conveyance system. Additionally, the system is periodically assessed to identify areas within the system that lack sufficient capacity for existing and future needs. GOAL: Provide an adequate stormwater collection and conveyance system for existing and future development within the city Objective: Size the storm sewer system to convey the runoff from 2-year storm events in residential areas, and from 5-year storm events for collector and arterial roadways and in commercial areas Objective: Focus on problem areas created by smaller storms to address localized flooding Per the city’s Design and Construction Standards, the minimum pipe size for stormwater conveyance is 15 inches, and over 30% of the system consists of pipes smaller than this. There are significant areas within the city that do not have any stormwater conveyance pipelines. Other areas contain pipes that cannot adequately convey flows from the design storm, which results in localized flooding from these smaller storm events. The 2016 Stormwater Master Plan identified 35 areas within the local drainage system having insufficient service. Priority areas and recommended improvements were identified, but the number of people affected or area extent within these deficient service areas were not quantified. GOAL: Minimize impacts of localized and downstream flooding, stream bank erosion, and channel erosion within the open channel stormwater drainage system by controlling the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from development and redevelopment projects Objective: Limit post-development peak flow conditions to match pre-development peak flow conditions Detention is required on all development projects where peak flow rates are increased per the city’s Design and Construction Standards; however, the current stormwater detention policy has gaps that should be addressed. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 252 Packet Page 370 of 489 - 29 - Stormwater Conveyance Network Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 253 Packet Page 371 of 489 - 30 - GOAL: Provide a connected and continuous stormwater drainage system that does not discharge into irrigation ditches, where practical. Objective: Identify stormwater connections into irrigation ditches Objective: Identify irrigation ditches having insufficient capacity for stormwater conveyance It is the policy of the Mile High Flood District and also recommended by the Colorado Water Conservation Board to disconnect all stormwater discharges from irrigation ditches. However, the situation in the City of Boulder is more nuanced, and disconnection of all stormwater discharges is not feasible. The Utility recognizes the limitations of using irrigation ditches for stormwater conveyance and has opted to identify whether irrigation ditches have capacity for stormwater conveyance prior to deciding whether to disconnect stormwater conveyance. As part of the 2016 Stormwater Master Plan update, stormwater connections to irrigation ditches were identified, but capacity of the receiving ditches has yet to be assessed. Operations and Maintenance The Utilities Maintenance work group is responsible for inspection and maintenance of about 160 miles of stormwater pipe, ranging from 10” to 72” in diameter, 2,771 manholes, 5,623 inlets, and 1,993 stormwater outfalls. Maintenance consists of cleaning, repairing, jetting, and inspecting stormwater infrastructure. GOAL: Ensure the stormwater collection and conveyance system functions properly and yields expected capacity to protect public safety and the city's investment in the system Objective: Provide routine inspections and assessments of the entire system Objective: Provide routine maintenance of pipes, structures, natural and man-made channels including irrigation ditches, and public detention facilities Objective: Provide minor repairs to existing pipes and structures In past years, the Utilities Maintenance work group activities were primarily reactive without having staff dedicated to stormwater maintenance. Because they provided emergency maintenance in the stormwater and floodway systems, along with irrigation ditch maintenance required by maintenance agreements, routine maintenance tasks required for the stormwater collection and conveyance system were often neglected due to more urgent maintenance needs. Recently, an asset management system was employed to track time and equipment for tasks. It was found that the inspection cycle for the stormwater conveyance system occurs on an estimated 11-year cycle and cleaning activities are completed on an estimated 31.5-year cycle. To proactively address the maintenance needs of the stormwater system, the Utilities Maintenance work group was split into two groups ― a stormwater group and a flood and greenways group ― and additional staff were added to reduce the time between routine maintenance of the entire stormwater conveyance system and increase the level of service. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 254 Packet Page 372 of 489 - 31 - Figure 13 – Beehive Asset Management System Benchmarking and Data Collection GOAL: Provide maintenance accessibility to the entire stormwater collection and conveyance system Objective: Identify reaches of the stormwater conveyance system lacking adequate maintenance access Objective: Provide permanent access to reaches of the stormwater conveyance system, detention facilities, and other drainage facilities for routine and major maintenance activities Information and data input into the Utility’s asset management system is an ongoing process that will take time to complete. Identification of insufficient maintenance accessibility will be included as part of this process. GOAL: Provide irrigation ditch maintenance per existing maintenance agreements with irrigation ditch companies Objective: Identify tasks for irrigation ditch maintenance in current asset management system to develop a predictive maintenance plan Maintenance responsibilities associated with irrigation ditches can vary significantly between individual maintenance agreements. As with other operations and maintenance tasks, these responsibilities are being entered into the Utility’s asset management system and are not expected to be fully complete until at least 2022. Once this process is completed, the Utilities Maintenance work group will have greater capacity to predict and plan for maintenance needs to increase efficiency. GOAL: Ensure resources are available to provide emergency maintenance on the stormwater conveyance system Objective: Identify resources required to provide emergency maintenance during and after storm events Currently, on-call construction contracts are in place to handle emergency maintenance beyond what the current operations and maintenance work group staff and equipment can provide. This system was put in place following Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 255 Packet Page 373 of 489 - 32 - the 2013 flood, and while its efficacy has not been tested in large storm events, it has shown to work well in smaller storm events. Additionally, Mile High Flood District is also available as a resource for this work. Groundwater Groundwater and sump systems can create nuisance drainage in the public rights-of-way and across adjacent private properties. Also, groundwater dewatering systems can affect local water wells and wetlands by lowering the groundwater table. Requirements for groundwater extraction and release are loosely defined in current city regulations. GOAL: Mitigate impacts of dewatering on groundwater or surface water quantity and quality, groundwater recharge, local water wells, wetlands, and ecosystems Objective: Identify areas within the city where groundwater issues may arise including naturally high groundwater locations, seasonally high groundwater locations, and groundwater pollutants Objective: Require the identification of mitigation and remediation measures prior to dewatering Objective: Minimize subsurface construction that requires ongoing dewatering Policy recommendations to evaluate a proactive approach to dealing with the discharge of groundwater as overland flow and into surface waters was included in the previous CFS Master Plan and also in the BVCP. To date, groundwater issues have not been addressed by the Utility. The City of Boulder stopped issuing groundwater permits in 2019, as it was largely duplicative of the State’s general permit for discharges from subterranean dewatering activities, which focus on discharged volume and water quality. GOAL: Prevent nuisances to other properties created by dewatering activities Objective: Require dewatering mitigation for residential basements and other ongoing dewatering Groundwater dewatering mitigation is not currently required for residential basements or for ongoing dewatering. The determination of whether to require mitigation measures has not yet been addressed. Stormwater Quality Program Evaluation The built urban environment has negative impacts on the water quality in Boulder’s streams and drainageways in the forms of polluted runoff, spills, and excess sediment. The city’s Stormwater Quality Program is responsible for managing local activities to preserve, protect, and enhance water quality affecting Boulder’s surface waters. The program not only seeks to comply with state water quality regulations, but to educate the public and improve water quality through better understanding of issues and enhanced stewardship. Currently, this work is being performed by four full-time staff in the Stormwater Quality Program with assistance from other Utilities Department staff, Planning and Development Services staff, and partnerships with regional organizations for outreach, education, and water quality data reporting. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 256 Packet Page 374 of 489 - 33 - Stormwater Regulatory Compliance The city holds a permit for discharge from its storm sewer system to waters of the state. This stormwater permit has requirements related to a number of city activities, including operations and maintenance, development, and education and outreach. Other water quality regulations include Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for E. coli in Boulder Creek. GOAL: Maintain compliance with current MS4 permit requirements Objective: Provide effective and engaging education and outreach on the importance of water quality and its protection Objective: Provide appropriate response, cleanup, and documentation for spills and other illicit discharges in the city Objective: Conduct construction stormwater program oversight with appropriate inspections and follow- up enforcement Objective: Require the installation and proper maintenance of permit required post-construction stormwater control measures Objective: Conduct municipal operations in a manner that promotes pollution prevention and good housekeeping The city is currently in compliance with their MS4 permit. As part of the Program’s efforts to comply with permit requirements and meet the needs of the broader community, there are specific areas where the activities of the Utility go well above and beyond minimum permit requirements. For example, the MS4 permit requires that a combination of four different types of education and outreach activities be completed annually, whereas the Utility reports that they conduct at least fifteen activities annually. The Utility is also in the process of expanding their construction and post-construction stormwater quality programs to meet community needs. GOAL: Reduce sources of E. coli in Boulder Creek to meet TMDL requirements Objective: Work to identify potential E. coli sources and determine controllability Objective: Identify and implement strategies to reduce controllable sources of E. coli in stormwater runoff entering Boulder Creek It is well known in the stormwater quality community that identification and control of E. coli sources is notoriously difficult. The City of Boulder has been extensively involved in evaluating and researching E. coli sources that extend well beyond regulatory requirements. The city also voluntarily completed an update to the TMDL Implementation Plan in 2019 that highlights a tiered and methodical approach to identifying and addressing E. coli sources. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 257 Packet Page 375 of 489 - 34 - GOAL: Develop compliance strategies in anticipation of future MS4 regulatory requirements Objective: Closely track the MS4 permit renewal process and provide appropriate input and feedback as a partner with CDPHE The city brings a unique perspective to many areas of permit implementation. Presenting this perspective to the State has proven valuable to ensure reasonable and achievable regulatory requirements for the city. It is the intent of the Utility to continue participation and fostering these relationships in the future. Enhancement of Urban Stream Health In addition to meeting permit requirements, the Stormwater Quality Program is dedicated to addressing broader stormwater quality concerns and critical aquatic habitats in ways that protect and enhance urban stream health. This approach requires the implementation of projects and programs above and beyond stormwater quality permit requirements. GOAL: Protect and enhance water quality and urban stream health through strategic collaboration, data collection, programmatic planning, and implementation of stormwater quality projects Objective: Implement the Boulder Urban Stream Health (BUSH) program through internal city collaboration and the funding of water quality related projects Objective: Implement data collection and assessment projects that further understanding of local watershed conditions Objective: Develop and implement municipal policies related to urban runoff or stream health Objective: Design and construct stormwater quality projects to improve urban stream conditions or mitigate the effects of urban runoff In conjunction with current MS4 Permit requirements, the Stormwater Quality Program has increased efforts related to the control of stormwater pollutants through the use of stormwater control measures on construction sites and for post-construction stormwater management. Post-construction stormwater control measures are not required on development sites less than an acre in size or on residential properties. Recently, the Boulder Urban Stream Health (BUSH) program was initiated to create a project implementation framework to address water quality concerns. Additionally, the Stormwater Quality Program has taken a more focused approach to water quality data collection based on specific concerns and plans to track stream health function ratings in 2022 to support these efforts. Bioswale Installation in Parking Lot Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 258 Packet Page 376 of 489 - 35 - GOAL: Support the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of greenways, creek corridors, and wetlands for the protection and improvement of water quality Objective: Manage the greenways program to provide appropriate understanding, oversight, maintenance, planning, and projects for the preservation and enhancement of the riparian corridor Objective: Strive for no net loss of wetlands In recent years, the Stormwater Quality Program has shifted from mostly focusing on MS4 Permit compliance to building larger programs to enhance water quality and stream health which incorporate permit compliance measures. Additionally, the Greenways Program was historically under the purview of the Flood Management Program until it recently became a part of the Stormwater Quality Program. Because of these factors, greater support for preservation and restoration of natural water systems and their ecosystems beyond what is required for permit compliance has not been a focus of this Program. However, efforts are already underway to incorporate this moving forward. Water Quality Regulation and Monitoring The city’s Stormwater Quality Program conducts various water quality monitoring and special studies along the creek including implementing studies related to the E. coli TMDL Implementation Plan. GOAL: Support compliance related to surface water permitting and regulations Objective: Continue the ongoing water quality monitoring program in support of surface water permits and regulations The Stormwater Quality Program monitors for temperature variations, nutrients, metals, sediments, E. coli, periphyton/chlorophyll-a, and benthic macroinvertebrates in multiple locations to meet routine monitoring and sampling requirements for State permits and regulations. Routine Stream Monitoring Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 259 Packet Page 377 of 489 - 36 - GOAL: Seek to better understand surface water quality, dynamics, and impacts related to stream health and regulations Objective: Implement projects and studies to inform regulatory decisions related to city surface water permits Special studies are conducted on an as-needed basis to support focused project implementation and regulatory decisions. Since 2015, four special studies were conducted to: evaluate watershed conditions; monitor for neonicotinoids; evaluate temperature thresholds; and identify connections between nutrient concentrations and macroinvertebrates. Flow Monitoring Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 260 Packet Page 378 of 489 - 37 - Findings and Gap Analysis This section summarizes the main findings from the policy and program evaluations to underscore areas where the Utility is performing well and supporting the intent of the BVCP policies. Additionally, the evaluation also found opportunities where the Utility might improve processes or policy to address current and future community needs. This information will be further analyzed and form the basis for policy and procedure recommendations contained in the Master Plan. Policy Evaluation Because the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan provides overarching guidance for the entire city, it is not surprising that many of the policies contained therein provide overlapping direction as they relate to the functions of the Utility. Their overarching nature often does not provide tangible objectives that are typically defined at the utility master plan level. Therefore, qualitative and semi-quantitative discussions, versus strict qualitative analyses are presented below on the major program themes. Utilities will participate in the upcoming 2025 BVCP update process and suggest ways to streamline language though that process. Flood Management Program Themes Within the Flood Management Program, themes related to floodplain preservation and restoration are supported by ten policies in the BVCP, however floodplain preservation efforts tend to be underrepresented in flood mitigation projects that seek to remove people and property from floodplains by reducing floodplain size. This conflicts with restoration efforts intended to support critical ecological processes associated with the flooding of riparian areas and wider floodplains. Improved definition and/or description of non-structural drainageway improvements or protection of riparian areas may support future implementation of these concepts. The city has delineated floodplains for the entire city that have been accepted by FEMA and has developed regulations to control or prohibit development in these areas. Thereby protecting people and property as identified in BVCP policies. These floodplain regulations may benefit from further evaluation to determine whether they have unintended consequences, such as continued encroachment into the floodplain, which could eventually result in negative cumulative effects of flood damage. Additional recommended policy actions such as addressing risk and damage associated with larger flooding events and how to best incorporate climate change may also be considered. A city-wide Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan1 is in place that is routinely updated to implement projects and programs that mitigate risk from defined hazards such as floods. The Utility may want to enhance its internal emergency preparedness and response processes aside from those in the MHMP. This will help to conform to the structure and processes specific to the Utility and avoid overreliance on ODM for response and recovery efforts. Further specifics regarding what should be addressed by the Utility related to emergency response and recovery will require further definition. 1 At the time of this writing, the MHMP is a city-wide plan. This plan is moving into a jurisdiction (county) wide plan in the next couple of years. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 261 Packet Page 379 of 489 - 38 - Stormwater Quality Program Themes Between the functions of the Greenways Program, OSMP, and MS4 Permit requirements, the Stormwater Quality Program is meeting or exceeding the intent of the stormwater quality policy themes. While groundwater dewatering can affect surface water quality, this can most likely be addressed from a program standpoint with the Stormwater Drainage Program. BVCP policy guidance supports consideration of, but does not require, policies and regulations related to groundwater dewatering. Five separate policies in the BVCP address wetland preservation and restoration. Efforts to preserve wetlands are addressed by other departments and programs within the city; however, it is not currently a priority of the Stormwater Quality Program. Given that wetlands perform many services that are directly related to the enhancement of water quality, it has been noted that preservation and restoration of wetlands should be a bigger focus for the Program going forward. Overarching Utility Themes The Utility actively engages in integrated planning efforts with external regional and State entities to address multi-jurisdictional concerns. Within the city, Utilities partners with other departments in the design and construction of projects to achieve multiple objectives. Improving upon these internal coordination efforts by developing a streamlined approach may help avoid missed opportunities. The Utility has recently created a project management office (PMO) to share resources in an organized way and further develop project management knowledge and skill. Implementation of this PMO will likely enhance project execution and planning efforts across the Utility. The Utility has begun to, but has not yet fully integrated planning for the effects of climate change, resiliency, ecosystem frameworks, and racial equity into planning and policy decisions. Guiding Principles The guiding principles found in the previous CFS Master Plan lack supporting definitions (Table 3), which makes it difficult to determine whether the activities of the Utility support their intent. These guiding principles should be evaluated for current relevancy and revised as necessary. Table 3 – Current Guiding Principles Floodplain Management Stormwater Quality Stormwater Drainage 1. Preserve floodplains 2. Preparation for floods 3. Help people protect themselves from flood hazards 4. Prevent unwise uses and adverse impacts in the floodplain 5. Seek to accommodate floods, not control them 1. Preserve our streams 2. Prevent adverse impacts from stormwater 3. Protect and enhance stream corridors 4. Maintain and preserve existing and natural drainage systems 5. Reduce and manage developed runoff 6. Eliminate drainage problems and nuisances Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 262 Packet Page 380 of 489 - 39 - Program Evaluation A qualitative assessment was conducted to identify minimum preconditions for Program functions. This information was used to support the subsequent program evaluation. Three primary activities were undertaken:  Description of the program model with particular attention to, and consensus around, the program goals and objectives  Assessment of how well defined and evaluable the model is  Identification of public, community working group, and staff interest in the evaluation and a determination of how the results are to be used Logic models were developed to understand the sequence of steps and Utility staff activities, going from program services to outcomes. Further, efforts were made to codify what visible, measurable, or tangible results are or might be present as evidence that the objective has been met. Policies in the BVCP did not provide complete coverage of the necessary functions required by the Utility. Existing information was gathered through data collection and review, information provided by city staff, GIS data, and staff interviews to evaluate the program efficacy. Limitations of the evaluation included: quantitative data could not be obtained in many instances f or the evaluation; and the stated goals lacked specific and measurable objectives. It is recommended that the goals and objectives be refined to better reflect the needs of Utility moving forward and defined metrics be developed to track whether activities produce desired outcomes. This will allow for a more streamlined approach to Utility evaluation in future master plan updates. Finally, all programs are constrained by the available resources ― funding, personnel, and tacit community and organizational support.  Funding. The 2021 budget for the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility is $17M, of which $9M is reserved for CIP/debt service and $6M is the annual operating budget. At the funding rate, when compared with the backlog of project and maintenance needs, it will take several decades to implement the identified needs.  Staff. Within the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility, five FTEs are assigned to stormwater quality and only two FTEs are in place to manage the mapping, engineering and construction components for both flood management and stormwater drainage. Additional staff within the Utilities Department also provide support with maintenance, communications, finance, outreach, and management. However, these staff are dedicated across the City of Boulder Utilities Department, and as such, also support work plans for the Water and Wastewater Utilities.  