The URL can be used to link to this page

5C - Concept Plan Review and Comment application LUR2007-00073, Boudler Regional Fire Training Center (RFTC) CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 10, 2008 (Item Preparation Date: July 3, 2008) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application #LUR2007-00073, Boulder Regional Fire Training Center (RFTC). The proposal is fora 10-acre RFTC located at the east end of the Boulder Reservoir public land. The RFTC will provide training opportunities for a variety of fire protection organizations throughout Boulder County and will include three structures: an approximately 16,000- to 23,000-square foot Administration Building, a three story Burn Building; and a 55- foot tall Drill Tower along with a driving course and prop storage area. Applicant/Property Owner: City of Boulder Facilities Asset Management REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Elaine McLaughlin, Case Manager OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion of Concept Plan. No action is required by Planning Board. SUMMARY: Proposal: Request for citizen, staff and Planning Board comment on a proposal for a City Council-approved location fora 10-acre Regional Fire Training Facility (RFTC) located at the east end of the Boulder Reservoir public land. The RFTC will provide training opportunities for a variety of fire protection organizations throughout Boulder County and will include an approximately 16,000 square foot Administration Building, a three story Burn Building; and a 55-foot tall Drill Tower. Project Name: Boulder Regional Fire Training Center Location: 5565 N. 51 S` Street Size of Lot: 10 acres Zoning: P (Public) Comprehensive Plan: Park, Urban and Other AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 1 KEY ISSUES: 1. Is the proposed plan compatible with the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Does the proposed layout optimize vehicular access, safety, and circulation? 3. Is the request for a height exception over 35-feet appropriate for the use and context? 4. Does the proposed layout optimize site and context conditions? BACKGROUND: Existing Site and Context. The 10-acre site, referred to as the "Wells Property," is located within the Boulder Reservoir public lands, between the earthen dams of Boulder and Six Mile reservoirs on the west and south, and Highway 119 (Diagonal Highway) on the east in an area of essentially flat grasslands. Portions of the site have been previously used for special events parking and equipment storage. The City's Water Quality Treatment plant and the intersection of Highway 119 and b3`d Street are both located approximately one-half mile to the north of the property. Highway 119 is located approximately 800- to 900-feet to the southeast. Directly east of Highway 119 is the Gunbarrel Business Park, with large industrial warehouses and office buildings aligning the highway. Views into the site are clearly evident from the highway with the earthen dams of both reservoirs forming a backdrop to the site from the highway. Earthen Dam of Water Quality Subject Diagonal Highway the Reservoir Treatment Plant Property (Hwy 119) 'ice w.. i ~ !4. t 7 ~ + ~_~~((t~ .i1 ,S,.'r ~ •~yy?' M~`~ ~ ~'~~~~r ~}YEr ~Ilr. 4r! ! ~ ? 'E.*Ifi'. ~ =`~i?t~ .lal~n. ~ ' i~ ~.~1-`~.w S Figure 1''~1View Looking Northeast toward Property Surrounding the flat site, the topography rises to the south and west with the earthen dam portion of the Boulder Reservoir rising 25-feet above the subject property on the west. Atop the Boulder Reservoir is a multi-use trail, part of a large loop that encircles the reservoir. There is a "peninsula" of land that wraps the site on the south and west where the access road is proposed for the site and folds into the earthen dam portion of Six Mile Reservoir. The top of Six Mile Reservoir is approximately 30 feet above the subject site, and the RFTC site is essentially enveloped by these land forms. AGENI?AI~F~i # SC PAC:F. # 2 ~ _ i . _ 1 . i' h. . ' Subject ~ ,I Property ' ' Id ~ t III • ~T.~.. ~ /F. "r~. ~t _ ~ k. ~ ` :'fi _ ~.l` 1 ' -L ~Fn Sa.~\ 4 ~ I F. ~ - . Figure 2: Subject Property within Surrounding Context There are no trees within the subject property but there are several stands of trees due east of the site, mostly large cottonwood, located near drainage features. The southeastern portion of the project site near the highway is a designated wetland area. A 50-foot wetland buffer is shown on the project plans, although the wetland and the wetland buffer are located away from the RFTC site. In a Wildlife and Wetlands Assessment Report prepared by Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers for the subject property (provided as Attachment D), it was noted that there are Black-tailed prairie dog burrows that dot the area although the report concluded that approximately 98 percent of the prairie dogs were likely decimated by the Sylvatic plague caused by a bacterium transmitted by fleas. The report goes on to note that no prairie dogs were seen at the time of the site visit in May 2007, but there were a few surviving animals north of the subject property. However, in a site visit conducted by staff on October 24, 2007, approximately six to eight individuals were noted within the subject property. The assessment report also notes that there are several special status species that could potentially occur on the site, although none were observed in the area to be disturbed by the proposed project at the time of the site visit in May 2007. AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 3 Regulatory Background. On Feb. 21, 2006 City Council approved construction of a new fire training center on the site (Wells property), on land that was purchased in the 1950s by the Water Utility Fund. The decision to locate at the Wells property was supported by a site selection process that involved consideration and analysis of a number of alternative sites. There were six basic site criteria used in the site selection process: proximity to the city of Boulder and neighboring fire departments; a minimum of 10 to 12 acres; proximity to utilities, including potable water; appropriate zoning; neighborhood compatibility; cost and availability. Six sites were found and evaluated including Valmont Butte, later determined to have too many constraints. Because of the need for potable water in the fire training center, along with a number of other factors, the other alternative sites were ruled out. Recently, on May 15, 2008, City Council held a study session regarding an update on the Fire Training Center that upheld the decision to pursue the construction on the Wells property. Fire Department Master Plan. The Council directive was in support of the City of Boulder Fire Department Master Plan, adopted in 1996, that identified the need for a new fire training center. According to the Master Plan, the intent in the RFTC is to train with mutual aid agencies in order to function more effectively on large incidents where mutual aid is utilized. As noted in the Master Plan, it is in the City's interest to have well trained firefighters in neighboring fire departments and that joint funding and utilization of fire training provides mutual benefits to the City and the surrounding communities. As further noted in the Master Plan, the existing training center located on three acres south of Lee Hill Drive was built in 1974. According to the Master Plan, the surrounding land was vacant when the fire training center was built. However, over time, annexations and development resulted in homes being built in the vicinity of the existing training center resulting in conflicts between the new local residents and the fire department. In addition, the existing center lacks adequate facilities including props to simulate various fire suppression, rescue, and hazardous materials release scenarios. Similarly, the existing center does not have the space necessary to conduct fire apparatus driver training programs with driving skills instruction. The Department recommended that a new training center be constructed in an area that is removed from residential occupancies and also further recommended that the center utilize technology which minimizes atmospheric releases of smoke and other toxic substances. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation and Policies. The subject property is located within BVCP "Planning Area IlI -Annexed" and is designated as "Park, Urban and Other" which is intended for active and passive recreational uses. While the zoning is "Public" which does allow for educational facilities and through Use Review, governmental facilities, a BVCP map amendment from "Park, Urban and Other" to "Public" would be required through a "change that maybe considered at any time" process subject to the review criteria of page 56 of the BVCP. A discussion regarding the project's consistency with BVCP policies is found in Key Issue #2 below. ~GF~11]A ITEi1~I ~Sl-'__ PA~F. # d Project Description. Facility Site Layout. With aten-acre location just east of the Boulder Reservoir's earthen dam, the size of the site according to the applicant is not only important in terms of providing sufficient work and training areas, but also to provide a buffer between the facility and surrounding development. The main components of the facility include an administration/education building, a tower prop (to simulate high rise fires), a burn building prop, a driving course and parking. The RFTC site plan is intended to be phased as money is allocated in the City budget. The first phase would consist of a portion of the administration building, the burn building, training tower and a portion of the driving course. Later phases would incorporate uses such as additional outside driving areas and parking. The site plan illustrates a circular layout for the facility with a circular exterior roadway enclosing a driving course on the eastern half, and the three buildings proposed for the site grouped within the western half of the circular layout. Within this area, the burn building and the drill tower are planned furthest to the northwest and nearest to the earthen dam of the reservoir, and approximately 1,300 feet from the SH 119 corridor. The administration building is proposed to be located closest to the highway, approximately 1,100 feet away from the corridor. Parking facilities are planned to the west of the administration building nearest the access road. The applicant is proposing plantings of native and xeric plant materials, along with berms on the eastern edge of the site, to provide foreground screening of the site from the highway. Proposed emergency-only egress is planned to access SH 119 east of the site. ~ , Tower w~ . ~;~s,~ urn . Bldg Figure 3: RFTC Facility Site Drivin ~ ~ Layout ~ Course ~ - p- s / i• Architecture. Regarding the three structures proposed, there is the 16,000- to 23,000-square foot Administration Building, the three story Burn Building prop; and the 55-foot tall Drill Tower prop. As required by city policy, all new construction of city facilities are required to be certified to the LEED-NC (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -New Construction) Silver Standard. With that in mind, the Administration Building of the FTC is proposed to be designed and built to the LEED silver rating. Each building is described separately below. AGENDA ITEM # 5C PAGE # 5 Burn Building Prop. The three story, approximately 3,200 square foot burn building prop is designed as a steel-frame and masonry block structure with heat-resistant linings used to simulate the various residential and office settings. The building would use combustible "clean-burning" wood materials such as, pallets or excelsior to produce the simulations. Burn building training activities would include various techniques for fire attack, ventilation, search and rescue, forcible entry breaching, laddering, overhaul, salvage and utility control laddering, hose work, attack of structural fires, confined space work, and breaking tasks, search and rescue, ventilation, victim package and removal. The burn building prop provides specific building faces and layouts to resemble structures found within the community, which also emulate potential emergency circumstances. Figure 4: ~ - ~ - RFTC Burn Building Concept 11~ ~ - (Looking toward ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~r Southeast) _ - - - ~ ®~ii Administration Building. The administration building is designed to be phased in over time with a maximum size of 23,000 square feet; it would include apparatus bays and pavilion functions along with educational facilities including an auditorium with a seating capacity of 100 people (with presentation, lighting and sound systems along with office space), four smaller classrooms (seating 25-30 students each), and garage storage areas. Support areas proposed include restrooms, lockers, kitchen and dormitory functions. Included in the design of the Administration Building is a control center pavilion that functions as an observation area over the training grounds and apparatus bays for fire equipment. The applicant has described the overall architectural concept as that of an "agrarian-type shed." As illustrated on the Concept Plan elevation, the structure is proposed to be grey with a red roof. The shed-like building form of the administration building is proposed with a peak height of approximately 40-feet. I 1 e Figure 5: RFTC Administration Building Concept (Looking toward Southeast) AGF'NnA 1TF.'~1 # 4(' PAl:F # 6 Drill Tower Prop. The five-story, 55-foot tower structure is proposed to be approximately 960 square feet with a ground level vestibule, smoke tower and fixed fire protection systems. The tower would be used to simulate multiple-story firefighting and rescue, and would permit departments to perform high-rise operations including use of aerial ladders, rappelling practice, and fire ground operations in high-rise occupancies. Specific activities associated with the tower include: laddering, hose work, rope rescue, attack of structural fires, confined space work, forcible entry, breaching and breaking tasks, search and rescue, lowering/repelling, high angle rescue, Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) use, ventilation, standpipe evolutions, victim package and removal. The masonry and steel elements are proposed on the tower to withstand high abuse training and long term wear. In addition, the roof form is proposed to provide weather protection during training activities. Figure 6: i ~ RFTC Tower Concept (Looking toward Southeast) ~ I I Other Facilities. There are several other facilities planned, with further description of each provided within Attachment F, Applicant's Written Statements. Those facilities include: • An approximately one-half acre circular driving course with a concrete pad capable of supporting fire apparatus weights under significant driving conditions is also proposed for driver training for departments such as fire, ambulance, and rescue services. Presently, there is no such facility in the metro area. • Also proposed are two 400 square foot concrete extrication pads to provide a location for firefighters to train in the proper methods of removing automobile crash victims from damaged vehicles. The pads are intended to be large enough to hold a vehicle and extrication equipment. • A Pump Pit of approximately 120 square feet will provide a location for fire apparatus to conduct drafting operations and pump testing to simulate spills. AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 7 • Propane and natural gas props are planned adjacent to the burn building using a gas-powered system that can simulate operations invoving propane tanks and valves. The automobile fire simulator permits car-fire training without having to obtain actual vehicles. Site Access. The site plan proposes that all RFTC traffic would enter at the current reservoir entrance, with an emergency-only egress onto SH 119. The existing entrance and gate house area would be redesigned with cooperation from other city departments to incorporate controlled access to the fire training center road, as well as to improve current entrance congestion by increasing vehicle stacking distances. The existing reservoir road will continue to serve as the public access for the reservoir. The new access roadway to the RFTC is proposed to parallel the existing access road, and would be designed specifically for RFTC vehicles only to eliminate the conflict of cars and pedestrian bicycles with the RFTC road. To limit recreational use of the RFTC road, it is proposed to have controlled access through agate/remote entry system. Also, the road will be separated from the reservoir road physically/visually to discourage any other users through grade separation, landscaping and physical barriers such as bollards and rumble strips. With the limited number of vehicle trips per day to the RFTC, along with the referenced design measures, vehicle conflicts with recreational users is anticipated to be very limited. ; r ~i# _ . Access . ~ _ , \ f r , - r ~ ~ } Roadway - i.%,~ ' , r`qJ~ . xb. --.1 515` Street - ' ~ ~ ~ , ~ . Figure 7: Regional Fire Training Center Site Access in Context ANALYSIS: Key Issues: The following key issues have been identified by staff to help guide Planning Board discussion of this application. Planning Board may add to this list or provide additional comments on the Key Issues listed. AGENDA ITEM #t SC PAGE #t 8 1. Is the proposed plan compatible with the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? As noted, the proposed site for the RFTC is located in "Area III -Annexed" in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and has a land use designation of "Parks, Urban and Other." Policy 1.27 (g) of The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan states, "Publicly owned property located in Area III and intended to remain in Area III may be annexed to the city if the property requires less than a full range of urban services or requires inclusion under city jurisdiction for health, welfare and safety reasons. " The RFTC requires less than the full range of urban services, is most appropriately located in anon-urbanized area, and provides training specifically for health, welfare, and safety of area residents. Therefore, staff concludes that it is consistent with the BVCP policy regarding public property located in Area III -Annexed. The current zoning on the site is "Public", which establishes the regulatory framework for site development. Under "Public" zoning, the purpose of this district is, "areas in which public and semi public facilities and uses are located, including, without limitation, governmental and educational uses." In the future, the city will request a land use designation change to "Public" to provide consistency with the use of the property. On pages 85 and 86 of the BVCP it indicates the intention of providing a new RFTC as part of the "Future Service Projects and Programs" under the Fire/Emergency Medical Service Program Summary. In addition, Policy 3.01 and 3.02 of the BVCP provide a framework for provision of Urban Services in the Boulder Valley. Under the definition of Adequate Facilities and Services for new urban residential, industrial and commercial development means, "the availability of public water, public sewer, stormwater and flood management, urban fire protection and emergency medical care, urban police protection and urban transportation." It is also noted that adequacy of facilities and services are based on the following criteria: (i) Responsiveness to public objectives (ii) Sufficiency and dependability of financing (iii) Operational effectiveness (iv) Adequacy of equipment and facilities (v) Proficiency of personnel Staff finds the RFTC is consistent with Policies 3.01 and 3.02 in that it provides proficiency of urban fire protection and emergency medical care personnel, as well as operational effectiveness through the necessary training provided by the RFTC. AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 9 2. Is the proposed vehicular access into and through the RFTC adequate? Access into the RFTC. As noted below under Public Comment, an informational community meeting was held on Nov. 8, 2007 at Heatherwood Elementary School east of Gunbarrel. A notice of this meeting was sent to property owners within 1,200 feet of the full boundary of the Boulder Reservoir Public Lands. There were approximately 25 attendees, with the majority of attendees coming from the rural county neighborhoods of Valhalla and Westridge located west and south of the Boulder Reservoir. Similarly, a number of a-mail comments were sent from residents within these same neighborhoods. Responses from those in attendance regarding locating the RFTC at this site were generally positive. However, a significant concern expressed overall had to do with the potential use of 51 S` Street for access to the RFTC. There was some concern expressed about the impacts that events at the Boulder Reservoir and the users of the proposed facility might have on the Valhalla neighborhood. A petition containing 57 signatures was presented at the meeting requesting the city to address the "deterioration of the environment and living conditions of'the Boulder Reservoir neighbors and SIS` Street residents." The applicant was specifically asked to address traffic, parking, and public safety issues by only allowing access to the RFTC from the Diagonal Highway, and by closing the 51 S` Street gated access to the Boulder Reservoir to vehicles. The city was requested to expand free parking areas at the reservoir and to provide access to reservoir restroom facilities for runners and cyclists. Use Characteristics of the RFTC and Traffic. The applicant prepared a Use Study, provided herein under Attachment G, to assist in understanding potential traffic impacts. The Use Study was utilized in preparation of a Traffic Access Study, also attached and summarized below. As noted by the applicant, the use study based on use of the existing center found the following use characteristics: • Monday through Friday daytime use averaged 181 days out of an average 261 weekdays per year 7 AM - 5 PM. • Monday through Friday evening use averaged 92 evenings out of 261 weekdays per year. • Saturday and Sunday use was 92 days out of an average 104 weekend days per year between 7 AM and 10 PM. As noted, a "typical day at the proposed facility includes on agency using the facility to teach a class, hold a meeting, or conduct outside training with ftre trucks. A 'worst case' day includes multiple agencies with simultaneous activities and additional equipment. " The Use Study also indicated that during a three year period between 2001 and 2003, the existing facility was used an average of 296 days per year by twenty-six different agencies. Of those 296 uses, the burn building was used 24 percent of the time or 71 times out of the 296 days. The definition of a "use" includes every time there was any activity, other than burn building use. The activities at the facility involved outside training and drills as well as meetings for two or three individuals in a classroom. The Use Study did not breakdown the type, size, and frequency of use. AGENDA ITEM # 5C PAGE # l0 Traffic Access Study. Although typically not provided at Concept Review, the applicant commissioned a Traffic Access Study by Fox/Higgins Transportation Group that was prepared on May 30, 2008 to further analyze the potential traffic impacts from the RFTC. That study, provided as Attachment F, included trip generation analyses and evaluated traffic operations along 51 S` Street, as well as the Jay Road and 51 S` Street Intersection. The following conclusions were drawn from the study: • The RFTC will generate less than 35 vehicle trips on an average day with 18 of those trips being made by fire trucks. • On the "worst case" day, the facility will generate just over l00 additional vehicle trips per day and 20 of those trips will be made by fire trucks. • S 1 S` Street will be easily able to accommodate this level of increased traffic, even during the summer when recreational use at the Reservoir is highest. • The intersection of Jay Road and 51 S` Street will be able to comfortably accommodate the additional traffic with only minor increases in peak hour delay. The LOS (level of service) will remain in the A/B range on typical days. On worst case days only the southbound left turn (from 51St on to Jay Road) is projected to drop into the LOS C range (25.1 to 35.0 delay in seconds per vehicle) during the AM peak hour with a slight reduction in delay per vehicle of less than one second. • No physical roadway improvements beyond the limits of the project site are warranted based on the traffic volumes projected. • Traffic speed on 51 S' Street is fairly high where the roadway is straight and flat, with an average speed of 45 mph. This traffic speed may warrant some type of speed mitigation, independent of the FTC being developed adjacent to Boulder Reservoir. • There may be cost effective alternatives to constructing a separate roadway access across the reservoir site that will still provide safe and efficient access, even without an emergency only outbound access onto SH 119. In addition, in this context, an emergency outbound access onto SH 119 is not critical, and the expense of a completely separate FTC access roadway can be avoided. Emergency Egress to Diagonal Highway. As a part of the proposed project, the applicant is proposing an emergency only egress onto SH 119 (Diagonal Highway}. This emergency egress was not a given at the time of the community meeting. However, according to the applicant, in coordination with Boulder County discussions with CDOT Region 4 staff have recently resulted in a preliminary agreement for the requested emergency-only egress. This would result in access into the RFTC from 51St Street (through the Boulder Reservoir entrance gate) for the RFTC, but vehicles would exit the RFTC onto the Diagonal Highway for emergency response. AGENDA 1TEM # SC PACE # 11 The Diagonal (SH 119) is designed as a limited access facility and is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Driveway access and general access is not permitted for any proposed new public or private facility, due to the existing intersections of 63`d Street and Jay Road and the acceleration and deceleration distance requirements onto a limited access facility. Information compiled to date demonstrates that emergency egress would occur, on average, approximately six times each year and would most likely be primarily for multiple alarm responses. Design approaches being considered minimize the "footprint" to manage impacts and costs and the emergency egress to SH l 19 does require that CDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval be obtained prior to Site Review approval. Staff notes that with the findings of the Traffic Access Study in combination with preliminary permission from CDOT Region 4 to establish and emergency egress to SH 119, the access to the RFTC is adequate. Parallel Access Road Through Reservoir Public Land. As noted, the applicant intends to establish a separate roadway within the reservoir land that parallels the existing main access road. As indicated by the applicant, the new access roadway to the RFTC is proposed to be designed specifically for RFTC vehicles only, to eliminate the conflict of cars and pedestrian bicycles with the RFTC road; to limit the recreational use of the RFTC road, the road will have controlled access through agate/remote entry system. Also, the road will be separated from the reservoir road physically/visually to discourage any other users through grade separation, landscaping and physical barriers such as bollards and rumble strips as shown below. Staff notes that additional information will be required regarding this approach at the time of Site Review, although as noted above, the Traffic Access study noted that, "No physical roadway improvements beyond the limits of the project site are warranted based on the traffic volumes projected." , x ~w Figure 8: Cross-Section Illustrating Parallel Roadway Concept 3. Is the request for a height exception over 35 feet appropriate for the use and context? As noted previously, the tower building is proposed to be a maximum of 55 feet and the high point of the roof of the Administration Building is proposed to be approximately 40 feet. Both of these heights, according to the applicant, are necessary to provide adequate training facilities, with the tower height necessary to provide ~~ENiIA iTFM # 5(' PA~F. # 12 i training for high-rise operations, aerial ladder use, rappelling practice, and fire ground operations in high-rise occupancies. Similarly, the applicant has noted that the height of the administration building is not only to accommodate apparatus, but also to provide a control center and observation pavilion to oversee training operations. Proximity to Primary Viewshed Corridor (SH 119). The broadest viewshed into the RFTC would be from SH 119, with the longest most direct views from traffic traveling southbound. At speeds of approximately 55 miles per hour, direct views into the RFTC site lasts approximately five to seven seconds and are at an angle of approximately 25 to 30 degrees from the roadway facing the driver or passenger. Below are two computer model renderings of views into the RFTC from the highway. The site plan indicates that the buildings proposed would be grouped within an area roughly 200 x 300, or that of a football field and as noted, the burn building and tower are planned furthest to the northwest and nearest to the earthen dam of the reservoir, approximately 1,300 feet from the SH 119 corridor. The administration building is proposed to be located closest to the highway, approximately 1,100 feet away from the roadway. