2018_1_4_Agenda Packet
M ayor
Suzanne Jones
Council M e mbe r s
Aaron Brockett
Cindy Carlisle
Jill Grano
Lisa Morzel
Mirabai Nagle
Sam Weaver
Bob Yates
Mary Young
Council Chambers
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
January 4, 2018
6:00 PM
City M anage r
Jane Brautigam
City Attorne y
Thomas A. Carr
City Cle rk
Lynnette Beck
AGE NDA FOR T HE REGULAR MEET ING OF T HE
BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL
I tems not on the Agenda are sometimes presented to Council in weekly I nformation
Packets. Those packets c an be acc essed at www.bouldercolor ado.gov/city-council.
1.C all to Order and Roll Call
2.Open C omment
3.C onsent Agenda
A.Consideration of a motion to accept the November 28, 2017 Study
S ession Summary on the Boulder P ublic Library M aster P lan
project update
B .Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only Ordinance 8233 amending the B oulder
Revised Code and annexation Ordinance 5932 to authorize
development of 2180 Violet Avenue in the RM -2 zoning district with
19 dwelling units, consistent with the proposed amendment to the
annexation agreement for 2180 Violet Ave
C .Introduction, first reading and motion to publish by title only
O rdinance 8234 updating the city’s code provisions regulating
short-term rentals, by amending Chapter 10-1, “Definitions,” and
Chapter 10-3, “Rental L icensing,” and setting forth related details
4.C all-Up Check-In
A.Call-Up: 2180 Violet Avenue, 2100 Violet Avenue and 2145 Upland
S ite Review
5.P ublic Hearings
A.S econd reading and consideration of a motion to adopt
City Council Meeting Page 1 of 518
Ordinances 8224, 8225, 8226, 8227, 8228, 8229, 8230 designating
five properties at 1406-08 P ine St., 1414 Pine S t., 2118 14th St.,
2124 14th St. and 2132 14th S t., and portions of two properties at
1424 P ine St. and 1443 S pruce S t. each as individual landmarks
under the city’s Historic P reservation Ordinance
20 min
B.S econd reading and consideration of a motion to adopt
E mergency Ordinance 8231, as an amendment to T itle 9, “L and
Use Code,” B.R.C . 1981, granting authority to the City M anager to
approve a day shelter and overnight shelter use at 2691 30th
street, to modify density and parking standards as they apply to
the use, and setting for th details in relation ther eto
30 min
6.M atters from the C ity M anager
A.D iscussion of M ajor P lanning and Housing Work P lan Items
(including Information on S ubcommunity and Area Planning,
Regulatory Changes to Address E nhanced Community B enefits,
and C ommercial Linkage F ees)
90 min
B.E stablishment of a Working Group for analysis of and
recommendations to the city council concerning changes to the
city of Boulder Charter and C ode provisions addressing
C ampaign F inance, Initiative, Referendum and other Election
rules and addressing other E lection matters
20 min
Updated on J anuary 2, 2018 at 4:59 p.m.
7.M atters from the C ity Attorney
A.D iscussion of P otential Climate C hange L itigation 30 min
8.M atters from M ayor and M embers of C ouncil
A.C all-Up Item: S ite review to develop the three pr operties at 2180
Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., and 2145 Upland Ave. P roposal for
the construction of 19 residential units in five buildings at 2180
Violet Ave. T he multi-family development would be 100 percent
permanently affordable for-sale residences built by F latirons
Habitat for Humanity. In addition, proposal to subdivide the
property at 2100 Violet Ave. into 6 lots for single-family
development and 2145 Upland Ave. into 3 lots for single-family
development
5 min
9.C omment on M otions M ade Under M atters
10.D ecisions on M otions
11.D ebrief
12.Adjournment
4 hours, 15 minutes
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 518
This me eting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired
live on Municipal Channel 8 and the city's website and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and
11 a.m. Fridays in the two weeks following a regular council meeting.
Boulder 8 TV (Comc ast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed captioning for all live
meetings that are aired on the channels. The closed captioning servic e operates in the
same manner as similar services offered by broadc ast channels, allowing viewers to turn
the closed captioning on or off with the television remote control. Closed captioning also is
available on the live HD stream on Boulder C hannel8.com. To ac tivate the c aptioning
servic e for the live stream, the "C C" button (whic h is loc ated at the bottom of the video
player) will be illuminated and available whenever the channel is providing c aptioning
servic es.
The council c hambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable
assisted listening devices. I ndividuals with hearing or speech loss may contact us using
Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-800-659-3656.