Support. As documented in the 2019 city-commissioned Tipton report, Boulder Utilities staff expressed concern regarding the ability to implement program work plans with a perceived lack of support from senior officials and the City Council. Numerous personnel and structural changes have been made since that time; however, some staff continue to express concern regarding public perceptions and overall support for the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. Flood Management Program The Utility follows floodplain mapping procedures approved by FEMA, but consideration should be given to mapping additional floodplain hazards (i.e., fluvial hazard zones) and to evaluate mapping approaches, such as Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 263 Packet Page 381 of 489 - 40 - when a map should be scheduled for remapping and what technology should be employed (e.g., 1D vs 2D models). Flood mitigation studies lack consistency between procedures used for hydraulic and hydrologic analyses along with alternatives prioritization and flood protection levels that should be addressed. The Utility has an active flood education and outreach program that produces collateral and outreach materials and conducts engagement and education events on an annual basis. In discussions with the CWG, however, there was a perception that the city does not provide adequate education and outreach. To bridge this gap, methods for evaluating the success of education and outreach efforts, along with an annual communications plan to address changing outreach needs and bilingual communications, should be further developed. There is a clear need to strike a balance between floodplain management that focuses on the preservation and restoration of floodplains ― due to the many environmental and social benefits floodplains can provide ― with individual property rights and flood mitigation that seeks to reduce floodplain extents to protect people and property from floods. Stormwater Drainage Program The 2016 Stormwater Master Plan update provided a hydraulic analysis of the local drainage network to identify deficiencies in stormwater conveyance capacity. Development of metrics would assist with CIP prioritization, and should include racial equity and climate change considerations. There were some inconsistencies noted between existing regulations, design standards, and recommendations made by the MHFD Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual related to hydrologic calculations, storm sewer sizing, and detention pond design that should be further addressed. The Utilities Maintenance work group has recently undergone a restructuring process to better address both flood and stormwater drainage maintenance needs, along with irrigation ditch maintenance required through contractual obligations. This process should be monitored, with the incorporation of recommendations to enhance routine maintenance on existing infrastructure. Additionally, irrigation ditches should be evaluated for capacity and recommendations for stormwater disconnection identified where applicable. Stormwater Quality Program Meeting MS4 Permit requirements is a significant task for any municipality to undertake. The City of Boulder’s Stormwater Quality Program has completed a substantial amount of work to both comply with, and exceed, minimum permit requirements in many cases. This includes a robust water quality outreach program with help from regional partners and extensive E. coli source identification and elimination efforts. Because of this, the Stormwater Quality Program has been undertaking water quality initiatives that reach beyond state required actions. Many of these initiatives are still in their infancy and will require continued evaluation and adaptive management. Evaluation of Racial Equity and Social Vulnerability As part of the city’s master planning process, the city employs Community Connectors to engage underrepresented communities, bridge cultural and language barriers, help develop effective engagement opportunities, and support activities related to master planning efforts with city staff and partners. Additionally, education and outreach related to flood preparedness, response, and recovery have not uniformly been published Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 264 Packet Page 382 of 489 - 41 - or presented in both English and Spanish. To address this, the city hired a language access program manager who is responsible for developing the city’s language access plan. The Utility strives to incorporate racial equity into its operations by first evaluating whether undue burdens may have inadvertently been created by existing regulations, policies, or procedures and then to identify corrections that can be made moving forward. In a review of current floodplain regulations, properties located in the High Hazard Zone that sustain flood damage equal to or greater than 50% of their pre-flood market value are not allowed to be rebuilt. This regulation places undue burden on low-income communities where property values are lower. For example, a $200,000 home that sustains $110,000 in damage cannot be rebuilt; whereas a $2,000,000 home that sustains up to $1,000,000 in damage can be reconstructed. Racial equity has not previously been a factor in project prioritization for the Utility’s programs or for CIP projects. Additionally, some flood mitigation projects are currently being proposed to provide flood mitigation solutions that provide less than 100-year flood conveyance to protect the redevelopment potential of the site, where other projects located in the same watershed have relocated mobile home residents from a site so that 100-year flood mitigation could be provided. In addition to looking at racial equity, social vulnerability is another well-accepted index developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to predict a community’s ability to respond to, and recover from, natural disasters based on a number of social and economic factors. The Social Vulnerability Index ranges from 0 to 1 with lower indices indicating lower social vulnerability. By integrating social vulnerability into flood mitigation planning and emergency response and recovery plans, the most vulnerable populations can be prioritized for resource allocation during and after emergencies or prioritized for removal from the floodplain all together. Potential Racial Equity Metrics Value of structures removed from floodplains or rebuilt in floodplains Location of floodplain permits rejected or accepted as it relates to neighborhood demographics Median value of structures removed from the floodplain due to mitigation projects Percent of minority residents removed from floodplains due to mitigation projects Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 265 Packet Page 383 of 489 - 42 - Locations of Racial Minority and Hispanic Population by Census Block Stormwater Sub- Catchment Basins *Census Block groups are tied to land area not to land use Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 266 Packet Page 384 of 489 - 43 - Social Vulnerability Index Stormwater Sub- Catchment Basins Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 267 Packet Page 385 of 489 - 44 - Evaluation Summary Table 4 represents a summary of actions that have been identified for improvement as part of the policy and program evaluation efforts. Improvement actions are further addressed in subsequent chapters as part of the master planning analysis process. Table 4 – Identified Improvement Actions Program Identified Policy Improvement Actions Identified Program Improvement Actions Overarching Utility Incorporate multiple objectives in the planning, design, and operation of the Utility Approach planning and policy decisions through an ecosystem framework Address specific guidance related to climate change and resilience Evaluate impacts of policies, planning, and decision making to ensure geographic and socioeconomic equality Identify metrics needed for tracking progress and future evaluation Review existing Guiding Principles and define terms like unwise uses in the floodplain and non-structural practices Develop prioritization criteria for CIP projects and establish a framework for prioritization Address coordination between Programs within the Utility and with other city departments like Transportation Develop standards and requirements for annual work plans Address racial equity in regulations, planning, and project prioritization Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 268 Packet Page 386 of 489 - 45 - Program Identified Policy Improvement Actions Identified Program Improvement Actions Flood Management Program Proactively preserve and restore floodplains Define and map riparian areas Define and prioritize use of non-structural drainageway improvements Monitor effects of climate change on floodplain delineation and management Prepare flood response and recovery plans Restrict development on undeveloped high hazard zone properties Address risks and damages associated with floods larger than the 100-year flood event Review floodplain mapping standards to include increased risk and evaluate mapping approaches Identify how to evaluate success with flood education and outreach efforts Provide resources to socially underrepresented populations for preparedness and response Update emergency response plan for Utility Develop standardized guidance for flood mitigation plans and address flood protection levels based on drainageway Address future floodway maintenance needs Review existing floodplain regulations to determine what the balance should be between environmental, social, and individual property rights Explore effort required to further reduce CRS rating Stormwater Drainage Program Evaluate current level of service being provided Evaluate current detention pond design standards Identify irrigation ditches with insufficient capacity to receive stormwater runoff Address routine maintenance needs Discuss whether groundwater should be addressed by the Utility Stormwater Quality Program Consider regulating groundwater dewatering activities to mitigate impacts Minimize subsurface construction requiring ongoing dewatering Proactively preserve and restore wetlands Incorporate BUSH program implementation into master plan Track stream health function ratings Evaluate success of green infrastructure plan Address management of greenways program Incorporate wetlands into water quality planning efforts Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 269 Packet Page 387 of 489 APPENDIX B: Further Discussion of 1-D versus 2-D Modeling Approaches Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 270 Packet Page 388 of 489 - 1 - Further discussion of 1-D versus 2-D modeling approaches Most existing SFHAs that are based on 1-D models typically provide results only on a cross-sectionally averaged basis for a series of cross sections (that are defined by the modeler). The 2-D computations are performed at numerous discrete computational points spread over the model domain; thus, 2-D models provide information on a spatially-distributed basis, typically at a much higher resolution than 1-D models. Additionally, flows splits must be defined in 1-D models based on the modeler’s professional expertise and related assumptions about their specific locations and characteristics versus actual observation or experience. These same splits are typically explicitly quantified by the 2-D model algorithms without these assumptions. On the other hand, many of the 2-D models on FEMA’s approved hydraulic model list lack the capability to directly simulate the effects of bridges, culverts and other structures, while most 1-D models have robust algorithms for simulation of these features. Additional considerations are noted in FEMA’s December 2020 Hydraulics Two-Dimensional Analysis Guidance2, which includes a section on the decision factors for appropriate use of two-dimensional modeling. Agreement for the use of 2-D models with other stakeholders may also need to be considered. The MHFD Hazard Area Guidelines 3 indicate approval is required for hydraulic analysis that is not based on the standard step-backwater method with the most recent HEC-RAS version. Current FEMA guidelines for establishing the regulatory floodway (referred to as the “conveyance zone” in Boulder’s floodplain regulations) were developed based on 1-D modeling. While the higher resolution from 2-D model output can improve quantification of flood hazards in specific areas, it presents significant challenges in establishing the floodway within the current regulatory framework. The December 2020 FEMA guidelines address some of the challenges concerning 2-D floodways by allowing equitable consideration of overbanks and incorporating the use of evaluation lines that provide a method for comparing 2-D floodway results to the 1-D floodway results. The recommended method for determining equitable floodways was initially based on maximum velocity times the maximum depth, a method currently used by the city to determine the High Hazard Zone. However, the 2-D floodway models are generally more time-intensive, as the automated methods for 1-D floodways are not available in HEC-RAS. The document also outlines methods for considering flood elevation increases across the floodplain, but these may need to be adjusted to comply with Colorado’s 0.5’ rise floodway. The higher-resolution results provided by 2-D hydraulic models provide valuable information, but also often require additional review and consideration by the Utility for the purpose of regulatory mapping when compared to 1-D. Small islands and isolated inundation areas often occur in flood-inundation maps developed from 2-D model results in urban areas, which may complicate regulation. Each 2-D scenario may present different mapping issues and solutions, such as identification of shallow floodplain areas. FEMA guidelines provide for smoothing some of these floodplain areas, but also require compliance with floodplain boundary standards. As 2-D regulatory floodplains and floodways become more standard, additional solutions will be explored. Nevertheless, current standards of practice and forthcoming solutions are complicated by numerous factors and can further complicate review and regulation. 2 Hydraulics Two-Dimensional Analysis Gu idance (fema.gov) 3 NONSTRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (mhfd.org) Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 271 Packet Page 389 of 489 - 2 - 2-D models require significant additional effort and potential complications for regulatory maps. Yet, they provide benefits for analysis, as a design tool, and for hazard communication. 2-D models add value in terms of non- regulatory products when the method is appropriately based on the stream flow. FEMA has indicated the growing use of 2-D analyses may warrant additional changes in the regulatory floodway approach (FEMA, 2019). It is anticipated that additional 2-D analyses guidelines will be developed and there is potential for a shift in the floodway concept over time. FEMA currently provides announcements for flood risk analysis and mapping activities and a master index of standards and guidelines on their website. It is recommended that the city stay abreast of developments in this area and provide input, as appropriate, to ensure that challenges specific to conditions in the city are reflected in forthcoming standards and guidance. Per the NFIP and the city’s floodplain regulations, development within the regulatory floodway (conveyance zone) is prohibited unless it can be confirmed that flood depths will not increase. This regulation may require additional capability and effort if 2-D hydraulic models become the basis for portions of the regulatory floodways. The city should ensure there is a plan to address the evaluation of floodway development with 2-D models. Incorporation of a list of city-approved hydraulic models, also meeting appropriate MHFD and FEMA requirements, would facilitate the city’s use and review of 2-D models. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 272 Packet Page 390 of 489 APPENDIX C: Community Working Group Findings Report Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 273 Packet Page 391 of 489 City of Boulder Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan CWG Findings Report We are pleased to present the Findings Report for the Community Working Group on the 2022 revision to the City of Boulder’s Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan (CFS), last updated in 2004. The purpose of the plan is to improve the management of stormwater to help protect people, places, property and ecosystems in the City in a way that builds resilience and is consistent with community values. The Community Working Group was comprised of 19 people, representing a diverse range of participants, to reflect the diversity in the Boulder community and encourage engagement from typically underrepresented populations. The CWG was tasked to provide feedback to staff on master plan information, including community values, policies, technical information, engagement process, and evaluation criteria, at various stages of the master plan update. We met 12 times over more than 16 months, formed subcommittees, conducted community interviews, reviewed feedback from the Be Heard Boulder website, and attended site tours, neighborhood meetings, and pop-up events. We attended community feedback sessions, reviewed Volume I of the draft Master Plan and commented on the Technical Memoranda that ultimately comprised Volume 2. We, the CWG, agree that the substantive outcomes of the Master plan are as listed below. The CWG identified two items - project prioritization and funding – as the top two key outcomes but was not in agreement about which should be listed first in order of importance; therefore, the key outcomes below are listed in no particular order: •Development of a Project Prioritization Framework. We support a comprehensive project prioritization framework that allows the city to compare objectively different community interests in choosing which of the many backlogged Flood Mitigation Projects to advance. The unified framework uses metrics for both quantitative and qualitative community values for project prioritization. •Funding Considerations. The CWG agreed it was important for an effective update to the CFS to consider the methods of funding and the levels of funding in addition to focusing on the uses. A subset of the CWG, feel strongly that the City of Boulder shall pursue the Vision funding scenario as described in Volume I of the Master Plan. Other members of the CWG felt it was more important for the community to understand the trade-offs implicit in various funding levels. •Social Equity. We concluded it was important to incorporate the impact of flood risk on disadvantaged communities, including minorities, the poor, the homeless, children and Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 274 Packet Page 392 of 489 the elderly. We advocated for giving Social Equity appropriate weight in the Project Prioritization Framework. •Elevation of Climate Change. Global warming is changing the hydrologic risks faced by the city, including the frequency and intensity of flooding events. We sought to emphasize climate change in the plan to ensure that the city considers this increasing uncertainty and risk in its flood and stormwater infrastructure planning. The CWG feels it is urgent to implement flood mitigation. Priorities for future action therefore include: •Compile a list of major flood mitigation projects. We recommend that staff apply the Project Prioritization Framework immediately upon approval of the Master Plan to generate a clear list of projects and share with the community. We also recommend that staff compile a list of all projects and their associated costs throughout the City which are necessary to provide all Boulder residents with an adequate level of flood protection, so that residents and City staff have a realistic view of the scope and cost of work necessary. •Prioritize maintenance as well as repairing and upgrading the sewer and stormwater systems. We believe nothing can influence situational flooding more than regular stormwater and floodway system maintenance by the city, and addressing sump pumps, neighborhood drainage, and other micro-level issues. This requires city and community engagement. Expediting sewer pipe and stormwater system improvements will also help protect our community from flood events. •Invest in flood preparedness. Because of the potentially long timeframe before all Boulder residents will have adequate flood protection, we recommend that the city advance other flood protection initiatives. Ideas include: a flood proofing handbook distributed to all residents and businesses in mapped floodplains, re-establishment and maintenance of borrow ditches in areas in floodplains without storm drains/curb/gutter, and a subsidized flood insurance for residents of low-income housing/mobile home parks. We recommend the city develop an early warning system for potential flood closures with full coverage, street analysis re closures, etc., plus using best practices regarding how this information will be communicated. •Modify Rate Revision Analysis. In its annual review and revision of utility rates, and in the overall approach to financing, we recommend the city consider rate and/or debt increases for the Storm and Floodwater Utility and compare them to the cost of delaying or not implementing major flood mitigation plans, including the possible costs of a flood during the delay. At the same time, the city needs to be sensitive to the burden of increases in fees on the community. Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 275 Packet Page 393 of 489 •Enhance engagement. We recommend the city increase its current engagement with all residents to increase awareness of and preparedness for floods and to ensure better water quality in Boulder’s creeks. We believe the city should continue to look for new opportunities to engage the community to reach those who are typically underrepresented in engagement efforts, including improving methods of reaching non- English speakers in an emergency. •Continue leading on climate change. We believe that Boulder should continue to be a leader in addressing climate change and the city should act now to make infrastructure resilient and prepare for extreme events. The city should place substantive emphasis on nature-based solutions, resilient infrastructure and management of habitats along stream corridors. •Pursue Flood Protection Outside Utilities. The CFS master plan was guided in part by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. There are policies in the BVCP that support flood risk mitigation that are outside the jurisdiction of the Utility, particularly development and land use policies. The city should amplify the benefits realized by this CFS plan by implementing many of the BVCP development and land use policies. Finally, the CWG reviewed the planning process and engagement activities. Since the engagement was done during the time when the city was largely shut down due to the pandemic, much of the outreach had to be done virtually. Recognizing the constraints and opportunities of virtual engagement, CWG members felt the following activities worked well during the planning process: •CWG Interviews – learning community views through person-to-person communication •Creation of “one-pager” highlighting the challenges and opportunities for flood mitigation in Boulder •Walking tour- Seeing the impacts to a floodway is very helpful. •Dotstorming exercise to aid project prioritization tool •Regional meetings were helpful, but they were poorly attended. Without the ability to meet in-person, some detail and connection get lost. •Interpreters need to be familiar with the subject matter to be effective in communicating technical information. CWG recommendations for virtual and in person engagement in the future are as follows: Working Group Facilitation •Consider adopting a more intuitive platform for information sharing rather than Be Heard Boulder Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 276 Packet Page 394 of 489 •Structure the process with more collaboration from CWG members •Provide more review time for and consideration of feedback delivered regarding the technical memos •Distribute a contact list of the CWG members at the beginning of the process Public Engagement •Look for ways to improve community engagement to ensure we have a data set of responses that are representative of the community •Create a “sparkly” video for these types of projects to attract community engagement. •Provide more specific information to the community to answer the question: when will the drainageway in my neighborhood be addressed? Ask clear questions. •Clarify the role of Community Connectors and provide adequate resources to enable personal outreach. Going into the communities where Spanish speakers live/work/play is vital to obtaining more participation. Printed or personal communications are more effective with the Spanish speaking community than online engagement. We believe the revised CFS presented here for adoption has incorporated some of our suggestions and feedback. As a group, we achieved consensus on the outcomes, future priorities and process comments listed above. We did not achieve consensus on every point or emphasis in the Master Plan, but we do agree that the plan as presented to Council, incorporates many community priorities, and can form the foundation for sound flood mitigation policies and investments in the years and decades to come. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Individual comments and Ideas for Pet Projects Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 277 Packet Page 395 of 489 From:Elizabeth Black To:CFSInfo Subject:Comments for "Pet Ideas" Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 3:42:13 PM Attachments:image001.png External Sender Here are my comments for the “Pet Ideas” section of the CWG report. Thanks, Elizabeth ·Close Linden Avenue during major storm events in the Two-Mile drainage. 