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.22 states that the city and county intend to preserve the existing rural land uses and character. In addition, in the public comments and questions from the January 18, 2006 neighborhood meeting held as part of the City Council's action to approve the location of the Wells property for the RFTC, a question was asked about the visibility of the building; staff responded that "the architecture and coloring can be made to blend in with the background." Therefore, with this intent, the applicant has utilized landscaping and building colors (with the exception of the red roof of the administration building) such that the RFTC facilities would be subdued in the landscape. An Altered Landscape. Staff notes that the existing setting is that of a naturalized, altered landscape of highly engineered earth berms for both the Boulder and Six Mile reservoirs. The highway corridor moves through this landscape, which is also punctuated by industrial buildings, the existing Water Treatment Plant and existing reservoir buildings. It within this altered setting that the three structures are proposed. Water Quality Highway 119 Gunbarrel Business Park Treatment Facility _ _ - ~ a air _ ~ } t ~ ry a { ~ ; F ~ . k' may,#~ i \ - t ~;..I' Figure 9: Existing Development within Highway 119 Corridor near Subject Property AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 13 Architectural Style. The architectural style of the administration building as defined by the applicant is that of an "agrarian-type shed", with the tower and burn buildings of materials and color (in beiges and grays) that would integrate into the viewshed corridor of SH 119. In addition, because of the backdrop of the existing 30-foot high earthen berm of the dam and proposed topography in this area it is possible that these buildings could be integrated into, and thus recess within, the middle-ground viewshed. Proposed RFTC Administration Building, with Burn Building and Tower adjacent to the right. .'mot'.^~S~'i.'.~ ~ • ~ ' ~ : ,p. ~(N ~ ~ _ ' :ikr 'R'.~ IT J '•~y L Figure 10: Computer Model Rendering of RFTC from Southbound SH 119 Staff notes that it is evident from the perspective sketches provided by the applicant that the tower building would not be fully back-dropped by the Boulder Reservoir. With the fire tower proposed at an elevation of approximately 5,160 feet, and the top of the reservoir's earthen berm at 5,190 foot elevation, the fifty-five foot tower would be seen above the crest of the reservoir. In contrast, Six Mile Reservoir has a top elevation of 5,208, or nearly eighteen feet higher than that of the Boulder Reservoir. That berm would provide a more significant backdrop to the burn tower than the Boulder reservoir berm. Staff recommends that the applicant explore rotating the site plan such that the tower could potentially be more fully back-dropped by Six Mile Reservoir and/or the "peninsula" of land that extends from Six Mile Reservoir. Proposed RFTC Administration Building with Tower visible to the left. F rr~a~~ Figure 11: Computer Model Rendering of RFTC from Northbound SH 119 AGENDA ITEM #t SC PAGE 14 Then, staff notes that the style of the large administration building with the modernist red roof, positioned such that the long side of the building faces the highway, would be amore visually pronounced structure in the foreground from the highway. Staff recommends a more subdued color scheme and, if possible given the building's programmatic elements, rotated at an angle less pronounced along the highway corridor. Given the overall goal toward LEED certification, it is understood that significant grading to potentially lower the building would not be feasible. However, staff recommends that the applicant consider orienting the long side of the administration building toward the south for maximum solar capture, and explore use of a "green" or vegetated roof. This would not only contribute to garnering a LEED standard building, as is the goal, but would also help to create a more subtle building. Views of RFTC from the Reservoir Beaches and Open Space. The applicant provided a visual analysis that presents the views of the RFTC from the nearest beach to the facility, as well as overlooking the facility from the earthen dam near the proposed entry down into the RFTC. As shown in Figure 12 below, both the tower and the administration would be seen projecting above the earthen dam of the reservoir. However, also noted in this viewshed are other existing facilities including the water treatment and several reservoir facilities, as well as industrial buildings across SH 119 within the Gunbarrel Business Park. ir`,,~" Existing Existing Water ? ~ ~ Proposed Proposed Reservoir Treatment ~ " j RFTC RFTC Facilities Facility / ` ~ Tower Admin. (Boathouse, h ~ ~ /Bldg. Maintenance) .r. - . .r Figure 12: Computer Model Rendering of RFTC from the Swim Beach at Boulder Reservoir , s~~' _ r d _ -t k'S~r ~,f. ry i Figure 13: Computer Model Rendering of RFTC from Top of Reservoir Berm (Looking Toward the Northeast and SH 119) AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 15 4. Does the proposed project create impacts from burning on neighboring properties? Two smoke studies were prepared by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to analyze potential smoke impacts, both are provided in Attachment E. The first study, a smoke dispersion analysis, indcates that the purpose of the report is, "to describe the potential air-quality impacts that locating the new Boulder Fire Department burn training facility between Boulder Reservoir and CO-119 may have on the surrounding area." The methodology of the report included wind climatography in the area of the proposed training facility, a descritpion of a typical training session conducted at the current facility, a smoke transport modeling and simulation. The summary of findings of that report were as follows: 1. During an actual training session, no odor of smoke was detectable beyond a distance of 100 meters downwind of the burn house. Also, no visible plume was seen beyond a distance of 10 meters downwind of the facility. 2. Based on the determined wind field climate for the area (prescribed months and hours of the day for training), smoke from the proposed training facility location will generally travel to the west, but could frequently have a significant northerly or southerly component. About 15% of the time, the wind is oriented from the location of the proposed training facility toward Celestial Seasonings (across SH 119 to the south). 3. Under aworst-case scenario, simulated smoke concentrations at a range of 100 meters downwind of the trianing facility are near the lower limit of visual and olfactory detectability. This is over 1000 meters from the Celestial Seasonings facility. 4. Smoke concentrations at Clestial Seasonings from the proposed training facility will likely be less than those resulting from diesel-electric locomotives passing on the rail line adjacent to Celestial Seasonings. The second study was a mapping (atlas) of smoke odor impact -cones surrounding the proposed RFTC. The atlas looked at two end products: first, an analysis of the probability that the odor of wood smoke generated by training operations during particular times of day and seasons, can be detected at any point in the vicinity of the proposed facility. The second product of the atlas was an operational tool that uses current observed wind speed and direction to estimate the area downind of the proposed facility in which the odor of wood smoke maybe detected. The study used model simulations from "CALPUFF, an EPA-approved model for use in regulatory and environmental studies. The study concluded that "even at high concentrations seen close to the release point (SO meters downwind) are at the lower end of the range for the limit of detection of several of the key odor-causing components of smoke." A .F.NnA iTF.M # 5 PAC,F. # 1 F . ~ I The Potential Visual Distraction from RFTC Burning. As noted in the staff memorandum for the February 21, 2006 City Council hearing on the RFTC, another concern is the potential impact of the RFTC operations to traffic on Highway 119, particularly with regard to "gawkers." According to the memo, the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming built a new fire rescue training complex in 2003 that includes asix-story tower and atwo-story burn building located one-half mile north of Interstate 80 that is visible from the highway, and there are no reports of known accidents or complaints in the two years since that facility was constructed. This is area in which staff recommends further analysis at Site Review. i.~~ flay, u/ ~ y ~h # ~ ~ < , t ~ 1. .der ° ~ F~ 4 ; t9.i~t ~ ~ fr• Figure 14: Fire Rescue Training Complex in Cheyenne, Wyoming Proximate to Interstate 80 GUIDELINES FOR CONCEPT REVIEW AND COMMENT: The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. 1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; The 10-acre subject site is located within the Boulder Reservoir public lands, just east of the earthen reservoir dam in an area of essentially flat grasslands. Topography does rise to the south and west surrounding the site, with the earthen dam portion of the reservoir rising 25 feet above the subject property on the west. There is a "peninsula" of land that wraps the site on the south where the access road for the site is proposed, and which folds into the earthen dam portion of Six Mile Reservoir. Atop the Boulder Reservoir is a multi-use trail, part of a large loop that encircles the reservoir. The top of the Six Mile Reservoir is approximately 30 feet above the subject site and the RFTC site is essentially enveloped within these land forms on the southwestern boundary. SH 119 is located approximately 800- to 900-feet to the southeast of the property. Views into the site are clearly evident from the highway and the earthen dams of both AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 17 reservoirs form a backdrop to the site from the highway. 'The project plans call for additional grading between the highway and the reservoir to sculpt the land and form screening berms as well as detention azeas. Within the 10-acre site, there aze no stands of trees. Due east of the subject site, there aze several stands of trees that are mostly lazge cottonwoods located neaz drainage features. Southeast of the site, neaz the highway, is a designated wetland area. A 50-foot wetland buffer is shown on the project plans, although the wetland is located well away from the RFTC site. As noted in the Wildlife and Wetlands Assessment Report prepared by Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, there aze Black-tailed prairie dog burrows that dot the area. The report had concluded that approximately 98 percent of the prairie dogs were likely decimated by the Sylvatic plague caused by a bacterium transmitted by fleas. The report goes on to note that no prairie dogs were seen at the time of the site visit in May 2007, but there were a few surviving animals north of the property. However, in a site visit conducted by staff on October 24, 2007, six to eight individuals were noted within the property. The assessment report also noted that there aze several special status species that could potentially occur on the site, although none were observed in the azea to be disturbed by the proposed project at the time of the site visit in May 2007. 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; The property is part of the overall Boulder Reservoir public lands, for which a Master Plan was prepazed in 1983. According to the city's attorney, the Master Plan is not a regulatory document and is instead intended as a guide. Therefore, staff s primary evaluation of consistency of the proposed project will be with regard to adopted plans including the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the City of Boulder Fire Department's Master Plan, and Pazks and Open Space Master Plan. In the BVCP, the site is designated as "Public." Within the BVCP, Public and Semi- Public Land use Designations are noted as those that: "encompass a wide range of public and private non profit uses that provide community services. " Consistency with Site Review criteria within the Land Use Code Section 9-2-14, B.R.C., 1981 will be evaluated in greater detail at the Site Review submittal. Regazding the City of Boulder Fire Department's Master Plan, the intent of the Master Plan is noted as follows: • Profiles the current fire protection and emergency services system, including the capabilities and limitations of the system. AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 18 Identifies the nature and extent of the risks faced by people and the environment in Boulder. • Establishes goals to determine the desired performance level and measure the effectiveness of the fire and emergency services system in future years. Among the overall Department goals articulated in the Master Plan that are relevant to the relocation of the Fire Training Center, are the following: 1. Minimize death and injuries due to fire. 2. Minimize direct and indirect losses due to fire. 3. Minimize death and suffering for people experiencing sudden illness, accidents, or injury. 4. Minimize the number and adverse impact of hazazdous materials releases. 5. Minimize deaths, injuries, and property loss due to natural and technological disasters. 6. Provide cost effective fire protection and emergency services. 7. Maximize citizen satisfaction. In addition, within the Master Plan is the following objective: Objective 23: Provide a clean air burn building. The existing bum building at the training center is not designed to use clean air fuels. Even though training fires are exempt from burning regulations, the Department does not burn during high air pollution days. The Department would like to have a burn building that uses clean burning fuels. The Master Plan also calls for moving the training center away from the residential area in north Boulder to limit noise, air, and other environmental effects from training activities. 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; At the rime of Site Review, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with Site Review criteria found in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., 1981. 4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; The applicant will be required to complete Site Review and Technical Document Review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 19 The traffic study concluded that the proposed project would create little to no impacts on-site, or to the access from 51 s~ Street. In addition, anemergency-only/right-out egress on to SH 119 is planned for emergency responses. This emergency access would provide a more efficient means for personnel in training to respond to emergencies off- site. 6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; No known endangered or protected species or other environmental constraints exist on site. A revised Wildlife and Wetlands Assessment is required to provide up-to-date information about impacts to prairie dog habitat. 7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The zoning for the subject property is "Public" and governmental facilities on public land require Use Review. The land use designation under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) is "Pazks -Urban and Other." The area is designated as Area III Annexed -Rural Preservation in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The zoning is Public, and the proposed use as a "governmental facility" requires a Use Review process. 8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. Housing is not an identified use for this site. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 1,200 feet of the site and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-10(g), B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Further, preceding the City Council's public hearing on Feb. 21, 2006 with a directive to construct a RFTC at the Wells Property, a neighborhood meeting was held on January 16, 2006 at the Harvest Baptist Church in Gunban•el, with approximately 25 attendees. Most of the questions from the meeting were about visual impacts, smoke production and impacts to the reservoir. After prepazation of concept sketches, a more recent informational community meeting was held on Nov. 8, 2007, at Heatherwood Elementazy School east of Gunbarrel, also with approximately 25 attendees. It was found that most of the attendees were county residents from neighborhoods surrounding the property who articulated support in general for the project, but opposition to access on 51g` Street. In addition, there were eight comment letters received that aze provided in Attachment D. AGENDA ITEM # SC PAGE # 20 STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: No action is required on behalf of the Planning Boazd; public comment, staff, and Planning Boazd comments will be documented for the applicant's use. Concept Plan Review and comment is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposed development plan and provide the applicant direction on submittal of the site review plans. Approved By: ' Ruth McHeyser, Acting Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Development Review Comments and Guidelines for Concept Review C. Neighborhood Comments D. Wildlife and Wetlands Assessment Report E. Smoke Dispersion Report F. Traffic Access Study G. Applicant's Written Statement H. Concept Plan Documents AGENDA TEEM # SC PAGE # 21 ATTACHMENT A City of Boulder Vicinity Map i 1M Subject Area ~ 5565 N 51st St Ii ~ Lootour rtd 4 C~ 19111alla Or .d. a, 1 G ° - ~ ~ ~ ~aa ~ ~If loFiAv - ; O L( 3 I(aleo Rtl h / ro 1 M I, P Q y _ ad Or 1p Idya .O C ~ ,a ~ W hhA^a 0i ' 1 G N ~i Lr y - ~L R L'-' 1 " L- Z Subject Legend City Limit Location: 5565 N 59st St ~ Project Name: Regional Fire Training Center s City of Boulder ~ ~ Review Type: Concept Plan Review I & Comment , ~ R? The mformaLon depicted on thre map is provided AA 7~1 as Graphical representatron only The City of Boulder Review Number: LUR2007-00073 provides no warranty. expressed onmphed. as t° 1 inch equals 1667 feet the accuracy and/or completeness of the information Applicant: City of Boulder Fire Department `°°taln°d hereon CITY OF BOULDER ATTACHMENT B Development Review Comments Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 fax 303-441-3241 web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: November 9, 2007 CASE MANAGER: Elaine McLaughlin PROJECT NAME: Regional Fire Training Center LOCATION: 5565 N 51ST COORDINATES: N11W01 REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2007-00073 APPLICANT: ANNE LANE DESCRIPTION: Regional Fire Center REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Height 1. REVIEW FINDINGS A) Summary of Development Review Findings. The following comments reflect a review of the submitted Concept Plan for redevelopment of the site. The Concept Plan will not be approved or denied, but will be used to provide the applicant with preliminary staff, Planning Board, and public feedback and input to be used in the formulation of a Site Review application. Refinements to the proposed site plan and architecture should address public, staff and Planning Board comments as well as Site Review criteria found in the Land Use Code Section 9-2-14, B.R.C.1981. A Planning Board hearing has been scheduled for December 6, 2007 to discuss the proposed Concept Plan Review application. It is highly recommended that the applicant review the comments herein and be prepared to address the following issues and comments at the Concept Plan hearing. Key issues to be discussed at the Concept Review hearing will include (but are not limited to): 1. Is the proposed plan compatible with the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Does the proposed layout optimize vehicular access, safety, and circulation? 3. Is the request for a height exception over 35-feet appropriate for the use and context? 4. Does the proposed layout optimize site and context conditions? Because revisions or corrections are not required for this application, based on 2005 development review fees, hourly billing will not be applicable unless another application is required or the applicant revises the current Concept Plan proposal. B) Summary of Proposed Project. The Concept Plan illustrates the 10-acre Fire Training Center (hereinafter "RFTC") on the east of the earthen dam of the Boulder Reservoir, on a site referred to as the °Wells property." Within the center, a 16,000 square foot administration building is proposed to include classrooms, offices, and storage space. Atwo-story, approximately 3,200 square foot Burn Building is proposed and an approximately 55-foot high Fire Tower is proposed, both as props to simulate different emergency scenarios and for live fire training utilizing clean burning fuels. According to the applicant, the burn building training activities would include: ~ger,Q~ !tem # SG •P~s # 3 3 laddering, hose work, attach of structural fires, confined space work, forcible entry breaching and breaking tasks, search and rescue, ventilation, victim package and removal, overall. The burn building (prop) provides specific building faces and layouts to resemble found structures in the community which also emulate potential emergency circumstances found in the community. The masonry and frame are proposed to withstand the high abuse training activities and impact of high temperatures during burn activities for long term wear. The tower would be used to simulate multiple story firefighting and rescue. According to the applicant, training activities associated with the tower include: laddering, hose work, rope rescue, attack of structural fires, confined space work, forcible entry, breaching and breaking tasks, search and rescue, lowering/repelling, high angle rescue, Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) use, ventilation, standpipe evolutions, victim package and removal. The masonry and steel elements are proposed on the tower to withstand high abuse training and long term wear. In addition, the roof form is proposed to provide weather protection during training activities. A hazardous materials pit is proposed to simulate spills and hydrocarbon fires, and an approximately one-half acre paved area is proposed as a driver training course for fire trucks and other emergency equipment. The 10-acre size of the site is not only important in terms of providing sufficient work and training areas but also to provide a buffer between the facility and surrounding development. The Fire Department notes in the Master Plan that it is important to train with mutual aid agencies in order to function more effectively on large incidents where mutual aid is utilized. The Department also believes it is in the City's interest to have well trained firefighters in neighboring fire departments and that joint funding and utilization of fire training provides mutual benefits to the City and the surrounding communities. C) Background. The subject property, referred to as the "Wells property" is located within BVCP Area III -Annexed and has been owned by the City of Boulder since 1954 when the Reservoir was constructed. The site has been previously used for special events and parking. In February 2006, City Council approved the location of the subject property as the new RFTC that had been established as a preferred location out of a number of other locations analyzed. The council action was in support of the City of Boulder Fire Department Master Plan that identified the need for a new center. As noted in the Master Plan, the existing training center located on three acres south of Lee Hill Drive was built in 1974. The existing RFTC is lacking adequate facilities including props to simulate various fire suppression, rescue, and hazardous materials release scenarios. Similarly, the existing RFTC does not have the space necessary to conduct fire apparatus driver training programs with driving skills instruction on the public roadways or in private or public parking lots for the various sizes of emergency vehicles and equipment. The Department recommended that a new training center be constructed in an area that is removed from residential occupancies and readily accessible to Boulder Fire personnel and apparatus. The Department further recommends that the center utilize technology which minimizes atmospheric releases of smoke and other toxic substances. In February 2006 the City Council public hearing was held with a decision to approve the Wells property location. The decision was supported by a site selection process that involved consideration and analysis of a number of alternative sites. There were six basic site criteria used in the site selection process: proximity to the city of Boulder and neighboring fire departments; a minimum of 10 to 12 acres; proximity to utilities, including potable water; appropriate zoning; neighborhood compatibility; cost and availability. Six sites were found and evaluated including Valmont Butte, later determined to have too many constraints, the Wells property and others. Because of the critical need for potable water in the fire training center, the other alternative sites were ruled out. Preceding the Council's public hearing, a neighborhood meeting was held on January 16, 2006 at the Harvest Baptist Church in Gunbarrel with approximately 25 attendees. Most of the questions from the meeting were about visual impacts, smoke production and impacts to the reservoir. A!