Anyone requiring spec ial packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded
versions may contact the City Clerk's Offic e at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday. Please request spec ial pac ket preparation no later than 48 hours prior to
the meeting.
I f y ou need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting,
please c all (303) 441-1905 at least three business days prior to the meeting. Si usted
nec esita interpretacion o cualquier otra ay uda con relac ion al idioma para esta junta, por
favor comuniquese al (303) 441-1905 por lo menos 3 negocios dias antes de la junta.
Send electronic presentations to email address: C ityClerkStaff@ bouldercolorado.gov
no later than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting.
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
Motion to accept the November 28, 2017 Study Session Summary on the Boulder Public
Library Master Plan Project Update
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
J ennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Motion to accept the November 28, 2017 Study Session Summary on the Boulder Public
Library Master Plan Project Update
B RI E F H I STORY OF I T E M
C ity Council accepted the Advance Study Session Summary on D ec. 5, 2017.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachment
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2017
SUMMARY
This agenda item provides a summary of the November 28, 2017 Study Session on the Boulder
Public Library Master Plan project update.
The purpose of the study session was to update City Council on the status of the Boulder
Public Library (BPL) Master Plan update, and to present options for funding the goals and
ensuring long-term financial sustainability of the library system. Staff provided information
including a brief overview of the library system, major accomplishments since the 2007
Boulder Public Library Master Plan, highlights from input received from the community, a
brief overview of significant projects planned for the next five years and estimated ongoing
costs associated with each, and an outline of options for funding these projects and ensuring
financial sustainability for years to come.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
A. Nov. 28 Study Session Summary – Boulder Public Library Master Plan project update
AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion to accept the November 28, 2017
Study Session summary on the Boulder Public Library Master Plan project update.
PRESENTERS
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
David Farnan, Library and Arts Director
Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff recommends council consideration of this summary and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to accept the November 28, 2017 Study Session summary on the Boulder
Public Library Master Plan project update.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 518
Nov. 28, 2017 Study Session Summary
Boulder Public Library Master Plan project update
PRESENT
City Council: Suzanne Jones, Mayor; Aaron Brockett, Mayor Pro Tem; Cindy Carlisle, Jill
Adler Grano, Lisa Morzel, Mirabai Kuk Nagle, Sam Weaver, Bob Yates, Mary Young
Library Commission: Joni Teter, Joel Koenig, Tim O’Shea, Juana Gomez
Staff members: City Manager Jane S. Brautigam, City Attorney Tom Carr, Library and
Arts Director David Farnan, Deputy Director Jennifer Phares, and Communication Specialist
Jennifer Bray
OVERVIEW
The purpose of the study session was to update City Council on the status of the Boulder Public
Library (BPL) Master Plan update and to present options for funding the goals and ensuring
long-term financial sustainability of the library system. Staff provided the following information
for council’s consideration:
•Brief overview of what the library is and does.
•Major accomplishments since the 2007 Boulder Public Library Master Plan.
•Highlights from input received from the community.
•Brief overview of significant projects planned for the next five years and estimated
ongoing costs associated with each.
•Outline of options for funding these projects and ensuring financial sustainability for
years to come.
City Council questions and comments
Below are council’s feedback and questions. Staff responses are shown in italics following the
council comments and questions.
Financial sustainability options
Why are no other Colorado libraries using a regional library authority, and are there libraries in
other states that use this option? Concerns expressed about losing municipal authority over
Boulder’s public libraries, why would a city let their facilities go? What would Boulder do with
our assets?
Under the various options for running BPL in a different funding scenario, governance issues
would need to be worked out. In both a Regional Authority and a District, City Council would
appoint the board of the library. What goals would be achieved by going with one of these
options? Additional information is needed about BPL cardholders by area and zip code, perhaps
a heat map would be helpful. Also, would like to see more information about the Ft. Collins
experience in recent years. Does the table of BPL cardholders indicate active cardholders?
Yes, the table presented shows mainly active cardholders. Roughly 18% of the cardholders listed
are not active users and currently have outstanding fines and fees prohibiting them from using
the library. In addition, Boulder Public Library honors cards within the Flatirons Library
Consortium (FLC). So, a person with a Louisville or Broomfield library card may use BPL
Attachment A
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 518
without getting a BPL card, and would then not show up in this table at all. Goals that would be
achieved with increased funding would be: redressing current budget constraints, adding funds
for operating a new North Boulder Library Branch, opening library services in Gunbarrel,
outreach to underserved communities, and serving growth in east and southeast Boulder.