4 people have died in floods on Two Mile Canyon Creek. This creek’s geomorphology makes it particularly dangerous in flood events. Every public safety agency must be made aware and stay aware of the danger to motorists which flooding on Two Mile Canyon Creek presents. Linden Avenue must be closed when flooding is imminent on Two Mile Canyon Creek. Emergency alerts must be sent to all phones in the Two Mile drainage area directing them to shelter in place or climb to safety, and to avoid driving at all costs. ·Include Flood Fatalities on Maps: On every floodplain map that the City produces, include an icon that represents each person that died in a flood, and put the icon in the location where each person died. For instance, 4 little fatality icons would be on Two Mile Canyon Creek on every floodplain map that the City produced. ·Flood-proofing Handbook: Provide residents and businesses in mapped floodplains with a flood-proofing handbook, to assist with their own protection and preparedness efforts. ·E. coli in Boulder Creek: Develop an on-site public warning system to inform water-users of high e. coli levels for at-risk reaches of Boulder Creek. ·Public Education about Flooding: On bike and pedestrian underpasses and concrete walls of paths along all creeks, stencil a graphic delineating the water level in that location during the 2013 flood. hhhhhh Water Level 2013 Floodhhhhhhh Add additional water level stencils for future floods. ·Neighborhood Meetings are Necessary: Citizens want city staff to come to neighborhood meetings and answer their questions. They want to learn when and what improvements will happen in their neighborhood, and learn how to deal with flood-hazards in the meantime. Combine informational meetings with a sign-up for a Home Preparedness and Flood Proofing assessment to incentivize attendance. Attendees can figure out how much of a risk they face and decide whether they want to get individualized advice about how to stay safer and flood-proof their residence. ·Allocate Funds Equally: Limited flood mitigation funding must be allocated fairly and equally across all drainages. We must first provide adequate hamburger-level flood protection for all drainages before providing chateaubriand-500-year flood protection for a single drainage. ·Timelines for future flood protection: Inform citizens of their flood risks and timelines for flood protection, due to current funding levels. Provide residents in mapped floodplains with an estimate of when future flood mitigation projects will protect their property from flood damage. ATTACHMENT A: Individual Comments and Ideas for Pet Projects Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 278 Packet Page 396 of 489 ·Ditch Companies are Valuable Partners: In partnership with irrigation companies, assess stormwater carriage opportunities and improvements to irrigation ditches to mitigate flooding. Irrigation ditches already carry storm water in flood events, and ditch companies are valuable and necessary partners that the City needs to work closely with to solve flooding issues. ·Basements “Not Recommended” in some areas: Notify property owners in areas of high groundwater that basements and other improvements requiring dewatering are not advised in their area. Create an overlay map that combines complaints, floodplain maps, creeks, wetlands, irrigation ditches and laterals with building lots, to flag lots where basements are “NOT RECOMMENDED due to high water table”. ·Hazards of 3 Upstream Dams: Develop early warning systems and evacuation plans for the event of a dam failure. Educate all City residents on the hazard that Boulder’s 3 upstream dams (Barker, Gross & Pinebrook Hills) pose. Analyze retention and spills from the 3 upstream dams during the 2013 floods to better understand the effects of dam management on potential flooding during flood events. ·Borrow Ditches Protect Properties: Reestablish borrow ditches (drainage ditches) in neighborhoods without storm drains, giving priority to areas in mapped floodplains. Develop sizing recommendations for borrow ditches and culverts in neighborhoods without curb, gutter and storm drains. Train Planning and Building & Inspection staff to include the installation and adequate sizing of culverts and drainage ditches when redevelopment permits are applied for in areas of Boulder without curb, gutter and storm drains. ·Incorporate Mapping Assumptions: Floodplain mapping is an inexact science and uses certain assumptions (for instance that there will be no debris in flood waters) to create flood maps. Include the assumptions used to make the map on all floodplain maps, both printed and on-line. ·Our Creeks are not “Natural”: Change language in City documents to emphasize that creeks and drainage-ways within City limits are man-made constructed landscapes rather than "natural or native" landscapes. Our city is built on multiple alluvial fans, where creeks would naturally fill their channels with debris and create new channels. But we cannot allow them to do this natural thing anymore because our city is built on top of the alluvial fans. We must instead maintain and clear our creeks so they will stay in the same place, and so the next flood will have a clear channel through town and do the least damage to our city. Use different language to describe our creeks, referring to them instead as what they are: “maintained creek corridors”, “constructed man-made landscapes” and “managed habitats”. It will help smooth future controversies about the necessary maintenance of our floodways. Elizabeth Black Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 279 Packet Page 397 of 489 APPENDIX D: July 18, 2022, WRAB Presentation Clarification of Project Prioritization Framework Example Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 280 Packet Page 398 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 18, 2022 AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing – Consideration of a Recommendation to approve the updated Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan PRESENTERS: Joe Taddeucci, Utilities Director Joanna Bloom, Utilities Deputy Director of Policy and Planning Chris Douglass, Utilities Engineering Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The city is continuing the process of updating the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan (CFS, or plan) that is the guiding policy document for Boulder's Stormwater and Flood Utility. The purpose of the plan is to improve the management of stormwater and drainageways to help protect people, places, property, and ecosystems in a way that builds resilience and is consistent with community values. Staff received feedback from the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) at the June 27, 2022, meeting requesting clarification of how the project prioritization framework will be applied and to which projects, among other comment themes. The purpose of this memo is to address WRAB and public feedback on the plan and to request a recommendation from the WRAB to City Council on approval of the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the WRAB make the following motion regarding the CFS update: FISCAL IMPACT – The CFS recommends moving from the current Action level of funding to the Vision level of funding (as described on pages 38 and 29 of Volume I) to expedite the pace of major flood project completion. Actual funding levels will be considered by the WRAB as part of the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process. BOARD FEEDBACK - WRAB members asked questions and provided verbal comments on the draft plan during the June 2022 meeting. Major themes of WRAB and public comments and staff’s responses are below. CFS updates will be made where indicated and responses to WRAB feedback will be further discussed at the July 18 WRAB meeting. The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council approve the 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan update, including the recommendation to adopt the vision level of funding as recommended by the plan to expedite the pace of major flood project implementation. 07.18.2022 WRAB Agenda 4 - 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Page 1 of 255 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 281 Packet Page 399 of 489 PUBLIC FEEDBACK - The draft plan was posted on the project site in English and Spanish, and public feedback was requested through Be Heard Boulder from late June through July 15. Comments received echo themes heard from the Community Working Group (CWG), including confirmation that the plan aligns with community values and also reflects a high degree of interest in drainageway specific action. A public hearing for this item is scheduled during the July 18, 2022, WRAB meeting. BACKGROUND This 2022 CFS Master Plan is an update to the previous Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan developed in 2004 and provides a framework for implementing programs and projects in the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. The project team worked closely with a CWG throughout the process to support the development of the update, which consists of two volumes and details six key findings and outcomes in the areas of project prioritization; racial equity; climate change and resilience; flood preparedness; outreach and education; support for maintenance; and recommends a Capital Improvement Program level of funding moving forward. These topic areas align with areas of community and CWG interest and reflect community values. At the June 2022 meeting, the WRAB heard report-outs from staff and CWG representatives and provided feedback on the plan. ANALYSIS Local Drainageway Interest - The WRAB, the CWG and the public voiced that the CFS update generally aligns with community values. This feedback was accompanied by questions about how the CFS relates to neighborhood- and drainageway-specific improvements, when such improvements will be made, and whether this plan replaces existing plans. The CFS does not replace, but rather compliments and provides guidance for other planning efforts, including drainageway-specific plans that include the engineering analysis that determines which projects are needed where. When these projects are ultimately built is largely determined through the annual CIP process where funding is secured for project design and construction. The relationship between plans is illustrated on page 17 of CFS Volume I1. Prioritization Framework – The WRAB and community also voiced general support for the project prioritization framework but had remaining questions about how it will be used, including how project prioritization metrics will be applied to specific projects. In response, staff will walk through an example of how the criteria and metrics are applied at the July WRAB meeting. The prioritization framework allows for relative comparison of project benefits; as such, an individual project score serves as a comparative value in relation to other projects, and their respective scoring. The criteria weighting that informs these project scores was assigned based 1 A printer-friendly version of Volume 1 is now available online on the project website 07.18.2022 WRAB Agenda 4 - 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Page 2 of 255 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 282 Packet Page 400 of 489 on direct feedback from the community and the WRAB, lending to tool results that reflect how well a particular project aligns with community values. Staff does not anticipate that the weighting (as described on pages 130 and 131 of Volume II) will be modified after plan approval. However, staff would return to the WRAB and council should something arise as the tool is put into use. From initial model testing, the tool clearly communicates priorities and differences between projects as displayed in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Example prioritization tool outcomes showing criteria contribution by project Project Prioritization List - Staff received questions about which projects will be prioritized using the new framework. Projects that are not yet in the design and construction phase of the project lifecycle (shown in green in Figure 2) will be prioritized using the new framework. Projects already in the design and construction phase are not under consideration for reprioritization as they have been in process for some time and are nearing the end of the project cycle. For completeness, the table of projects to be prioritized 2 will be updated to include 2 Included on pages 36-37 of Volume I and included as Table 10-1 on pages 114-115 in Volume II Figure 2: Project Lifecycle 07.18.2022 WRAB Agenda 4 - 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Page 3 of 255 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 283 Packet Page 401 of 489 drainageways that do not yet have mitigation plans, including Boulder Creek, Boulder Slough, and Sunshine Canyon Creek. NEXT STEPS The project team will present the updated plan to Planning Board on August 2; the concepts discussed in the plan will be touched on at the August 11 City Council Study Session, and staff will ask for City Council approval on September 1, 2022. ATTACHMENTS A: CFS Master Plan Volume I: Summary Plan B: CFS Master Plan Volume II: Technical Plan 07.18.2022 WRAB Agenda 4 - 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Page 4 of 255 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 284 Packet Page 402 of 489 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Water Resources Advisory Board July 18, 2022 Thanks Joe. I’m Joanna Bloom, Utilities Deputy Director for Policy and Planning. Thank you  WRAB for the opportunity to provide responses to some of the questions and comments  we’ve received in the last few weeks since we provided an overview of the master plan at  the June WRAB meeting.  1 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 285 Packet Page 403 of 489 Outreach and Project Prioritization Details •Provide an example of how  the metrics are applied •Which projects will be  prioritized with the new  framework? The largest category of feedback received was related to the Project Prioritization tool. We   generally heard that it is credible and aligns with community values, but questions remain  about how it will be used. The WRAB specifically said it would be useful to walk through an  anonymous example to better understand how the tool works. So to do that, we’ll be  taking a look at project A from the master plan and its associated equity score. 2 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 286 Packet Page 404 of 489 Project Priority Using Benefit/Cost Ratio Priority Using Prioritization Framework Project D 21 Project E2 32 Project A 63 Project B 14 Project C 45 Project E1 56 Ranking – Prioritization Framework versus Benefit/Cost ratio As a reminder, when we met last month we saw that Project A moved from last to third in  terms of priority when using the Project Prioritization Framework versus solely using a  Benefit / Cost ratio  analysis.  3 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 287 Packet Page 405 of 489 Outreach and How are the metrics applied? Project Prioritization Score 0.50 0.49 0.43 0.41 0.32 0.29 Here is Project A again among the other projects with the values for each criterion  displayed as a part of the total score on the graph. We’re  going to walk through an example  of how one of these numbers was calculated. For this exercise, we’ll focus on the blue bar  with the heavy black outline, which represents the equity score. An important thing to  remember as we walk though the process is that these are comparative scores versus  actual scores. This approach works to magnify the difference between projects and more  clearly display how each factor contributes to the final ranked order of projects. 4 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 288 Packet Page 406 of 489 Gather raw scores Social Vulnerability Index Score from CDC and Floodplain Overlay So, how do we get the equity score? First, we gather raw data associated with the  identified metric for each criterion. The equity score uses the Social Vulnerability Index  score, which is calculated by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention using Census  data. We  then overlay the floodplain delineation and calculate an area weighted average  for each project.  5 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 289 Packet Page 407 of 489 Gather raw scores Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) Score from CDC and Floodplain Overlay Here you see a raw SVI score for each project using that CDC and floodplain data we just  saw. For reference, SVI scores range 0 to 1 ‐1 being the most vulnerable. Project A received  the highest SVI score of 0.5. Note: these are estimated values. Weighted  area averages will be calculated as part of  project prioritization tool implementation. 6 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 290 Packet Page 408 of 489 Raw Project Score Scaled Project Score Scale Data We  then scale the raw data so that the highest raw data value equals 1 and apply that same  multiplier to the other projects to get scaled scores so we can compare them to one  another. Again, this approach works because we want comparative values versus actual  values so we can better see the differences between projects. And you cannot, for  example, compare number of houses removed from the floodplain to project cost unless  you get those metrics on the same scale.  7 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 291 Packet Page 409 of 489 Weighted Criterion Score Project Prioritization Score for Equity Criterion Prioritization Criteria Weighting Ability to Implement: 7% Cost: 10% Effectiveness: 20% Environmental/Cultural Resources: 11% Equity: 18% Life Safety: 29% Multiple Benefits: 5% Finally, the scaled score is multiplied by the weighted value for that criterion that was  informed by the dotstorming exercise we did late last fall to determine the final project  prioritization score. In the case of equity, the scaled score of 1 is multiplied by the 18%  allotted to the equity criterion.   8 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 292 Packet Page 410 of 489 Outreach and Final Project Prioritization Score Project Prioritization Score 0.50 0.49 0.43 0.41 0.32 0.29 Here is that Project A equity score again as a component of the final project score and you  can see the full 18% in the blue bar. The process I just described is repeated for each of the  criterion and their associated metrics, which are described in detail in Chapter 10 of  Volume  II, and include things such as road level of service or number of structures removed  from the 100 year floodplain, and so on.  9 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 293 Packet Page 411 of 489 Project A Scoring Weight Criteria Weight Subcriteria Weight Sub-Subcriteria Raw Score Scaled Score Weighted Score Criteria Score 50%Difficult 0.00 0.000 50%30.500.018 60% $ 18,200,000 0.55 0.033 40% $ 2,480,850 0.55 0.022 60%Reduce Physical Damage 82 0.19 0.019 40%Reduce Economic Loss 22.30 0.00 0.000 20%95%0.95 0.038 75%Protect Existing Natural Features -0.50 0.90 0.052 25% Restore or Reclaim Natural Features 0.60 0.13 0.003 30%00.000.000 18%Equity 100%0.50 1.00 0.180 0.180 60% Critical Facilities Removed from HHZ 00.000.000 40% Critical Facilities Removed from 500- Yr floodplain 20.500.023 40%00.000.000 20%20,384 0.48 0.028 5%Multiple Benefits 100%20.330.0170.017 Total Score:0.432 Multiple Benefits 0.018 0.055 0.057 0.055 0.051 Social Vulnerability 29%Life Safety 40%Protect Critical Facilities Remove Residential Structures from HHZ Road Level of Service 20%Effectiveness 80%Protect Property Level of Service 11%Environmental/Cultural Resources 70% Protection/ Restoration of Environmental Resources Protect Cultural Resources 7%Ability to Implement Constraints Community Support 10%Cost Capital Cost O&M Cost I know this is a busy slide, but wanted to show what the detailed version looks like with  specific Project A metrics applied to the overall framework. Again, you’ll see the total  equity score of 18% associated with this project highlighted in red. If we were to walk  through each of the criteria on this slide, this would be a 45 minute or more presentation so we’ve highlighted one criterion for the sake of efficiency. However, the approach,  including the weighting and the sub‐weighting are held constant from project to project.  I just have a few more slides and then I am happy to answer questions about any of this.  10 Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 294 Packet Page 412 of 489 2022 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan bouldercolorado.gov Attachment B - CFS Master Plan Vol II Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance Page 295 Packet Page 413 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 15, 2022 Addendum to Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance As discussed on page 3 of the Item 5A - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Acceptance, Planning Board recommended council acceptance of the CFS and approval of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Summary language. Such language is being added to an addendum to Item 5A and reads as follows: Stormwater and Flood Management Utility The Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan, adopted in 2022, provides the policy framework for implementing programs and projects in the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. The purpose of this Master Plan is to improve the management of stormwater and drainageways to help protect people, places, property and ecosystems in a way that builds resilience and is consistent with community values. This update was informed by community input, lessons learned from the 2013 flood, Boulder’s Racial Equity Plan and the increasing evidence of climate change, among other considerations. It outlines a long-term vision for how to complete major projects and recommends guidelines and standards for carrying out day-to-day operations of the Utility. Key Outcomes and Recommendations include: •Prioritize Projects to do the greatest good first; •Provide services equitably; •Make infrastructure resilient to climate change; •Prepare for the extremes; •Inform the community to create a prepared community; •Maintain the system we have; and, •Adequately Fund the Program. Item 5A - Addendum, CFS Master Plan Acceptance Page 1 Packet Page 414 of 489 In consideration of the BVCP summary language, the motion language is hereby requested to read as follows: Updated Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the updated Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan (CFS) and approve the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan Summary. Item 5A - Addendum, CFS Master Plan Acceptance Page 2 Packet Page 415 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M West Pearl Update P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C ris J ones, Interim Director of Community Vitality AT TAC H ME N T S: Description tem 6A - West P earl Update Packet Page 416 of 489 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 15, 2022 AGENDA TITLE West Pearl Update PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Alison Rhodes, Director of Parks & Recreation Mark Davison, Parks and Recreation, Senior Planning Manager Cris Jones, Interim Director of Community Vitality Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director of Transportation & Mobility Devin Joslin, Civil Engineering Senior Manager Edward Stafford, Civil Engineering Senior Manager Kathleen King, City Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Teresa Pinkal, Community Vitality Senior Manager Reegan Brown, Community Vitality Senior Project Manager Chelsea Sullivan, Community Vitality Project Analyst EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This memo provides context for council’s Sept. 15, 2022, discussion regarding the planned end of the COVID-19 related temporary vehicle closure of west Pearl Street and next steps regarding exploration of street repurposing and its relationship to current and Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 1 Packet Page 417 of 489 upcoming planning processes such as the Downtown Boulder Partnership’s Downtown Vision Plan and various city-led planning initiatives in and around the downtown area. KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED Boulder and its downtown have benefited from a long and rich history of thoughtful and intentional planning efforts that have slowly and methodically shaped the community into the city it is today. The COVID-19 pandemic, conversely, necessitated urgent and decisive actions in order to respond to and recover from a rapidly evolving emergency that has had, and continues to have, profound impacts on our community, our downtown, and businesses in general. Among the many urgent actions that were pursued by the City of Boulder at the height of the pandemic, the closure of west Pearl Street from 9th to 11th streets, remains as one of the remaining, most visible, and impactful temporary actions taken by the city to respond to and recover from the effects of the pandemic. At its April 19, 2022, council meeting, staff received mixed feedback on whether and how to maintain west Pearl Street open to pedestrian traffic as the expiration of emergency orders drew near. At least five council members expressed a desire to find a path by which west Pearl Street could remain closed to traffic in the future (either on a permanent or a seasonal basis), though others expressed concerns about the business and equity impacts of such a permanent closure. Staff agreed to continue looking at this issue once they finished work on the outdoor dining pilot program and would come back to City Council with additional information in response to the initial feedback they received to see how and if the council body wanted to consider adding the permanent closure of west Pearl to staff’s workplan in the future. Now, with all related emergency orders having ended as of Aug. 31, 2022, staff is working to return to the practice of pursuing thoughtful and intentional planning efforts to reimagine and shape the future of the community. In addition to the pandemic related health benefits, staff recognize the transportation and climate related livability benefits of having the street closed to vehicles during this time. At this time, in consideration of challenges related to economic vitality, safety, accessibility, equity, and operations, staff again is seeking council direction regarding the desired state of west Pearl Street while staff and city partners pursue various planning processes that will help inform near- and long-term possibilities for transformation in the downtown and civic areas. Questions for Council 1. In consideration of the planned end of the COVID -19 related temporary closure of west Pearl Street, does council support the staff recommendation to begin a new workplan item to pursue a West End Multimodal Analysis, to inform possible options for future reconfiguration of streets in the west end of Pearl area? 2. Does council have questions regarding the current and upcoming planning processes that will help inform the near- and long-term possibilities for west Pearl Street and other areas in and around the downtown area? Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 2 Packet Page 418 of 489 STAFF RECOMMENDATION With the expiration of Covid-19 emergency orders and given the existing safety and equity concerns, in addition to the lack of support from the immediately impacted businesses in this area, staff from Community Vitality, Transportation and Mobility and Planning and Development Services recommend that we both discontinue the Covid-19 related temporary closure of west Pearl Street between 9th and 11th streets to vehicle traffic in as timely a manner as possible AND work with various stakeholders to pursue planning processes that will help inform near- and long-term possibilities for transformation in the downtown and civic areas that could include a permanent closure of west Pearl or possibly other city streets in downtown and across the city in the future. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE N/A BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Staff will have presented this agenda item to both the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and the Downtown Management Commission (DMC) immediately in advance of the Sept. 15 council meeting but not before agenda materials are due. Any relevant feedback received from TAB and/or DMC will be shared during the formal council meeting on Sept. 15. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Several questionnaires and surveys have been performed by the city and its partners related to the COVID-19 pandemic, its effects on the local economy, and public perception of various actions and interventions taken by the city. While council members indicated at their April 19, 2022 meeting that additional community-wide engagement, including use of the Racial Equity Instrument, is needed to better inform decisions around the future of west Pearl Street, staff has not yet been able to pursue any official work plan effort that has included formal and robust public outreach and engagement related to the closure of west Pearl Street. One targeted survey of businesses located within the west Pearl Street closure area was performed by Community Vitality staff between March 24 and April 4, 2022. Results from that survey were shared with council in their April 19, 2022 meeting packet. Additional community engagement will be incorporated into future planning efforts regarding access and mobility in the downtown including the west end multimodal analysis. BACKGROUND In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the city quickly formed the Boulder Business Response and Recovery Alliance (BBRRA) in partnership with the Boulder Chamber, the Latino Chamber of Commerce, the Boulder Convention & Visitors Bureau, the Small Business Development Center and the Downtown Boulder Partnership. Some of the early action items identified by the BBRRA and implemented by the city in response to reduced occupancy rules for businesses and social distancing requirements, included the temporary outdoor expansion program for businesses and the temporary closures of the West End (west Pearl Street from 9th to 11th streets) in the downtown and the University Hill Event Street (Pennsylvania Avenue from the 1200 block alley to 13th Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 3 Packet Page 419 of 489 Street). The street closures allowed for maximum seating expansion outside for restaurants in those areas. Transportation & Mobility also implemented Shared Streets at six locations across the city in 2020. Through that process, we found that Shared Streets required significant staff time and funding to implement and operate, even when piloted for short periods of time, without a significant increase in pedestrian/cycling utilization. As a result, with the Transportation Advisory Board’s support, staff decided not to continue with a Shared Streets Program to focus those resources on other prioritized projects and programs. West Pearl Street officially closed to vehicle traffic on May 28, 2020 and has remained closed to vehicles for the duration of the pandemic. In addition to the pandemic related health benefits of outdoor dining along west Pearl, staff recognize the transportation and climate related livability benefits of having the street closed to vehicles during this time. Many people enjoyed having the ability to more comfortably walk and bike along this segment of Pearl Street without the need to consider potential conflicts with vehicles coming and going from the corridor. Having the space activated with people walking, biking, and dining made for a welcoming and attractive space especially during the warmer spring and summer months. While the closure was initially implemented to benefit West End businesses during the height of the pandemic restrictions, as reduced occupancy and social distancing requirements have subsided, the perceived benefits of having the additional space to operate have become less important to restaurants that now report struggling with staffing shortages, kitchen capacity limitations, and general business accessibility issues. Consequently, as restaurants have been transitioning from the free temporary outdoor expansion program to the five-year Outdoor Dining Pilot Program, several have elected to discontinue their outdoor expansions on west Pearl Street while also expressing a desire to reopen the street to vehicle traffic. Now, with restaurants having either removed their outdoor dining expansions entirely or reduced their footprints out of designated travel lanes, the city can opt to safely reopen west Pearl Street to vehicle traffic while also pursuing and/or participating in various planning initiatives that will inform near- and long-term possibilities for transformation throughout the downtown and surrounding areas. Each of the following current and anticipated planning efforts will incorporate a traditional approach to ensure thorough data collection and measurement, thoughtful development and analysis of options, robust and inclusive community engagement, and a comprehensive implementation strategy. The various current and anticipated planning efforts are outlined below. West End Multimodal Analysis In the near-term, to inform future access and mobility of West Pearl,Transportation and Mobility, with support from Community Vitality, will pursuean analysis and policy discussion to address city street repurposing throughengagement with the community and related city departments. In 2023, a high-level study of the west Pearl Street closure, West End Multimodal Analysis, isplanned to be completed. The goal of the West End Multimodal Analysis is toconsider future options and quantify the transportation operations and Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 4 Packet Page 420 of 489 maintenance impacts of the closure on overall downtown multimodal circulation patterns, particularly along Walnut, Spruce, 9th, 10th, and 11th streets, and Broadway, compared to pre-pandemic conditions. The study will analyze the following information at key downtown intersections: street widths, lane configurations, daily and peak hour traffic volumes; crash data; transit routes, stop locations, and boarding/alighting data; changes to snowplow and street sweeping routes and snow storage areas; access to loading zones and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces; and staff time and costs associated with maintaining and inspecting traffic control devices associated with the closure. Transportation and Mobility staff collected vehicle traffic data on surrounding streets during the closure in order to be able to compare and analyze the effect of the closure as part of this analysis. The study will explore the multimodal impacts of various options for a west Pearl Street closure or reconfiguration, including alternatives such as seasonal or weekend closures. The study will consider input from community members across the city and provide a thoughtful process for when, why, and how to consider potential future closures or reconfigurations of west Pearl Street. With current resources, this work item can begin in early 2023, with recommendations available for consideration and implementation by summer 2023. Downtown Boulder Vision Plan As the community emerges and adapts to significant social, cultural, and environmental changes ahead of the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Street Mall in 2027, the Downtown Boulder Partnership began a thoughtful process to reveal a collectively derived vision for downtown Boulder in May 2022. This five-year vision plan will act as a reference point for strategic partners and inform policy and resource decisions for the Downtown Boulder Partnership (DBP). Beginning in April and running through September 2022, DBP and MIG, Inc. (the project’s competitively selected consulting firm) have hosted several community engagement efforts to collect feedback. These efforts include focus groups with downtown employees, University of Colorado-Boulder staff, arts and events organizations, and regional residents; a stakeholder charrette with community leaders; a Be Heard Boulder community survey (in partnership with the City of Boulder); and pop-up intercept sessions at various existing events, recreation centers, and community hubs around the greater Boulder area. Drawing from stakeholder input, public engagement, existing studies/city frameworks, and global/regional trends, the five-year Downtown Boulder Vision Plan aims to reveal findings and proposals in a publicly available document that will be drafted and distributed in October 2022. The Vision Plan document will highlight opportunities and proposals specific to economic vitality; downtown identity and branding; future potential public enhancements; programming and placemaking; equity, diversity, and inclusion; climate resiliency; access and physical connectivity; and proposed funding/management structures. Additional desired outcomes may include dynamic, ongoing public engagement and a system of metrics to track implementation progress. Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 5 Packet Page 421 of 489 Pearl Street Revitalization The Pearl Street revitalization is to ensure that the Pearl Street Mall is poised for another 50 years of supporting community vibrancy at its 50th anniversary in 2027. The project has $4 million from Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety (CCRS) tax funding to design and implement the changes. The design phase of this project is set to kick off in 2024 with construction beginning in 2026. Downtown Mobility Study Downtown Mobility Study was identified as a project in the Core ArterialNetwork (CAN) concept, which is one of City Council’s top priorities to addresssafe, comfortable, and convenient connections for people to get where they needto go. The Downtown Mobility Study will consider multimodal connections andaccess throughout the downtown and in connection to other activity centers inBoulder. This study is currently slated to begin in mid-2024 dependent on staffingand funding. There is no funding currently identified for the Downtown MobilityStudy. Civic Area Master Plan Implementation The Civic Area is the largest publicly owned space in the heart of Boulder, andthe master plan outlines a framework “that allows Boulder to maintain a sense ofplace in the heart of the city while positioning the area to be a model of futureinnovation.” Eight million dollars of CCRS funding has been allocated to thisproject. In planning for the next phase of the Civic Area implementation plan aretwo projects; The East End: Food and Innovation (13th & 14th Street Block)project and the Central Park Refurbishment. In addition, there is considerationbeing given to a pedestrian friendly 13th Street connector between Pearl Street andthe Civic Area and how that can be integrated into this phase of master planimplementation for the Civic Area. The design phase of the project is scheduled tobegin in 2023 and construction in 2025. Measurements of a successful projectwould be in alignment with the Civic Area Master Plan and its guiding principles.Support from appropriate stakeholder groups, including advisory boards andcommissions, and City Council as well as collaborative partnerships with localbusiness owners. ANALYSIS The west Pearl Street area has remained closed to vehicle traffic throughout much of the pandemic. To help analyze the impact of the west Pearl Street closure, staff completed a survey to specifically target West End businesses to understand their experience and evaluate support of a continued closure. Staff also evaluated the closure against five primary considerations, including economic vitality, safety, accessibility, equity, and operations. Concerns identified within these areas of consideration are outlined below. Staff will further analyze these impacts as part of the West End Multimodal Analysis in 2023. Economic Vitality In the early days of the pandemic, economic vitality concerns and considerations largely drove the decisions that led to a variety of actions taken by the city to Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 6 Packet Page 422 of 489 support the business community. With the effects of the pandemic now passing, it is important to consider how the pandemic and the temporary closure of west Pearl Street affected West End businesses. To that end, staff completed a West Pearl Business Survey in March and April of 2022 to determine business perceptions of the closure. While some businesses reported increased foot traffic and more activity in the area, others reported increased parking challenges and decreased visibility and access to their businesses as illustrated in Figure 1. FIGURE 1: FACTORS EXPERIENCED BY BUSINESSES DURING TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF WEST PEARL In May 2022, The Downtown Boulder Partnership completed a west Pearl Street survey to determine business sentiment regarding the road closure. A majority (43%) of respondents, 53% of which represented businesses in the west end district, were supportive of a permanment reopening, while 37% expressed interest in a permanent closure. Staff further analyzed sales tax performance for eating places on west Pearl Street as a percent of 2019 sales tax receipts. In 2021, sales tax receipts from eating places on west Pearl Street were at 59% of what they had been in 2019 versus 84% for all of downtown and 88% citywide as shown in Figure 2. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Increased foot traffic More activity in area Increased sales Increased parking challenges Decreased visibility or access to business More traffic congestion Less foot traffic Decrease in sales Restaurants Retailers Other Businesses Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 7 Packet Page 423 of 489 FIGURE 2: EATING PLACES SALES TAX AS A PERCENT OF 2019 SALES TAX In a position statement supporting the reopening of west Pearl Street by the Downtown Boulder Partnership (ATTACHMENT A), the organization emphasized that “the criteria for success of repurposing any street in the public right-of-way within a commercial district, needs to be measured by the revenue of the impacted businesses. As obvious as that assertion might be, it cannot be overstated. Based on the data available to date, the West End street closure has not been a success.” DBP is committed to supporting opportunities for repurposing streets that would enhance economic vitality. Safety Safety considerations related to the west Pearl Street closure include emergency vehicle access, use of motorcycles and scooters within the boundaries of the closure, and general mobility through the area. Currently, concrete barriers at 9th and 11th streets restrict emergency vehicles to one access point on 10th Street where barriers are movable. Staff have witnessed motorcycles and motorized scooters being used and parked within the boundaries of the closure. Lastly, it is important to note that traffic flows built around the original vision for Pearl Street Mall included vehicular access through the west Pearl Street corridor. The closure has created challenges with directional traffic flow, including drop-offs occurring in inconsistent areas and parked cars frequently located at 9th and Pearl streets and 11th and Pearl streets. Accessibility Accessibility considerations include ADA compliance, access to loading zones, micromobility, and emergency vehicle access. People with disabilities who use vehicles and desire curbside parking directly in front of their destination must find alternatives to access preferred destinations within the closure or avoid the area altogether. Furthermore, the closure poses limited access to loading zones, micromobility pick-up and drop-off locations, and challenges with emergency 2019 2020 2021 West Pearl 100%43%59% Downtown (incl W Pearl)100%53%84% East Downtown 100%100%142% Pearl Street Mall 100%49%95% Total Boulder 100%64%88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% Eating Places Sales Tax as a Percent of 2019 Sales Tax Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 8 Packet Page 424 of 489 vehicle access. Reopening Pearl Street between 9th and 11th streets would reestablish access to six handicapped parking spaces (two along Pearl Street and four along 10th Street). Options to reconfigure 10th Street to enhance accessibility will be explored as part of the West End Multimodal Analysis. Equity In terms of equity, the West End closure has created an inconsistent playing field for different business types. In particular, restaurants that built their business model around a fast-casual dining experience report that they have struggled to provide the same level of service during the closure period. Those who have created a sit-down dining model have been less impacted since the onset of the closure. Furthermore, restaurants with access to more capital resources have been able to expand their footprints significantly with more elaborate structures and required fencing than those with more limited resources. In addition to equity concerns among businesses directly in the corridor, there are also geographic equity considerations that staff may need to consider as part of a more holistic and comprehensive planning process to consider opportunities for increased shared or open streets that could benefit additional city neighborhoods and businesses across the city. Operations Key considerations related to city operations include snow removal, street sweeping, access to public and private utilities, HOP bus routing and other general maintenance that may be needed within the boundaries of the closure. Similar to challenges outlined above under ‘Safety,’ concrete barriers would need to be removed for the city to effectively maintain the area within the closure. The outdoor dining pilot program infrastructure has been selected to be temporary and easily movable if utilities or other assets within the public right of way need to be accessed or cleaned. The existing concrete barriers can be removed to reopen the street with advance planning (approximately one week notice). In addition, the temporary closure required modifications to the traffic signal operations at the Pearl Street intersections with 9th and 11th streets, such as deactivating left turn phases, bagging signal heads, and reallocating time for vehicular phases not in use to pedestrian crossing time. Changes to the traffic signals can be accomplished with advance planning (approximately one week notice). Furthermore, the HOP bus route was rerouted from the section of Pearl Street between 9th and 11th streets and from the section of Pearl Street between 15th and 20th streets to support the outdoor dining pilot program. Returning the HOP to Pearl Street routing allows for more direct access to downtown for riders, bus operations to be bi-directional along Pearl, and the availability of permanent and accessible bus stops. Rerouting the HOP will require 14 days of advance notice to coordinate bus operations and customer messaging with Via Mobility Services, the operator of the HOP. If a future permanent closure of the West End is implemented, it would require new permanent bus stops, parking changes, and Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 9 Packet Page 425 of 489 street treatments to best support passenger access and bus operations along Walnut Street. NEXT STEPS End the temporary closure of west Pearl Street by Sept. 30, 2022, and, pending a City Council nod of five in the affirmative, add consideration of a permanent closure to staff’s 2023 workplan. Continued collaboration with the Downtown Boulder Partnership on the development of their Downtown Vision Plan and its associated proposals. Continued scope development of upcoming city-led planning initiatives related to possible transformations in and around the downtown area. Formalize West End Multimodal Analysis as part of the Department of Transportation and Mobility’s 2023 Work Plan with support from the Community Vitality Department. Attachments Attachment A: Downtown Boulder Partnership – West End Position Attachment B: Transportation Advisory Board Letter Attachment C: Downtown Management Commission Letter Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 10 Packet Page 426 of 489 The Downtown Boulder Partnership (DBP) supports reopening West Pearl Street (between 9th and 11th streets) to vehicular access as soon as possible, while continuing to consider options to repurpose streets and public spaces throughout the downtown district. The City of Boulder’s swift response to COVID-19 impacts in 2020 included initiatives that provided much needed support for businesses, such as outdoor dining expansions and the temporary closure of Pearl Street between 9th and 11th streets. As we move forward in the recovery process, DBP and the impacted businesses thank City Council for their unanimous support of the 5-year pilot program to continue outdoor dining opportunities throughout the city. While the outdoor dining pilot provides the opportunity for establishments to opt-in to participate, the temporary closure of the West End does not provide any opt-in options to the West End business community - who are essential for the district's continued success. Many of these businesses have expressed that should the temporary closure be extended past this summer, it will continue to be detrimental to their operations as they continue post-pandemic recovery efforts. Representing the best interests of our membership base, DBP would like the temporary closure to be lifted while the city looks to better understand the mitigating impacts of various scenarios over the course of the next several months.. Altering the circulation of vehicular traffic, as well as parking impacts on West End accessibility without sufficient study could not only continue to negatively affect West End businesses, but potentially undermine the intentional design of the four block pedestrian mall and the surrounding commercial district. DBP’s stance on this position comes after soliciting extensive input with impacted businesses on the West End, in addition to sales tax analysis comparing West End business recovery with city-wide levels, and consultation with urban design and walkability experts. As emergency orders expire, the Downtown Boulder Partnership, in collaboration with the City of Boulder, is currently exploring public space enhancement opportunities in the downtown district as part of the development of a 5-year Downtown Vision Plan. Learning from pandemic responses, best practices, community input and existing studies, the visioning process is exploring potential long term options for the West End, including but not limited to a seasonal or flexible street closure. Other potential street repurposing opportunities throughout the downtown will also be considered as part of the visioning process, which will include broad community input. The Downtown Vision Plan will be shared publicly in the fall of 2022. Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 11 Attachment A- Downtown Boulder Partnership - West End Position Packet Page 427 of 489 Walkability Downtown Boulder has enjoyed a legacy as one of the more pedestrian-friendly downtowns in the country, with the Pearl Street Mall as the centerpiece. This acclaim is no accident. Those assembled for the design and implementation of the Pearl Street Mall nearly a half a century ago conducted years of study and took into consideration a multitude of factors including the ideal length of the mall, the vehicular circulation and proximity of parking. The point is not that what was studied then is necessarily still fully relevant, but rather that the design was studied thoughtfully and extensively. Economic Vitality Prior to the pandemic, the West End of Pearl Street, beginning at 11th Street and continuing to the west, was by many measures among the most successful few blocks, commercially and socially, in Boulder. The vibrancy experienced in this micro district was due to many factors including the adjacency and the contrast to the Pearl Street Mall. Since the closing of the street on West Pearl, Sales tax revenues have lagged, relative to other commercial areas within the city. In an interview with Urban Planner and author of the acclaimed book Walkable City, Jeff Speck asserted to DBP staff that the criteria for success of repurposing any street in the public right-of-way within a commercial district, needs to be measured by the revenue of the impacted businesses. As obvious as that assertion might be, it can not be overstated. Based on the data available to date, the West End street closure has not been a success. DBP is committed to supporting opportunities for repurposing streets that would enhance economic vitality. Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 12 Attachment A- Downtown Boulder Partnership - West End Position Packet Page 428 of 489 TO:All Boulder City Council Members FROM: All Boulder Transportation Advisory Board Members (TAB) DATE: September 14, 2022 SUBJECT: TAB Recommends Not To Open West Pearl to Cars Dear City Council Members, Staff made recommendations on West Pearl Street in its September 12, 2022 memo to TAB,West Pearl Update. The memo suggests reopening West Pearl to cars. We agree with memo’s sentiment about looking towards a more multimodal orientation downtown long-term, and towards that, believe an alternate course would serve the city better in the near term. We offer a few observations and three recommendations for your consideration. Observation: The data provided does not make the case for returning cars to West Pearl. From the survey of local businesses sent by email from Cris Jones to Hotline on September 12, 2022, we learned: ●More than 60% of all businesses want some form of vehicle closure on the west end, and 44% want it to be permanent ●More than 50% of West End businesses want some form of closure on the west end ●About 65% said not to open to vehicles now; either leave streets closed until a final decision is made or until Oct 31 Of the 60 written comments, about 25 are favorable to keeping West Pearl closed to cars, while 20 were supportive of reopening to cars. Around 15 were not decisive. The sales tax revenue data shared with TAB did not demonstrate any relationship between car access and sales tax revenue along Pearl Street. We do not know how West Pearl compares to “like” streets which also previously had cars, we do not know the sample size of the study nor the composition of the businesses analyzed, and the study does not control for the exodus of workers in local buildings (e.g. changes with the Daily Camera). Furthermore, the sales tax data conflicts with the survey data showing increased sales. We do know from data that Community Vitality shared with TAB in April that downtown Boulder has an oversupply of parking, with some public garages sitting more than half-empty. That study ranked private vehicle storage as the least desired use of curb space downtown in public feedback. When considered alongside national studies that show businesses can benefit by being more accessible to people walking and bicycling, the local data fails to justify reopening West Pearl to cars. Observation: The proposed decision to return cars to West Pearl moves the city’s stated transportation goals further out of reach. The main reason cited in staff’s memo to return cars to West Pearl is perceived negative impact on business revenue, which is not demonstrated by the data. (It also includes matters that could be resolved through tactical improvements such as more permanent infrastructure to accommodate emergency vehicle access, access for people with ability impairments, parking for low-wage workers, and traffic operations, but these are imminently workable.) Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 13 Attachment B - Transportation Advisory Board Letter Packet Page 429 of 489 Regardless, business revenue should not be the controlling consideration: It is relevant, but it needs to be weighed against other factors. According to Boulder’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP), “Improving transportation safety is a top priority of the City of Boulder,” a statement reinforced by the Council's prior commitment to Vision Zero. West Pearl will be less safe with cars returned, and will not meet national best practices for multimodal street design based on factors like car volume and curbside activity. Returning cars to West Pearl will not support any other TMP goals either–it will not ensure equity for people who do not drive, it will not prioritize the pedestrian, it will not reduce emissions or reduce congestion, and it won’t bring new or innovative transportation options to downtown. The car-free space of West Pearl is implicitly associated with the Connected Arterial Network (CAN), a Council priority initiated in December 2021 when it told staff to “be bold” and expect Council support. Removing car-free spaces that symbolize a renewed commitment to Vision Zero, mode shift, and climate action risks reverting to a prior way of planning and executing transportation projects that have left Boulder behind the pace needed to achieve our 2030 goals. Observation: West Pearl has sparked a new conversation around the untapped potential for our public streets and spaces. While the vehicle closure was originally prompted by an emergency order, the public space of West Pearl has since become a significant feature of Boulder’s transportation system and culture. It is a community gathering place that supports the city’s movement towards modal shift, reducing vehicle miles traveled, improving safety, and propelling climate action through building a wider ecosystem and culture of car-lite living. And it is a space that invites people of many demographics--shoppers and otherwise--to enjoy a wider public sphere where human interactions replace car congestion. We have heard overwhelmingly in public comments that car-free West Pearl is a breath of life for Boulder and residents hope the city will further develop such spaces. More broadly, car-free West Pearl has created citywide expectations about what Boulder can and should do with its public spaces, a conversation TAB is excited to continue to engage in alongside council and staff. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS While the decision to sunset the emergency order has been made, we have options for managing the transition. Options include keeping the space car-free and in a consistent form unless a holistic, evidence-based decision is made pointing to an alternative. This option has support from businesses, it averts the risk of bringing cars back only to reverse the decision following more comprehensive analysis, and agrees with survey data. TAB supports this option because it continues forward momentum, creates the most flexibility, and takes the city towards its goals. Missing from the proposal is discussion on crucial considerations such as interpretation of equity, scope of TMP priorities, and weight given to feedback from the community at large versus a subset of local businesses. These considerations concern values of the kind Council should guide. TAB proposes the following: Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 14 Attachment B - Transportation Advisory Board Letter Packet Page 430 of 489 #1. Do not open West Pearl to cars until we have clear direction about our plan for car-free spaces in the downtown core.When Council adopted CAN as a work item, Council discussed the need to provide a steadier signal regarding the future of our multimodal system. After the past two tumultuous years of the pandemic, reintroducing cars while leaving uncertainty about the street’s future threatens to create whiplash for West Pearl businesses and the wider community. Returning to business stakeholders in the future to propose yet another major change with traffic operations would be even more difficult and place staff in an impossible position. As such, bringing back cars now needs to be understood as a decision that brings weighty finality, not a simple product of administrative pre-programming set two years ago. Given the project’s broad public support and safety benefits, the best investment is to continue providing a car-free space until future plans for the downtown are clear. #2. Use this opportunity to recommit to more car-free and car-lite spaces in Boulder.There is resounding public support for more car-lite and car-free neighborhoods. Meet this demand by encouraging the city to invest even more in ways to cultivate multimodal travel options, while scrutinizing how we subsidize driving through our parking and other policies. We should take advantage of what we’ve learned and how we can apply it more broadly, in both the town core and other neighborhoods throughout Boulder. COVID gave us the chance to be nimble and try things we had been wanting to do for years, let’s not squander that opportunity which peer cities are taking advantage of. #3. Encourage all of the city’s departments that make transportation policy, especially Community Vitality, to meaningfully include TAB in decisions that concern parking and transportation matters, per city code section 2-3-14. - Transportation Advisory Board .The decision about West Pearl Street bears on several matters within TAB’s purview including parking, neighborhood traffic mitigation, the city’s modal shift goal, and the Transportation Master Plan, yet TAB has struggled to find opportunities to give input on West Pearl. TAB supports implementing people-centric streets throughout the city and produced a separate report to Council in June 2020, which ultimately was not put to use yet could have helpfully informed this situation. As city code directs TAB to advise City Council, the city manager, and Planning Board on parking and related transportation matters, we recommend that Council provide enhanced direction about its desired involvement by TAB in the proceedings of Community Vitality and other departments that make parking and other transportation policy going forward. We stand ready to work with you and City staff to continue to make West Pearl, the wider town core, and all of Boulder the best they can be through strategic and thoughtful use of our shared public streets. Sincerely, Rebecca Davies, Transportation Advisory Board Tila Duhaime, Transportation Advisory Board Ryan Schuchard, Transportation Advisory Board Alex Weinheimer, Transportation Advisory Board Triny Willerton, Transportation Advisory Board Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 15 Attachment B - Transportation Advisory Board Letter Packet Page 431 of 489 September 13, 2022 Re: West Pearl Street Reopening Dear Mayor Brockett and members of City Council, The Downtown Management Commission (DMC) supports reopening West Pearl Street between 9th and 11th streets to vehicular access by the end of October 2022, while continuing to consider a summer reconfiguration and other long-term options to repurpose streets and public spaces throughout the Downtown district. The DMC supports the multimodal analysis in the short term to learn how sales taxes evolve with the opening. The DMC also supports a flexible approach that reconfiguration is possible. Additional study and input from the public, businesses, and other stakeholders is needed. As some background, during the past few DMC meetings, presentations indicated the closure of West Pearl Street has had a negative effect on the economic health of the businesses there, specifically during the winter months when restaurant patrons are less likely to dine outdoors. Analyzing related tax revenue since closing West Pearl Street, businesses in the immediate area have shown a lag compared to other sectors. The snapshot of a closed, empty street during the weekdays, during extremely hot days, and during the winter takes away from the image of a vibrant downtown Boulder. Based on what we have been hearing and discussing in our meetings, reopening West Pearl Street should provide increases in access, parking, and revenue for the city and related businesses. The walking mall was designed to be closed, and the West End has been shoehorned into being closed, and it is presenting issues. Additional study is needed. As the street reopens, the public perception of walkability may decrease, and the reclamation of parking and the street itself will add accessibility to West Pearl businesses for handicapped, visiting, and driving persons. Reopening West Pearl Street will allow business owners, city workers, and residents to more accurately assess the impacts of any further seasonal closures or future proposals. The members of the Downtown Management Commission believe reopening West Pearl Street by the end of October is a necessary step to ensure the success of this micro-district. If presented to the public as a decision for the winter season, we believe the public will support the reopening. Sincerely, Downtown Management Commission (DMC) Don Poe, Chair Stephanie Trees, Vice-Chair Susan Nuzum Justin Kalvin Downtown Management Commission Item 6A West Pearl Update Page 16 Attachment C - Downtown Management Commission Letter Packet Page 432 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M 2022 C ounty & Boulder Valley School District Ballot Measures P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T N A AT TAC H ME N T S: Description No Attachments Available Packet Page 433 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M Response to Open C omment on Psilocybin P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T N A AT TAC H ME N T S: Description No Attachments Available Packet Page 434 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 I N F O RMAT I ON I T E M Snow and Ice Control Update P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Scott Schlecht, Transportation Maintenance Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I nformation I tem: Snow and I ce Control Update Packet Page 435 of 489 INFORMATION ITEM MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility Scott Schlecht, Transportation Maintenance Manager Date: September 15, 2022 Subject: Information Item: Snow and Ice Control Program Annual Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This memorandum provides City Council with an overview of the Transportation & Mobility Snow and Ice Control Program for the 2022-23 season. The city’s snow and ice control efforts: 1. Support safe travel for all modes during snow events. Snow and ice control is an important element in the city’s focus on travel safety and Vision Zero goals to reduce serious injury and fatal crashes. 2. Focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and safety, in alignment with Transportation Master Plan, Boulder Police Department Master Plan and Boulder Fire Department Master Plan goals. 3.Provide informative and timely communication to community members. This memo summarizes key program goals, provides an overview of 2021-22 operations, a summary of lessons learned for future planning, an introduction to program update efforts, and expectations for the 2022-23 season. FISCAL IMPACT The Snow and Ice Control Program is managed by the Transportation & Mobility Department, with an adopted 2021 budget of $1.72 million. The annual budget is developed each year for predicted average weather patterns and events. One or more Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 1 Packet Page 436 of 489 significant snowfall events, or extenuating circumstances, can increase costs more than those allocations. If additional funding is required, reserves can be allocated through the city’s supplemental appropriations process. In addition to the Transportation budget, the Boulder Police Department accounts for costs involving sidewalk snow removal enforcement. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic: Safe and efficient travel via local streets, sidewalks, multi-use paths and the transit network affects the overall economic health of Boulder. The Snow and Ice Control Program seeks to limit impacts to the economy due to snowstorm events; however, significant events may result in a reduction of economic activity. • Environmental: Snow and ice control operations and sidewalk snow removal efforts support multimodal transportation, which benefits air quality. The Snow and Ice Control Program utilizes pre-treatment, anti-icing and de-icing materials that provide a reduced environmental impact when compared to other products. The street sweeping program seeks to remove and safely dispose of residual de- icing material from all snow routes within 72 hours following a storm event when weather allows. • Social: Snow and ice control operations and sidewalk snow removal efforts support mobility for a diversity of travelers and provides accessibility to employment centers, schools, recreational opportunities and shopping centers. • Racial Equity: Snow and ice control operations provides access to a plowed street within 2-3 blocks of every residential building throughout the city. Additionally, in neighborhoods where the majority of residents park on-street, we have received mixed feedback about whether they want their streets plowed. We will continue to assess how best to handle operations on streets where on-street parking is highly utilized acknowledging the need to balance safety and access. BACKGROUND During snow events, 17 Transportation and Utilities owned plow trucks operate on Boulder streets. Four pairs of trucks plow four primary routes, and nine plow trucks operate on the other nine routes (8 secondary routes and one additional primary route). Primary and secondary plow routes cover approximately 330 lane miles (52.6%). An additional two smaller trucks and a Utility vehicle address the multi-use paths. All snowplows are equipped with Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) technology to provide tracking of vehicle locations and material usage. As current practice and over the past several years, when the forecast calls for more than eight inches of snow or three days of temperatures below freezing, some additional residential streets are plowed as “conditional routes” subject to available staffing and other resources. Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 2 Packet Page 437 of 489 Approximately 164 lane miles (83%) of on-street bike lanes and designated on-street bike routes, and approximately 72 miles (100%) of hard-surface multi-use paths are plowed by Transportation and Mobility and partners including Utilities, Parks and Recreation, University of Colorado- Boulder, Boulder County, Home Owners Associations, and other private entities. The city also has contracts for hand removal of snow and ice that include 204 locations for crosswalks and curb ramps and 39 bus stops. These locations are prioritized based on travel volumes and characteristics of adjacent paths. More information about current routes may be viewed online at https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/snow-and-ice-removal. Anti-icing and De-icing materials The Snow and Ice Removal teams use existing and predicted weather conditions to determine what type of materials should be used and in what locations. For example, staff may pretreat streets before snowfall. This begins with a liquid anti-icing material, which can help reduce the buildup of snow and ice. However, this application is not done if the snowfall is preceded by rain which will dilute the anti-icing materials. In some less severe storms, staff may only pretreat a subset of streets that tend to have more challenging conditions due to factors such as slope and shading. Materials are used to minimize water quality impacts. Materials used include a liquid magnesium chloride solution, Meltdown Apex, which is costlier but less corrosive than traditional formulations of magnesium chloride; a granular material called Ice-Slicer RS, composed of complex chlorides that dissolve over time; and liquid salt brine. Salt brine is a liquid solution containing water and salt (sodium chloride) that aides in reducing the adhesion of snow and ice on road/path surfaces. This is not intended to replace some of our other options, as each material has limits on effectiveness based upon storm conditions. We continue to experience the following benefits of using salt brine: • Expansion of pre-treatment practices, allowing for increased time between the start of a storm and the accumulation of snow and ice accumulation on surfaces. • Reduced water quality impacts, due to the dilution rate of the salt. • Reduction in operational costs based upon lower quantities used resulting in lower material costs. Staff continue to consult with many other Front Range communities to understand their practices and the benefits that they identify in using salt brine. Other agencies using this include Fort Collins, Longmont, Denver, Loveland and the Colorado Department of Transportation. Residents will continue to see pre-treatment activities occur prior to storm events. Trucks will apply the materials prior to storm events to allow for the chlorides to bond to the road and path surfaces. Residents may also see stripes that appear along these areas as the materials dry. Based on TAB feedback from last year, we applied pre-treatment to a section of street that does not receive plowing service. We did not experience an appreciable difference in Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 3 Packet Page 438 of 489 melting, likely due to the material diluting and snowfall continuing well after material effectiveness was diminished. Sweeping Street sweepers travel all snow routes to remove remaining residual de-icing material within 4 days following a storm event as weather allows. Removal of this material, which may otherwise wash into storm drains and/or volatilize into the air, is critical to meet stormwater and air quality regulations. Once again, we met our Agency PM-10 Emissions Reduction level, but fell 5% short of our Denver Regional Council of Governments 2015 commitment of 70% reduction. Sidewalk snow removal City contractors hand-clear certain areas of the Transportation and Mobility–maintained rights of way, including frequently used crosswalks, curb ramps, and bus stops. Additionally, private contractors are responsible for snow removal through or around construction zones during snow events. Transportation and Mobility and other city departments clear sidewalks adjacent to city-owned properties. Transportation and Mobility coordinates with other partners responsible for clearing snow in certain areas of Boulder, including the University of Colorado (CU) and the Regional Transportation District (RTD). Section 8-2-3, B.R.C., 1981 requires that sidewalks adjacent to both residential and commercial properties be cleared of snow and ice no later than 24 hours after snowfall stops. Property owners, tenants and property managers can each be held responsible for failure to remove snow. Violation of the ordinance can result in a municipal court summons and fine ($100 for first offense) or abatement, in which the city hires a contractor to clear the sidewalk at the property owner’s expense. Enforcement of the sidewalk snow removal ordinance is handled by the Code Enforcement Unit in the Boulder Police Department. The National Weather Service website (http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KBDU.html) is the official resource for local weather conditions. The information is updated every 20 minutes. To learn when the “24 hours after snowfall stops” time period begins, community members can go to the website and look for the “Weather” column (with descriptions ranging from “Fair” to “Snow”, etc.) and corresponding time, check the “Snow and Ice” page on the city’s website or call the code enforcement line at 303-441-1875. Code Enforcement may begin enforcing the snow removal ordinance 24 hours after the last mention of snow listed on the National Weather Service website. During consecutive storms, the original stop of snowfall will be enforced if no apparent effort is made to keep the sidewalks cleared for safe passage. Additional code enforcement information can be found on www.inquireboulder.com under “Police Code Enforcement Unit,” which includes a link to the National Weather Service report for Boulder. Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 4 Packet Page 439 of 489 Communications The communication team works to ensure access to current information regarding snow and ice safety and operations. This includes proactive notification to residents, property owners, businesses, commuters and visitors regarding weather forecasts, what the city is doing to prepare and respond to the event and what people can do to stay safe during the event. Communication staff uses channels including the Snow and Ice Control Program website, social media, the community newsletter, Inside Boulder News, press releases and a utility bill insert. ANALYSIS Our most recent, formal community engagement effort was a 2018 Community Survey. We asked Boulder residents to evaluate city livability with respect to a variety of services. Responses were then compared to a national benchmark of responses to such questions. Of the respondents, 58%rated snow removal positively, compared to 54% in 2016. While this response remained similar to the national benchmark, it did indicate room for improvement. We understand that this information is outdated and are working to engage the community for updated feedback over the next year. Informed by this and other feedback and building on lessons learned during previous snow seasons, three overarching goals were identified in 2017 to continue to evolve the Snow and Ice Control Program. Those goals were: 1) Support safe travel for all modes during snow events; 2) Operate the program efficiently, effectively, and safely in alignment with the Transportation Master Plan and Boulder Police Department goals; 3) Provide informative and timely communication. Staff will continue to work toward these goals. The table below summarizes operational approaches to achieve each of the three program goals. Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 5 Packet Page 440 of 489 Goal How we operationalize goals 1. Support safe travel for all modes during snow events. Snow removal is prioritized as follows: a. Clear primary routes connecting hospitals and urgent care facilities and supporting first responders; as well as primary off-street multi-use paths and critical on-street connections. b. Clear secondary routes allowing provision of essential services throughout the city, including access to schools and multimodal facilities (e.g., frequently used bike routes and designated bus stops) and residential areas with significant shade and steep slopes. c. As conditions warrant, clear additional designated conditional residential routes. 2. Operate the program efficiently, effectively and safely, in alignment with Transportation Master Plan goals. a. Continue to make improvements to the training program and evaluate performance. b. Use equipment best suited to needs, and maintain equipment to facilitate safety and efficiency. c. Consider environmental impacts in selecting de-icing materials and in post- storm materials sweeping. d. Analyze data and review factors affecting operations such as route criticality, service levels, materials usage, route coverage and plowing practices, and evaluate and support implementation of any needed changes in practices and/or routes. e. Support enforcement of sidewalk snow removal regulations. (Section 8-2- 13, B.R.C. 1981). 3. Provide informative and timely communication. a. Promote a shared (internal and external) understanding of service levels. b. Provide timely updates to the community before, during and after a snow event. During the 2021-22 snow season: • Very little accumulating snow prior to January 1, just one day after catastrophic winds and wildfire. • Less snow than previous season, although the same number of snow events and above seasonal average snowfall. • Implemented an early pre-season communication push to help prepare the community and set expectations for the upcoming winter season. • Implemented the Shovel-a-Stop volunteer program to help keep bus stops accessible when it snows. • Approximately $1.2 million was spent on snow and ice control for Transportation and Mobility for 2021-22. This includes snow removal on roadways and most multimodal paths. This was slightly less than 2020-21 season. • De-icer vendor was unable to provide granular material between February and March due to supply shipping issues. Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 6 Packet Page 441 of 489 • The snowfall amount was 87.3” during the 2021-2022 season. • During 17 storm events, approximately 74 response shifts were called. • We received about 16” less snowfall compared to 2020-21 with the same number of events, although we had 7 more responses. Most of the early season shifts were called based on forecasts that did not bring accumulating snow. Once snow began, we spent several extra shifts responding to numerous off-route residential requests. • About 1,019 tons of granular ice slicer (nearly 55% reduction), 6,198 gallons of magnesium chloride (69% reduction), and 150,489 gallons of Salt Brine were used (nearly 12% increase). • About 50 percent of 328 lane miles were swept following storms (within 72 hours following a storm’s end). • Department staff fielded 304 inquiries for snow removal assistance requests/complaints between January 1 and March 22. Location analysis is still underway. Lessons Learned • In 2017-18, snow removal practices were changed along four of the primary routes. In past years, the practice of windrowing (moving snow to the center of the street in order to minimize impacts to the outside shoulders and bike lanes) required staff to move the snow multiple times to minimize melting and freezing of the windrows into the roadway. In addition to the cost inefficiencies of this practice, it also created a safety hazard for turning vehicles, including emergency responders. Eliminating windrowing improved the efficient use of resources, reduced overall costs, and minimized hazards to turning and crossing traffic. For rare, very large snow events, staff may utilize this method when there is a lack of snow storage. Further refinement of snow placement on secondary and conditional routes also occurred and minor changes along these routes will continue to be implemented and tested. • In Fall/Winter 2019, staff provided an update to city council on existing level of service costs and proposals for expansion of the snow and ice control program to become more resilient to the possibilities of more frequent intense storms. Some of the areas included: o Additional equipment costs to increase efficiency on existing plow routes. o Temporary snow storage alternatives. o Expansion of contracted service areas such as hand shoveling locations including additional bus stops; curb ramps and crossings. o Route expansion, including more residential roads or heavier frequency along off-street transportation corridors. Each of these expansion areas were initially explored pre-COVID-19 budget impacts. Staff will continue to assess needs, explore areas for enhancement, and look for additional funding as organizational resources allow. • Throughout 2021-22, due to COVID-19 public health guidance, the city crews continued to operate staggered shifts. Due to the nature of staggered shifts, this Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 7 Packet Page 442 of 489 caused reduced plow time and presented communication barriers between shifts. Given the uncertainty of COVID-19 public health impacts, it is unclear whether these procedures may continue into the next season. • Staff will continue to focus on increased proactive communication with the community. Staff will keep the program webpage updated to enhance communication and utilize a variety of media outlets to communicate service plans. • City departments will continue to promote volunteer programs to improve access and mobility along multimodal transportation corridors as well as to provide options for community members who may not be able to easily address their snow removal responsibilities. • The sweeping program and metrics improved from previous years will continue to be analyzed to increase frequencies as staffing and funding allow to support compliance with air quality regulations. • Customer inquiries, requests and feedback are categorized and mapped to identify trends. Based on this data, some minor adjustments may be implemented and monitored to evaluate effectiveness of operations. These adjustments include snow placement, route adjustment, and resource deployment. • Salt brine will continue to be used. We will continue to monitor and test out pretreatment opportunities throughout the system. • Staffing levels create coverage challenges with little resiliency for unforeseen circumstances. • Utilities Maintenance staff continues to provide staffing for more than half of our plow routes. • Comprehensive training is paramount to staff and public safety and effectiveness of the program. • Vehicle care and maintenance are important to the success of the program. We have experienced significant delays on vehicle repairs from delayed parts deliveries and availability. NEXT STEPS The city’s official “snow season” begins early-September, based on the possibility of snowfall early in the year. Staff will engage in training and final preparation this fall and respond to snow events as described above. Current staffing levels are sufficient for covering all designated routes. During times of unforeseen circumstances, such as employee or family illness or other leave, staffing may become insufficient for full coverage. Reduced coverage plans are currently being developed to address these instances. Due to significant attrition rates over the past few years, we will implement a more comprehensive training program. This will reduce coverage during the first several snowstorms as newer staff are paired with veteran drivers to become familiar with operations during active snow events. Real life snow training will significantly reduce the likelihood of improper plowing methods and damage to city and private property. Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 8 Packet Page 443 of 489 Finally, staff is in the early stages of a multi-year snow and ice program analysis and update project. During this project staff will assess the current snow and ice program, explore service level impacts to the city’s Sustainability, Resilience, and Equity Framework, identify ongoing metrics, and community needs and expectations. Staff will seek community, advisory boards, and City Council’s feedback to develop and implement service level options. Implementation of changes without budget impacts will begin to take place during training for the 2023-24 snow season and will continue to be assessed. Staff will align 2024 budget requests to implement budget constrained changes for the 2024-25 snow season. Some minor changes may begin during the 2022-23 season as identified through this project, as feasible. Staff will return to City Council in late 2022 or early 2023 with more detail on this project. Members of Council are encouraged to join staff for snow training later this month. Staff will follow up with detailed invitation information once dates and training locations are finalized. Item A - Snow and Ice Control Update Page 9 Packet Page 444 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 I N F O RMAT I ON I T E M Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project Update P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C arolyn Elam, Sustainability Senior Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Addressing I mpacts of Landscaping Equipment P roject Update Packet Page 445 of 489 INFORMATION PACKET MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Jonathan Koehn, Director of Climate Initiatives Carolyn Elam, Sustainability Senior Manager Kara Mertz, Senior Project Manager Date: September 15, 2022 Subject: Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Information Packet is to provide City Council and the community an update on the Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project (Project). The Project was launched in 2022 and will run through 2023. IMPACT For much of the year, commercial landscaping companies provide a variety of lawn and plant care services to residents and commercial businesses. While these services are an important part of the local economy, they are also a source of routine concern among community members. Certain types of landscaping equipment present a variety of environmental and health concerns. These include noise, air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Two-stroke engines, such as those commonly found in leaf blowers, are the most cited area of concern. In addition to the noise concern, landscaping equipment presents a significant air-emission concern for both the operator and for the surrounding community. EPA studies 1 have shown that this class of small engines result in disproportionally higher amounts of volatile organic chemical (VOC) and particulate matter (PM) emissions as compared to other types of gasoline engines, with two-cycle motors among the worst due to entrainment of lubricating oils within the exhaust. Both VOC and PM emissions are known sources of severe respiratory and other health-related issues. They also contribute to front-range ground-level ozone pollution. Landscaping equipment 1 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/banks.pdf Information Item B - Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project Update Page 1 Packet Page 446 of 489 is also a source of GHG emissions that must be addressed to achieve the community’s climate goals. While Boulder, like most municipalities, does not have the authority to regulate air emissions – that authority vests at the state and federal level only – Boulder can regulate noise pollution. Title 5, Chapter 9, of the Boulder Revised Code governs noise and is the source of existing local regulation addressing landscaping equipment. Under this code, normally operating landscaping equipment is generally allowed throughout the city limits during daytime hours. Many communities throughout the U.S. have modified their respective noise ordinances to address leaf blower and other two-cycle motor use. Tactics range from creation of quiet zones where leaf blower use is prohibited completely to seasonal and full-time city-wide bans on gas-powered blowers (with allowance for electric alternatives). Strategies to successfully implement these restrictions include incentive programs to offset the cost to transition, gradual implementation to align with equipment replacement cycles, and extensive outreach. To advance the community’s climate, environmental, racial and health equity goals and to address the growing concern within the community, staff launched the Project in early 2022 to explore options that might be suitable for the city to pursue to mitigate the impacts of landscaping equipment. This includes better understanding where other communities have been successful or run into challenges, and assessing the potential local and regional impacts adopting a more restrictive code might present to Boulder residents, businesses, and to service providers and their workforce in the event such a strategy were to be pursued. Community interest in addressing specific impacts have coincided with a few notable recent efforts related to this topic: During the 2022 Colorado legislative session, Senator Chris Hansen proposed a plan to ban gas powered lawn equipment in areas with poor air quality in 2030, opting to relay on financial incentives to encourage the switch. The proposed bill would have banned the sale of gas-powered lawn equipment in areas that are not meeting federal ozone standards in 2030. Specifically in Denver, landscaping equipment are some of the largest sources of ozone. While there are numerous factors that contribute to the rise of harmful ground level ozone levels in Boulder, we do know that we are regularly seeing high levels of ozone that exceed EPA standards. This has a serious implication for public health and that of those working outdoors. While that legislation did not proceed in 2022, it is likely that this issue will be taken up by the General Assembly again in the near future. Some cities and states have responded to the problem with strict regulations. Last year, California air regulators voted to prohibit the sale of new gas-powered leaf blowers and lawnmowers starting in 2024. The tools are already illegal in Washington, D.C. New York and Illinois are also considering statewide bans. The California law requires all newly sold small- motor equipment primarily used for landscaping to be zero-emission – essentially to be battery- operated or plug-in – and includes any engine that produces less than 25 gross horsepower, such as lawn mowers, weed trimmers, chain saws, golf carts, specialty vehicles, generators and pumps. Information Item B - Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project Update Page 2 Packet Page 447 of 489 Today, operating a commercial lawn mower for one hour emits as much smog-forming pollution as driving a new light-duty passenger car about 300 miles – about the distance from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, more than four hours of drive time. For a commercial leaf blower, one hour of operation emits smog-forming pollution comparable to driving a new light-duty passenger car about 1,100 miles – about the distance from Los Angeles to Denver, over 15 hours of driving. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS Some of the key challenges and opportunities that will be studied include: Equity – The majority of landscaping businesses are small, individually/family owned with less than 10 employees. According to some studies, many are minority-owned and, locally, a high percentage of workers are Hispanic. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average worker earns just above minimum wage. 2 This workforce is disproportionately impacted by direct exposure to chronic and acute pollutants and noise. While transitioning away from gas-powered equipment can reduce exposure, these small businesses may not have the capacity to adapt to new requirements and the need to obtain new electric equipment. Further, workers may experience increased financial burden and safety risks due to the need to charge batteries overnight in their homes. Changes may lead to a higher cost of service, disproportionately impacting lower-income houses that rely on landscaping services, such as fixed-income seniors. Aesthetic Impacts – Societal norming has led to a standard for what an appropriately manicured landscape is and should look like. Residents and businesses procuring the services 2 https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes370000.htm Information Item B - Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project Update Page 3 Packet Page 448 of 489 of landscaping companies have an expectation that the providers will deliver against this standard and landscapers are judged by how well they deliver. Whether it is removing debris from rock beds, clearing the crevices of the bricks on Pearl Street, or having an immaculate ball field for youth sporting events, the leaf blower has become a central tool. Establishing new norms can be challenging and does not happen overnight, nor without impact. Technology Readiness – While the capabilities of electric landscaping equipment have improved substantially, there are still gaps in being able to achieve the same outcomes as commercial-grade gas options. Electric equipment often comes at a price premium. Further, battery duty cycle and charging needs create reliability and operability concerns, and the need for additional redundancy in terms of battery supply. Electric solutions may require less maintenance leading to long-term operational savings, and, while the power of battery powered options are generally equivalent to gas power options, they do not typically have the longevity. Landscaping Business Impacts – Businesses have substantial existing investment in their gas- powered equipment, and crews are very wedded to the equipment they use. Further, businesses provide services throughout the metropolitan area, not just the City of Boulder. Differing jurisdictional requirements and customer expectations could result in increased financial burden to businesses and can create confusion for workers. In a highly competitive market, green certification could be a positive differentiator. Lower decibel and healthier equipment could support worker retention. Enforcement – The Police Department is responsible for responding to noise complaints. Increased call volume due to landscaping restrictions will impact capacity and response time. Noise complaints are difficult to enforce due to the time lag between when the violation occurs and when enforcement staff can arrive on scene to observe and subsequently enforce the violation. Jurisdictional differences between Boulder and surrounding communities can lead to unintentional violations. Property owner are ultimately accountable for the services they procure. BACKGROUND The city organization has been leading the transition away from gas-powered landscaping equipment for some time. Already, the Parks and Recreation department, who is responsible for the majority of the city-owned landscapes, has converted their lighter duty maintenance and tree trimming equipment to electric. The transition will continue as heavier duty equipment, such as deck mowers, make their way into the market. The Project was formally launched as a 2022 city work plan item. Staff set up a new web page to help keep the community informed about the Project. ANALYSIS In March 2022, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified vendors to support Project design and implementation. Following the application and review process, staff selected American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA). Based in Los Angeles, CA, AGZA brings extensive Information Item B - Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project Update Page 4 Packet Page 449 of 489 experience in educating, training and supporting municipalities, landscaping service providers and property managers in the transition to low impact operations. AGZA will be supporting the following tasks: Best Practices, Community and Business Assessments An analysis of ordinances and programs adopted by other municipalities will be completed to identify potential strategies that would be appropriate for Boulder to consider. The assessment will reflect not just the policies that were ultimately adopted, but also the strategies employed, and lessons learned by those jurisdictions as they sought to develop, adopt and enforce the ordinance. A baseline assessment of the current state of landscaping services within the city to include landscaping services conducted by the city organization itself, such as park and greenspace maintenance will be conducted to better identify the number and types of businesses serving the Boulder community. The review will also assess the different service models offered by providers, to include the degree to which businesses have already transitioned to lower-impact strategies. Strategy Development Based on the best practices, community and business assessments, a set of strategy options will be developed. These will include both voluntary and regulatory approaches. An estimate of the net benefits and impacts of each of the strategies in terms of noise and emissions reduction, disparate racial impacts for individuals utilizing equipment for their livelihood, and on health and air quality will be developed from both the customer and service provider perspective. This estimate will also include financial impacts in terms of cost of service, reductions in service, workforce and enforcement impacts. The analysis will utilize the city’s Racial Equity Plan and associated tools and will address disproportionate impacts on different groups, both positive and negative. Business Outreach, Education and Incentives A series of workshops and vendor expos, both in-person and webinar format, will be held to connect with local landscaping service providers and to familiarize them with low environmental impact solutions. The staff and contractor team will also leverage social media and business networks to engage with businesses on strategies and solutions. Staff will explore funding opportunities for incentives to assist businesses with adoption of electric equipment. Community Engagement Throughout the project staff and consultants will offer multiple opportunities for the community to provide feedback on the state of the industry on the potential strategies that might be considered as part of the project. While specific details are still to be developed, Information Item B - Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project Update Page 5 Packet Page 450 of 489 staff anticipates that this will include a hosted site on Be Heard Boulder, community outreach events and individual interviews. NEXT STEPS Quarter 3, 2022:  Initiate business and community assessments Quarter 4, 2022:  Complete business and community assessment Quarter 1, 2023  Complete best practices review  Develop strategy recommendations  Begin cost/benefit and impacts analysis  Workshop and Vendor Expo #1 Quarter 2, 2023  Complete cost/benefit and impacts analysis  City Council Study Session  Complete program design  Ordinance changes, as applicable Quarter 3-4  Workshops and Vendor Expo  Launch incentive programs, as applicable As outlined in the schedule, staff anticipate returning to council in Spring 2023 for a Study Session to review progress and get feedback on the strategy(ies) council wishes to pursue. Based on that feedback, staff would return to council with any proposed changes to ordinance and/or budget requests. Information Item B - Addressing Impacts of Landscaping Equipment Project Update Page 6 Packet Page 451 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M 2022 C ulture Grants P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Matt C hasansky, Arts Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description 2022 Cultural Grants I P - F I N AL Packet Page 452 of 489 INFORMATION ITEM MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Cris Jones, Community Vitality Department Director Matt Chasansky, Office of Arts and Culture Manager Lauren Click, Office of Arts and Culture Arts Program Manager Date: September 15, 2022 Subject: 2022 Cultural Grants EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject of this memo is to inform City Council of the Boulder Arts Commission’s approval of grants in the 2022 cycle. The Cultural Grants Program includes community funding in the following categories: -General Operating Support (GOS) Grants -Community Project Grants -Arts Education Grants -Field Trip Fund for Title One Schools -Professional Development Scholarships -Venue and Online Event Affordability Fund -University of Colorado (CU) Arts Administration Certificate Program Scholarship -Grant Writing Support Fund Additionally, special grant categories were established with funding from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA): -Arts Administration Rehiring Grants -Artist Hiring Incentive Fund 12022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 453 of 489 Three grant categories remain to be fully awarded: the Cultural Field Trip Fund, Cultural Equity Grant, and the Artist Hiring Incentive Grant. A full list of grantees, categories, and funding levels can be found in the Background section. Also, an updated list of awards is maintained on the Office of Arts and Culture website. The cultural grants (also known as arts grants) are an anchor program for the strategies found in the Community Cultural Plan1 (adopted by City Council on Nov. 17, 2015). Through funding for general operating support (GOS), projects, scholarships, equity, venue rental assistance, and field trips, the grants seek to achieve a few Community Cultural Plan goals. First, in support of cultural organizations: [Have] a substantial and positive effect on the ability of Boulder’s many cultural organizations to advance their operational capacity, promote organizational resiliency, and encourage innovation for the benefit of the community. This is reinforced by the language of the ordinance which governs the grants program (Boulder Revised Code Title 14, Chapter 1), “to encourage and financially support local arts organizations in order to stimulate, promote, and sustain the arts, culture, and creativity for the benefit of the people of the city.” In addition to support for organizations, the grants contribute to the Community Cultural Plan’s goals for supporting artists and creative professionals: Boulder will increasingly attract artists and creative professionals for all it has to offer, not only in beautiful surroundings and quality of life, but also in the ability to thrive in the creative sector. The grants program has long served as an important part of the success of professional artists and organizations, having a ripple effect through the economy. This year, that outcome is enhanced with the Arts Administration Rehiring Grants and the Artists Hiring Incentive, both funded by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), with the goal of significant workforce improvements for the arts sector during this period of recovery after the COVID 19 pandemic. Finally, the grants program is a critical equity tactic. In 2022, the Arts Commission updated their Statement on Cultural Equity2, which reads: Racial Equity impacts every aspect of society. It is a generational project that involves every person in the City of Boulder. It is a project that requires shifts, not only in law, policy and regulation, but also in language and visual images, the stories that we tell, and the heroes we celebrate. These cultural ingredients will amplify the work of Racial 1 City of Boulder Community Cultural Plan (adopted 17, November 2017), https://boulderarts.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/Community-Cultural-Plan-11-17-2015.pdf?x64198 2 Boulder Arts Commission Statement on Cultural Equity (adopted 16, March 2022), https://boulderarts.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/08/2022-Statement-on-Cultural-Equity-FINAL-03-16-2022.pdf 22022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 454 of 489 Equity by strengthening the connections between, resilience of, and justice for, everyone in our community. Therefore, the work of artists and cultural leaders are foundational for progress on Racial Equity. The grantmaking process is continually reviewed and updated with tactics to counter systems of systematic racism in community funding. It is also focused on outcomes; the application and scoring of the grants encourage deep equity practice among our artists and nonprofits. The administration of the cultural grants program is the responsibility of the Boulder Arts Commission with facilitation by staff of the City of Boulder’s Office of Arts and Culture. On Sept. 19, 2017, City Council adopted Ordinance 8207 amending Chapter 14-1, “Arts Grant Program,” 1981 B.R.C.3, to amend the arts grant program processes to state: The [arts] commission has final authority for approval of arts grant funding distributions. The commission may delegate authority for funding distributions to the city manager. This year’s grants were awarded based on criteria established by the Boulder Arts Commission. Most categories of grants have been selected using a competitive process by members of the Arts Commission. In the case of the Professional Development Scholarships, the Venue and Online Event Affordability Fund, Grant Writing Assistance Fund, and the Cultural Field Trip Fund, the Arts Commission uses non-competitive administrative review (decision based on a formula, administered by staff, and reported to the commission). As in years past, the Arts Commission has made improvements to the transparency, rigor, equity, and stewardship of the program. The Arts Commission is proud of the work it has done through this year’s grant cycle and is enthusiastically grateful to the organizations and artists that are leveraging the funding for our community. FISCAL IMPACT The Cultural Grants Program is a planned program, and $925,000 was assigned as ongoing funding in the 2022 budget. There are no additional impacts to the city budget or staff capacity. The American Rescue Plan Act grant funding is one-time funding. $915,000 was assigned as additional funding to the 2022 budget. The funds impacted staff capacity, but the grants were successfully awarded through the Boulder Arts Commission. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – There are three primary ways the Cultural Grants Program affects Boulder’s economy: audience spending, workforce, and direct spending by organizations. Our 3 To read the full Revised Code Title 14, visit: https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT14AR 32022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 455 of 489 understanding of the arts sector of the economy is mostly derived from studies conducted before the pandemic and provide a baseline of normal conditions in Boulder. Tracking the effects of audience spending has been measured in the Arts and Economic Prosperity 5 (AEP5) study4. Americans for the Arts, an industry trade group, conducted a study in hundreds of regions across the nation, including Boulder. The local study of 65 organizations and 834 audience members is the basis of their analysis of audiences in Boulder. In the most recent evaluation from 2016, it is estimated that: - 1.3 million people visited cultural attractions in Boulder. - About one million visits were from locals, indicating that the average Boulderite participates in cultural events about 10 times per year. These locals usually spend about $22 per person, per event, on expenses such as dinner, drinks, transportation and childcare. - 300,000 people came from outside the city limits, bringing with them about $45 per person in “new money” that leads to continuing effects as each dollar travels through the economy. That amount goes up to about $174/person when they stayed at a hotel. AEP5 expands the understanding of the cultural workforce by examining the entire marketplace of organizations. As a sector in 2016, cultural nonprofits generated: - Direct employment of 968 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs plus a greater impact in other sectors for a total workforce impact of 1,832 FTEs. - Resident household incomes that measured $29.3 million total in pay to employees. - More than double the impact of cities of similar size to Boulder and the national median. Finally, AEP5 reported that the direct spending of cultural organizations is a healthy part of Boulder’s economy. For the entire sector, AEP5 described the total economic impact of the arts to be just under $70 million. That includes just over $2.2 million in local tax revenue.5 An update to the Arts and Economic Prosperity study is being conducted by staff now with Boulder’s local arts and cultural organizations. The new data will be available in 2023 and will include information about the effects of the pandemic. The 2021 survey of general operating support (GOS) organizations (Attachment 1) includes a preliminary insight on the effects of the pandemic on the arts sector. It indicates that hundreds of jobs were lost and revenues significantly down just among 4 For more information on Arts and Economic Prosperity 5, and to read Boulder’s full report, visit: https://boulderarts.org/afta-arts-economic-prosperity-study-5/ 5 For more information on Arts and Economic Prosperity 5, and to read Boulder’s full report, visit: https://boulderarts.org/afta-arts-economic-prosperity-study-5/ 42022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 456 of 489 grant recipients. Arts venues and businesses were able to access the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)6 However, they report that the situation is still uncertain. Meanwhile, professional artists and musicians, representing about 3% of the workforce in Boulder7, report loss of contracts and gigs that have threatened their already precarious situation. Some relief was available in the form of grants and PPP funding or unemployment for gig economy workers. • Environmental – The cultural activity that is supported by the Cultural Grants Program is a keystone element of city life: Cultural organizations and practicing artists add vibrancy to the social offerings that are critical infrastructure for city life. Our community will build a foundation of livability, and thus attachment to Boulder, on the programs offered by these creative leaders.8 This “attachment” to Boulder may be one of the factors which motivate our residents to take critical action on climate change. Arts and culture are also directly foundational to climate action and adaptation. It is a generational project to remake how we conduct city life: the way our city will be built; telling the stories and celebrating the heroes of our climate future; the images, sounds, and words that will inspire a frame of mind necessary to take bold action. This is the work of artists, authors, architects, musicians, and creatives of all kinds. In this way, the arts are necessary for success in climate action. Boulder’s Cultural Grants Program is among the tools available to city government for encouraging this change. • Social – The Community Cultural Plan describes the elements of social cohesion and social infrastructure which are enhanced by the Cultural Grants Program: Communities that gather for cultural activities know their neighbors and check up on each other. These connected neighborhoods may be safer and more resilient. Opportunities for creative expression are a part of community health that is offered by the variety of cultural organizations that call Boulder home. The variety and diversity of social offerings, and the degree to which they are a welcoming part of everyday life, is a priority. 7 For more information on the Artist Census, visit: https://boulderarts.org/artist-census/ 8 To read the full analysis from the survey of 2018 GOS granted organizations, visit: https://boulderarts.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/Findings-from-the-GOS-Survey-2018-FINAL.pdf 52022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 457 of 489 These concepts are measured in part through the latest Boulder Community Livability Report published in 2018. In that survey, 87% of residents positively rated cultural, arts, and music activities in the city.9 Finally, social impacts of the entire grants program, its structure and outcomes, are being assessed and improved through the principles defined in the Statement on Cultural Equity, initially adopted by the Boulder Arts Commission in 2016 and updated in 2022.10 BACKGROUND General Operating Support (GOS) Grants General Operating Support (GOS) Grants bolster the sustainability of the community’s cultural organizations; a system of operational grants which is a priority for the cultural grants program. This system of institutional funding supports the community priorities and goals in the Community Cultural Plan11. GOS Grants cover day-to-day activities or ongoing expenses such as administrative salaries, utilities, office supplies, technology maintenance, etc., as well as project costs, technology purchases, and professional development. The Boulder Arts Commission GOS Grants are awarded on triennial cycles. In 2022, $756,000 is dedicated to GOS grants. At the Arts Commission’s guidance, the number of GOS grants in each category varied depending on the number of applicants in order to ensure that levels of competition were similar in each category. There were 47 applicants total in the four categories. Of 47 organization applicants, 37 were awarded grants. On the motion to approve General Operating Support Grants for Extra Large organizations moved by Eboni Freeman and seconded by Caroline Kert, the Arts Commission voted unanimously to award these grants on June 15, 2022. Extra Large Organization Grants $50,000 awarded to each 9 To read the full Community Livability Report, visit: https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/community-survey. 10 To read the full Statement on Cultural Equity, visit: https://boulderarts.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/Statement-on-Cultural-Equity.pdf 11 City of Boulder Community Cultural Plan (adopted 17, November 2017), https://boulderarts.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/Community-Cultural-Plan-11-17-2015.pdf?x64198 62022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 458 of 489 - Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art - Colorado Chautauqua Association - Colorado Music Festival and Center for Musical Arts - Colorado Shakespeare Festival - Dairy Arts Center - eTown - KGNU Community Radio - Parlando School of Musical Arts On the motion to approve General Operating Support Grants for Large organizations moved by Eboni Freeman and seconded by Bruce Borowsky, the Arts Commission voted unanimously to award these grants on May 18, 2022. Large Organization Grants $20,000 awarded to each - Boulder International Film Festival - Butterfly Effect Theatre of Colorado - Frequent Flyers Productions, Inc. - JLF Colorado (Jaipur Literature Festival) - Junkyard Social Club - Local Theater Company - Motus Theater - Museum of Boulder - Studio Arts Boulder On the motion to approve the first seven General Operating Support Grants for Mid-sized organizations moved by Bruce Borowsky and seconded by Eboni Freeman, the Arts Commission voted unanimously to award these grants on May 18, 2022. On the motion to approve The Spark’s General Operating Support Grants for Mid-sized organization grant, moved by Maria Cole and seconded by Kathleen McCormick, the motion passed 5-2 on May 18, 2022. Mid-Sized Organization Grants $10,000 awarded each - 3rd Law Dance/Theater - Art Parts Creative Reuse Center - Boulder Chorale - Boulder Metalsmithing Association - EcoArts Connections - Street Wise Arts - The Catamounts, NFP - The Spark 72022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 459 of 489 On the motion to approve General Operating Support Grants for Large organizations moved by Eboni Freeman and seconded by Bruce Borowsky, the Arts Commission voted unanimously to award these grants on June 15, 2022. Small Organization Grants $8,000 awarded each - Band of Toughs - Boulder MUSE - Boulder Opera Company - Boulder Samba School - Cantabile Singers - Colorado MahlerFest - Creativity Alive - east window - NoBo Art District - Pro Musica Colorado Chamber Orchestra - Sans Souci Festival of Dance Cinema - T2 Dance Company Community Project Grants The purpose of the Community Project Grant is to encourage programs and events in the community which provide innovation and exploration to achieve progress on the community priorities found in the Community Cultural Plan12. In 2022, $85,000 is dedicated to Community Project Grants. This program is divided into grants for organizations and individual artists. Of 16 organization applicants, 13 received scores high enough to merit funding. The program budget allowed for the funding of six of these applications. On the motion to approve Community Project Grants for organizations moved by Bruce Borowsky and seconded by Eboni Freeman, the Arts Commission voted unanimously to award these grants on March 16, 2022. Organizations Awarded - Art in Community, Inc. (AiC), Temple of Tranquility, $10,000 - Boulder Ballet, Adaptive Dance Program, $10,000 - Butterfly Effect Theatre of Colorado (BETC), BETC’s Touring Theatre Truck 2022, $10,000 - Feet Forward, “Lived Experience”, $8,175 - Motus Theater, Power Playback Theater – Community Storytelling Performance, $10,000 12 City of Boulder Community Cultural Plan (adopted 17, November 2017), https://boulderarts.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/Community-Cultural-Plan-11-17-2015.pdf?x64198 82022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 460 of 489 - Street Wise Arts, Street Wise Boulder 2022, $10,000 The second set of Community Project Grants supports individual artists. Of the 14 applicants, 12 merited funding and the budget allowed for the awarding of five grants. On the motion to approve Community Project Grants for individuals, moved by Bruce Borowsky and seconded by Maria Cole, the Arts Commission voted unanimously to award these grants on April 20, 2022. Individuals Awarded - Diana Sabreen, The Imagination Collaboration, $5,000 - Grace Gee, The Space Between Us, $5,000 - Judy Nogg, THE FAUX PRINCESS AND THE VIETNAM VET, $5,000 - Mary Wohl Haan, 4 x 4 Squared: Pop-up Dance Performances (working title), $4,200 - Silen Wellington, Place Them on the Altar, $5,000 Arts Education Grants In 2022, $30,000 is dedicated to Arts Education Project Grants. The Arts Education Project Grant provides opportunities for children in Boulder to have unique experiences with practicing artists, access to tools and techniques, or improved instruction in the creative professions. The goal of the grant is to increase the exposure of students to unique and memorable experiences that may shape their future in cultural participation and creative careers. There were seven eligible applicants, and budget to support 10 grants. On the motion to approve the Arts Education Grants, made by Kathleen McCormick and seconded by Caroline Kert, the Arts Commission voted unanimously to award these grants on July 20, 2022: - Boulder County Film Commission, Film Industry Nights, $3,000 - Boulder International Film Festival, Colorado Film Society Educational Outreach Program, $3,000 - Colorado Shakespeare Festival, Shakespeare & Violence Prevention, $3,000 - Local Theater Company, LocalWRITES, $3,000 - Luna Cultura, art, science and culture for thriving communities, LLC, El arte de la tradición oral: Narradores de historias y sus multiples expresiones, $3,000 - Parlando School for the Arts, Supplementary Music Education for Columbine Elementary School, $3,000 - T2 Dance Company, The Color Wheel Project, $3,000 Professional Development Scholarships In 2022, $8,000 is dedicated to Professional Development Scholarships. The scholarships encourage leadership and the sharing of good practices through professional development that will advance our creative economy, support professionals and businesses and enhance cultural 92022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 461 of 489 dialog. The Arts Commission has distributed assistance funds to artists and cultural leaders to attend workshops, conferences, and classes that will advance their professional skills and have a positive impact on their ability to support the community. Under direction from the Arts Commission, these decisions are made by administrative review. The first round of scholarships was awarded on Feb. 22, 2022; the second was awarded May 25, 2022. Below is the full list of grantees. - Adriana Paola Palacios Luna, Denver Art Museum Acrylic Painting with Mediums, Denver, Colorado, $500 - Andrew Neely, Stand Up Comedy 101 in Denver, Colorado, $285 - Belgin Yucelen, Sculpture Workshop by Grzegorz Gwiazda in Mapstone and Vouzeron Studios, Vouzeron, France, $500 - Brian Deck, Adobe in Action workshops online and in Santa Fe, New Mexico, $500 - Brian Jack, International Double Reed Society Conference, Boulder, Colorado, $500 - Ellen Allen, StartUp to ScaleUp Yampa Valley by the Colorado SBDC (Small Business Development Center) workshop, Hayden, Colorado, $482 - Heidi Alina, Private Study with Jo Boatright, Concert Pianist and Artistic Director, Walden Chamber Music Society, Buena Vista, Colorado, $500 - Kaori Uno, International Double Reed Society Conference, Boulder, Colorado, $500 - Laura Malpass, Progressing Ballet Technique Teacher Workshop, online, $500 - Leah Quiller, American Congress of Rehabilitative Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, $500 - Lisa Johnston, Dance for PD®’s Complete Training Program online, $500 - Meghan Wilmesher, Stained Glass Association of America SGAA 111th Annual Summer Conference, Toledo, Ohio, $500 - Merlyn Holmes, Ngoni music lessons in Boulder, Colorado, $500 Venue and Online Event Affordability Fund In 2022, $10,000 is dedicated to the Venue and Online Event Affordability Fund. The fund is intended to facilitate and assist community cultural groups with access and affordability of performance venues and hosting online programming. The fund offers support in the form of rental assistance, the purchase of personal protective equipment and/or COVID 19 testing, and/or equipment for hosting online programming, such as video software, cameras, or tech support. Also, the agreement continues with the University of Colorado allowing the Arts Commission to distribute 16 free rentals of Macky Auditorium. This is complemented by supplementary funds to help organizations and artists to afford the secondary costs of rental, including fees for technicians, security, and ushers. This program has been quite successful with all funds being fully awarded within the first three months of 2022. Under direction from the Arts Commission, these decisions are made by administrative review. Below is the full list of grantees. - 3rd Law Dance/Theater, 3rd Law presents their 2022 Spring Season, Dairy Arts Center and online, $1,000 - Boulder Ballet, Black Voices of Dance, Dairy Arts Center, $1,000 - Boulder Opera, Il Trovatore by Verdi, Dairy Arts Center, $1,000 - Colorado MahlerFest, Macky Auditorium Fee Waiver 102022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 462 of 489 - Future Arts Foundation, Bluebird Music Festival, Macky Auditorium Fee Waiver - Greater Boulder Youth Orchestras, 2022 Spring Concert and 2022 Fall Concert, Macky Auditorium Fee Waiver - Greater Boulder Youth Orchestras, 2022 Fall Concert, $1,000 - Hollis+Lana, Filming from Boulder’s Open Spaces at Coot Lake, $1,000 - NAACP Boulder Authorized Committee, Freedom Fund Fisk Jubilee Singers, Macky Auditorium Fee Waiver - Rocky Mountain Revels, A Solstice Celebration, Dairy Arts Center, $1,000 - Sans Souci Festival of Dance Cinema, Season Premiere, Museum of Boulder, $1,000 - T2 Dance Company, Color Wheel Project at the Dairy Arts Center, $981.50 - The Big Dream, The Imagination Collaboration, Junkyard Social Club, $1,000 - Venus Victrola, The Bouldy Rainbow Rocky Shadowcast, The Spark, $200 Cultural Field Trips Fund In 2022, $10,000 is dedicated to the Cultural Field Trip Fund. In collaboration with the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD), the funds help teachers at BVSD Title 1 schools to clear the path for their students to have that first, formative experiences with the arts. Given that an early introduction to culture is the main indicator that a person will support and engage with the arts as an adult, this fund is intended to address inequities in access to those critical early cultural experiences. The application for the funds is ongoing; in 2019, (the last year this grant was awarded because of the pandemic) the applications arrived primarily in the fall after teachers returned for the new school year. There are three approved applications to-date, and staff expects to expend the remaining funds shortly. The fund is intended to support children who attend a Title 1 school to visit Boulder’s arts institutions and cultural destinations. Under direction from the Arts Commission, these decisions are made by administrative review. The awards are approved on a first come, first served basis. Below is a list of grantees to-date: - Columbine Elementary (4th grade classroom of Jeanette Scotti), to the Dairy Arts Center for Hansel and Gretel by the Boulder Opera, $1,025 - Columbine Elementary (5th grade classroom of Jeanette Scotti), to the Dairy Arts Center for Hansel and Gretel by the Boulder Opera, $1,250 - University Hill Elementary School (4th grade classroom of Celia Lopez), to the Dairy Arts Center for Hansel and Gretel by the Boulder Opera, $1,425 Certificate Scholarship In the fall of 2018, the University of Colorado at Boulder began a Certificate in Arts Management program. The program provides a valuable credential that can supplement existin g graduate degrees and offer an attainable and cost-effective credential for practicing professionals. The certificate provides training for anyone contemplating a career in arts management or those who have already embarked upon such a career. It is also for those who intend to continue to develop a successful career as an independent or freelance artist, and those who simply wish to gain valuable knowledge and depth of understanding of the goals, objectives and perspectives of those in arts management. The Arts Commission has dedicated $6,000, funding for one total 112022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 463 of 489 scholarship for the program, for one of Boulder’s cultural leaders to participate in this program. This furthers goals in the Cultural Plan in support of sustainable cultural organizations and artists. On the motion to approve the Arts Certificate Scholarship, moved by Maria Cole, seconded by Caroline Kert, the Arts Commission voted 4-2 to award this scholarship on July 20, 2022: - Carlie Ransom Grant Writing Assistance Fund In 2022, $8,000 is dedicated to the Grant Writing Assistance Fund. It is the goal of this new support fund is to balance the competitiveness of the grants by providing opportunities for first- time applicants and those who have not received a grant through the Boulder Arts Commission to hire professional grant writing assistance. Under direction from the Arts Commission, these decisions are made by administrative review. The awards are approved on a first come, first served basis. Awards are still ongoing, but below is a list of grantees to-date: - Andrew Novick - Bill Snider // Studio Doorz - Diana Sabreen - east window - Empathy Theatre Project - Judy Nogg - Katrin Bell AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS In 2022, $915,000 was dedicated from the American Rescue Plan Act-funded Workforce Incentive Grants. These grants respond to industry-specific, pandemic-related workforce impacts through targeted grants to nonprofits. The creative industries represent approximately 10% of the workforce in Boulder13. This sector was disproportionately impacted by the pandemic; one study by Colorado State University and Colorado Creative Industries estimates that, statewide, the industry retracted by about one decade of growth in workforce and revenue14. In collaboration with the Arts Commission, two support programs were established in response: first, $879,000 in grants for organizations to rehire arts administration positions that were eliminated due to the pandemic (Arts Administration Rehiring Grant). Second, $30,000 towards a hiring incentive for nonprofits to employ Boulder-area visual, performing, and literary artists to perform or create new work (Artist Hiring Incentive Grant). 13 WESTAF Creative Vitality Snapshot for the City of Boulder, 2017. https://boulderarts.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/12/Boulder-City-2017-snapshot-report.pdf 14 2020 Colorado Creative Economy Report, 15-17. https://oedit.colorado.gov/sites/coedit/files/2020- 10/2020_colorado_creative_economy_report.pdf 122022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 464 of 489 Arts Administration Rehiring Grants Arts Administration Rehiring Grant awards are funded over three years; each organization was awarded $30,000 in 2022 and 2023, and $27,900 in 2024. This grant is an enhancement grant to rehire of arts administration positions that were eliminated due to the pandemic. The grant is recertified each year to align with annual funding cycles, and tapers down in the final year. This is accompanied by a written plan from the grant recipient to fund the position after the grants elapse. On the motion to approve the Arts Administration Rehiring Grants, made by Kathleen McCormick and seconded by Eboni Freeman, passed 5-1 to on Aug. 17, 2022. - 3rd Law Dance/Theater - Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art - Boulder Opera Company - Boulder Philharmonic Orchestra - Boulder Symphony - Dairy Arts Center - Frequent Flyers Productions, Inc. - Local Theater Company - Museum of Boulder - T2 Dance Company Artist Hiring Incentive Grants The Artist Hiring Incentive Grant encourages nonprofits to employ Boulder-area visual, performing, and literary artists to perform or create new work. Under direction from the Arts Commission, these decisions are made by administrative review. Awards are still ongoing, but below is a list of grantees to-date: - Boulder Ballet, Viki Psihoyos commission for “New Moves”, $3,000 - Creativity Alive, Restoration of Mmmwhah! Ensemble, $3,000 - LOCAL Theater Company, RAISED ON RONSTADT and POP THE HOLIDAYS, $3,000 - NoBo Art District, Sustainable Sculpture Installations – TreeSky EcoArtz, $3,000 - Street Wise Arts, Community Youth Mural with Joseph Jimenez, $3,000 - The Catamounts, FEED: Aprés, $3,000 LINKS TO REFERENCED DOCUMENTS - 2022 Grant Program Fund Structure - 2022 Grant and Meetings Schedule - 2022 Grant Scoring System and Rubric - General Eligibility Requirements 132022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 465 of 489 - General Grant Guidelines & Process - Community Cultural Plan - Statement on Cultural Equity NEXT STEPS - The process to design and implement the 2023 cycle will be complete in October. 142022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 466 of 489 ATTACHMENT 1 Please insert 2021 GOS analysis 152022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 467 of 489 Since 2016, recipients of the General Operating Support (GOS) Grants were asked to complete a survey with information about key indicators. This has helped staff, members of the Arts Commission, and City Council to understand the impacts of the Cultural Grants Program and the health of the cultural community. This year, the extraordinary events of 2020 are the focus. The data below provides look back at the progress of these indicators over time. And, what that can tell us about the impacts of the pandemic and recession. A note: the survey captures general measures. This does not always work the same for every discipline and every type of organization; there is variety in the criteria gathered when evaluating an organization. The data relies on each organization to make some judgments and provide the most accurate information possible. About the GOS Grants in 2020 > $748,000 was distributed for General Operating Support to 37 organizations. Grants were provided in amounts that range between $8,000 to $50,000 depending on the size of the organization’s budget. > Among small organizations, the portion of an organization’s total budget that comes from this grant is between 22% to 6%. For medium, large and extra-large budgets that number ranges from 7% to 3%. Programming We asked these arts organizations how many programs they offer including performances, exhibitions, participatory events, festivals, screenings, artist talks, and more. Education classes and private functions are separated out. The data shows a steady increase over the years as each organization offered more programming to meet the community need. The pandemic stopped all in-person programming for a time. That was expected to result in a sharp decline in the number of offerings. However, the initiative of most organizations to produce online events and safe in-person programs mitigated the decline. Considering the upheaval, it is remarkable that people continued to turn out for the arts; the average attendance was nearly 50% of 2019 levels. 79.0 84.0 83.7 99.0 70.