~m~ ~G P~. a~ II. CITY REQUIREMENTS AccesslCirculation (Michelle Mahan, 303-441-0417) 1. State Highway 119 is classed as an expressway (category E-X). Per section 3.7(3) of the Colorado State Highway Access Code, no access from an E-X category street will be permitted to private property unless reasonable access cannot be obtained from the general street system. The emergency egress to State Highway 119 requires that CDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval be obtained prior to Site Review approval. • The applicant is notHied that a FHWA access control line is located along this segment of Highway 119. Installing an emergency egress onto Highway 119 will require FHWA approval for an access control line break, which is a 9 to 18 month process. The applicant is encouraged to work with city Planning and Development staff to request FHWA approval as soon as possible. To make the initial request to obtain an access control line break, a preliminary plan showing the emergency egress must be provided to the city. • A CDOT access permit must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3"' Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the citys web-site at: www.bouldercolorado.aov 2. -Per section 2.10(D)(6) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, the grade for an emergency access lane must not exceed 5% (8% where topographical constraints exist). At the time of Site Review, a preliminary grading plan will be required to demonstrate contormance with this standard for all fire access drives. In addition, the grading plan must demonstrate how the proposed RFTC access road will affect the existing grading of the Six Mile Reservoir earthen dam. 3. It is unclear from the plans how the proposed RFTC access road will be differentiated from the existing entrance to the reservoir. At the time of Site Review, additional information must be provided by the applicant showing how the RFTC access road will be gated or controlled to prevent Boulder Reservoir entry, along with preliminary signage and striping designating the access drive as RFTC use only. 4. The site proposal has been modified significantly from the proposal which the submitted trip generation analysis (dated September 24, 2004) was based on. Prior to Site Review submittal, trip generation and trip distribution for the current proposal is required to be performed and the results submitted per sections 2.03(J) and 2.03(K) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. A traffic impact study is required for any nonresidential development that is expected to generate 100 vehicle trips or greater during any single hour. A traffic impact study will be a requirement of the Site Review 'rf trip generation is shown to exceed the threshold or if determined to be necessary to show compliance with section 9-2- 14(h)(2)(D) of the Boulder Revised Code. If a traffic impact study is warranted by the trip generation, the transportation consultant or engineer preparing the study must contact Michelle Mahan (303-441-4417) to discuss the study parameters prior to initiating the study. 5. At the time of Site Review, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to be submitted which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. The applicant should contact Andrea Robbins (303-441-4139) with GO Boulder, to discuss TDM options. The TDM plan must be submitted as a separate document with Site Review resubmittal. Building Design The site plan indicates that the four buildings proposed Tor the site would be grouped in an area of roughly 200 x 300 feet in size, or that of a football field. Within this area, the burn building and the drill tower are planned furthest to the northwest and nearest to the earthen dam of the reservoir, approximately 1,300 feet from the State Highway 119 corridor. The 16,000 square foot administration building is proposed to be located closest to the highway, approximately 1,100 feet away from the roadway. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.22 states that the city and ' county intend to preserve the existing rural land uses and character. In addition, in the public comments and questions from the January 18, 2006 neighborhood meeting held as part of the City Council's action to approve the location of the Welis property, a question was asked about the visibility of the building and staff noted then, that "the architecture and coloring can be made to blend in with the background " Therefore, with this intent, staff notes that the visibility of the RFTC facilities should be minimized, and the architecture of the buildings should reinforce a rural character. The architectural style as defined by the applicant is that of an "agrarian-type shed" while staff notes that the burn tower and burn building are of a material and color (in beiges and grays) that would integrate into the viewshed corridor of Highway 119. In addition, because of the backdrop of the existing 30-foot high earthen berm of the dam and proposed topography in this area it is possible that these buildings could be integrated into, and thus recess into, the middle-ground viewshed. However, staff is concerned about the visibility of two of the structures. First, it is evident from the perspective sketches provided by the applicant that the fire tower would not be fully backdropped bythe Boulder Reservoir. With the fire tower proposed at an elevation of approximately 5,160 feet, and the top of the reservoir's earthen berm at 6190 feet, the fifty-five foot tower would be seen above the crest of the reservoir. In contrast, Six Mile Reservoir has a top elevation of 5,208, or nearly eighteen feet higher than that of the Boulder Reservoir. That berm would provide a more significant backdrop to the burn tower than the Boulder reservoir berm. Staff recommends that the applicant explore rotating the site plan such that the tower could potentially be more fully backdropped by Six Mile Reservoir and/or the "peninsula° of land that extends from Six Mile Reservoir. Then, staff notes that the style of the large administration building with the modernist red roof, and positioned such that the long side of the building faces the highway, would be a more visually pronounced structure in the foreground from the highway. Staff recommends a more subdued color scheme and an architectural style that has less obtrusive architectural style, as well as a grading and landscape plan that work to conceal the visibility of the structure and integrate it more into the landscape. Given the overall goal toward LEED certification, staff recommends that the applicant consider orienting the long side of the long administration building toward the south for maximum solar capture and providing a "green° or vegetated roof. This would not only contribute to garnering a LEED standard building, as is the goal, but would also help to create a more subtle building in the landscape. Landscaping As the project plans progress, greater detail will be required regarding landscape planting and berming concepts on the site, particularly for screening purposes of the facilities from the viewshed of the highway. While staff notes that landscaping should not be used to obscure the facilities, foreground vegetation and berming could be used to soften the appearance of the buildings within the landscape. Lot Layout As project plans progress, delineate the specific 10-acre boundary for the facility on the site plan. This will assist in distinguishing between land earmarked for recreational purposes, and that which is Fire Training Center exclusively. Also, as described in the Parks and Open Space comments below, note that there are lands in proximity to the 10-acre subject property that are State-dedicated lands that must be maintained Ate, Sam ~ ~G t~aa®i4 .~(`D for a recreational purpose. Those boundaries must be illustrated on the site plan as well, and the applicant must ensure that access roadways or other facilities related to the RFTC do not encroach into this area per State agreements. Neighborhood Comments A neighborhood meeting was held on November 8, 2007 with approximately 25 neighbor attendees. The primary issues addressed were related to traffic along 51" Street and the impact this facility would contribute to what the neighbors perceive as an existing constrained traffic context; there was a question about noise; visibility of the site from 51°` Street; and smoke dispersal. A referral to Boulder County Planning Department was also made, and the following comments ' and questions were received by Pete Fogg, Senior Planner, Boulder County on November 8, 2007: "We believe the applicants ought to do an impact analysis for a primary access off of N 63rd Street through the city's water treatment facility property to avoid the issues raised about congestion etc on N 51st. The new road alignment proposed off of N 51st seems to be an extremely tight fit, and if there were a need for emergency vehicles at the RFTC to respond to an of(-site incident during the months people are using the rec facilities at or near the Res, there could be some real bottleneck and safety problems. We realize that the more significant environmental features have been identified north and northeast of the Center between it and the treatment plant, but we believe it should be looked at nonetheless as an alternative considered. It also appears that the BVCP Land Use Designation at the site does not accommodate the type of facility proposed. It is classed as "Park, Urban and Other" which is only intended for active and passive recreational uses. The zoning is "Public" which does allow for educational and governmental facilities. A BVCP map amendment from "Park, Urban and Other" to Public" would be in order. This is an amendment that can be proposed at any time provided it meet the criteria in Section ll. 1. b. (1) of the BVCP. You may want to discuss this with Susan Richstone. Finally, did the applicant conduct any analysis of visibility issues on SH 199 relative to smoke emanating from the site as well as the dispersal pattern and ppm of particulate or noxious gases? This obviously was one of the main reasons the site on Lee Hill Road needed to be shut down and moved. People may want information on both of these topics." Parks and Open Space (Matt Claussen, Conservation Coordinator 303-413-7258) The following are Parks and Open Space-related items to be considered for access, building site, and long term resource concerns. Access: Issue #1: The access to Boulder Reservoir, primarily the front parking area is heavily used during the weekends by a variety of recreational activities (running, biking, dog walking, etc.) It is also used during the weekdays to a lesser degree for similar activities. Parking and access is compounded during sporting events held at Boulder Reservoir, and neighbors in the Valhalla area have voice concerns of the public using their area as parking for use around Boulder Reservoir. In addition, prairie dog mitigation barriers were installed in early 2007. Design of the access road area would need to incorporate similar or improved mitigation strategies to address potential prairie dog encroachment into this area. Comment: ~,m„a~ ~ 5~ P~~ ~ ~7 The possibility of designing access simultaneously for both the RFTC road access and Boulder Reservoir front parking/access area might help to alleviate private and public concern of access and available parking. The design coordination could incorporate the 'front' section of the Reservoir while allowing for later developments in the recreational area of the south shore that are currently being discussed. Issue #2: There is a small acreage (approximately five acres) of land directly behind the marina/maintenance building that was purchased with State Land and Water Conservation Funds. These lands, by State regulation, are to remain available for recreational purposes. Comment: Any access road built would need to bypass this area so as not to interfere with the requirements of providing recreational needs. Building Site Issue #3: Prairie dogs are in fact present at the building site. A small colony of at least 6 individuals occupies the area on the southwest side. Future expansion of this colony can be expected in the next year before any construction takes place and could have greater impact at that time upon this project. Historically, prairie dogs have thrived in the south dam area and populations will likely rebound even after the recent plague event. Comments: Urban Wildlife Management Plan guidelines will need to be followed. Mitigation strategies will need to be employed in the design of the facility to address possible encroachment problems. Possible encroachment into the south shore area as a result of displacement of prairie dogs or environmental pressure should be recognized as well. Habitat Protection/Enhancement Issue #4: Habitat protection/enhancement of the area to the east of the proposed building site should be considered. Wetlands and grassland ecosystems in the area should have adequate buffer to allow continued sustainability for associated species. Grassland/wetland habitat and associated species have a long historical existence in this area.* Comment: A buffer area, either by an earthen berm, vegetative planting or both would be helpful in maintaining remaining ecosystem structure in this area. Providing for wildlife habitat and maintaining the historical ecosystem component of this area would be beneficial. Any designs of the site and affected area by construction should take this into consideration. 'See attached bibliography of associated studies for the Boulder Reservoir area. Issue #5: Existing vegetative corridor just north of the site, below the dam is part of prairie dog mitigation project. Comment: Coordination to salvage these trees, etc. should be part of pre-construction phase. Public Health and Safety The proposed project is intended to provide a regional public safety service by ensuring that fire Acardaa Pest # ~L P1C2 ~ fighters and fire personnel have adequate training with fire equipment in live fire circumstances. A separate public health and safety question is the use of live fire burning internal to both the proposed "Burn Building" and the "Fire Tower," and whether those could impact public health or safety due to smoke concentrations. According to the applicant, the Burn Building utilizes wooden pallets as fuel to provide heat, smoke and flames for live fire training. As with any fire utilizing wood as a fuel, smoke is released into the atmosphere; because of the Fire Department's noted sensitivity to air pollution, the Department does not train with live fire during the winter high air pollution season. As noted in the staff memorandum prepared for the February 21, 2006 City Council, "smoke generation would be limited by the amount and type of material used for live fire training. During a burn, light to moderate smoke is produced. When water is applied, smoke and steam emit until the fire is extinguished. This amount of smoke dissipates quickly." During the public process to determine a new site for the RFTC, the city contracted with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to analyze these potential impacts, NCAR staff concluded that smoke concentrations at a range of 100 meters downwind of the training facility are near the lower limit of visual and olfactory detection. Because of the nature of the facility and the techniques used in the training, the smoke is primarily concentrated within the steel framed structures of the Burn Building and the Fire Tower. However, some release of smoke into the atmosphere does occur. In an analysis of "Smoke Plume Climatology', the NCAR staff used CALPUFF, an EPA-approved model for use in regulatory and environmental studies to analyze two factors: 1. The probability that the odor of wood smoke generated by training operations during particular times of day and seasons, can be detected at any point in the vicinity of the proposed facility for long term test planning; 2. Estimated area downwind of the proposed training facility in which the odor of wood smoke maybe detected. The report concludes that the probability of detecting the odor of smoke is generally low, and decreases rapidly with distance from the location of the proposed facility. Further the report notes: "The probability of detection is less than f0 percent for distances greater than 500 meters form the proposed site. The probability of detection does not exceed more than a few percent over areas that are currently developed. Because the dispersion of smoke is driven by wind, there are patterns to the probability of detection that change with season and time of day." Site Design (Elaine McLaughlin, Case Manager, 303.441.4130) The most evident public viewshed into the site would most likely be from south-bound Highway 119. Because of the alignment of the highway in the location of the subject property, the viewshed traveling northbound on Highway 119 would be more limited. It also appears as though the tops of the proposed facilities would be visible from the public beaches of the Boulder Reservoir. As shown in the Sketch Up image provided from the beach of the reservoir, the tops of the buildings would be seen to rise above the crest of the dam, looking east. Staff also notes that buildings in the distance are also visible from this location including the large IBM plant in the northeast portion of this viewshed, as well as other office buildings within the Gunbarrel business park area. With the nearest residential buildings located approximately 3,200 feet to the south of the proposed RFTC, the earthen berms would provide visual barriers of the RFTC to the residences. The earthen dams of both the Boulder and Six Mile reservoirs would provide a uniformly graded backdrop to the RFTC on the south and west. Such a context establishes the site's location not as an unaltered natural landscape but one that is a uniform, man-made topography with a naturalized appearance. !qtr! ~ Ski D~c a a~ Southbound Highway 119 Viewshed. The administration building is proposed to be approximately 1,300 linear feet from the Highway 119 right-of-way, with the planned paved driving course located approximately 800 feet from the right-0f-way. Approaching the subject site from the north, the visual context on the east side of the highway is that of a developed business industrial area with one- and two-story buildings aligning the highway. The appearance of the western side of Highway 119 is variable with an existing rural character that is punctuated by large developed tracts of land including the IBM plant and facilities located approximately one mile north of the subject property. The site itself is a broad, flat grassy plain backdropped by the man-made earthen dam of the reservoir in the middle ground, with background views of high peaks. It is important to note that the approximately one-half mile long viewshed from the highway will be seen by most of the public when traveling at speeds of 40 to 65 miles per hour. Given the distance and average speed of 50 miles per hour it is estimated that views into the site would last approximately 30 seconds or less from a vehicle traveling south on Highway 119. Although the views into the site would become obscured relatively quickly with changing topography and foreground trees, staff notes that the travel along Highway 119 and the relatively rural context on the west side of the highway providea the context from which the site design and architecture of the concept plan could be evaluated.Staff concludes that given the (albeit highly altered landscape) the site has a naturalized rural setting. Therefore, staff recommends additions of foreground trees and berming (that the applicant has noted but not detailed on the project plans) and more subtle colors and architecture for all of the buildings within the facility. Similarly, as project plans progress, the applicant should ensure that any night time operations and training that is conducted on the project site that utilize lighting, will be clearly ident~ed within the project plans. As noted in the staff memorandum for the February 21, 2006 City Council, another wncern is the potential impact of the RFTC operations to traffic on Highway 119, the Diagonal Highway, particularly with regard to "gawkers ° According to the memo, the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming has a new fire training center located one-half mile north of Interstate 80 that is visible from the highway and there are no reports of known accidents or complaints in the two years prior to the memo preparation and since that facility was constructed. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Drainage (Brian Campbell, P.E. 303-441-3121) Storm water quality enhancement and detention ponding are issues that must be addressed during the Site Review Process. A Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards must be provided by the applicant at time of Site Review application. Additional items that must be considered when developing a drainage plan include but are not limited to: Adequate space to accommodate drainage and water quality facilities • Offsite drainage infrastructure improvements • Evaluation of negative impacts to downstream properties from existing offsite flow • Water quality for surface runoff using "Best Management Practices" • Groundwater discharge • Erosion control during construction activities This project will disturb more than 1 acre of land and will be required to provide Water Quality Capture Volume and a Water Quality Outlet in accordance with the UDFCD Drainage Criteria Manual unless other storm water quality facilities are approved by the Director. It is unclear where this feature will be located based on the submitted site plan. The applicant will be required to utilize best management practices to help mitigate stormwater quality impacts associated with the development of the site. The city requires that the applicant minimize directly connected impervious areas on the site and construct and maintain structural best management practices. Directly connected impervious areas can be minimized by routing roof and parking lot runoff through landscaped areas rather than directly to a storm sewer facility. h~-, ?`i Structural best management practices typically include features like water quality ponds, constructed wetlands, treatment channels, and sand filters. Detailed water quality requirements can be found in Section 7.13 of the city's Design and Construction Standards and in the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3. Water quality requirements must address at a conceptual level in the Preliminary Stormwater Report and Plan submitted at the time of Site Review. The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals for any relocations or mod'fiications to irrigation ditches or laterals from the impacted ditch company. This includes the crossing of any irrigation ditch or lateral for vehicular or utility purposes and the release of storm water runoff into any ditch or lateral. The applicant is advised that revisions to any approved city plans necessary to address ditch company requirements may require reapplication for city review and approval at the applicant's expense. Engineering (Brian Campbell, P.E. 303-441-3121) High ground water has been observed in this area in the past. Proper soils reports and testing shall be completed to properly design foundations and pavement sections to withstand the excessive loads caused by the fire trucks. Flood Control (Katie Knapp 303-441-3273) As submitted, the proposed project is outside of the regulatory floodplain. Utilities (Brian Campbell, P.E. 303-441-3121) A utility corridor will need to be established and shown over all of the public utilities within the city's property, which meet the city's design and construction standards. A memorandum stating that these utility corridors will become public utility easements upon sale of property will also be required. All utilities built off of the city's property will require a public utility easement. On-site and off-site water main and wastewater main construction per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) as necessary to serve the development, as well as perpetuate the overall system, will be required. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the DCS. A Utility Report per Sections 5.02 and 6.02 of the DCS will be required at time of Site Review or Preliminary Plat application to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems. It appears that a sewer connection will be made on the 4" force main that serves the Reservoir building and the water will be connected to the 24" pipe adjacent to Hwy 119. A looping water main will be required for this site. Be sure to acquire the proper easements that will allow future maintenance access to the proposed pipelines. In all areas other than single family residential, there shall be no more that 350 feet of fire access distance between hydrants. No exterior portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. Fire access distance means the distance between two hydrants, or the distance from a hydrant to any external portion of any building, measured along public or private (but accessible to fire equipment) roadways or fire lanes, as would be traveled by motorized firefighting equipment. All water meters are to be placed in city R.O.W. or a public utility easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. Wetlands (Katie Knapp 303-441-3273) As submitted, the proposed project will not impact designated wetlands or wetland buffer areas. However, it will be important in the site design, to prevent impacts to the wetlands to the north of the project area by preventing alteration to surface and groundwater hydrology off the site. SL r~..R ~ 3/ Wildlife (Bev Johnson, 303-441-3272) The wildlife report included in the submittal indicates that there are no prairie dogs on the project site. The assessment was conducted in May of 2007. On a recent site visit, however, prairie dogs were seen in several areas of the project site. A revised habitat assessment is needed to provide up-to-date information about impacts to prairie dog habitat. The site review application materials should include a plan for managing prairie dogs through the pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases of the project relative to the citys Six-Step Process. The process prioritizes the following actions for managing prairie dogs on a site: Step 1. Minimize conflicts with the wildlife through non-removal methods. Step 2. Remove animals on a portion of the site where conflicts are occurring. Step 3. Evaluate potential for relocation. Step 4. Consider animal recovery programs (ferret or raptor). Step 5. Evaluate trapping and individual euthanasia. Step 6. If earlier steps are not feasible and pesticides must be used: • Pay into city habitat mitigation fund • Post notice on property of pesticide application Zoning The area is designated as Area III Annexed -Rural Preservation in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The zoning is Public, and the proposed use as a "governmental facility" requires use review in this zone district. Site and Use Review applications are required before the construction implementation process. IV. NEXT STEPS A Concept Review hearing of the proposed project is scheduled with the Planning Board for December 6, 2007, 6:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. ;11/6/2007) Elaine McLaughlin - Rey gal Fire Training Center Planning Review Attachment C From: "Smith, Dean S" To: <mclaughline@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 11/5/2007 9:35 PM Subject: Regional Fire Training Center Planning Review CC: <spollak@thinking-group.net> We wanted to take a moment to comment on the Boulder Regional Fire Training Center Project review. 1. We voted for it 2. We know that it is needed and support it 3. We think the location near Boulder Reservoir is fine. 4. We are very concerned and oppose accessing the training center off of N. 51st Street. As you can see from our address we live across the street from the Reservoir. When we first moved here traffic was ok but, as the years have gone by and the City of Boulder has actively sought ways to increase revenue from the Reservoir, traffic has increased on a country road that is not equipped to handle the volume of traffic. Turning from N. 51st St. on to Eastbound or Westbound Jay Road can be both difficult and dangerous. Turning from Kelso Road to N. 51st St. Southbound involves trying to guess if there is traffic cresting the hill. Similarly turning from N. 51st St on to Kelso also involves trying to guess if there is Southbound traffic cresting the hill. Most of the time drivers guess correctly and then sometimes they don't and at some point, given increased traffic, someone is going to be injured or killed. Sometimes we try to avoid using Kelso to get to N. 51st St and go through the Valhalla subdivision to access 51st St. When there is traffic coming out of the reservoir this too can be both difficult and dangerous. Some options: --Is it possible to have the Fire Training Center access via either the Diagonal Highway or via 63rd St near the water treatment facility? --If this is not possible is it possible to move the Kelso Road intersection with N. 51st St. South a couple hundred yards so that there is better visibility to the cars and fire equipment cresting the blind hill? --We don't have any good suggestions on how to mitigate the problems caused by existing or proposed traffic al the Jay Rd. N. 51st St. intersection. While we think the Fire Training Center is needed and the location is ok, the traffic it will generate it places an unfair burden on the neighbors of the reservoir. Sincerely Dean Smith and Katherine O'Rourke 4997 Kelso Road Boulder, CO 80301 Elaine McLaughlin -)tE: RE: FW: BFTC Concepts From: "Greenwood, Bonnie S." To: "Elaine McLaughlin" Date: 11/2/2007 12:51 PM Subject: RE: 13E: FW: BFTC Concepts Elaine, I did review this and it certainly looks like good, sound research. The only comment that I have is that they might consider looking at the impact from "stationary air pollution sources" in the area. CDPHE/APCD would have a list of these. Since they looked at the impact from the trains, I thought that there might be some impact from these stationary sources. But that's another whole other issue. Maybe we should just let it rest. The particulate sources that I can think of in the area is the old asphalt plant off Valmont (closed), Lexmark and IBM up north, and a coffee roaster on 63rd that I've had complaints on! They probably make more smoke than the F-fC! You may also want to run it by the contacts at CDPHE that I gave you in my last email. I also asked Susan Martino of BCPH (my coworker) to look at it since she was involved in a previous complaint in 2005 on the current fire training center on N. Broadway. She isn't in the office this week, so you might hear from her in the next few weeks. Let me know iT there's anything else I can do or if you have any questions. Bonnie -----Original Message----- From: Elaine McLaughlin [mailto:McLaughlinE@bouldercolorado.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:04 AM To: Greenwood, Bonnie S. Subject: Fwd: RE: FW: BFTC Concepts Here's a pdf directly from the consultant. Thanks Bonnie "Anne Lane" • 10/31/2007 8:41 AM Sorry about that- please see attached PDF Anne Lane, AIC9 Senior Planner Design Studios West, Inc. 1475 Lawrence St, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 623.3465 phone (303) 623.3758 fax nir,-n ~G _ 3~f Elaine McLaughlin -Regionla Fire Training Center at 5565 51st Street From: "Charles de Bartolome" To: Date: 10/30/2007 10:55 AM Subject: Regionla Fire Training Center at 5565 Slst Street Dear Elaine, I received notification of the proposed Regional Fire Training Center (RFTC) at 5565 N. 51 Si Street. My wife and I own the house and land at 4935 Valhalla Drive. I realize that the city needs a fire training center. However, I do have several thoughts about the proposed plan: (1) The project description does not give the proposed height of the buildings (except the Drill Tower). Can the height of the buildings be capped so that the roof line lies below the dam wall? It would be nice if the buildings are not be visible from the west and from the area used for swimming. (2)Can the height of the drill lower be lowered so that it does not rise above the dam? As pointed out in (1) above, it would be nice if the whole facility was not visible from the area of the reservoir used for swimming. (3) the project description notes: "The project plans also include a separate access point that parallels the existing access into the Boulder Reservoir". Can the main entry to the training center be moved so that it is approached lrom Highway 119? Since we moved into our house in 2003, the Boulder Reservoir Recreational Area has become much more popular and 5151 Street is now very busy at weekends. (Indeed, in the longer term, it seems to us to make sense that the main entry to the reservoir recreational area is moved to be from Highway 119). I would like to receive notice of the Planning Board Hearing. Regards, Charles de Bartolome Charles de Bartolome Department of Economics University of Colorado 256 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0256 Tel: (303) 492-4464 r-: ~ 3S Elaine McLaughlin -Comments on LUR2007-00073 From: max solar To: Date: 10/29/2007 9:13 PM Subject: Comments on LUR2007-00073 CC: Comments regarding the proposed Regional Fire Training Center to be located at the east end of the Boulder Reservoir: As the homeowner at 5275 N. 51st St, the proposed access road will be located very close to my property. Aside from the obvious concerns related to increased heavy equipment traffic and the associated noise and air pollution thereto, I have the following additional safety related concerns: 1. The mixing of heavy equipment with the existing 51st street recreational traffic, which consists of joggers, bicyclists and vehicles towing aquatic equipment of various types. This recreational traffic is constant during daylight hours and occurs throughout the week and on weekends. There are two issues to consider, one is the safety related problem of heterogeneous vehicle use on 51st St when traffic is moving and the second is the loss of timely access to the training center access road when traffic standstills occur during periods of high reservoir recreational use. 2. Has suitable consideration been given to the environmental impact of constructing a parallel access road across in a wetlands area currently inhabited by native wildlife? Reservoir overflow parking could also be impacted exacerbating an already significant parking problem during certain events. An emergency access to Hwy 119 is included in the proposal. I would suggest that a safer and more satisfactory solution for providing both routine and emergency access to the proposed facility would be to provide a permanent access from 63rd St. This would not require a new access to Hwy 119, but would use the existing 63rd St interchange. Using 63rd St for the access would not impact any residential areas and would eliminate the mixed vehicle hazard when using 51st St. As a homeowner that would be directly impacted by the proposed 51st St parallel access, I would like more information on the following: 1. The expected traffic flow and vehicle types associated with the proposed Regional Fire Center. 2. The results and assumptions used in the traffic impact study. 3. The results of the environmental impact study. 4. The considerations given to and impact of the unusual nature of the recreational traffic flow existing on 51st St. Thank you for your consideration in addressing these concerns. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the above. Respectfully submitted, Coyne and Susan Prenger Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get'em! ,4~"sifrs~.,r~T__ _,a .4y Elaine McLaughlin - FW: RFTC site review comments From: "Delacroix, Nancy - CO" To: Date: 10/25/2007 8:33 AM Subject: FW: RFTC site review comments Just making sure you see all of our comments. I can't tell whether they are just responding back to the neighborhood or sending you a response as well. Nancy DeLaC'roix Err•rureJt /}~Irruager, Boerlder (303)546-11392 direct (3©3)506-ItI2(1 cell {3(13)596-O.i2?~ax Always do right... This will gratifjl some people and astonish the rest. «.._«.,,....._....+.,.....++fapfidemirJiry'Haire+«..,+++«..++«.,.«+.«++«r. %'he iurormatinn cartainerl in this messnge is tiny prnperry•, f Resir/emial Capitn/, LLC mediae i+'i dirrrt and indirerl iuhiidim'ies and is intenrlerl onlyjor lhr fonjidfnti(I/ Hie njtlieilersons to n•lrnnt h is nddrrtce/1. %%lii rnessnXe, Ingellter' Ivi//r nnV nttorh)nenty is ilroJA'iPtOVJ• m/rl fnnfidelllirl/. /IraJ' fnntnin inside information, and maybe subjeel to the nnm'nep/'lienr privilege and/m' dre nnarm~• IvurA prodnrt dortrirsa. /Jthe reader of tlrii meisagr is not one ojthe nddressces ie;rnr:h above: (n) the render has rereived rhia messnge in error and is direrled !o dis/rqy tlrii' messnge and nnhJi' the sender m (303)546-025N nr hp rep¢~ rnmil. From: sue koral _ , Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:11 AM Subject: Re: RFTC site review comments That would be wonderful. Even if it took half the traffic away. Sue Lea Peshock • Well done and well said Bill. We agree with your idea of the main access to the res for the public and the RFTC should be from the diagonal and not from 51 St. 1 will forward this on. Lea Peshock On Oct 24, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Delacroix, Nancy - CO wrote: Bill very succinctly worded the below response to the city regarding the RFTC It may serve us well to forward this same email to the appropriate parties, each signed by us as individuals to show a unified front to the City of Boulder and Parks and Rec. to resolve the parking issue as well. Do as you see f"t! !fancy Ih~LaCrnix Branch %'i/lntrager, Bazrlder (303)596-(1342 direct ;~i,-,,- S(, 37 ~ys._._. -s (303)501-1020 cell (303)541-0327~czc• Always do right... This will gruti~y some people and astonish the rest. <.x++..:+++*++r:++++z~zron~denrialiry~notire***++*~++z+++*..+»»**~+ The iq/m~nmliou ronlainerl in ibis nrrssage is the prnperry~ of Nesidrminl Capiml, LLC mrd/nr iPs direr! and indirerl subsidiaries and is iNended anlvfmvhr rmrJir/errlia/use nJ7be persons m rehom i/ is nddresser(. Tbis message, tngelher ruitlr nm~ anarlumm~q is praprirfarp nor/ rnnfidrnrin/, mop ronrnin inside in(u~nm/imr. and near be subject In the nnm~nr~?c/ie/rrprivi(egr nnA/or /he nnnrneJ~rvnrF prndur/dortrine. ljlhe reader of Ibis nrrssugr is nal one of/Ire nrtdrrssees se{(nnh above: (n) the render bas reacirrd This message iu error and it dirnrled to dislrop Ibis message mrAnoliJi• the sender m l3/13J546-o1$g or hr reply email From: Bill Hollander Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:32 PM To: mclau hlineCdbouldercolorado.gov Cc: Delacroix, Nancy - CO Subject: RFTC site review comments Dear Elaine, I am writing regarding the site review for the Regional Fire Training Center at the Boulder Reservoir. As I mentioned when we spoke on the phone, I am very concerned about access to the RFTC and the Res in general. These issues are necessarily related and should be addressed together. Over the past several years (decades, in fact) the usage of the Res by the public has increased dramatically throughout the year, only winter being excepted. The City of Boulder has benefited from this expanded usage by offering recreational opportunities to its citizens and reaping the revenue benefits from those activities. At the same time the effects of that activity have increased for the neighbors of the Res, in negative ways, from traffic to parking to noise to congestion, etc. Now the City is considering the RFTC, a potentially valuable facility to the community. As proposed this would further increase the impact on the neighbors of the Res with yet increased traffic, congestion, etc. It is now time (past time, actually) for the City of Boulder to shoulder its rightful responsibilities regarding this area instead of foisting them off on the heretofore patient neighbors of the Res. This can be done by properly addressing the access to the RFTC. First and foremost, primary access to the proposed facility should be from the Diagonal Highway 1 ] 9, and not from 515' St. Backup access could be from 5 ] s' but primary access from the west would add to the already undesirable level of traffic and congestion on 5] s'. It seems that the currently proposed emergency access is to be via a short connecting road to HWI 19. This should be the main access for the RFTC, and in fact it should be expanded to become the primary access for the Res itself, replacing the West Entrance as the main access point. During the numerous Res events that occur throughout three seasons of the year the traffic on 51 places a significant burden on the neighbors of the Res. Long lines of slowly moving traffic are commonplace occurrences making weekend trips from home an exercise in precision logistical planning. It is clear that a simple right-in, right-out ingress/egress road to HW 119 (as proposed for the RFTC) would not suffice for a primary access to the Res. This would need to be more elaborately engineered to handle the traffic that comes with many of the Res events. This turns the project into a much larger one, but the City of Boulder has gotten away with relative murder when it comes to dramatically increasing the Res usage and doing it all on the backs of the neighbors of the Res and the residents who live along 515'. It is now time for the City to step up to the plate and accept its obligations by constructing a Res entry/exit that is appropriate to the current and expanded level of usage. This entry might involve a road from 63rd street near the water treatment plant, but whatever the traffic engineers propose it should be a solution that will bring in the main traffic from HW 119 rather than 515'. A Diagonal Highway entrance would need to link up with Res roads to carry traffic to the Res parking areas and at the same time would allow access to the RFTC. At the same time as addressing the problem of the Res main access and the RFTC access there is another issue needing attention. That concerns the use by groups of weekend runners and cyclists of Valhalla Drive as a parking area for their informal events. The active promotion of the Res has attracted many recreationists to use the current West Entrance as the staging point for their non-sanctioned weekend events. The number of people participating in those events instantly swamp the very limited parking outside the gates of the Res, with the result that people park up and down Valha]]a, blocking driveways, making noise early in the morning, leaving trash, etc. A comprehensive solution to the problems addressed here would include expanded parking made available for these Res "users". This could be easily handled by defining a larger parking area, accessible by a lateral driveway heading south from the West Entrance into the adjacent field. This parking would not require entrance into the Res proper, would not be regulated as paid parking, and would be separated from the main Res parking by a simple fence. Finally, aPort-a-John should be maintained at the gate house for use by these Res "users". Even though these users are not formally Res patrons, they have been attracted to the area by promotion of the Res as a recreational destination, and it is thus the City's proper responsibility to address the needs of those people rather than trust to the neighbors of the Res to accommodate. We Res neighbors have been very patient and flexible as the Res usage has increased over the years. This has been to the detriment of our property and lifestyles, the reasons that we chose this area to live long before the Res usage increased to the current levels. Now it is time for the City of Boulder to do the right thing and properly address these issues. Sincerely, Bill Hollander 50 ] 2' V alhalla Dr. Boulder, CO 80301 303-530-143] Do You Yahoo!? Tired of Spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best Spam protection around http://mail.yahoo. corn ~~~r~;~;: _ ~L ^ . 39 Elaine McLaughlin -Proposal From: To: Date: 10/24/2007 12:18 PM Subject: Proposal Dear Elaine, I am writing regarding the site review for the Regional Fire Training Center at the Boulder Reservoir. As I mentioned when we spoke on the phone, 1 am very concerned about access to the RFTC grid the Res in general. These issues are necessarily related and should be addressed together. Over the past several years (decades, in fact) the usage of the Res by the public has increased dramatically throughout the year, only winter being excepted. The City of Boulder has benefited from this expanded usage by offering recreational opportunities to its citizens and reaping the revenue benefits from those activities. At the same time the effects of that activity have increased for the neighbors of the Res, in negative ways, from traffic to parking to noise to congestion, etc. WE are trying to support activity out here but find reasonable traffic solution at the same time.... Now the City is considering the RFTC, a potentially valuable facility to the community. As proposed this would further increase the impact on the neighbors of the Res with yet increased traffic, congestion, etc. It is now time (past time, actually) for the City of Boulder to shoulder its rightful responsibilities regarding this area instead of foisting them off on the heretofore patient neighbors of the Res. This can be done by properly addressing the access to the RFTC. First and foremost, primary access to the proposed facility should be from the Diagonal Highway 119, and not from 5] st St. Backup access could be from 5 ] st but primary access from the west would add to the already undesirable level of traffic and congestion on 51 st. It seems that the currently proposed emergency access is to be via a short connecting road to HW 119. This should be the main access for the RFTC, and in fact it should be expanded to become the primary access for the Res itself, replacing the West Entrance as the main access point. During the numerous Res events that occur throughout three seasons of the year the traffic on 51 si places a significant burden on the neighbors of the Res. Long lines of slowly moving traffic are commonplace occurrences making weekend trips from home an exercise in precision logistical planning. It is clear that a simple right-in, right-out ingress/egress road to HW 119 (as proposed for the RFTC) would not suffice for a primary access to the Res. This would need to be more elaborately engineered to handle the traffic that comes with many of the Res events. This turns the project into a much larger one, but the City of Boulder has gotten away with relative murder when it comes to dramatically increasing the Res usage and doing it all on the backs of the neighbors of the Res and the residents who live along 51 s~. ]t is now time for the City to step up to the plate and accept its obligations by constructing a Res entry/exit that is appropriate to the current and expanded level of usage. This entry might involve a road from 63rd street near the water treatment plant, but whatever the traffic engineers propose it should be a solution that will bring in the main traffic from H W 119 rather than 51 sr. A Diagonal Highway entrance would need to link up with Res roads to carry traffic to the Res parking areas and at the same time would allow access to the RFTC. At the same time as addressing the problem of the Res main access and the RFTC access there is another issue needing attention. That concerns the use by groups of weekend runners and cyclists of Valhalla - SG_ ~ ~ . Drive as a parking azea for their informal events. The active promotion of the Res has attracted many recreationists to use the current West Entrance as the staging point for their non-sanctioned weekend events. The number of people participating in those events instantly swamp the very Limited parking outside the gates of the Res, with the result that people park up and down Valhalla, blocking driveways, making noise early in the morning, leaving trash, etc. A comprehensive solution to the problems addressed here would include expanded parking made available for these Res "users". This could be easily handled by defining a larger parking area, accessible by a lateral driveway heading south from the West Entrance into the adjacent field. This parking would not require entrance into the Res proper, would not be regulated as paid parking, and would be separated from the main Res parking by a simple fence. Finally, aPort-a-John should be maintained at the gate house for use by these Res "users". Even though these users are not formally Res patrons, they have been attracted to the area by promotion of the Res as a recreational destination, and it is thus the City's proper responsibility to address the needs of those people rather than trust to the neighbors of the Res to accommodate. We Res neighbors have been very patient and flexible as the Res usage has increased over the years. This has been to the detriment of our property and lifestyles, the reasons that we chose this area to live long before the Res usage increased to the current levels. Now it is time for the City of Boulder to do the right thing and properly address these issues. Carolann Boncella Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! S~ ~fl Elaine McLaughlin -RFTC site review comments From: Bill Hollander To: Date: 10/23/2007 9:24 PM Subject: RFTC site review comments CC: Dear Elaine, 1 am writing regarding the site review for the Regional Fire Training Center at the Boulder Reservoir. As I mentioned when we spoke on the phone, 1 am very concerned about access to the RFTC and the Res in general. These issues are necessarily related and should be addressed together. Over the past several years (decades, in fact) the usage of the Res by the public has increased dramatically throughout the year, only winter being excepted. The City of Boulder has benefited from this expanded usage by offering recreational opportunities to its citizens and reaping the revenue benefits from those activities. At the same time the effects of that activity have increased for the neighbors of the Res, in negative ways, from traffic to parking to noise to congestion, etc. Now the City is considering the RFTC, a potentially valuable facility to the community. As proposed this would further increase the impact on the neighbors of the Res with yet increased traffic, congestion, etc. It is now time (past time, actually) for the City of Boulder to shoulder