Looking at the BPL cardholder table, to what extent do we collaborate with other local libraries,
and how would that be affected by the formation of a district/regional authority?
The FLC is our main collaboration with other area public libraries. The FLC is an independent
501[c]3. It is the second largest consortium of public libraries in the state and a model for
regional collaboration. Through the FLC, Boulder library patrons have access to more materials
and next day delivery from libraries in the region. Regional collaboration has also significantly
increased our leverage for contract negotiations. Furthermore, Boulder and other regional
libraries share policies where applicable and financial resources through joint contracts for
services with FLC. No other FLC library has expressed interest in joining BPL in an authority
or district.
What options are there for having people who live outside the city limits contribute more
equitably for library services? Changing the governance, and therefore funding, is going to be
complicated and we should talk about potentially charging people who do not live inside the
Boulder city limits for library use. Something to consider is that people who do not live in the
city limits probably still shop in Boulder and contribute to sales taxes for city/library services.
Property taxes could also be considered for people living outside city limits for library services,
and if we did so, we would need to determine what the correct mill rate would be.
Adding property tax for people living outside of city limits would require a vote. How much
would adding those mill levies help BPL achieve its goals? Gunbarrel is a challenging issue as
half of the community is in the city and half in the county.
This needs further research and detailed mapping and analysis of overall assessed property
values.
How could city Development Excise Taxes (DET) help us provide library services in Gunbarrel?
DET fund expenditures are restricted to capital expansion only. They could be used for startup
costs for opening a Gunbarrel library including purchasing an initial collection of books and
materials. However, the ongoing operational costs cannot use DET funds. We do not have firm
estimates of costs for ongoing operating costs to run a storefront library in Gunbarrel, but based
on NoBo Corner Library, we can estimate that it would cost roughly $300,000 to $400,000
annually for staff, materials, equipment, upkeep, and utilities. Facilities and Asset Management
(FAM) estimates a cost of $18/sq. ft. to operate a new library.
Few people would want to increase their property taxes. And we do not currently have willing
partners for a district or authority. What about a library tax – seems people might be interested in
taxing themselves for the library? What would that be and how much would it raise?
That would depend upon which kind of tax you mean: property or dedicated sales/use tax.
Boulder currently has nearly the highest sales/use tax among cities in Colorado. There are also
other city priorities for potential increases in sales/use taxes (affordable housing, broadband,
human services, etc.). There is currently a charter limit on property tax millage rates the city can
collect. We would have to investigate this further. It is also good to remember that sales tax
revenue is currently flat.
Attachment A
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 518
Would it be possible to reduce the sales/use tax that currently funds the library, and the .33
property mill, and then form a district/authority to make up that difference by adding those taxes
to fund the district/authority?
Yes. But this is a decision for City Council and would require more research.
Do you feel there is a preference between an authority or district? Sales taxes can be regressive
and have an unfair burden on those with lower incomes. Expressing some preference for
property tax idea.
Staff are just getting started with this analysis and have not defined a preference. We need to do
more research. What we do know is that half of the public libraries in the State of Colorado are
district libraries. With few exceptions district library funding rates per capita and per user are
significantly higher than municipal libraries. What we are putting before Council in this study
session are the community goals which at minimum will require at least a 10% increase in
overall funding. All options for how to fund this increase are on the table, including district,
regional authority and increased funding from the city. The regional authority is biggest
unknown because it has not been done before in Colorado. (Council expressed interest in
receiving follow up information from the Ft. Collins district formation.)
Would you prefer to take the Regional Library Authority off the table for now?
Yes. That would simplify our options and focus our research.
City Council initial feedback for staff and Library Commission:
Agreement that we need to find more sustainable funding to reach the BPL goals, libraries are
too important especially in today’s climate. Would like to find a way to get at the equity issue,
possibly by looking at a district.
Extremely impressed with what staff has done with flat funding resources. Supportive of the
service expansion plans, and looking forward to the north Boulder branch, and some kind of
library service for Gunbarrel. Agree it’s worth exploring the idea of a district. A lot of outreach
would need to be done. Wary of continuing to increase sales taxes, property taxes are less
regressive. If decision becomes to form a district, preference would be to look at reducing the
property tax mill rates within the city accordingly.
Some agreement around the idea of increasing property taxes possibly being difficult or
infeasible, and it could also be difficult for the city to lower property taxes to offset growing into
a district. However, staff should continue to explore the options, including annexation. Example
is that Gunbarrel desires library services, and parks, and not all of Gunbarrel is in the city limits.
Boulder is a wonderful place, and people seem to want to come here from wherever they are.