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average of Total Number of Programs Average Number of Programs (not including education events, private rentals) Average Number of Free Events 16,351.6 15,864.5 16,472.1 18,956.5 9,389.9 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average of Audience Served COB Arts & Culture-Cultural Arts Program Attachment A: 2020 GOS Grant Survey Findings 162022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 468 of 489 Budget It is difficult to say that there is an “average” budget for Boulder arts organizations. Compared nationally, most organizations would fit in small or medium categories. However, within that narrow spectrum, there is a stratification: more than half of the organizations surveyed have a budget below $100,000 and the other half manages between a budget range of $100,000 to more than $4 million. Thus, the average budget is included only to give a sense of change over time: steps of growth followed by a retraction in 2020. The retraction was likely mitigated by an increase in contributed revenue, as shown in the second chart. Government rescue grants from local, state, and Federal sources as well as relief grants from private foundations appear to have been effective. The practice of maintaining a standard operating reserve may be the key for a nonprofit to stay resilient through tough times. One quarter of the organizations surveyed reported a deficit or the need to use reserves in 2020. Most reported no or only modest surplus. A few maintained healthy operating reserves. While in normal circumstances that might be a sign of organizational health, during the pandemic it may simply be due to the precipitous decline in costs due to cancelled programs. Another measure of financial health is cost per person. This is a simple calculation of the annual budget divided by number of people served. The steep rise shows how the shift to online and safe in-person events did not imply reduced costs: the opposite is true. Also, among theaters and museums, the revenue from renting spaces fell precipitously. This important revenue source was decimated by pandemic restrictions. $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Cost per Audience Member (calculation) $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Revenue from Venue Rentals $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Budget Size Average % Contributed Average % Earned 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Proportion of Contributed vs Earned Revenue COB Arts & Culture-Cultural Arts Program Attachment A: 2020 GOS Grant Survey Findings 172022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 469 of 489 Workforce The professional workforce in arts nonprofits retracted in the pandemic. This loss of workforce was the critical impact of the pandemic. The loss of ~300 in these 37 organizations aligns with other issues in the workforce: artists lost contracts as performances, concerts, and exhibitions were cancelled, classes were cancelled putting educators out of work, and support contractors such as theater technicians and caterers lost contracts. More Perspective Below are other studies and assessments on the impacts that the pandemic, restrictions, and recession had on the arts and the creative sector of the economy: - Scientific and Cultural Facilities District COVID Impact Survey (September 2020) http://scfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SCFD-2020-COVID-Impact-Survey.pdf - Colorado Creative Industries / Colorado State University 2020 Colorado Creative Economy Report (October 2020) https://oedit.colorado.gov/sites/coedit/files/2020-10/2020_colorado_creative_economy_report.pdf - Americans for the Arts Impact of COVID 19 Data Dashboard (ongoing) https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-topic/disaster-preparedness/the-economic-impact-of-coronavirus-on-the-arts-and-culture- sector 1478 1456 1161 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2018 2019 2020 Total Workforce: Staff, Company Members, Educators 2787 3089 2394 400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900 2018 2019 2020 Total Workforce: Volunteers COB Arts & Culture-Cultural Arts Program Attachment A: 2020 GOS Grant Survey Findings 182022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 470 of 489 Since 2016, recipients of the General Operating Support (GOS) Grants were asked to complete a survey with information about key indicators. This has helped staff, members of the Arts Commission, and City Council to understand the impacts of the Cultural Grants Program and the health of the cultural community. This year, the extraordinary events of 2020 are the focus. The data below provides look back at the progress of these indicators over time. And, what that can tell us about the impacts of the pandemic and recession. A note: the survey captures general measures. This does not always work the same for every discipline and every type of organization; there is variety in the criteria gathered when evaluating an organization. The data relies on each organization to make some judgments and provide the most accurate information possible. About the GOS Grants in 2020 > $748,000 was distributed for General Operating Support to 37 organizations. Grants were provided in amounts that range between $8,000 to $50,000 depending on the size of the organization’s budget. > Among small organizations, the portion of an organization’s total budget that comes from this grant is between 22% to 6%. For medium, large and extra-large budgets that number ranges from 7% to 3%. Programming We asked these arts organizations how many programs they offer including performances, exhibitions, participatory events, festivals, screenings, artist talks, and more. Education classes and private functions are separated out. The data shows a steady increase over the years as each organization offered more programming to meet the community need. The pandemic stopped all in-person programming for a time. That was expected to result in a sharp decline in the number of offerings. However, the initiative of most organizations to produce online events and safe in-person programs mitigated the decline. Considering the upheaval, it is remarkable that people continued to turn out for the arts; the average attendance was nearly 50% of 2019 levels. 79.0 84.0 83.7 99.0 70.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average of Total Number of Programs Average Number of Programs (not including education events, private rentals) Average Number of Free Events 16,351.6 15,864.5 16,472.1 18,956.5 9,389.9 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average of Audience Served COB Arts & Culture-Cultural Arts Program Attachment A: 2020 GOS Grant Survey Findings 192022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 471 of 489 Budget It is difficult to say that there is an “average” budget for Boulder arts organizations. Compared nationally, most organizations would fit in small or medium categories. However, within that narrow spectrum, there is a stratification: more than half of the organizations surveyed have a budget below $100,000 and the other half manages between a budget range of $100,000 to more than $4 million. Thus, the average budget is included only to give a sense of change over time: steps of growth followed by a retraction in 2020. The retraction was likely mitigated by an increase in contributed revenue, as shown in the second chart. Government rescue grants from local, state, and Federal sources as well as relief grants from private foundations appear to have been effective. The practice of maintaining a standard operating reserve may be the key for a nonprofit to stay resilient through tough times. One quarter of the organizations surveyed reported a deficit or the need to use reserves in 2020. Most reported no or only modest surplus. A few maintained healthy operating reserves. While in normal circumstances that might be a sign of organizational health, during the pandemic it may simply be due to the precipitous decline in costs due to cancelled programs. Another measure of financial health is cost per person. This is a simple calculation of the annual budget divided by number of people served. The steep rise shows how the shift to online and safe in-person events did not imply reduced costs: the opposite is true. Also, among theaters and museums, the revenue from renting spaces fell precipitously. This important revenue source was decimated by pandemic restrictions. $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Cost per Audience Member (calculation) $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Revenue from Venue Rentals $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Budget Size Average % Contributed Average % Earned 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Proportion of Contributed vs Earned Revenue COB Arts & Culture-Cultural Arts Program Attachment A: 2020 GOS Grant Survey Findings 202022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 472 of 489 Workforce The professional workforce in arts nonprofits retracted in the pandemic. This loss of workforce was the critical impact of the pandemic. The loss of ~300 in these 37 organizations aligns with other issues in the workforce: artists lost contracts as performances, concerts, and exhibitions were cancelled, classes were cancelled putting educators out of work, and support contractors such as theater technicians and caterers lost contracts. More Perspective Below are other studies and assessments on the impacts that the pandemic, restrictions, and recession had on the arts and the creative sector of the economy: - Scientific and Cultural Facilities District COVID Impact Survey (September 2020) http://scfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SCFD-2020-COVID-Impact-Survey.pdf - Colorado Creative Industries / Colorado State University 2020 Colorado Creative Economy Report (October 2020) https://oedit.colorado.gov/sites/coedit/files/2020-10/2020_colorado_creative_economy_report.pdf - Americans for the Arts Impact of COVID 19 Data Dashboard (ongoing) https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-topic/disaster-preparedness/the-economic-impact-of-coronavirus-on-the-arts-and-culture- sector 1478 1456 1161 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2018 2019 2020 Total Workforce: Staff, Company Members, Educators 2787 3089 2394 400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900 2018 2019 2020 Total Workforce: Volunteers COB Arts & Culture-Cultural Arts Program Attachment A: 2020 GOS Grant Survey Findings 212022 Cultural Grants Packet Page 473 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 B O ARD S AN D C O MMI SSI O N S I T E M J uly 6, 2022 Environmental Advisory Board Meeting Minutes P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Brett KenC airn, Policy Senior Advisor AT TAC H ME N T S: Description July 6, 2022 Env ironmental Adv isory Board Meeting Minutes Packet Page 474 of 489 1 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Environmental Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: July 6, 2022 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Heather Sandine, 303-441-4390 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS: Environmental Advisory Board Members Present: Michael SanClements, Brook Brockett, Amanda Groziak, Hernan Villanueva Environmental Advisory Board Members Absent: Miriam Hacker City Staff Members Present: Brett KenCairn, Carolyn Elam, Heather Sandine, Samantha Bromberg, Cris Jones 1. CALL TO ORDER M. SanClements declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. B. KenCairn reviewed the meeting protocols. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by M. SanClements, seconded by B. Brockett, the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) approved the June 1, 2022 meeting minutes. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION P. Culnan expressed concern about AMPS proposals. He said we need to transition away from internal combustion engine and that raising parking fees only hurts lower income community members. He supports buying the streetlight system. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS) Update x C. Jones introduced himself and S. Bromberg and provided an overview of the AMPS program. x S. Bromberg presented past and potential changes to the program, including possible changes the team is considering regarding fines, design, signage and rates. x M. SanClements asked if there was an income-based assessment. x S. Bromberg said a 50% discount for income-qualified residents will be written into the new City Manager Rule. x A. Groziak said that students may not qualify for a discount based on city or county programs but may need discounted rates. She asked if there will be a discount for electric vehicles and requested information about phased fines. x S. Bromberg shared that violations which pose a safety risk (i.e. parking in a bike lane) will be fined at a higher rate than those with no safety risk. Repeat violators will be fined at incrementally higher rates. Fees are a set rate, not a sliding scale. Packet Page 475 of 489 2 x A. Groziak asked about the penalties for non-payment. x C. Jones said the municipal court addresses non-payment. Although fines increase for non-payment, the municipal court is understanding and will work with folks who are proactive and take steps to communicate their needs. x B. Brockett shared that some individuals find it more cost beneficial to risk paying a fine rather than paying for parking. x C. Jones said this is why they implemented the graduated fines. x H. Villanueva asked if enforcement is higher in some areas than other. x C. Jones said the burden of enforcement in neighborhoods is higher. AMPS is collecting data to determine areas that need to be enforced. B. Streetlight Acquisition Q&A x C. Elam provided background information on streetlights within the city. The streetlights the city owns are LED smart lights that self-report outages, whereas lights owned by Xcel do not have these features. The streetlight system is not currently Dark Skies compliant. Staff recommends that the city purchases the streetlight system and retrofits it with LED lights that self-report outages and are Dark Skies compliant. x B. Brockett pointed out the acquisition and retrofit cost of $7M, as indicated in the packet. She asked how much a retrofit led by Xcel would cost. x C. Elam explained the city currently pays roughly $1.4 to $1.5 million per year to Xcel for the operation and maintenance of the system. If Xcel were to complete the LED retrofit, which would not include smart lights, and retain ownership of the system then the city would continue to pay the current rate tariff plus about $1 million for the retrofit. In this case, our annual cost would remain roughly $1.4 to $1.5 million. The largest savings will be from purchasing and retrofitting the system, which would cause us to move to a substantially lower, energy-only tariff rate. Another consideration is Xcel does not offer a smart LED option. Our retrofit assumes converting to a smart LED system and building the communication infrastructure to support it. x B. Brockett asked how much annual maintenance would be. x C. Elam did not have the data immediately available but that the savings would be around $1M per year. x A. Groziak asked if solar powered streetlights are an option. x C. Elam said roadway illumination must be more reliable than what solar can provide. There will be an opportunity to retrofit the lights in the future if the technology improves. x M. SanClements asked if the LED lights can be focused more directly. x C. Elam said LED lights don’t have as much scatter as the current lights. The city can shield and dim city-owned lights. C. Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) x B. KenCairn provided an overview of the GAC. M. SanClements has represented EAB for the past three years. He asked if any other members are interested in sitting on the board. Packet Page 476 of 489 3 x M. SanClements talked about his experience serving on GAC. He said one to two hours of reading are required prior each meeting. There is typically one two-hour meeting per year. x A. Groziak asked if there are other committee opportunities. x B. KenCairn said that this is the only one he is aware of. There are opportunities to join joint board meetings occasionally. x B. Brockett said that she is interested in joining. A. Groziak seconded B. Brockett’s nomination. x B. KenCairn said that the management of greenways will be important to consider for wildfire mitigation. The greenway and drainage ways are owned by a variety of entities, which presents a unique challenge. D. Multi-Department Climate Action Opportunities x B. KenCairn reminded board members that staff can schedule presentations on environmental issues EAB would like to discuss. He spoke about the joint board meeting and why it was rescheduled. Water Resources Advisory Board was not included in the original invite, and we want to include them. There will be additional topics discussed beyond what was included in the original plan for the meeting. The new date will possibly be this fall. He asked if there are additional topics the board would like to discuss at the joint meeting. x M. SanClements asked if staff can provide an update on the use of pesticides city- wide and county-wide. x B. KenCairn talked about the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. The EAB was part of the process for chemical approval in the past, but this has changed due to the number of meetings. He said there needs to be discussion among multiple boards about the use of chemicals and precautions. The city cannot stop the application of pesticides within the community due to a state preemption. Staff will request R. Abernathy, IPM Manager, to join the August EAB meeting for additional information. x A. Groziak asked if the city is pursuing biochar for carbon storage and, if so, how progressively. x B. KenCairn responded that staff has been in discussion about building a biochar production pilot facility on city property. More information will be presented at a future meeting. x M. SanClements shared a link with information about biochar https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.16156 . x A. Groziak asked how board members can share articles with the group. x B. KenCairn said to send to articles to himself or H. Sandine to distribute. x B. KenCairn spoke about the NOAA urban heat monitoring project anticipated to take place in late July. In addition to this project, staff is tracking soil moisture and heat on OSMP lands. x A. Groziak spoke about her experience with housing where the landlord would not cool the building. She asked what a reasonable maximum temperature is for schools, public buildings, jails, and rental properties. Packet Page 477 of 489 4 x C. Elam said we are updating building codes soon and will investigate this information. Equitable access to cooling is important, and we already know evaporative cooling is inadequate in our schools. She said A. Groziak’s suggestion to require landlords to adequately cool their properties is worth further discussion. Additionally, staff wants to partner with Housing and Human Services to focus on heat extremes, rather than only cold weather extremes, for those without access to housing. She is looking forward to returning in the fall to discuss these ideas. 5. OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES Postponement of the Joint Study Session with EAB, Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Planning Board (PB) and Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) x Discussed under item 3D. Will be rescheduled. 6. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK None 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK The next EAB meeting is scheduled for August 17 from 6-8 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Chair Date Packet Page 478 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 B O ARD S AN D C O MMI SSI O N S I T E M August 3, 2022 Boulder Library C ommission Meeting Minutes P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C elia Seaton, Board Secretary, Library & Arts AT TAC H ME N T S: Description August 3, 2022 B oulder L ibrary Commission Meeting Minutes Packet Page 479 of 489 Library Commission Minutes August 3, 2022 Page 1 of 3 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission Date of Meeting: August 3, 2022 Contact information preparing summary: Celia Seaton Commission members present: Jane Sykes Wilson, Steven Frost, Scott Steinbrecher, Benita Duran, Sylvia Wirba Commission members not present: None Library staff present: David Farnan, Library Director Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director Celia Seaton, Board Secretary Shannon Kincaid, Supervisor, George Reynolds Branch City staff present: None Members of the public present: None Type of Meeting: Regular | Remote Agenda Item 1: Review of Online Meeting Guidelines [0:00:00 Audio min.] Agenda Item 2: Reminder: Commissioners please log monthly volunteer hours Count Me In Boulder [0:00:53 Audio min.] The Commission logged their service. Agenda Item 3: Welcome and Administer Oath of Office to New Commissioner Sylvia Wirba [0:00:59 Audio min.] Wirba was sworn in by Sykes Wilson. Agenda Item 4: Approval of agenda [0:06:47 Audio min.] The meeting was called to order and Sykes Wilson asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There was a nod of approval from the commission for this agenda as presented. Agenda Item 5: Public comment [0:07:03 Audio min.] None. Agenda Item 6: Consent agenda [0:07:08 Audio min.] a. Approval of June 2022 Meeting Minutes: Frost moved to approve these minutes, Steinbrecher seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved. Agenda Item 7: Presentation: George Reynolds Branch Update [0:07:58 Audio min.] Librarian Kincaid serves as the supervisor for George Reynolds Branch (GRB); she previously acted as Boulder Public Library’s Teen Librarian and has a background in programming, outreach, and supervision. After the pandemic closure, GRB reopened for carry-out service in May of 2021 and doors opened for regular public patronage in December 2021. The branch now holds open hours six days of the week. She showcased the current staff team and reviewed highlights of the recent remodel in a presentation. The modifications made to the branch’s building aim to promote the space as open, airy, bright, clean, and friendly. Redesign elements feature in the entryway, adult computer lab, and new signage designating the teen space and children’s area. Programming currently held at the branch includes story-times five days a week, classes on topics such as genealogy and ceramics for older adults, crafting and other passive opportunities, youth/family activities such as Minecraft Art and Printmaking, and events centered around planting and honeybees activating areas of the GRB garden space. Planned upcoming programming will feature topics such as Dia de los Muertos, “Getting Outside with Baby,” and “Fermenting Fruits and Vegetables” (using library garden grown produce). Frost gave the team kudos for the continued and new activity in this south Boulder location. Sykes Wilson praised the work being done by the GRB staff, and especially appreciates the programming for new parents. This library is Duran’s local Packet Page 480 of 489 Library Commission Minutes August 3, 2022 Page 2 of 3 branch; she feels that GRB is particularly engaged in the neighborhood community. Wirba visits the branch frequently and appreciates the welcoming atmosphere she has observed from a patron perspective. Steinbrecher brought up some of the challenges and tragedies that have affected the neighborhood surrounding the branch. There have recently been two evacuations for fire activity, and the King Sooper’s shooting was directly across the street from the building. He suggested the Library respond to help those in the community that may be suffering from PTSD after these events. Farnan explained that the Library has been partnering closely with Health and Human Services, who opened a community center down the road from the branch. He agreed that residents in the neighborhood should have the opportunity for extra support in navigating recent challenges. Agenda Item 8: Library and Arts Director’s Report [0:27:30 Audio min.] a. Update on 2023 city budget process & 2022 1st Adjustment to the Base Budget request results - see packet. b. Library District process update – City Council decided to “opt in” to the district process which is proceeding by petition. As a next step in the process, a public hearing is planned for August 16th with the Boulder Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) who will be reviewing the 2022 ballot. BOCC has decided to waive the considerable bonding fee for this item. Certification of the ballot is expected by August 16th. In response to Steinbrecher’s inquiry, Farnan explained that the writing of the ballot language falls within the petitioners’ purview. The draft submitted language will be finalized on August 16th and included in the commission’s September packet. c. North Boulder library update – Final construction documents have been submitted and the project team awaits feedback from Planning and Development Services. Staff expect permitting to occur in near future. The general contractor will return with a guaranteed maximum price by August 31st. The team expects groundbreaking to occur by November 2022, with a 12-month construction window to follow. d. Request for reconsideration – see packet. Farnan discussed the principle in librarianship that defends the First Amendment’s guarantee concerning freedom of expression and opposition to censorship. Steinbrecher thought the letter was well-stated and the process was very appropriate. Sykes Wilson also felt the issue had been handled very well. e. Main Library November Election Polling Place f. Library Rules of Conduct reviewed considering the June 7, 2022 Gun Violence Prevention Ordinances g. Q2 Performance Measures have been posted to the website. h. New Culture Passes are now available for online reservation by patrons. Admission is offered to visit the Butterfly Pavilion, Dinosaur Ridge, Museo de las Americas, and WOW! Children’s Museum. i. Summer of Discovery – Farnan noted the “astonishingly” high rate of participant completion for BLF’s signature program which represents the culmination of year-long preparatory work done by BPL staff. j. Lawsuit Status – Farnan noted that the case has been filed and assigned a judge. Commission will be given the City Attorney Office’s contact for further inquiry. k. Café Operator Recruitment – applications have been received and are currently in review. Candidates will be interviewed in the coming weeks and the successful applicant will be announced to commission once a final decision has been reached. Library recently hired a new Reading Buddies Outreach Coordinator. Staff plan to relaunch the program this autumn once necessary connections with the university and other preparations have been laid. Agenda Item 9: Items from Library Commission [1:07:56 Audio min.] a. Updates from commissioners representing the Commission in other venues (verbal) – Sykes Wilson noted that the districting campaign of the Boulder Library Champions is now 100 days out and will be ramping up in preparation Packet Page 481 of 489 Library Commission Minutes August 3, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner Sykes Wilson approved these minutes on September 7, 2022; and Celia Seaton attested to it. for a successful election. b. Boulder Library Foundation (BLF) update (Steinbrecher/Frost) – Steinbrecher noted no formal meeting was held in July, but smaller committees performed focus group sessions and gathered data in preparation for a strategic planning meeting next month. He noted that previous members Tim Plass and Jeff Quick have come back in a non-voting capacity to share institutional knowledge with the governance and finance committee. A retreat is planned for the end of August. c. Update on emails and phone calls to Library Commission – none. Agenda Item 10: Adjournment [1:19:03 Audio min.] There being no further business to come before the commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned. Date, time, and location of next meeting: The next Library Commission meeting will be at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, September 7, 2022, through a virtual setting. Packet Page 482 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 D E C L ARAT I O N S I T E M C onstitution Day and Citizenship Day Declaration P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Taylor Reimann AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Constitution and Citizenship Day 2022 Packet Page 483 of 489 Packet Page 484 of 489 Packet Page 485 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M Support Latino Business Day Declaration P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Taylor Reimann AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Support L atino Business Day Declaration Packet Page 486 of 489 Packet Page 487 of 489 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E September 15, 2022 AG E N D A I T E M C hildhood C ancer Awareness Week Declaration P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Taylor Reimann AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Childhood Cancer Awareness Week Packet Page 488 of 489 Packet Page 489 of 489