its rightful responsibilities regarding this area instead of foisting them off on the heretofore patient neighbors of the Res. This can be done by properly addressing the access to the RFTC. First and foremost, primary access to the proposed facility should be from the Diagonal Highway 1 l9, and not from 51St St. Backup access could be from 51St but primary access from the west would add to the already undesirable level of traffic and congestion on 51St. It seems that the currently proposed emergency access is to be via a short connecting road to HWI 19. This should be the main access for the RFTC, and in fact it should be expanded to become the primary access for the Res itself, replacing the West Entrance as the main access point. During the numerous Res events that occur throughout three seasons of the year the traffic on 51St places a significant burden on the neighbors of the Res. Long lines of slowly moving traffic are commonplace occurrences making weekend trips from home an exercise in precision logistical planning. It is clear that a simple right-in, right-out ingress/egress road to HW 119 (as proposed for the RFTC) would not suffice for a primary access to the Res. This would need to be more elaborately engineered to handle the traffic that comes with many of the Res events. This turns the project into a much larger one, but the City of Boulder has gotten away with relative murder when it comes to dramatically increasing the Res usage and doing it all on the backs of the neighbors of the Res and the residents who live along 5 ] St. It is now time for the City to step up to the plate and accept its obligations by constructing a Res entry/exit that is appropriate to the current and expanded level of usage. This entry might involve a road from 63rd street near the water treatment plant, but whatever the traffic engineers propose it should be a solution that will bring in the main traffic from HW 1 ] 9 rather than 51 St. A Diagonal Highway entrance would need to link up with Res roads to carry traffic to the Res parking areas and at the same time would allow access to the RFTC. ~02 At the same time as addressing the problem of the Res main access and the RFTC access there is another issue needing attention. That concerns the use by groups of weekend runners and cyclists of Valhalla Drive as a parking area for their informal events. The active promotion of the Res has attracted many recreationists to use the current West Entrance as the staging point for their non-sanctioned weekend events. The number of people participating in those events instantly swamp the very limited parking outside the gates of the Res, with the result that people park up and down Valhalla, blocking driveways, making noise early in the morning, leaving trash, etc. A comprehensive solution to the problems addressed here would include expanded parking made available for these Res "users". This could be easily handled by defining a larger parking area, accessible by a lateral driveway heading south from the West Entrance into the adjacent field. This parking would not require entrance into the Res proper, would not be regulated as paid parking, and would be separated from the main Res parking by a simple fence. Finally, aPort-a-John should be maintained at the gate house for use by these Res "users". Even though these users are not formally Res patrons, they have been attracted to the area by promotion of the Res as a recreational destination, and it is thus the City's proper responsibility to address the needs of those people rather than trust to the neighbors of the Res to accommodate. We Res neighbors have been very patient and flexible as the Res usage has increased over the years. This has been to the detriment of our property and lifestyles, the reasons that we chose this area to live long before the Res usage increased to the current levels. Now it is time for the City of Boulder to do the right thing and properly address these issues. Sincerely, Bill Hollander 5012 Valhalla Dr. Boulder, CO 8030] 303-530-1431 <<;;; _ . y3 Phone Call Received l 1/07/07 From: Richard Knippelmeyer 5233 Waterstone Drive Boulder, CO 80301 Main Issues presented to staff in phone call: • Location: concern about the flooding onto the site from darn spillways for both Six Mile and Boulder Reservoirs • Concern about highway congestion: "lookie-lows" on highway from open fire or smoke could cause distraction, accidents, traffic congestion. • As a homeowner, Mr. Knippelmeyer stated that the soils are a significant building challenge in the area, and that there are bentonite and high alkaline soils in the area that are not conducive to building large buildings or parking areas. • Concern if it would be precedent setting? A large building in the middle of open space. • Concern about eagles and hawks that roost in the area feeding off the prairie dogs in this location and that there would be a lot of paving for parking and training of vehicles with huge turning radiuses that would eliminate prairie dogs • Concern about access to that location through a recreation area where children and beaches, particularly if there are emergency calls. • Concern that there are no utilities to the site and that, such a situation may add to the costs of developing on the site. • Noted a "perfect spot" that Mr. Knippelmeyer suggested was the East Pearl city yards where a huge building is located and is only used for yard waste storage; in addition city vehicles must refuel there anyway. Meeting Notes Date: December 7, 2007 Re: Fire Training Center: Traffic Issues on 51~' St., Held at EOC Attendees: Name Organization Contact Info Larry Donner COB Fire 303.441.3357 Fmnk Young COB Fire 303.441.3356 Glenn Magee COB FAM 303.441.4202 Janice Geden COB Parks &Rec 303.413.7206 Jamie Sabbach COB Parks 8 Rec 303.413.7208 Stacy Cole COB Parks 8 Rec 303.441.3461 Jeff Arthur COB Engineering Review 303.441.4418 Michelle Mahan COB Engineering Review 303.441.4417 Elaine McLaughlin COB P&DS Planning 303.441.4130 George Gerstle BOCO Trans 303.441.3555 Mike Sweeney COB Transportation 303.441.3162 Bill Cowem COB Transportation 303.441.4054 Mike Thomas BOCO Transportation 303.441.2655 Tracy Winfree COB Transportation 303.441.4164 Frank • Begin a dialog and discussion about the access issues a[ the reservoir, including FTC • Some conversations of CDOT ' • FTC would not generate a lot of trips per day, most would be Fire Trucks • Recreational traffic on 51st is a concern; particularly on festival days in summer • With potential new access to 51st, what is regulatory role of County and would a new access road onto 51st require permission from the County? George • Yes, permission would be required • Update on 51st issues: County Commissioners voted not to put "no parking" signs on Valhalla. Determined there was no demonstrated safety issue public road however, they want staff [o evaluate 51st traffic and safety issues when there is an event at the reservoir Jamie • Met w/ neighborhood, parking in area mitigated by blocking off neighborhood streets with cones so attendees don't park on neighborhood streets; block local access. They don't want special events at the reservoir -they've been vocal for a while, • However, no one got past barricades into Valhalla -the motivation is for individual runners/walkers who park right off 51st can just walk in to the reservoir without paying. • There are approximately 3,000 parking spaces -Photos/Video would be helpful to document issues • New groups using reservoir all the time, for example, Sky Sports who are parachutists compete there now; groups create noise for example the PA system is used sometimes @ 6:30-7:00 A.M. • During active times summer times but not during events there can be as many as 1,200-1,500 people at the reservoir George • How to make it work (not "is it a problem" but how can it be a functional, usable space) Glenn • Is there a solution? Get awin/win regarding traffic and access Frank • Need County's perspective what are the primary issues related to 51st Street Mike Thomas • Issues typically occur on weekends. Traffic is not excessive on 51st typically. • It is the mix of runners/vehicles. Safety concerns: add even another 10 cars and large fire vehicles exacerbating the existing situation with runner/jogger/walker/horse trailers • How much traffic is it going to generate? Need update from the study done for the Valmont Site placed into this context Glenn Bill Fox to update traffic study, will likely be a decrease in the number of trips due to changes in the programming of the facility since [he Valmont proposal, certain facilities will not be at the Reservoir site that were planned at Valmont Butte. Larry • Need to deal w/ existing problem - 2 groups of elected officials that would need [o be informed on access. Based on the challenges faced at Valmont Butte, it is important that the efforts be made Co make it better for the neighborhood. Mike • Impact analysis would illustrate just a blip in traffic. Special events /peak travel would demonstrate more of a worst case scenario that should be analyzed. How often would FfC be utilized on the weekend? Frank - _ • Could be during weekend with some of the volunteer fire departments training but it would be sporadic lighter than City of Boulder trainings. Glenn New Council may be concerned about the affect this project would have on the reservoir, but also any sort of improvement at the reservoir in [he future would be slammed by neighbors, that's why determination of any sort of access onto 119 would be optimal. • May be able to work the 63rd Street option with additional research. Several constraints to overcome on this access. George • Alternative access off 63rd or 119 would be better in the long run. Mike 5. • Access to Diagonal/119: city plays a role in permitting categories of access -State acquired access rights along highway, certain criteria must be met to have different levels of access onto highway the FTC emergency access onto 119 might meet regional criteria. • Any greater access would be problematic - not feasible practically numerous requirements including accel/decal requirements; million dollars just to get access & supporting lanes. With regard to the emergency access city is continuing discussions w/ state. State would likely no[ support additional traffic: design Issues, spacing, etc with general purpose access. Frank • Question about the viability or potentiality of the 63rd Street access. Mike • Access to 63rd currently gated due to the water treatment facilities; some access for fishing; need for left turn and shoulders in such an access Glenn • Those issues would be looked at by Scott/COx • Impacts water treatment w/ security of site • Vertical curvature issues • Bill Fox would review issues George • Splitting the problem, reducing the problem with secondary access via 63rd. Frank • Security @ 63rd for water treatment may be one of the more critical issues. Jan • Parallel roadway concept from the FTC concept plan- could lessen impact. Jamie • Perplexing @ dual rd. loggers would use i[ potentially? • Routing to the north or 55th an option? Alternatives analysis? Mike T. • 51st improvements? -none- planned, 3-foot shoulders, site distance issues, crest • Speeding? -bike lane widening (wasn't on most recent work plans from tax revenues) Jan • • Potential for another small parking area near the front entrance. Glenn • Sounds like there is a potential left for an emergency access to 119? Frank • Options: 0 1) Pursue the 119 access as far as possible o Z) Study 63rd engineering issues (already underway) 0 3) Dual roadway 0 4) Wha[ else we can come up with to mitigate for neighborhood. • Speed up on 51st should be studied, permanent speed bump? Jamie • Focus group: Parks had already planned to meet with neighborhood in January from Jan • Will review any changes: what's been done, what will occur: use of video tape for events • Going back to council with/ due diligence • We'll need a county transportation representative • With the "no parking" resolution tabled, results of the meeting/video should go to commissioners, County Sheriff Denny Hopper George • A credible look @ 63rd would be important • Write a letter to the State regarding 119 • Tracy Winfree and George could make a call to the State regarding emergency access. Glenn • 'Control gate' would be necessary for emergency access $750000 budget Michelle • CDOT: city must purchases access rights could be expensive Minimum egress dimension would be important to demonstrate within the context • 2nd and third response frequency would be important to understand for criteria to access 119 Frank • Dialog will continue and jurisdictions will need to keep in contact with one another on the access issues. SG Attachment D WILDLIFE AND WETLANDS ASSESSMENT REPORT PROPOSED FIRE TRAINING CENTER Boulder County, Colorado Walsh Project No. 7721-010 Prepared for: City of Boulder Public Works and Facilities Management 1720 13en Street Boulder, Colorado Prepared by: Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC 4885 Pearl East Circle, Suite lOS Boulder, Colorado 50301 303-443-3282 Carrou Meaney, Ph.D. Senior Ecologist Janetta Shepard Wetland Ecologist Lauren Barringer Biologist June 10, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Site Description 3 Vegetation Communities ...........................................................................................4 Prairie Dogs 4 Wildlife 4 Mammals 5 Ungulates 5 Carniuores 5 Rabbits 5 Shrews, Bats, and Small Rodents 5 Birds 5 Raptors (Birds of Prey) 5 Non-Passerines 6 Passerines (Perching Birds and Songbirds) 6 Shorebirds, Wading Birds, and Waterfowl 7 Reptiles and Amphibians 7 Invertebrates 7 Special Status Species 7 Wetlands 8 Conclusions and Recommendations 9 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. Special Status Species that Could Potentially Occur at the Proposed Fire Training Center Properly, Boulder County, Colorado, Spring 2007 ............................8 Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map, Fire Training Center, Boulder, Colorado ..................1 l Figure 2. Fire Training Center Boulder Reservoir, Preferred Concept ..................12 ATTACHMENT Photographs 1 - 6 .......................................................................................13 Introduction This Wildlife and Wetlands Assessment Report for the City of Boulder was prepared by Carron Meaney, Ph.D., Senior Ecologist, Janetta Shepard, Wetland Ecologist, and Lauren Barringer, Biologist, with Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC (Walsh). Environmental studies are being conducted in advance of potential prairie dog removal and proposed construction of a fire training center. The purpose of this wildlifelwetland assessment report is to: • Document wildlife resources and address any Special Status Species that may occur on site, which includes federally or state-listed threatened and endangered species; • Conduct counts of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludouicianus) to determine how many will need to be relocated; and • Perform an assessment and delineation of the wetlands that will be impacted by the building of the proposed fire training center. Site Description The property is approximately 40 acres, located on the southeastern side of the Boulder Reservoir, below the dam (Figures 1 and 2). It is bounded by Highway 119 to the southeast, Sixmile Reservoir to the south, Boulder Reservoir to the northwest, and the water sanitation facility and pump house to the north. Property boundaries are clearly delineated on the west, south, and east by the reservoirs, fences, and Highway 119, respectively. The northwestern boundary is not known exactly and, for the purposes of this report, is assumed to parallel Big Dry Creek on its north shore. However, the northern boundary of the area of potential construction is limited to a distance of 700 to 800 feet from the southern boundary fence. This more restricted area is referred to as the "site," and the entire property as the "property." The property is located in the north-central portion of Section 10 and the southeast corner of Section 3, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Elevation throughout the site is approximately 5,150 feet. The topography is defined by the Boulder Reservoir dam that runs diagonally along the northwestern side of the property. Below the dam, the property is mostly flat. Black-tailed prairie dog burrows dot the area. A tributary of Big Dry Creek crosses the property in a west-to-east alignment at the north end of the property. A drainage ditch runs parallel to Highway 119 that carries runoff from the highway. No other natural or manmade waterbodies appear on the topographic map within the site. The property is undeveloped and fairly level with little variation in elevation. It is characterized by upland fields containing expansive populations of noxious weeds, grasses, and forbs. The presence of woody vegetation is nominal and restricted to a handful of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) trees that are scattered across the site. Vegetation within the field primarily compriaea Canada thistle (Breea aruense), field bindweed (Conuoluulus aruensis), tansy mustard (Descurainia sophia), horehound (Marrubium uulgare), several species of vetch (Vicia americana, V. spp.), tall tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and saltgrasa (Distichlis spicata). Vegetation Communities The dominant vegetation type on the property is a weedy forb community that compriaea common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Canada thistle, field bindweed, kochia (Bassia sieuersiana), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), tansy mustard, horehound, American vetch (Vicia americana), tall tumblemustard, toad flax (Comandra umbellate), white locoweed (Oxytropis sericea), scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea), prickly pear (Opuntia ap.), Louisiana sage (Artemesia ludouicianca), salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius), teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), and soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca). Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and Baltic rush (Juncos balticus) are two common grasses and grasslike plants found throughout. Sporadic trees, mostly Russian olives, are present along the roadway drainage ditch adjacent to Highway 119. The above-mentioned vegetation is dense throughout the upland portions of the site. On the north end of the property, a tributary of Big Dry Creek crosses from east to west. In this area, the upland vegetation changes to that associated with wetland areas. It comprises saltgrass, cattails (Typha latifolia), spikerush (Eleocharis macrostaychya), poverty rush (Juncos tennis), showy milkweed (Asclepius speciosa), red glasswort (Salicornia rubs), smartweed (Persecaria ap.), sea spurrey (Spergularia media), spike muhly (Muhlenbergia wrightii), Baltic rush, goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). Prairie Dogs As noted during the three site visits in May 2007, prairie dog burrows are evident throughout much of the property. However, no live prairie dogs were observed on any portion of the property. Sylvatic plague has decimated the population around Boulder Reservoir, as well as other places in Boulder County. Plague hit the south side of the reservoir in March and April, 2007, decimating 9S percent of the animals (Matt Clausson, City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department, personal communication). The north shore was hit with plague in 2005 and 2006. Sylvatic plague is caused by a bacterium, Yersinia pestis, which is carried and transmitted by fleas. Although no prairie dogs were seen on the property, there were a few surviving individuals on the far north aide of the reservoir, on City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department property. Wildlife This section describes existing wildlife at the site. Information presented in this report was derived from field site visits on May 2, 10, and 30, 2007. Additional information was gathered from general knowledge of the area and information available in standard Colorado reference texts regarding the likely or potential occurrence of wildlife species. Mammals Ungulates No ungulates were observed on site. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are awide- ranging and common species expected to pass through the area. Carnivores A dead red fox (Vulpes uulpes) was found on the property, most likely the result of a collision with a vehicle on Highway 119. Two other native carnivores, the coyote (Canis latrans) and raccoon (Procyon lotor), are sure to be on site. Coyote tracks were seen on the property. Coyotes most likely use the area to search for prey (prairie dogs and small mammals). Raccoons are widespread in the region and, although typically found near water, occupy a range of habitats from marshland to mixed deciduous forests. This species is omnivorous, feeds on a wide range of plant and animal material, and commonly hunts for snakes, rodents, bird eggs, amphibians, fish, and large insects. Another carnivore, the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), is common in Boulder County and is also likely present on site. .Rabbits Desert cottontails (Syluilagus audubonii) were observed on site. The desert cottontail is frequently found on prairie dog colonies in grasslands on the eastern plains, and occurs in a variety of other habitats including shrublands and woodlands. Shrews, Bats, and Small Rodents Shrews (Soricidae) are very small insectivores that feed on invertebrates and small vertebrates. Shrews could be present because of the moisture adjacent to Big Dry Creek. No mist-netting or acoustical monitoring for bats was conducted. Bats are extremely dependent on open water for drinking, and need to drink each night upon emergence from their day roost. Little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) and big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) are the two most common bat species in North America. Although there are few trees and no buildings that would make suitable roost sites, bats likely visit the site to drink and forage on insects. No small mammal trapping was conducted; however, deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and meadow voles (Microtus pennsyluanicus) are very likely present. A muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) has a bank den on Big Dry Creek and was observed during two of the three field site visits. Birds Raptors (Birds of Prey) Due to the abundance of prairie dogs and cottontails in the Boulder Reservoir area, at least prior to the plague event, a variety of raptors are likely to occur in the region. Results of the site surveys relative to these species are presented below. Neither bald eagles (Hadiaeetus leucocephalus) nor golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) were observed on site. They often nest in the foothills of Boulder County and hunt rabbits and prairie dogs. Eagles (bald or golden) may nest in the general vicinity and use the site for hunting, although the loss of prairie dogs to plague has reduced the foraging opportunities on the property. Two species of large, broad-winged hawks could or are known to occur on site: the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and Swainaon's hawk (Buteo swainsone). Both species neat in large trees and hunt in nearby open habitats. Swainson's hawks feed mostly on insects, and both species prey on snakes, ground squirrels, smaller mammals, lagomorphs (rabbits and hares), and small birds. The red-tailed hawk is present year-round, while Swainaon's is a summer resident. Both species adapt to human presence and commonly nest in proximity to human habitation. Neither were heard or seen on site, and no nests were spotted; however, use of the area for hunting is possible. Only one falcon species is expected to be present on site: the American kestrel (Falco sparuerius). This smaller falcon nests in tree cavities and hunts in nearby open space for small mammals, small birds, and large insects. Due to the small number of trees on site, the kestrel would most likely not nest on site, but it could use the area for hunting. The turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) was not observed on site, but its presence is highly likely. Owls are nocturnal predators, similar to diurnal raptors in comprising a range of physical sizes and prey and habitat preferences. No owls were observed on site. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) could take up residence in one of the abandoned prairie dog colonies, although none were observed and the vegetation has grown too high for their liking. These owls make use of abandoned or peripheral burrows in active prairie dog towns because they prefer the open habitat created by foraging prairie dogs. Non-Passerines This diverse group of unrelated species -treated as a group in this report for convenience -includes goatsuckers, hummingbirds, swifts, sapsuckers, flickers, doves, and woodpeckers. The term "non-passerine" refers to the fact that these species, while not waterbirds, upland fowl, or raptors, are also not "perching birds" (passerines). Of the taxa lumped into this category, two species, the mourning dove (Zenaida macroara) and rock dove (Columba lima), were observed on site. These two species of ubiquitous birds are highly adaptable and have no restricted habitat preference, although they commonly nest in deciduous trees. Passerines (Perching Birds and Songbirds) Relatively few passerines (perching birds and songbirds) were seen on site. Those observed include the American crow (Coruus brachyrhynchos), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), American robin (Turdus migratorius), European starling (Sternus uulgaris), barn swallow (Hirundo rustics), numerous cliff swallows (Hirundo pyrrhonota), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglects), and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Shorebirds, Wading Birds, and Waterfowl A marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa) was observed foraging on mudflats in Big Dry Creek. This individual was probably migrating through the area, as they winter along the east and west coasts, and breed in Canada. Killdeer (Charadrius uociferus) were nesting on the northern end of the property. A great blue heron (Ardea herodias) flew over during a site visit; occasional herons may forage in the marshy section of Big Dry Creek. Canada goose (Branta canadensis) tracks were seen near Big Dry Creek. Reptiles and Amphibians A bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer) was observed. This is a common snake that feeds on small rodents. No other reptiles or amphibians were documented on the property. Invertebrates Invertebrates are very diverse and numerous compared with vertebrates. The wildlife investigation did not attempt to inventory invertebrates. Special Status Species Special status species that could potentially occur on site are described in Table 1. This list serves to highlight all species that could potentially occur on the property and are listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CTSFWS); listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW); or on the Boulder County Species of Special Concern list. The latter incorporates listings by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Boulder County Nature Association. There are seven special status species listed in Table 1 as follows: two observed, one likely, one potential, one unlikely, and two not present. Of the four that were observed, likely, or potential, three are or would be associated with Big Dry Creek (meadow vole, muskrat, and great blue heron). This area will not be disturbed by the proposed project, and wildlife use will be able to continue. This is also where the marbled godwit was seen. The fourth species, the hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus), inhabits grasslands and, although listed as potentially present, the preponderance of weedy forbs reduces the likelihood of this species being present. Among the special status species, prairie dogs and burrowing awls are two significant potential users of the upland portion of the property. Prairie dogs will eventually return, whereas burrowing owls are very uncommon in Boulder County and therefore less likely to ever be present. The only unlikely species listed, the yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), is associated with cattail marshes with water depth of 1 - 2.5 feet. The wetland contains a small cattail marsh that is too small and shallow to attract yellow-headed blackbirds. s.....~.~ f Table 1. Special Status Species that Could Potentially Occur at the Proposed Fire Training Center Property, Boulder County, Colorado, Spring 2007. Scientific Common Status On Conservation Comments Name Name Site Status bIA14IMt1I:8.~ Black-tailed Cynomys Not present SC Plagued out rairie do ludouicianus s rin 2007 B Meadow vole Microtus Likely B No trapping enns luanicus conducted Muskrat Ondatra Observed B Lives in Big zibethicus Dry Creek banks Hispid pocket Chaetodipus Potential B Inhabits mouse his idus rasslands Blxns Burrowing owl Athene Not present ST Inhabits cunicularia (spring 2007) Sensitive prairie dog B burrows Great blue Ardea herodias Observed B May forage in heron (around flying over Big Dry Creek reservoir Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus Unlikely B Nests in blackbird xanthocephalus cattail marshes Notes: B =Boulder County species of special concern, SC =Species of State concern ST =Species State-listed as threatened, Sensitive = USFS-designated as sensitive Not present =searched for but not found, Likely =likely present but not observed Observed =observed on property 6y Walsh, Potential =could 6e present Wetlands Walsh performed a two-phased assessment of the study area for the presence/absence of jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands. The first phase included adesktop-level review of pertinent data including the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Boulder County Area, Colorado; the 2006 list of hydric soils for the Boulder area prepared by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS); the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic 7.5' Minute Niwot, Colorado Quadrangle Map; and site plan maps provided to Walsh by Design Studios West and the City of Boulder. A tributary of Big Dry Creek crosses the property in a west-to-east alignment at the north end of the property, as shown on the USGS map. No other natural or manmade waterbodies appear on the topographic map within the site boundaries. The majority of the soils on site are composed of Longmont clay, with 0 to 3 percent slopes. The Longmont series is made up of deep, poorly drained, salty and alkaline soils. These soils formed on terraces and upland swales in clayey alluvium derived from shale, and are most suitable far use as pastureland. sc~ ~ The second task of the wetland assessment consisted of an on-site inspection by Walsh personnel. Guidance for the inspection was provided in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Cooperative Publication 1989). During the field work, the entire study area was traversed on foot to perform a thorough visual assessment of habitat conditions and investigate the presence and extent of any waterbodies or potential jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed footprint of the fire training facility (Figure 2). The investigation was primarily focused in two areas: a narrow peninsula that extends into the southern portion of the property that is part of an off-site area previously documented as wetland habitat, and the Big Dry Creek tributary and associated wetland habitat north of the proposed building envelope. The presence of waterbodies and wetland habitat are restricted to the tributary of Big Dry Creek that crosses the northern portion of the property and associated wetlands, which comprise a series of saline mudflats that flank the channel. A reconnaissance of the southern boundary revealed only upland habitat. A shallow north-south aligned ditch that crosses onto the property was encountered along the southern fenceline in the vicinity of previously identified wetlands. The shallow ditch was dry and densely vegetated with the upland plants previously discussed, and there was a complete absence of wetland indicators (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and a sustaining source of hydrology). Although the area was not closely investigated, the larger off-site wetland area to the south consisted of an expansive population of teasel (Dipsacus syluestris) that appeared to be dead. The Big Dry Creek tributary contained standing water with an average depth of 5 to 6 inches. Portions of the channel invert and banks are vegetated with cattails, spikerush, poverty rush, saltgrass, a species of aster that was not flowering at the time of the site visit, and showy milkweed. The mudflats are sparsely vegetated with a monotypic population of red glasswort (Salicornia rubs). A few of the mudflats contained surface water; however, this may be attributed to heavy thunderstorms in the area on the previous afternoon. Soils in the vicinity of the tributary and mudflat wetlands exhibit a matrix color of lOYR 4/2 and are composed of heavy clays. Soils are saturated to the surface as a result of high groundwater, and small pools of water were observed within the dense grasses along the banks. Primary hydrology for the wetland complex is provided by the Big Dry Creek tributary and high groundwater levels as a result of the close proximity to the Boulder Reservoir. Secondary sources of hydrology appear to be limited to naturally occurring events (i.e., snowmelt, spring slope runoff and precipitation, and roadside runoff), as no additional natural or artificial sources of hydrology were identified on the site. Conclusions and Recommendations One of the main issues relating to the proposed fire training center is the prairie dog town that had been present prior to the current assessment. However, the extirpation of the prairie dogs offers an opportunity for the prevention of their return in the construction envelope. There are a few prairie doge still extant on the far north side of the reservoir. Aa these animals begin to repopulate the vacated 11~1~~kvrv„1._ S~ jc~'o~i S~ burrows around the reservoir, they will eventually make their way to the fire training property. Therefore, it is recommended that the entire construction area be fenced and the existing prairie dog burrows filled. Prairie dog fencing exists already on the northwest side, just below the dam. This metal fencing, although expensive, has a higher rate of effectiveness in deterring prairie dogs than do some of the less permanent fencing alternatives. These actions will preclude, or at least greatly reduce, recolonization by prairie dogs on the site. This is also an opportunity to consider potential future plane for the site (e.g., access road from Highway 119 and so forth) and ensure that such areas are included in the construction envelope fencing. It is also recommended to fill in the burrows with soil from near the burrow entrance as an additional deterrent to prairie dog recolonization. Also at issue is the potential arrival of burrowing owls. Because no burrowing owls were present during three field site visits spread over 4 weeks in May, it can be safely assumed that burrowing owls were not present for the 2007 season. Furthermore, the vegetation has grown substantially without the prairie dogs to mow it down. These conditions are not favorable for burrowing owls, in that they prefer more open habitat in order to detect predators and drop into burrows for protection. Filling the prairie dog burrows in the (fenced) construction envelope will also deter burrowing owls arriving in 2008 in search of neat sites. With regards to special status species, it appears that Big Dry Creek is the main focus for wildlife, including those listed as present or potentially present in Table 1. Big Dry Creek will not be disturbed, and can continue to provide useful habitat for these species, including meadow voles, muskrats, great blue herons, and the occasional migrating marbled godwit. The entire area of proposed construction for the fire training center is at the southwestern end of the property (Figure 2). The significant wildlife habitat is at the northern end of the property along Big Dry Creek. The selected site is the optimal environmental use of the site, and the disturbance to wildlife is anticipated to be minimal. Screening plantings are planned, and these will further serve to separate human activities from wildlife. No wetlands were found on the site (i.e., that portion of the property encompassing the construction activities). The only wetlands are those associated with Big Dry Creek, which will not be disturbed. Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map, Fire Training Center, Boulder. i Jamestown ~ ~ f0i z wires Re _ _ Site Location cola htrr N 1 c 61/allstreet ~ ; -Y -y- m : ~ ~ ' Vaitnont 0 ~ ~ ~I~ ugarioal 6ovldor tan on Of " AM anw Ave Asp.noa Rd l ~4rapanoO.Re, Boulder ci.~yo, ' ~ _ ~ ~ - ~~0 ~c =fi -\8~ , j ~~utl 170 . -p, ~ ~'~N~?.-(~>'hal£~ Superior do~ab° g'0~f p 1 Site Vicinity Map Eldorado S~ng5 E n Fire Training Center Crescent ` \ Boulder, Colorado 10 -1 Attachment E An Analysis of Smoke Transport and Dispersion From the Proposed City of Boulder Fire Department Training Facility, to be Located Between Boulder Reservoir and CO-119 conducted by The National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado in response to the City of Boulder, Colorado, RFP #19-200b, entitled Smoke Disper9ion Analysis 30 October 200b llOrr~ 1Mrm ~ J~~'ap~s U~~ 1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to describe the potential air-quality impacts that locating the new Boulder Fire Department burn training facility between Boulder Reservoir and CO- 119may have on the surrounding area. Particular emphasis will be placed on assessing the impact that operations at the training facility may have on the Celestial Seasonings plant located roughly 1300 meters to the south. In order to achieve this aim, we have conducted a number ofworst-case-scenario simulations, with stable atmospheres and with winds directed from the burn facility toward Celestial Seasonings. While the main focus will be on the potential impacts on the Celestial Seasonings plant, the results are applicable to other sites surrounding the proposed training facility. This report is divided into five sections. Following this introduction, a description will be provided of a typical training session conducted at the current facility. The wind climatography in the area of the proposed training facility will be presented in Section 3. A description of the smoke-plume transport model used, its configuration, and the simulation results will be presented in Section 4. Finally, a summary of our findings will be presented in Section 5. 2 Description of a typical burn session Staff from NCAR witnessed a typical training session on 25 September 2006 at the existing facility located at 960 Lee Hill Road in Boulder. The training session took place from approximately 9 to 12 AM. The weather during the training session was clear, with temperatures ranging from the mid 50's at the start of the session to the lower 60's at the conclusion of the training. The wind was fairly light at 0.5-1.0 meter per second (m/s) from the east and southeast, with gusts up to 2.5 m/s. The training session consisted of three cycles. In each cycle, a pile of wooden shipping pallets was allowed to bum inside the building, while Fire Department staff conducted their training. An initial pile of 3 to 4 pallets was ignited, using a standard road flare, in order to generate heat and smoke sufficient for training purposes. At this point, the crew entered the burn house and conducted their training. The burn pile was not completely extinguished during the training cycle. Prior to the second and third training cycles, training supervisors entered the burn house to add an additional 3 to 4 pallets to .the burn pile. When a door was opened on the bum house to allow personnel access to the building, a small puff of smoke was released. Figure 2 shows an example of such a release. These puffs dispersed quickly, and were only visible for a few seconds after their release. A slight odor of wood smoke was evident in the immediate vicinity of these releases, but there was no noticeable odor at a downwind distance of 10 meters from the bum house during the training cycles. ~ 1.0 meter per second = 2.237 miles pcr hour l1~sr>da Ibm ~ ~G paps i , ~ r.., !y , ~ ~ y Figure 1. Current burn house training facility. View to the southwest. Residences that are visible behind the burn house are at a distance of approximately 30 meters. . : ~ `Y ~ ~NS _ 1 f ~ ~ # t lkVpF ~ ' ' A _ _ ~ I~~ r t n ~ ,t~ s i ~ A~ ii~gure 2. Typical puff of smoke released from the burn house during a training cycle. ~~s~~= At the end of the training session, the bum house was vented and the burn pile was completely extinguished with water. During this procedure, a plume larger than those viewed during the training cycles was produced. This plume was visible approximately 10 meters downwind from the burn building. Much of the visible plume at this point seemed to be composed of the water droplet cloud generated when the burn pile was extinguished. At this time there was a slight odor of wood smoke evident at a distance of 100 meters downwind of the bum house. The odor was not detectable at a range of 200 meters downwind. ' 3 Wind climatography for the new burn facility The purpose of the wind climatography is to provide a context for the modeling results in terms of the frequency that smoke from the burn house will travel in a given direction. Because there is not along-term record of winds in the immediate vicinity of the new facility, a temporary weather station was set up, and the winds there were compared with nearby wind-measurement sites that have a long period of record. The weather station with long-term data that had the best match with the observations at the bum facility was used to define the climate for the burn facility. In order for a weather station to be used in the climate analysis, it had to satisfy three criteria. The station had to be within afive-mile radius of the proposed training facility in order to be representative of the local conditions. And, the data record had to be at least five years in length in order to provide a statistically meaningful climate analysis. Finally, the data from the station had to be of good quality, without obvious error. It will be shown that there is only one weather station in the area that met all three conditions. There aze several weather stations located within a five mile radius of the proposed trailing facility, but only two satisfied the requirement of having at least afive-year period of observations. One is located in the Gunbarrel residential- neighborhood, and the other one is sited on the roof of the NCAR Foothills Laboratory. A temporary weather station was placed at the location of the proposed training facility in order to assess how appropriate the data from each long-term site are for defining the wind-field climate at the new facility. Weather observations were collected from the temporary station for approximately afive-week period, from 12 August through 15 September 2006, and used for comparison with the data from the long-term weather stations. Correlations between the NCAR Foothills Lab site and the temporary weather station are shown as scatter plots in Figure 3. The overall speed correlation between the two sites is very good, with a coefficient of 0.75. The directional correlation is also very good. The small clusters of points in the upper-left and lower-right of the wind direction plot are a result of differences in wind direction about North between the two sites. That is, the discontinuity in the plat at 0 and 360 degrees means that an observation at one location that is slightly to the west of north, which is paired with an observation at the other location that is slightly to the east of north, will result in a dot plotted in a corner. Aperxle Item ~ ~L Paps Wind $pead (m/sJ NirW glrectian 0 R • • • • • • • • • • ~ • - • o • ~ • a c°v • • • ~ • • u • •Z= i ~ i ~ ~ °n • • I g • 2 • = I z o • • • • • • ~ • • R • • • ••1 o i o 0 t 2 3 4 0 50 100 150 200 25D 300 350 i!7r_,n.. i ~rBXlirr~j ft' „Gr Figure 3. Correlation scatter plots showing wind speed and direction at the NCAR Foothills Lab site and at the temporary weather station at the proposed burn facility. Correlation plots of wind speed and direction between the temparary weather station and the Gunbarrel site are shown in Figure 4. The carrelation coefftcient for the speed is approximately 0.80. There is a "slow bias" in the Gunbarrel observation, likely due to the fact that there are more obstructions to the wind in the residential neighbarhoad. While the speed correlation is slightly better than at the NCAR Foothills Lab, there are serious issues with the directional correlation at the Gunbarrel site. Often the anemometer appears to "get stuck" in a southeasterly {150 degrees} direction. For this reason, the data from the Gunbarrel site are unusable for further analysis or modeling. l~Jind'Spend (rtYe) Wittd Diioct?c^, a m _ • • ~ ~ $ • ' • • • • • t7 • ~ A • . ~ ~ A m ! in • ~ $ • • m • • ~ B N • • 1 k ~ 1• • • • • ~ • ~ ~ °n • • • • t7 • • • • • 1 ~ • • • •1 • • • i • ~ • I ~ • • • • • ~ p • • • w • • o • • o ~ • • i 0 1 2 3 4 0 50 100 750 200 200 300 30D Pro{x~o~ Tra'r~!r•a .4:ar, Frr%{?8ri!1 ±ra~~':x~ ~F;a Figure 4. Correlation scatter plots showing wind speed and direcrion at the Gunbarrel site and at the temporary weather station at the proposed burn facility. hem ~pa~ ~ Thus, for defining the wind-field climate at the proposed burn facility, data will be used from the anemometer located on the roof of the NCAR Foothills Laboratory, 3450 Mitchell Lane in North Boulder. This site provides a record of wind and temperature data collected every five minutes since March 1997. These observations were quality controlled for missing and bad values. Hourly averages of temperature, wind speed, and direction were generated from the five-minute data, for use as model input. and for climate analysis. The wind climatography was produced using observations taken only during the typical training period tha# the burn house may be in operation, from 7 AM to 5 PM local time, April through October. The frequency distribution of wind speed (Figure 5) shows that during training sessions the winds are generally light. The mean wind speed is 1.8 m/s, and roughly 95°/a of all wind observations have a speed below 4 mis. These wind speeds translate to a transit time of 10 to 20 minutes for smoke released at the proposed training facility to travel the 1300 meters to Celestial Seasonings. This provides considerable time for plume dilution, due to turbulent mixing, to take place. d i o ~ s i u` j~ i o ~ o d - _~_-T-~ d 2 4 6 8 'D W n4 Sp9B4 (m18) Figure 5. Wind-speed distribution from the NCAR Foothills Lab site ft~r the period April through October, 7 AM to 5 PM local time. The climatography of the wind direction is shown by the wind rose in Figure 6. During the typical operating periods of the proposed burn house, near-surface winds are generally from the east. The location of the proposed training facility lies approximately 12 degrees to the east of north, relative to the Celestial Seasonings plant. Thus, winds from a N or NNE direction will carry smoke from the burn house to Celestial Seasonings. These wind conditions exist ~15% of the time. ~~~L - Figure b. Wind speed and direction ~ climate for the proposed burn facility, _ - - z based on data from the NCAR Foothills / ~ 2 ~ Lab site, for the period April through October, 7 AM to 5 Plv1 local time. ~ ,~J~ Spokes indicate the compass direction ~ ~ ' ~ that the wind is coming from. ~ ~ 'j ~ ~ I ' ~ Concentric circles indicate frequency of ti ~ a ? occurrence. The number at the end of ~ ' ~ the spoke is the mean wind speed {m/s) ~ 2 f• ~ for that direction. The colors along the ~ _ - ~ spokes show the cumulative frequency ~ of wind speed: blue < 3 m/s, green 3- 5 - r m/s, yellow 5-10 m/s, red 10-15 m/s. 4 Modeling the plume The modeling in this impact assessment is described as a worst-case scenario -worst-case in the sense that atmospheric conditions are assumed to be stable so that dispersion (plume dilution) will be kept to a minimum (and plume concentrations kep# high) and that the wind direction is such that the modeled plume will pass over the Celestial Seasonings plant. The model used in this assessment is CALPUFF, anEPA-approved model for studies of this type. The model and its configuration will be described later. We have also developed a model source term to approximate the particulate and gas emissions from the wood pallets. This source term is compared with another source of smoke and odor in the area. 4.1 Determination of source term The source term used with the CALPUFF model is based upon the observed training session, but worst-case scenario parameters are used in order to avoid underestimation of the effects on the neighborhood. The amount of wood consumed in the burn pile is assumed to be equivalent to 10 shipping pallets, each weighing 10 kilograms. This approximates the three burn cycles in a training session, each consuming three to four pallets. Wood smoke is composed of many constituents, and it is not practical to simula#e all of them. The major constituents of concern include particulates and hydrocarbons (Table 1). The particulates contribute to the visibility of awood-smoke plume, while the hydrocarbons contain various molecules that contribute to the characteristic odor of wood smoke. It is assumed that the training fire consumes all of the pallet wood. In reality, there will be some woad that is not consumed and therefore our estimate of total particulates and hydrocarbons produced will be overestimated. Table 1. Amount of various constituents roduced in the burnin of wood Constituent Grams produced per kilogram burned Particulates 8.5 _ Hydrocarbons _ 12.0 Y Nitrogen Oxides _ 2.0 Carbon Monoxide 70 In the model it is assumed that all of the smoke produced is released into the atmosphere instantaneously at the end of the training session. In reality, there are small amounts of smoke released whenever a door to the burn house is opened. The amount of smoke released by each doox opening, both individually and in total during the training session, is much smaller that what is released at the end of the training session when the burn pile is extinguished. In addition not all of the smoke produced will be released from the burn house. Some of the smoke will adhere to the interior surfaces of the burn house as soot; and some will be removed by water spray. The overall effect of treating the release of the smoke as a single instantaneous release will be an overestimate of the peak downwind concentrations. The plume released from the venting of the burn house at the end of the training session is assumed to take place through a 1 square-meter opening at a height of 5 meters above Bound level 4.2 Model configuration The California Puff Model (CALPUFF) is anon-steady-state meteorology and air quality modeling system, which includes major components such as: 1) a meteorological modeling package with both diagnostic and prognostic wind-field generators; 2) a Gaussian puff dispersion model with chemical-process removal, wet and dry deposition, and other effects; and 3) a suite ofpost-processing utility programs to facilitate statistical calculation and visualization of meteorological data and contaminant distribution. The Gaussian puff model transports puffs of pollutants released from the modeled sources, and simulates dispersion and transport processes along the way. The model system is also capable of simulating odors, while visibility can be derived byusing apost- processingutility. The model has been adopted by the U.S Envirornnental Protection Agency (LJ.S. EPA) as the preferred model for assessing long-range transport of pollutants and their impacts on national parks, wilderness areas and monuments. The model domain is centered on the training site and spans 5 km in both west-east and south-north directions. For this small domain, flat terrain is assumed. The worst-case scenarios, as outlined above, are enhanced in the model configuration by turning off both dry and wet depositions to allow a maximum amount of pollutants to escape the burn house. No chemical transformation is modeled. The smoke is treated as a point sowce, using a "stack release" to simulate the window outlet of the burn Douse. 