Can we help collaborate to create this kind of destination library among the other communities
regionally?
Belief that Gunbarrel residents will fight against annexation.
Some agreement expressed with the memo that libraries are a basic responsibility/function of our
society, not an option, and are fundamental to our existence and culture. Concern about
increasing taxes. What can we do for this long-term sustainability funding plan by looking at the
city budget? Reluctance expressed about losing control over BPL facilities/this wonderful
community resource.
Attachment A
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 518
Several kudos were expressed to David Farnan, library staff, Library Commission, and the
Boulder Library Foundation for everything that has been accomplished. The funding equity
conversation must be had with Gunbarrel for fairness.
Some agreement about reluctance to ask people coming to the library to pay fee for services if
they live outside the city limits. Not in favor of user fees, believe that is against the philosophy of
libraries.
Appreciation expressed for the Tree Debris to Opportunity program with unhoused community
members to learn woodworking skills. Funding scenarios all seem challenging (taxes,
annexation). Not supportive of the library authority idea. District option agreeable if it would
not significantly increase the overall tax burden on existing Boulder residents.
Encouragement expressed to see Boulder explore what a library district would look like.
Increasing property taxes is not appealing, but to achieve these goals and for sustainable library
funding, it will take a substantial amount of money. It is not clear that Boulder residents object to
the millage rate. Rather the overall assessed value of property means a higher dollar amount of
taxes. Most ideal option is to find that funding in existing city budget somewhere.
General question asked: If we are “growing the pie” for the library budget, what are we willing
to trade off if we are not willing/able to increase taxes? Need clear answers. Assume there are no
new dollars coming in. How much is needed for the library Master Plan, and on what will it be
spent? Council can then compare this information with all the other community priorities and
funding requests for other services/departments. Request to see the funding for the library over
the past several years, and be able to determine if the library has not been funded as a high
priority to the same degree as other city departments.
Would like more detailed information to make a clear recommendation. Prefer to find additional
funding in existing city budget, to explore a district, and to explore annexation possibilities.
North Boulder Library Branch is exciting – more than books, WiFi/computer access – extending
out into the community. Projecting service into Boulder Meadows would be huge. Agreement
about looking at library funding through the past years, and in the city budget for any additional
funding options. Believes that the library has not been enough of a priority for funding in the
past.
As council approaches its two-year workplan, library staff and commission ask that sustainable
library funding be a work item.
Suggestion to explore collaboration or districting possibilities with the mountain towns. Request
for staff to work with Boulder County and Boulder Valley School District about what
appropriate boundaries might be for a potential district.
NEXT STEPS
City Council’s feedback from the Nov. 28, 2017 study session is being incorporated into the
Library Master Plan update. Staff will return to City Council for the Library Master Plan update
consideration in the second quarter of 2018.
Attachment A
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8233 amending the Boulder Revised C ode and annexation Ordinance 5932 to
authorize development of 2180 Violet Avenue in the RM-2 zoning district with 19 dwelling
units, consistent with the proposed amendment to the annexation agreement for 2180 Violet
Ave
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
Sloane Walbert, Planner II
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8233 amending the Boulder Revised C ode and annexation Ordinance 5932 to
authorize development of 2180 Violet Avenue in the RM-2 zoning district with 19 dwelling
units, consistent with the proposed amendment to the annexation agreement for 2180 Violet
Ave
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachments
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2018
AGENDA TITLE: Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only Ordinance 8233 amending the Boulder Revised Code and
annexation Ordinance 5932 to authorize development of 2180 Violet Avenue in the RM-
2 zoning district with 19 dwelling units, consistent with the proposed amendment to the
annexation agreement for 2180 Violet Avenue.
At time of second reading, the City Council will also consider proposed amendments to
the annexation agreements for the properties at 2100 Violet Avenue, 2180 Violet Avenue,
1917 Upland Avenue, and 2145 Upland Avenue to allow for permanently affordable
housing requirements of these properties to be met at 2180 Violet Avenue, a reduced
width of the Vine Avenue right-of-way consistent with the updated North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan, and for construction of 19 permanently affordable dwelling units at
2180 Violet Avenue, where otherwise only 15 units would be allowed.
Owner: Habitat for Humanity of Boulder Valley, Inc.
Applicant: Flatirons Habitat for Humanity
PRESENTER/S
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Jim Robertson, Director of Planning, Housing & Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager
Sloane Walbert, Planner II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council is asked to consider an ordinance to authorize modifications to the
Boulder Revised Code and the ordinance annexing the property into the city (Ordinance
No. 5932), consistent with the proposed amendments to the annexation agreement for the
property, in particular to allow for an increase in allowable density at 2180 Violet Avenue.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 518
The proposed ordinance can be found in Attachment A. A legislative action is required to
allow for an increase in density to 19 units, where 15 units are allowed per the intensity
standards in the Residential – Medium 2 (RM-2) district. The proposed density on the
property is consistent with that of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
Designation of Medium Residential, but exceeds the density allowed under the zoning
designation. The ordinance would amend the original annexation ordinance for the property
to expressly authorize modifications and variations to the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.)
that are provided for in the annexation agreement or amendments thereto.
On Dec. 7, 2017, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend to City Council approval of
an ordinance amending the B.R.C. and annexation Ordinance No. 5932 to authorize
development of 2180 Violet Avenue in the RM-2 zoning district with 19 dwelling units,
consistent with the proposed amendment to the annexation agreement for 2180 Violet
Avenue.
On Jan. 4, 2018, City Council is asked to introduce on first reading the attached ordinance.
A public hearing and Council discussion of the ordinance is scheduled for
Feb. 6, 2018, together with the annexation agreement amendments described below.
Refer to Attachment A for the draft ordinance. The staff memorandum to Planning Board
and other related background materials are available here.
Figure 1: Properties Included in Larger Development Proposal
The request for an ordinance to modify the land use code and the annexation ordinance is
one component of a proposal that includes the following:
1.Ordinance to Increase Density. As described above, a legislative action is required to
allow for an increase in allowable density at 2180 Violet Avenue.
2180 Violet Ave.
2145 Upland Ave.
1917 Upland Ave.
2100 Violet Ave.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 518
2.Annexation Agreement Amendments. The proposal includes a request to amend the
three existing annexation agreements for the properties at 2100 Violet Avenue, 2180
Violet Avenue, 1917 Upland Avenue, and 2145 Upland Avenue as follows. Refer to the
vicinity map in Figure 1 for the locations of the properties. The annexation request
will be described in a separate memo for consideration at a public hearing on
Feb. 6, 2018.
a.Allow all affordable housing requirements on the four properties to be
provided on the property at 2180 Violet Avenue. The goal of the proposal is to
provide housing with a deeper level of affordability that remains permanently
affordable over time, as opposed to the requirements found in the annexation
agreement.
b. Amend the requirements pertaining to the dedication of right-of-way and the
construction of Vine Avenue south of the property at 2100 Violet Avenue to
allow for smaller cross-section of a modified access street, consistent with the
smaller Vine Avenue cross-section approved in the amended North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan.
c.Allow for increased density on the property at 2180 Violet Avenue for the
construction of 19 residential units, where 15 are allowed under Residential –
Medium 2 (RM-2) zoning. The goal of this request is to increase in density to
19 units, where 15 units are allowed per the intensity standards, if so
authorized by the subject ordinance described above.
3.Site Review. Proposal to develop the three properties at 2180 Violet Avenue, 2100
Violet Avenue, and 2145 Upland Avenue as follows:
a.2180 Violet Ave. Construction of 19 residential units in five buildings. The
development would be 100 percent permanently affordable for-sale residences
built by Flatirons Habitat for Humanity. Seventeen of the units are proposed to be
two-story, three-bedroom townhouses and two units would be one-story, one-
bedroom accessible residences. Thirty parking spaces are proposed.
b. 2100 Violet Ave. Subdivision of the property into six lots for single-family
development. Design guidelines, approved through the site review, are proposed
to guide the design of the homes.
c.2145 Upland Ave. Subdivision of the property into three lots for single-family
development. Design guidelines, approved through the site review, are proposed
to guide the design of the homes.
City staff recommended approval, and the Planning Board voted 7-0 at a public hearing
on Dec. 7, 2017 to approve the Site Review application. City Council may call up the
site review for a period of 30 days after the Planning Board decision and is
described in a separate informational packet memo for consideration on
Jan. 4, 2018. The site review approval is contingent upon obtaining the necessary City
Council approvals for the annexation agreement amendments and ordinance. Refer to
the call-up memo for the proposed plans and design guidelines.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 518
The draft minutes from the Dec. 7, 2017 Planning Board hearing are included as
Attachment B. The staff memorandum to Planning Board and other related background
materials are available here.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the attached ordinance. The
recommended motion for first reading of the attached ordinance is as follows:
Motion to introduce on first reading and order published by title only, Ordinance 8233
amending the Boulder Revised Code and annexation Ordinance No. 5932 to authorize
development of 2180 Violet Avenue in the RM-2 zoning district with 19 dwelling units
consistent with the proposed amendment to the annexation agreement for 2180 Violet
Avenue.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
•Economic – This project will provide 19 permanently affordable units of workforce
housing to support competitive and quality businesses. In addition, higher density
housing puts less demand on public services and infrastructure. The more widely
distributed people are, the greater the resources required to provide their services.