4.3 Model results CALPUFF was run with four different wind speeds (2, 4, 6, and 8 m/s) to cover the spectrum of possible wind speeds from the climate analysis. It was noted above that this worst-case scenario involves the use of a wind direction that is oriented directly from the proposed training facility to Celestial Seasonings. Simulated receptors were placed in the model at a location 50 meters downwind from the proposed training facility, and at 1300 m, the distance of the Celestial Seasonings plant. Peak concentrations of smoke were extracted for both locations in all of the simulations, and the results are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Peak concentrations simulated at a range of 50 meters downwind, and at the 1300 meters distance of the Celestial Seasonings plant. Wind Speed Peak Concentration Peak Concentration (m/s) 50 m downwind Celestial Seasonings m3 m3 2 184.2 3.8 4 196.4 3.3 6 200.8 3.0 g 200.4 2.7 The first thing that should be noted is that even the high concentrations seen close to the release point (50 m downwind) are at the lower end of the range (200-20000 µg/m3) for the limit of detection of several of the key odor-causing components of smoke2. A second point is that by the time the smoke reaches Celestial Seasonings it has been diluted by about a factor of 50. Also, there is minimal impact of wind speed on concentration. Total dosage (time integrated concentration) is shown in Figure 7. This shows the total spatial extent of the worst-case-scenario plume. The area within the blue shades is near the lower limit of odor detection for smoke. The remaining plume area (with contours, but not color filled) should not have a noticeable odor. z This is consistent with the observation from the burn conducted at the current training facility that only a slight odor was detectable at a distance of 100 m downwind. 5~ ~r A:~Y1y 1r1~. {~n t - i ii~• +.f. ~ ~"~fr (01 ~ ~ ? Ii1~` ' ''~..~N"R ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ If ~ r 1 m ' ..cam ~ i~ ~~c~ ~ I .1 f 7t ~I~.'' ,I j -rt ` y ~ - c S:~_ I r~r S i uc Y 17 1 ! 1 w+ r L7 .1` 1 I r t? ~ ra. - , y~; . o, u yr ~ fi~•~- ~ _ , „yet ~~YJ I' 1~~ u~ie ~'w ~~~ly' D f .~.,c''3~'~.'~1'3 i t na ve . A, I~) ' na U '~}~~[~~~r~~'1 ~/y,~rtC.L4~~'~+~~4,r{R~y.,r~tr~~ nII ~ ~ ..~~~5~ ~~~r h~l~f.'n'v~~:"{Ii,~'fi"~ '~'~~4 ~ - ,ypyt*a S~.rrt~ti~l~~~" Lei ~ `lWQ'./.r`'T~ ~ '~~~1 I~ ~f~1t,1~'~~''s+~`,'4 f.fl S,phr u~ir a a na I !~r • a~ a ~ ~ tta C i t,. ° tIK~; ~r f~~ L { ~ t ;a•x .(a ~ L' c i'tI + • til~~ Jr'. pp/ alm~.,Ao y ~ ~ tl 1~ 1 J' o i. Jr ' ~ i ~ n II r' 1 x.' ~i R'>~i ls. A8~~.75 .•:rt~ _ $F .;L~l. .~ar t'~#~L..Ala.. 1~1 ~ai .k/.~l . r r.Y.iC~fiy~'y~~+ti •~r, ly ) ldq ,u~i~~s,?. 1 ~ u.~+ p . ! .ti~f1 ~ 'err ~ _ , r. e _.ri / ~+.r L--~l'f*4'~ lr~ ~r i~}I I!_I.I ua - ~V~'~-4 (~1~ ~ fI._I.I, iblu ` ! h, , /?,Q , ,~1 i~/ i ~ ~ I ~ l~,a u~a t r ~ ~ - PY i~,,C, ~J% ~ J_ ~ I . ~~f' ~ f 1.tirY Sl' ~ h ~;•TlS5ll t.'ff ~ f.: _ a:, ~~+t ,f/j i~~ ~rJ'~7~1 ;,~'I~uu ~,j ~,r~ L7. _'-1' 1 I f i I'tr , ~ ( ~ . 1 !r 1 r I~' ~j ~~j; ~ ' ; r 1,L) hs~ 'i uv LrF )L ; ~ f.*fJ 1 nt. , ~ us, ' I fy'lii~ r I l ~ . ~Y yl yj LL? J rLL •1 s 'r~+lll~,l _ G I! ~w 17~ t Aru ,i~) i , I ,.f~ WI 1 1 S .,~r t ~ t t na ra .re , ;~~Ti~~~.~ihraµ~'L+~ L » ~~~/~iP n~u ~t~ ~~~;~'~'.~,,`~~~~}}~i.~~~Ar ~0."- I~,~~ ~ ,~?~~~j,tLi~`:, t~'i~~~~r~.;Z~ ° ~ ` ~~,~l~r# ~~y~~ic~""•`Q ~.1~~ a~++ r _ ' ~x:..:~~'' _ rim. ~ig~ia°4~ 'I. 1)osa~c naps fox' sznokc. ~~elea5~.s a~ thc° ~?i~t~4~~,;;c~ 1~ou~~c:a ~~;r'c 1~el7artmeut training facility. Within the area with blue shading, the odor of smoke may be detectable during burn operations. Results are for wind speeds of 2 (upper left), 4 (upper right), 6 (tower left} and 8 (lower right) m/s. Tt is worth a reminder about how these results represent aworst-case scenario: 1) The winds used are directly from the source to the simulated receptors, so the highest concentration at the plume centerline impacts the receptor. 2) A stable temperature profile has been used in the model, analogous to night-timeJearly- morning conditions, and this.allows less mixing of the plume with the environment and therefore results in amore-concentrated plume. 3) The effluent from all the pallets has been released at one time in the model, instead of gradually over the few-hour period of a typical training session. This will result in higher simulated concentrations. 4) The entire mass of the pallets is released into the atmosphere, with no allowance for: a) residual ash on the floor, b) deposition of smoke material on the interior of the building, and c) washout of the material from water used to extin~~ish the fires: 4.4 Other sources of smoke and odor In the area As a comparison with the modeled concentration of smoke from the training center arriving at Celestial Seasonings, the impact of locomotive engines on the adjacent rail line will also be considered. According to EPA documentation, the main constituents of locomotive exhaust are particulates, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide (Table 3). The first two conatituenta contribute to the soot and odor of the exhaust. Table 3. Amount of various constituents produced in the exhaust ofdiesel-electric locomotives, per unit horsepower, per hour. Constituent Grams per horsepower-hour Particulates 0.32 Hydrocarbons 0.48 Nitro en Oxides 13.00 Carbon Monoxide 1.28 Freight locomotives vary in size from 3000 up to 6000 horsepower, with 4000 horsepower being a common engine size. Considering that a typical freight train is pulled by four locomotives, and assuming that the smoke duration while passing a point is one minute, we can compare the total smoke output from a freight train passage to that of a typical Boulder Fire Department training session. In Table 4, the total smoke output from a single train passage is compared with that produced during a typical burn session. Given the fact that the rail line is 1250 meters closer to Celestial Seasonings than is the training facility, and the fact that Table 2 shows that a greater than factor-of-50 dilution will take place over that distance, the impact from passing trains would seem to be at least as large as that from the training facility. In addition, smoke from locomotives can pass over Celestial Seasonings from a wider range of wind directions than the smoke from the training facility. Trains can also pass by at all hours of the day throughout the year, not just during the limited period of operations of the training facility. Table 4. Total quantities, in grams, of the constituents of the plume from the training facility and from the passage of a train on the tracks near Celestial Seasonin Constituent Training facility Freight train passage in ama 100 k wood burn 4-4000 h locomotives Particulates 850 85 H drocarbons 1200 128 Nitro en Oxides 200 3466 Carbon Monoxide 7000 341 AY~d•Nsa• sr? ~o 'There are two other sources of smoke and odor that are not considered due to the limited scope of this report. These include residential wood burning in the Gunbarrel neighborhood and traffic exhaust, particularly diesel trucks, along CO-119. 5. Summary The key findings from this report are as follows. 1. During an actual training session, no odor of smoke was detectable beyond a distance of 100 meters downwind of the burn house. Also, no visible plume was seen beyond a distance of 10 meters downwind of the facility. 2. Based on the determined wind field climate for the area (prescribed months and hours of the day for training), smoke from the proposed training-facility location will generally travel to the west, but could frequently have a significant northerly or southerly component. About 15% of the time, the wind is oriented from the location of the proposed training facility toward Celestial Seasonings. ' 3. Under aworst-case scenario, simulated smoke concentrations at a range of 100 meters downwind of the training facility are near the lower limit of visual and olfactory delectability. This is over 1000 m from the Celestial Seasons facility. 4. Smoke concentrations at Celestial Seasonings from the proposed training facility will likely be less than those resulting from diesel-electric locomotives passing on the rail line adjacent to Celestial Seasonings. Mgerda Ilaee~ II G p~~ 7~ An Atlas of Smoke Odor Impact Zones Surrounding the Proposed Boulder Fire Department Training Facility conducted by The National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado in response to the City of Boulder, Colorado, RFP #19-2006, entitled Smoke Dispersion Analysis 30 November 2006 /lpaida Nem /,~L pagan 70~- Introduction This atlas contains two products. The first is the probability that the odor of wood smoke, generated by training operations during particular times of day and seasons, can be detected at any point in the vicinity of the proposed Boulder Fire Department training facility. This can be used for long-range test planning. The second product is an operational tool that uses current observed wind speed and direction to estimate the area downwind of the proposed training facility in which the odor of wood smoke may be detected. The products in this atlas aze the result of model simulations that use CALPUFF, an EPA-approved model for use in regulatory and environmental studies. Determination of an odor threshold for wood smoke Key to both products is the determination of the limit of human detection for wood- smoke odor. Determination of an odor threshold is complicated by the variety of constituents contained in wood smoke, that aze a function of the exact nature of the fuel and the conditions of the burn. Hydrocarbons, which are the major sowces of odors in wood smoke, can have concentrations that vary by several orders of magnitude. In addition, the odor threshold concentrations for the hydrocarbons also differ by orders of magnitude. Several hydrocazbons do not have known odor threshold concentrations. These include most of the polycyclic azomatic hydrocazbons, but they occw in concentrations much lower than the other hydrocazbons, and thus aze not included in the determination of an odor threshold for smoke. Acetaldehyde is the hydrocarbon found in wood smoke with the lowest odor threshold concentration; 0.0002 mg/m3. Butyraldehyde has the next lowest odor threshold of 0.0136 mg/m3 and is only detectable at concentrations 70 times greater than acetaldehyde. The remaining hydrocarbons in wood smoke have odor threshold concentrations in the range of 1-5 mg/m3. Because acetaldehyde is detectable at extremely low concentrations, we can use its odor-detection threshold as a proxy for wood smoke odor, provided that we scale the total hydrocarbon concentration by the acetaldehyde fraction. We have also used a conservative estimate of the maximum acetaldehyde concentration in wood smoke; 2.88% of the total hydrocarbons. This fraction generally occurs in cold, oxygen-starved fires, which are not typical of the bums used during training. The open pile burns used during training would typically be cleaner. ~~+'~L Pagsa 73 Part 1: Smoke Plume Climatology The smoke-plume climatology illustrates the probability, during and immediately after a training burn, that the odor of wood smoke will be detected in the neighborhood surrounding the proposed training facility. This probability of detection is categorized by month (April through October) and time of day (morning, midday, afternoon). To generate the plume climatology, CALPUFF smoke-dispersion simulations were run for the 10-year period, using observed winds from April 1997 through June 2006. CALPUFF requires input of meteorological conditions (near-surface wind speed, wind direction, potential temperature, an atmospheric stability index, and boundary-layer depth). These weather data, azchived at NCAR, were obtained from instruments at 3450 Mitchell Lane, Boulder. The model was used to simulate smoke releases from 8 am to 5 pm, local time, every day during the months of April through October. To generate the probability maps in the following smoke-plume climatology, the results of the model simulations were aggregated by month into 3-hourly periods; from 8 am to 11 am, 11 am to 2 pm, and 2 pm to 5 pm. This results in about 300 dispersion simulations for each 3-hour/month group (10 yeazs, 30 days per month). Then, for each point in the model domain the number of simulations in which the maximum concentration exceeded the odor-detection threshold is computed and divided by the total number of simulations in that group, to obtain the climatic probability of detection. The plume-climatology maps cleazly show that the probability of detecfing the odor of smoke is generally low, and decreases rapidly with distance from the location of the proposed training facility. The probability of detection is less than 10% for distances greater than 500 m from the proposed training facility site. The probability of detection does not exceed more than a few percent over azeas that aze currently developed. Because the dispersion of smoke is driven by the wind, there aze patterns to the probability of detection that change with season and time of day. For example, in April during the afternoon, from 2 pm-5 pm, the most likely azeas to smell smoke would be to the west or south of the site. /Ipenda Ibm # ~G Paps#~ 8 , ~ / i ~ ~ EI ~ fP; a ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ b -r 4 ~ > ~ ~ ~ • ~ 5 f:.3.~ NJt n 1:~ i~ l r. ~EC. ~ { T~ ~ 'X.=~: ~ 1 ~~f.~ ~ ~l ,s~ ~ ~ 1, X31 , _ f~~--.~ Plate 1: Climatic probability that the smoke ~ ti concentration from training burns will exceed the ~,;1 ~ , detection threshold limit for the specif ed time of the f1 ~ ~ ~ ~ c day during April.. Gray shades are detection ~ ~ probabilities below 10%. ~ • - to ;tr. - _ ~ u: ~ e !1l s. x C:4'T Hd ,C~.~. ~ ~ r s•,.,. i ~ _ ~ i jj'~ Ali 97 rFY:~ .yam ~ l~ I r ,e,r ~ ~ _ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ; ~.~?9 t'1t ~i r f S73 ~ ~ t + ; ~ FS! F~ P - ' LC . - - - FLA.' ~ Plate 2: Climatic probability that the smoke concentration from training burns will exceed the ti. r ~ " - : ~ ~ detection threshold limit for the specified time of the L day during May. Gray shades are detection probabilities ~6 ~ below 10%. ~ ~ ~ E ~1~ ~.E; l J ` r~'- ~ ~ ~ ~ r,.t, '~s~ fir. ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ 4 L3: ~~ry ~ ~p 0. J' ~ ~ .Yl ,8R „e~. YLf t. ry r`, ~ ~ C ~ AzE ~ _ r ~ ~j al + ~ ~ ~ B'J r. i' . s , a.~E f r 1 i ~~f . ~ ~ to ~ ~ po .tat ~ ; , ~ 'F~ Plate 3: Climatic probability that the smoke concentration from training burns will exceed the detection threshold limit for the specified time of the L, day during June. Gray shades are detection probabilities ~ ~ ' .u .4 below 10%. iii ~`-~4~ 4 - "k p L ,~ti 7' tip, - t _ i2,` ~ ~ _ ~1 ~ ~ i . 't.? c ,k~ ~ !!J a 5 tit 'S° ~ CSR.' u ! t by ~ iri~ _ ~ ` J lam' r R ~ ` L t ~ tc E r ~-?Y?. ee . _ u; _ ii,- ~ ~ Ic~° ~ F~:-~ • , .1 t. 5j ~i~t, ~ ~ v~ ~~x.. ~ y ~ Plate 4: Climatic probability that the smoke concentration from training burns will exceed the - ~ detection threshold limit for the specified time of the A,~ _ L day during July. Gray shades are detection probabilities ~ ° E below 10%. ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ 4 f ~ - f. x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . r_ . m - ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ L • ~I~'r~E . s vy rnFLi,~~i: ~ ~ ~ tr! ~ H! c~ --rte I 4. ~ m ~ " ~ : i Flate 5: Climatic probability that the smoke concentration from training burns will exceed the - ~ detection threshold limit for the specified time of the ~ ' ~ day during August. Gray shades are detection E~ probabilities below 10%. ~ ~ 3'~°" r ~ - -i r ~ ~ ~ . u, 4;. o;~ ~ der'`.: ~ ei xii;`£ ~ C`, ~ - . I 5 ~ ~ 3 @1 ~ ~ Sfi ~ .vim , r,, ~7 ~ t'~_„ _ ~ ~~-x- ('late 6: Climatic probability that the smoke ~ concentration from training burns will exceed the V'~ ~ M- detection threshold limit for the specified time of the day during September. Gray shades are detection ~ ~ E~robabilities below 10%. ~ _ r.. ~t t r :t Cfy ~ ~q~r, y _ - _ 7 t ~ n a' ~ ~S~ L ~z~,.. . . ~ µ • - ~ ~ f is , y' •,f• ~ J-w -~,u,... ''rrte~ ~~-a~ ~ t. ~ m ilf~lP.Atl~ / , E ``''~~11rru~i~if''44`` / r ~ 11 ,I ~,ry,~~ ;y;-. ~ = ~ ' Plate 7: Climatic probability that the smoke ' ~ ccmcentration from training bums will exceed the ` detection threshold limit for the specified time of the ~ rte' ~ L clay during October. Gray shades are detection probabilities below 10%. ~ ~ Part 2: Smoke Impact Tool A series of CA.LPUFF simulations was run with varying wind conditions, to facilitate the use of current wind observations to define the area surrounding the proposed training facility that may be impacted by smoke during a training session. The input winds speeds used, up to 10 m/s, span the range of what can reasonably be expected at the location of the facility, and all directions were considered. Stable atmospheric conditions were used in all calculations to obtain a conservative, worst-case, result. Unstable atmospheric conditions, which are common during summer months, would result in increased vertical mixing and an impact that is less than what is shown here. Higher wind speeds increase mixing and also result in smaller areas of impact. As was done to compute the smoke climatology, at each point in the model domain the maximum concentration of acetaldehyde was computed to determine if it was greater than the minimum odor detection threshold. All points in excess of the detection threshold are used to delineate the azea of impact. The smoke impact model simulations aze symmetric for all wind directions. To use the smoke impact tool, the plume should be aligned with the observed wind, pointing downwind. The azea enclosed by the contour corresponding to the observed wind speed denotes the azea downwind of the proposed training facility where smoke odor maybe detected. If the observed wind speed is not one of the labeled contours, one can either use a lower contour, i.e. use 5 m/s fora 6m/s observed wind speed, or interpolate between adjacent contours. Nem# ~~Lo.__~ r ~ ~ t r Y Y ~ y ~'ry: , r..., , ~ ~ ~r ~ .y~, ~ ~ ~ r ' ~ r ~ w ~ ~ ~ Plate 8: Smoke Impact Tool. This plume is oriented appropriately for a wind coming from the southwest. The tool to follow can be used for other wind directions. The colors indicate the area of odor detectability for different wind speeds. AQe~idsi lbem ~ ~ ~~i~~ ~3 Attachment F ?X T R A N S P? R TAT I O N G R O U P May 30, 2008 Mr. Frank Young Deputy Chief City of Boulder, Fire -Rescue 1805 33"~ Street Boulder, CO 80301 Re: Traffic Access Study for the proposed Fire Training Center at the Boulder Reservoir Dear Mr. Young, At your request, I have prepared a traffic access study for the proposed Boulder Fire Training Center (FTC) at the Boulder Reservoir site. In the process 1 have: • discussed the potential site design and potential uses with you and other members of the project team • reviewed plans for the new facility • discussed traffic access issues with City of Boulder Transportation Division Staff • procured AM and PM peak hour traffic counts at the intersection of Jay Road and 51" St. • incorporated "worst case" southbound AM peak hour traffic volume data at lay / 51 S` from Boulder County staff • procured vehicular speed information and daily traffic volumes on 51" Streei north of Jay Road • reviewed historic use information for the existing FTC in Boulder. In this study I have projected daih= and peak hour traffic that will be generated by the site (including fire truck traffic), and have evaluated the impacts of this additional traffic at the Jay Road/51'' Street intersection. Site Access As currently planned, the new FTC at the Boulder Reservoir will he located at the southeast corner of the reservoir and will take access from 51" Street. It is proposed that the FTC will access 51 S' Street using the existing access drive to the Boulder Reservoir recreational area. Once inside the reservoir area, a nev~~ 24 foot wide access road will be constructed to connect to the new FTC facilitti~. This new access road will parallel the existing reservoir access roadwati= but will allow the FTC access traffic to be separate from the traffic accessing the recreational uses at the Boulder Reservoir. Ape~~ ~m ~ _ P.O. BDX 1 9768, BOULDER, COLORADO 903D8-27b8 PHONE: 303-652-3571 ¦ FAX: 303-772-2329 OR 3D3-652-6574 Mr. Frank Young May ,0, 2008 Page 2 of 6 All traffic accessing the new FTC will utilize 5151 Street. and nearly all traffic will be routed through the existing intersection of Jay Road and 5151 Street. It is my understanding that the Fire Department is interested in constructing an "outbound only' emergency access drive from the new FTC directly onto the southwest bound leg of the Diagonal Highway. This access would allow the Fire Department to respond most efficiently if an emergency call is received while the necessary response staff is at the new FTC facility. It is my understanding that this may happen about 6 times per year. It is uncertain if the Colorado Department of Transportation will allow this additional access, and it is mentioned only for context in this study. No fiu-ther evaluation has been included. If this emergency exit drive is not constructed, then outbound emergency access would be accommodated on 51" Street. Site Uses The proposed FTC will include a variety of indoor and outdoor training facilities, class rooms. administration space. etc. The site will serve the needs of the City of Boulder Fire Department. and will also provide training opportunity for other emergency response organizations in Boulder County. It will also provide a facility for periodic use by the BCFFA Academy. Most uses will occur on weekdays during the day. but there will also be weekend training events and weekday evening use as well. There will not be a large auditorium included in this facilit`~ as had been proposed at other sites under consideration in the past. There is no immediate plan to include a small Wildland Fire Facility at this location. although the site has adequate room to accommodate this use in the future if necessary. Trip Generation This study has projected the amount of daily and peak hour traffic that will access the new FTC on a weekday for the following site uses: • FTC staff • City of Boulder users • Other Boulder County users • BCFFA training. Use projections are based on an extrapolation of historic use at existing fire training facilities in Boulder and estimation of use at the new facility. Table 1 includes a detailed breakdown of the daily and peak hour access traffic for each of these uses. and also indicates the number of days each year that these uses will occur. The table also includes an estimate of the traffic access on an "average or h~pical" day (training center staff and City of Boulder use only), and on a "worst case'' day ("typical" day plus BCFFA activity). As indicated in Table 1. the ``typical"' day will occur approximately ] 60 times per year. and will generate only 32 one way vehicle trips along 5151 Street over the course of the day (18 trips or Mr. Frank Young May 30, 2008 Page 3 of 6 56% of the traffic will be fire trucks). The "«~orst case" day will occur 7 times per year, and will generate 104 one way trips on 51ST Street (20 trips or 19% of the traffic will be fire trucks). Traffic Operations Along 51st Street and in the Jay Road/Sls' Street lntersection Currently there are approximately 1,100 vehicle trips per day (winter count) using S l S1 Street between Jay Road and the Boulder Reservoir. From a traffic volume perspective, 515` Street (which has a daily traffic capacity of over ] 0,000 trips per day) will be easily able to accommodate the increased traffic from either the ``typical" or "`worst case" use of the new FTC. This finding will still be true even when seasonal traffic is added to 5151 Street in the summer months. 'Traffic speed along 515' Street may need to be addressed independent of the FTC traffic access issue. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour, the average speed is 45 miles per hour in the southbound direction, and the 85'x' percentile speed is 53 miles per hour in an area where the road is flat and straight. The intersection of Jay Road and 51St Street is an unsignalized `T' type intersection with stop sign control on the southbound leg (51 s' Street). The southbound approach has separate left and right turn lanes, and there is a left turn lane on Jay Road on the eastbound approach. This intersection is located approximately 250 feet west of the intersection between Jay Road and the southwest-bound side of the Diagonal Highway. It should be nosed that during peak traffic hours the eastbound queue from the traffic signal at the Diagonal sometimes backs up to the S l 51 Street intersection. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic counts at the Jay Road/51St Street intersection are illustrated in the attached traffic volume figures (note that the AM peak hour traffic is a combination of the worst case traffic from two different counts in an effort to be conservative). This intersection has an excellent overall level of service (LOS) of A in the existing peals hours.. with the southbound approach operating at LOS B. Table 2 includes a surrunary of the LOS at this intersection. A description of the traffic operating conditions associated with the LOS letter grades is attached for reference. This study has added the increased peak hour traffic (from Table 1) That will be accessing the FTC in both the `'typical"' and "worst case" use conditions to the existing traffic in this intersection. Traffic volume maps are attached for each planning scenario. With this additional traffic. the intersection will continue to operate at LOS A and the southbound approach will continue to typically operate at LOS B with minor increases in delay. The worst case scenario AM peak hour scenario is the only one where the southbound left turn lane will operate at LOS C, as the projected vehicle delay just drops below the LOS B range. Table 2 summarizes this LOS evaluation, and the traffic volumes and LOS calculation sheets are attached. ,Agenda l~n ~ ~ Mr. Frank Young May 30, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Alternative Access Road Options Within The Reservoir Area As noted above. a separate access roadway across the reservoir site has been proposed in an effort to minimize potential conflict between FTC site users and recreational users (cars. bikes, pedestrians) at the reservoir. Clearly this is an expensive access solution for the new FTC facility. In some locations site constraints would require that the existing roadway be relocated slightly and the new access road be separated from the existing reservoir road by low retaining walls. It is my understanding. that a number of alternative access configurations have been discussed on the reservoir properh~ between S l'' Street and the new FTC site and the questions listed below have been raised: • From a traffic volume stand point. could the existing reservoir access roadwav accommodate the increased traffic generated bv_ the FTC. and if not, what improvements would be needed? • If CDOT allows an "emergency only" outbound access onto SH 1 l 9. could the existing reservoir access roadway serve normal FTC access traffic without needing any improvement? • If a 10 ft. wide multi-use trail were constructed along the existing reservoir access road. would this be a reasonable alternative solution? In response to these questions 1 offer the following: o From a traffic volume perspective. a new access mad is not needed. The existing reservoir access road can comfortably accommodate the relatively low volume oi• traffic generated by the FTC. o In my opinion. an improvement that should be made. independent of the FTC access. is the addition of a parallel (but detached)10 or 12 foot wide multi-use path along the north edge of the reservoir access road to prevent pedestrians from having to walk along the roadway edge as they sometimes must do no~~~. This path would also provide recreational bicyclists and/or young children on bikes an alternative to the access roadwav. o If a parallel multi-use path is provided. 