•Environmental – None identified.
•Social – If developed as proposed, the development will add 19 units of permanently
affordable for-sale housing to the city’s inventory, which will provide housing for
diverse community members. The site will feature homeownership opportunities for
households earning no more than the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) low income limit, with qualifying household incomes set at the
HUD low income limit plus ten percent.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
As indicated above, on Dec. 7, 2017, the Planning Board reviewed the requested ordinance,
as well as the associated site review and annexation agreement amendments (meeting
packet available here). After a discussion regarding parking lot design for the multi-family
development and appropriate controls on the size of the single-family homes. The board
expressed support for the increase in density and the proposed plans for the development of
2180 Violet Avenue. Ultimately, the board recommended approval to the City Council on a
7-0 vote. The motion is below:
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-
0 to recommend to City Council on an ordinance amending the Boulder Revised Code
and annexation Ordinance No. 5932 to authorize development of 2180 Violet Ave. in
the RM-2 zoning district with 19 dwelling units consistent with the proposed
amendment to the annexation agreement for 2180 Violet Ave.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 518
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
The required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all
property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property
for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of section 9-4-3, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
The notice described the larger development proposal, with the three application types.
Public comments received regarding the project can be found in Attachment J of the
Planning Board memorandum. At the public hearing on Dec. 7, 2017 three members of the
public addressed the Board. Refer to Attachment B for a summary of public comment
made at the hearing.
BACKGROUND
Existing Site/Area Context
The 1.4-acre property is located at the intersection of Violet Avenue and 22nd Street in the
Crestview East neighborhood. Refer to Figure 1. The site is part of the Crestview East
neighborhood, which is roughly defined as those properties located north of Tamarack
Avenue, south of Violet Avenue, east of 19th Street and west of 22nd Street. Crestview
East includes a variety of single-family homes in a more rural setting than other parts of
Boulder. Medium density land use and zoning exists along Violet Avenue. The lot across
22nd Avenue to the east is another Habitat for Humanity development with small lot
single-family development. There is a prevalence of developments built with cul-de-sacs
and the existence of Boulder County enclaves in the immediate vicinity. The Boulder
Meadows mobile home park is on the north side of Violet Avenue, across from the site.
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
The site is designated as Medium Density Residential in the comprehensive plan, with an
anticipated density of six to fourteen dwelling units per acre. The land use designations
were changed in the late 1990s to be consistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity
2180 Violet Ave.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 518
Plan (NBSP), which established a cascading density from Violet Avenue (Medium Density
Residential) towards Tamarack Avenue to the south (Low Density Residential).
Consistent with the land use designation, the subject property is zoned Residential -
Medium 2 (RM-2) zoning, described as: “Medium density residential areas which have a
mix of densities from low density to high density and where complementary uses may be
permitted” (section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. 1981).
The properties at 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue and 1917 Upland Avenue
were annexed into the city in 1997 and are subject to the requirements of annexation
agreements. The properties were annexed prior to the larger Crestview East annexation in
2009, which was a complex multi-year process that involved the annexation of 14
properties in the area.
Further background information can be found in the Planning Board memo.
Previous Reviews:
On Dec. 1, 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 8095) to amend
subsection 9-12-2(b), B.R.C. 1981, which prohibits the sale of any parcel of land that has
not been subdivided in accordance with the city’s subdivision regulations. The ordinance
allowed the property owner at the time (2145 Upland LLC) to sell a portion of the 2180
Violet Avenue property to Habitat for Humanity of Boulder Valley, Inc. before
Jan. 1, 2016. Habitat for Humanity needed to own the property by that time in order to be
eligible for Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grants
for the planned low-income housing development on the property. At the time, the then
property owner and Habitat for Humanity stated that the ultimate goal was to amend the
annexation agreements that affect the subject properties to transfer all of the affordable
housing provisions required by the respective annexation agreements. Staff supported the
ordinance because facilitating a proposal that would allow the exploration of a
development plan that would result in a minimum of 15 permanently affordable units
would represent a much greater permanent housing benefit than what was required in 1997
agreements. The assumption was that community benefit would be fully explored in the
context of subsequent review processes.
Subsequently, the Planning Board considered a Concept Plan Review in September 2016
for the development of a multi-family development at 2180 Violet Avenue. The Concept
Plan Review was not called up by the Council for review and comment. The staff memo,
minutes, and audio from the Sep. 1, 2016 meeting can be found here.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Habitat for Humanity intends to construct a one hundred percent permanently affordable
residential development with 19 multi-family units on the property at 2180 Violet Avenue,
with each unit meeting or exceeding the current permanently affordable housing standards
of Chapter 9-13, “Inclusionary Housing,” B.R.C. 1981. All units would be for-sale units.
The total unit mix is proposed to be 17 two-story three-bedroom units and two one-story
one-bedroom accessible units.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 518
The larger proposal includes amendments to the annexation agreements for the four subject
properties to allow the affordable housing requirements of all the properties to be met at
2180 Violet Avenue and to allow an increase in density at 2180 Violet Avenue for a total of
19 dwelling units. Permanently affordable deed restricting covenants would be secured for
the property to ensure the affordability of the units.
The proposed plans for development be found in Attachment E of the memorandum to
Planning Board.
ANALYSIS
When Ordinance No. 8095 was processed in December 2015 to allow for the sale of the
property to Habitat for Humanity, the city indicated that additional density could be
considered by the Planning Board and City Council as part of the evaluation of community
benefit achieved through the annexation amendments. In addition, Planning Board
indicated support for increased occupancy when they considered the Concept Plan Review
in September 2016. Habitat for Humanity states that the proposed increase in density would
allow them to maximize the amount of permanently affordable housing on the site and
allow for a diversity of unit sizes, so that they can serve a diversity of ages and households.
Staff finds that the request for an increase in density, and associated ordinance, is
consistent with the goals and intent of the BVCP and the goals and policies expressed in
the NBSP. Based on the analysis below, staff supports the proposed increase in occupancy
to 19 units, a 4-unit increase over what is permitted in the land use code. Staff supports the
additional density given that there are enhanced opportunities for permanently affordable
housing on the site and an amount of permanently affordable units that exceeds that
possible under the previous annexation agreements.
BVCP Land Use Designation:
The intensity of development in RM-2 zoning in determined by a minimum of 3,500 square
feet of lot area per dwelling unit and a maximum of 12.4 dwelling units per acre. Following
the dedication of right-of-way for the alley the property will be 1.23 acres (53,758 square
feet) and is permitted 15 units by-right.
Staff finds that the development proposal is consistent with the goals and intent of the
BVCP. The property at 2180 Violet Avenue is designated as Medium Density Residential
under the BVCP Land Use Map. On page 112 of the BVCP, the Medium Density
Residential land use is described as follows:
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 518
The proposed multi-family development at 2180 Violet Avenue is 13.38 du/acre (gross
density), which is consistent with the anticipated density/intensity for the land use
designation. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the anticipated locations and uses
for MR land use areas. The site is located along an arterial street and would provide
townhome residential units.
BVCP Housing Policies:
The proposal supports a number of BVCP policies. In support of housing policies, the
proposal contributes to providing a diverse mix of housing types for a full-range of
households as well as balancing the housing supply with the employment base. The project
supports opportunities for a variety of housing types for low- and moderate-income
households. A major focus of the 2015 comprehensive plan update was Boulder’s
increasing housing affordability challenge, particularly for middle income households as
well as for low and moderate incomes. Additional density on this site supports the city’s
affordable housing goals and the provision of additional affordable housing in appropriate
locations.
Staff’s analysis regarding consistency with BVCP policies on housing is summarized in the
table below.
BVCP Policy Excerpt from BVCP How the Proposal is Consistent with
BVCP Policies Housing Choices; Diversity Core Value
7.06 Mixture
of Housing
Types
7.09 Housing for a
Full Range of
Households
“A diversity of housing types and
price ranges”
“The city and county, through their
land use regulations and housing
policies will encourage the private
sector to provide and maintain a
mixture of housing types with
varied prices, sizes and densities,
to meet the housing needs of the
full range of the Boulder Valley
population.”
“The city and county will
encourage preservation and
development of housing attractive
to current and future households,
persons at all stages of life and to a
variety of household
configurations. This includes
singles, couples, families with
children and other dependents,
extended families, non-traditional
households and seniors.”