1 believe the existing access roadway- could serve double duty and provide FTC access as well. Even if an "emergency only'' outbound access is not constructed onto SH 119 1 believe that the existing access roadway can serve the FTC site so long as the following provisions are made: - The shoulders along the edge of the access roadway must be smooth and flush enough to allow a vehicle to pull over all the wav to the edge of the roadway (or even pull the right side of their vehicle slightly off the edge of ~m~~~ Mr. Frank Young May 30, 2008 Page 5 of 6 the roadway) when confronted with a fire truck in emergency mode. This will allow a fire truck to pass between two vehicles that happen to stop directly across from each other along the edges of the existing 24 foot wide paved access road. - An "emergency vehicle only'" bypass lane should be constructed around the gate area just east of 51 S' Street so that fire trucks in emergency mode can bypass any congestion at the gate while accessing 51 S' Street. o In this context, an emergency outbound access onto SH 119 is not critical, and the expense of a completely separate FTC access roadway can be avoided. Conclusions and Recommendations This traffic study has projected and evaluated the traffic that will be added to S l s' Street by the proposed Boulder Fire Training Facility and the Boulder Reservoir. Significant observations. conclusions, and/or recommendations include: • The site will generate less than 35 vehicle trips on an average day with 18 of those trips being made by fire trucks. • On the `'worst case" day, the facility will generate just over 100 additional vehicle trips per day and 20 of those trips will be made by fire trucks. • 51" Street will be easily able to accommodate this level of increased traffic, even during the summer when recreational use at the Reservoir is highest. • The intersection of Jay Road and S ls' Street will be able to comfortably accommodate the additional Traffic with only minor increases in peak hour delay. The LOS will remain in the A/B range on typical days. On worst case days only the southbound left turn is projected to drop into the LOS C range during the AM peak hour with a slight reduction in delay per vehicle of less than one second. • No physical roadway improvements beyond the limits of the project site are warranted based on the traffic volumes projected. • Traffic speed on S l S' Street is fairly high where the roadway is straight and flat, with an average speed of 45 mph and an 85"' percentile speed of• 53 mph in a 40 mph zone. This traffic speed may warrant some type of speed mitigation.. independent of the FTC being developed adjacent to Boulder Reservoir. • There may be cost effective alternatives to constructing a separate roadway for FTC access across the reservoir site that will still provide safe and efficient access, even without an `'emergency only' outbound access onto SH l 19. I hope the information contained in this traffic shady is helpful as you continue planning for the new FTC. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Fox Higgins Transportation Group. LLC ~~~G~ Mr. Frank Young May 30, 2008 Page 6 of 6 ~~Jilliam C. Fos. P.L. Principal Attachments: ~l~ahles. Traffic Fieures. and LOS Calculation Sheets ~Qer~a IC~em ~ JSG ~ ~ CI Fox Table 1 Boulder Regional Fire Training Center Traffic Access Evaluation -Boulder Reservoir Site Trip Generation Annual Use Dail Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Frequency Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Site Use da s er ear vehicles er da vehicles er da vehicles er hour !vehicles er hour vehicles er hour vehicles er hour A Training Center Staff 250+ personal vehicles 4 4 3 0 0 3 fire trucks - ~ - 0 0 0 0 _ _ ~ Subtotal: 4 ~ 4 3 0 0 3 B City of Boulder Users -typically daytime 160 _ personal vehicles 3 3 1 ~ 0 0 1 fire trucks _ _ 9 9 3 _ 0 0 3 Subtotal: 12 ~ 12 4 , 0 0 4 C Other Boulder County Users -daytime 16 _j personal vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 _-fire trucks-----___-- 2 2 2 r 0 0 2 - - -------------------------1---- Subtotal: 2 ~ 2 2 0 0 2 D Other Boulder County Users -evening 50 ~ __personal vehicles 5 5 0 0 5 0 - - - - - fire trucks 0-----------~ 0 - ~ - - - ---------------------------------------------------Subtotal: -----------5 ------------5----------- - ~ - 0 5 0 E BCFFA Training -daytime 40 personal vehicles 15 i 15 15 I 0 0 15 fire trucks 1-----------~------------ ~ ~ I _ 0 ~ Subtotal: 16 16 16 I 0 0 16 F BCFFA Meetings -typically-evening 7 personal vehicles 20 20 0 0 20 0 - --fire trucks----- 0 0 ~ 0 0 Subtotal: 20 20 0 0 20 0 A+B "Typical" Day from a traffic perspective 160 - _ _ _ personal vehicles 7 7 4 ~ 0 0 4 - fire trucks 9------- ~------------9----------- 3------------ 3------------ Subtotal: 16 16 7 ( 0 0 7 A+B+E+F "Worst Case" Day from a traffic perspective 7 ` personal vehicles 42 42 19 - I 0 20 19 fire trucks---------- - - - 10 10----------------------- 4---------- -I 0 0 4 - - Subtotal: 52 ~I 52 23 T 0 20 23 1 J' ~I FH#07063 3!2012008 ~ Table 2 Fox Boulder Regional Fire Training Center Traffic Access Evaluation -Boulder Reservoir Site . _ ' Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Plus Existing Plus Existing Plus Existing Plus Existing Existing Typical FTC Typical FTC Worst Case FTC Worst Case FTC Intersection and AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hou? Critical Movements Dela (a) LOS Dela (a) LOS Dela (a) LOS Dela (a) LOS Dela (a) LOS Dela (a) LOS STOP SIGN CONTROL Jay Road / 51st St. Intersection 2.4 A 1.1 A 2.4 A 1.2 A 2.4 A 1.6 A -t--- - - - - - - - _ - Eastbound Lefl 0.4 A 0 9 A 0 5 A 0 9 A 0.6 A 1. 1 A Southbound Left 14.9 B 14.0 B 15.0 B 14.1 8 i5.2 C 14.5 8 (a) Delay represented in average seconds per vehicl ~ry FOX ~ T R A N S P O R T A T I? N G R? U P LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic volumes, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference. Level Delay in seconds per vehicle of (a) Service Rating Signalized Unsignalized Definition Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is low A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0 and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction of B 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15,0 operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers are not subject to appreciable tension. Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor. Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion. Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable. Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free flow speed. E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at signalized corridors. Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays at F > 80.0 > 50.0 critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of downstream congestion. (a) Delay ranges based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual criteria. Map -Jay Road/51st Street Existing AM Volumes rr-Nnn-+ vJ Cn r z ~ X30 Jay Road X342 Jay Road 15~ 292 Jay Roadl51st Street Existing AM Existing AM Map -Jay Roadl5lst Street Existing PM Volumes L vJ -E--+ r L~ Cfl N X37 Jay Road ~-327 Jay Road 34~ 272 Jay Road/51st Street Existing PM ~ Map -Jay Road/51st Street AM Plus Typical FTC Volumes -E-+ L rr~i-~ VJ -1--r r ~ r 00 X35 Jay Road X342 Jay Road 17~ 292- Jay Road/51st Street AM Plus Typical FTC ~t~n~~~f~ CT~ Map -Jay Roadl51st Street Existing PM Plus Typical FTC Volumes v! -E--+ r Z X37 Jay Road ~--327 Jay Road 34~ 272- Jay Road/51st Street Existing PM Plus Typical FTC Map -Jay Road/51st Street AM Plus Worst Case FTC Volumes v! -}-r r z 00 X46 Jay Road X342 Jay Road 22~ 292 i Jay Roadl51st Street AM Plus Worst Case FTC ~~.,r..,,~.- r- ~r~ l CJ -:j Map -Jay Road/51st Street Existing PM Plus Worst Case FTC Volumes -E--+ L V J -I--+ r Z Cfl N X51 Jay Road x--327 Jay Road 40~ 272 Jay Road/51st Street Existing PM Plus Worst Case FTC rya ~ ~G . HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jay Road & N. 51st Street 3/20/2008 ~ ~ ~ ~ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 292 342 30 81 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 317 372 33 88 42 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 8 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 404 722 372 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 404 722 372 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 77 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 1154 388 674 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 16 317 372 33 130 Volume Left 16 0 0 0 88 Volume Right 0 0 0 33 42 cSH 1154 1700 1700 1700 575 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.19 0.22 0.02 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 22 Control Delay (s) 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 14.9 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Jay Road/51st Street Existing AM 3/20/2008 Existing AM Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group G' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jay Road & N. 51st Street 1/16!2008 ~ ~ ~ +~F~ Movement EBL EBT VVBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ ? T ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 34 272 327 37 26 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 37 296 355 40 28 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed {ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 8 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 396 725 355 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 396 725 355 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s} 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 93 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1163 380 689 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 37 296 355 40 38 Volume Left 37 0 0 0 28 Volume Right 0 0 0 40 10 cSH 1163 1700 1700 1700 511 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.17 0.21 0.02 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 6 Control Delay {s) 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 14.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period {min) 15 Jay Road/51st Street Existing PM 1/4/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jay Road & N. 51st Street 3/20/2008 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 17 292 342 35 81 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 317 372 38 88 42 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 8 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 410 726 372 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 410 726 372 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 77 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 1149 385 674 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 18 317 372 38 130 Volume Left 18 0 0 0 88 Volume Right 0 0 0 38 42 cSH 1149 1700 1700 1700 571 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.19 0.22 0.02 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 22 Control Delay (s) 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 15.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Jay Road/51st Street AM Plus Typical FTC 3/20/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group r 1~~~ i HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jay Road & N. 51st Street 1/16!2008 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 34 272 327 37 31 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 37 296 355 40 34 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft!s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 8 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 396 725 355 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 396 725 355 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 91 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1163 380 689 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 37 296 355 40 46 Volume Left 37 0 0 0 34 Volume Right 0 0 0 40 12 cSH 1163 1700 1700 1700 514 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.17 0.21 0.02 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 7 Control Delay (s) 8.2 0.0 0.0 O.D 14.1 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 14.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Jay Road/51st Street Existing PM Plus Typical FTC Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group ~5~~ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jay Road 8~ N. 51st Street 3~2a2oo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ T ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 22 292 342 46 81 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 317 372 50 88 42 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft!s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 8 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC. conflicting volume 422 737 372 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 422 737 372 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 77 94 cM capacity (vehlh) 1137 378 674 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 24 317 372 50 130 Volume Left 24 0 0 0 88 Volume Right 0 0 0 50 42 cSH 1137 1700 1700 1700 559 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 22 Control Delay (s} 82 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 15.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Jay Road/51st Street AM Plus Worst Case FTC 3/20/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox I-tiagins Transportation Group ~~da item ~ ~ S HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jay Road & N. 51st Street 3/2o/loos ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 40 272 327 51 42 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 43 296 355 55 46 17 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 8 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 411 738 355 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 411 738 355 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 88 97 cM capacity (veh/h} 1148 371 689 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 43 296 355 55 63 Volume Left 43 0 0 0 46 Volume Right 0 0 0 55 17 cSH 1148 1700 1700 1700 512 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.17 0.21 0.03 0.12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 10 Control Delay (s) 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 14.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Jay Road/51st Street Existing PM Plus Worst Case FTC Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group `jai ~ `L Attachment G Regional Fire Training Center C?~ The Boulder Reservoir Concept Pla~l ~~ltritten Statement June 2, 2008 Backgrowlcl Nee~~'.• The need for a new Regional lire Training Center (RI°1,C) facilit}~ stemmed frond thc° existing facility being surrounded by a primaril}~ residential neighborhood, the existii~b structures needing costly repair, and the desire to have additional training room. Histo~7~: The Citv first selected the Valmont Butte site for the construction of the Regional Fire Training Center, however, nwnerous em~ironmental and citizen concerns lead the City Council to consider other sites. Cin' Council selected the Boulder Reservoir Site. A Concept Plan was submitted to City Staff on October 15, 200%, and comments were received November 16, 2007. City Council held a study session to discuss the viability of the Valmont Butte in May 2008. The study session reconfirmed that the Valmont Butte is not a feasible site and that the RFTC should continue to pursue the Reservoir Site. Proposnl.• "hhe RFTC is proposed for an approximately 10-acre portion of the Boulder Reservoir. Located at the southeast corner of the Reservoir, this project proposes three structures: a 16,000 to 23,000 square foot Administration Building, athree-story Burn Building and 55-foot tall High Drill Tower. A re9tiest to exceed the allowable building height will be filed with the Site Plan review. The site plan also includes space for additional uses such a~ dri~-ing course, an extrication pad, and prop storage. Site Plan: This building is proposed for the southeast end of the existing Boulder Reservoir and proposes primary access off 51" Street at the current reservoir entrance with secondary, emergency access onto Highwray 119. To accommodate the need for fire trucks to travel through the reservoir to the RFTC, the plan proposes the construction of a 24' dedicated fire training center road parallel to the existing reservoir roadway from 51" Street to the site. All traffic will enter at the current reservoir entrance. The entrance and gate house area will be redesigned with cooperation from other Cin~ departments to incorporate controlled access to the fire training center road as well as to improve current entrance congestion by increasing vehicle stacking distances. The ne~v RFTC parallel road will be designed specifically for fire training center vehicles only. The existing reservoir road will continue to serve as the only public access for the reservoir. Currently, the reservoir road has most of its traffic from cars, pedestrians, and bicycles. We are proposing a parallel road to eliminate the conflict of cars and P:\2616 -Boulder Fire Training CenterV'nx3uets\Suhmittals\Cun:ePt Plan Re~uhmitril\2(1(14-U6-? Conce~tt Plan written titztement.do~ L - pedestrians/bicycles with the fire training center road. In order to limit the recreational use of the fire training center road, the road will be designed with this specific challenge in mind. The road will have controlled access through a gate or remote entry system. Also, the road will be separated from the reservoir road physically and/or visually to discourage any other users through grade separation, landscaping, and physical barriers such as bollards, rumble strips, etc. The RFTC site plan is designed to be constructed in phases as money is allocated in the City budget. The first phase would consist of a portion of the administration building, the burn building, training tower and a portion of the driving course. Later phases would incorporate uses such as additional outside driving areas and parking. The current site plan is specifically designed with training exercises and scenarios in mind, as well as for efficiency of the site. The tower and burn building are situated in accordance with these training exercises in mind. The RFTC location on the site has been chosen due to its topography, proximih~ to the RFTC road, and site constraints of the dam setbacks, wetlands, and drainages. The RFTC site will most likely be visible from both directions of travel on Hwy 119. The longest and most direct views are from traffic traveling southbound. To mitigate and screen this large view corridor, the site plan will incorporate landscaping and berms on the eastern edge of the site along the direct lines of site. The landscaped berms will be designed to minimize site disturbance while maximizing their screening effect on the site. The views for northbound traffic will be brief and less ob~rious. Landscaping will address these concerns, but the majority of the focus will be on addressing views from southbound traffic. The plant palette will incorporate native and xeric species. Descriptio~z of Ard~itect~.rre: The architecture concept is that of an agrarian-t~rpe shed sitting rising from an open field. The interior of the administration building is designed for "dirty" and "clean" classrooms, administrative offices, locker rooms and apparatus bays for fire trucks. The three-story burn building is designed to simulate the various residential and office settings while the 55-foot training tower is designed for drills. The Administration building material is proposed to be pre-finished sheet metal panels on steel frame, colored CMU and sihrer or clear anodized glass. The roof material is proposed to be apre-finished sheet metal panels over steel frame. The Burn Building material is proposed to be clad in exposed infill colored CMU walls around a steal frame. The Training Tower material is proposed to be pre-cast concrete walls or colored CMU. P:\26]6 - $oulder Fire Training Center\1'roducts\Su6mittals\Concept Plan Resubmittal\2008-06-2 CuncePt Plan l~rrirten Statement.doc I~m~ ~ /C C~ Compliance with Review Criteria 1. Techniques and strategies for ci;~~iri~nnzenta] impact a~~c~idancr, n~inimiz<uic~n, or mitigation; The ~~7~~~ hilly C~P.~1gNr'i~ lhi c1i~7TC'~'c l.l'.L~ fe]"t~TCCIt1G7J. ~S ~r11% G~ f~~r regzrirements for LEED design, we are wozking to achieve the follozvirzg: • Minimize the building footprint; • Avoid h. ahitat, parkland, farmland, floodplain and wetlands; • Parking for h. ybrid automobiles, carpool trips and hikes; and, • Designing an energy e~cient buildin;;. 2. Technique and strategies for practical an~i eronomicall~~ texsiLile tra~~el dei~~and management techniques, including, without limitation, site design, land a<~. covenants, transit passes, parking restrictions, information or education materi~;l~ or programs that may reduce single-occupant vehicle trip generation to and frc~n~ the site. This facility will utilize group trips as many of the training participants will az-z-ive together in fire trucks. 141so, a.c part of our LEED Certification, use will designate several parking stalLc for to cc~ admission autorzzohile and hike parking. Proposed land uses and if it is a development that includes residential housing t~~pe, mix, sizes and anticipated sale prices, the percentage of affordable units to be included; special design characteristics that may be needed to assure affordabilitr~. }'rrpos~°d zrs~: Firs Training C~°z7t~°r. 1'' ~blr - R~~ui~i~i ~~ve T_ak:,~n;, Center.'+~a~u~t~uln~.nn.i~~ C~~~.. ~ l'i.,': Iv ~:~.ut,~1=111i~ tip _ ~~„n~~~~i 1'l.;u riiten Scarcu~eut.~i~~. 5~~ Fire Training Use Study Prepared by Frank Young May 21, 2008 Until 2007, the Boulder Regional Fire Training Center on Lee Hill Road was the only fire training facilih~ in the Countt~. During a three year period 2001 - 2003. a use study indicated the Lee Hill Road facility was used an average of 296 days per year by twenty- six different agencies. Of those 296 uses.. the burn building was used 24% of the time or 71 times out of the 296 days. The definition of a "use" includes every time there was am% activity, other than burn building use. The activities at the facility involve outside training and drills as ~~~ell as meetings for two or three individuals in a classroom. The Use Study_ did not breakdown the type, size. and frequency of each use. The study showed the following use: • Monday through Friday daytime use averaged 181 days out of an average 261 weekdays per year 7 AM - 5 PM. • Monday through Friday evening use ayera~~ed 92 evenings out of 261 «%eekdays per year. • Saturday and Sunday use was 92 days out of an average 104 ~yeekend days per year between 7 AM and 10 PM. In 2007. a satellite fire training center opened and is available for use by all county departments. In addition. two mobile fire training units have been placed in use and are available to departments protecting the mountain communities in the county. This has slightly reduced the overall use of the Lee Dill facility. We believe that the proposed Regional Fire Training Facility use will be of the same intensity as the Lee Hill facility today. The proposed facility will have approximately the same amount of burn building use. meetings. and training sessions. A "typical" day at the proposed facility includes one agency using the facility to teach a class, hold a meeting, or conduct outside training ~-ith fire trucks. A 'worst case' dav_ includes multiple agencies with simultaneous activities and additional equipment. And therefore. Fox Higgins prepared a traffic study indicating the following traffic counts and impacts. A March 2008 traffic study projected daily and peak hour traffic for the Wells site. • "Typical"~ day will occur approximately 160 times per year and generate 32 one way vehicle trips alone S l st Street. l S trips will be fire trucks. • "Worst Case"" day will occur 7 times per year and generate l 04 one-vvay trips on 51" Street. 20 trips will be fire t~•t~cks. Currently there are approximately 1.100 vehicle trips per day (winter count) on 51 Street. The added traffic represents a small addition to the current conditions. 18111 ~ ~~i /C' / • "T~ pical'~ day fire training center traffic increases the current winter daily trips by from 1,100 to ] .135 trips per day. '-\~"orst Case" fire training center traffic increases the current winier daily trips by 9.,% from 1.100 to 1.204 trips per day. 1 he trai~iic study concludes: • 1" Street ~a~ill be easily able to accommodate this level of increased traffic. even during the summer when recreational use at the Reservoir is highest." • "No physical roadway improvements beyond the limits of the project site are warranted based on the traffic volumes projected." • "The intersection of .lay Road and 51 s, Street will be able to comfortabh~ accommodate the additional traffic with only minor increases in peak hour delay." Level of Service will remain in the A/B range (0.0 to 15.0 delay in seconds per vehicle) on "Typical'' days. 1_evel of Service nn "Worst Case" days only the southbound left turn is projected to drop into the C range ((15.1 to 25.0 delay in seconds per ~ chicle) Burin<~ the AM peal; hours. ;'n'~`q'?°'~:J ~::~~d fir' ~ f /r;' l