The proposal helps to meet the
housing needs of the Boulder
Valley population by contributing
to a diversity of housing types and
price ranges. The proposal is for
19 permanently affordable
townhome style units for sale. The
townhomes would be 17 three-
bedroom units and 2 one-
bedroom units. The three-
bedroom units are suitable for
families and the one-bedroom
units will be accessible. There is
diversity in the types of private
open space provided.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 518
BVCP Policy Excerpt from BVCP How the Proposal is Consistent with
BVCP Policies Housing Supply 1.19 Jobs:Housing
Balance
7.10 Balancing
Housing Supply
with
Employment
Base
“Boulder is a major employment
center, with more jobs than
housing for people who work
here…encouraging new housing
and mixed use neighborhoods in
areas close to where people
work…”
“… housing supply should reflect to
the extent possible employer
workforce housing needs, locations,
and salary ranges. Key
considerations include housing
type, mix and affordability…
increase housing for Boulder
workers and their families by
fostering mixed-use and multi-
family development in proximity to
transit, employment or services…”
The provision of 19 permanently
affordable units contributes to
balancing the housing supply with
the employment base. The
permanently affordable
townhomes could serve as
workforce house and are
appropriate for families. The
proposal represents multi-family
development along an arterial
street and in proximity to transit
and services.
Several of the affordable housing requirements in the existing annexation agreements for
2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and the 1917 Upland Avenue are inconsistent
with current city policies for permanently affordable housing. The existing annexation
agreement for 2180 Violet Ave. contains very specific affordable housing requirements for
the property, including size-restricted units affordable only to the first purchaser of the unit.
This means that subsequent sales of each property would allow the affordability restrictions
to be terminated over time. In addition to the required restricted units, the annexation
agreement requires the applicant to provide eight permanently affordable units at 2180
Violet Avenue, affordable in perpetuity, to households earning between 60 percent and 120
percent of the area median income (AMI). (Note, the annexation agreement amendments
for all the properties in the larger development proposal will be discussed further in the
staff memorandum for the Feb. 6 public hearing.)
Habitat for Humanity intends to construct a one hundred percent permanently affordable
residential development on the 2180 Violet property with each unit meeting or exceeding
current permanently affordable housing standards of Chapter 9-13, “Inclusionary Housing,”
B.R.C. 1981. Based on development potential under the current zoning, staff estimates that
only 11 units would remain permanently affordable under the existing agreements. Under
the proposal, a minimum of 15 units would become permanently affordable. If Planning
Board and City Council support the proposed increase in density, 19 units would become
permanently affordable. The draft annexation agreement has the permanently affordable
units priced to be affordable to households earning no more than the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) low income limit, and qualifying
household incomes shall be set at the HUD low income limit plus ten percent. The HUD
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 518
income limit is recalculated annually. In 2017 the low income limit is 79.3 percent of AMI.
Staff finds that the proposal would provide a community benefit that is greater than the
housing benefit that would be achieved under the current requirements of the annexation
agreements.
BVCP Policies on Neighborhoods, Design Quality, and Land Use Pattern:
In addition, the proposal is consistent with policies 2.10 ‘Preservation and Support for
Residential Neighborhoods’, 2.15 ‘Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses’ and 2.33
‘Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment’ and with the overall land use pattern in the area. The
proposal is generally consistent with established neighborhood character. Considering that
two of the additional units would be one-story, one-bedroom units, staff finds that the
proposal would not adversely affect the character of the development or the character of the
surrounding area. In support of policy 2.41 ‘Enhanced Design for All Projects’, the needs
of the project's occupants and visitors for high quality and functional useable open space
are met by the proposal. Open space would constitute approximately 49% of site (26,192
square feet). All buildings represent high-quality design with entrances on the street and
four-sided design. Lastly, infill development of the site at a higher density supports policy
2.03 ‘Compact Development Pattern.’
Staff’s analysis regarding consistency with BVCP policies on neighborhoods, design
quality, and land use pattern is summarized in the table below.
BVCP Policy Excerpt from BVCP How the Proposal is Consistent with
BVCP Policies Land Use Pattern 2.03 Compact
Development
Pattern
“… ensure that development will
take place in an orderly
fashion…The city prefers
redevelopment and infill as
compared to development…to
prevent urban sprawl and create a
compact community.”
The infill of housing on this property
supports a compact development
pattern. Neighborhoods 2.10 Preservation
& Support for
Residential
Neighborhoods
“…protect and enhance
neighborhood character and
livability…seek appropriate building
scale and compatible character in
new development or
redevelopment… encourage
neighborhood schools and safe
routes to school.”
The character of the neighborhood
is eclectic with a range of low and
medium density residential
buildings. The mass and scale of the
Habitat development is appropriate
given the context. The detailed
design guidelines for the single-
family development will ensure that
buildings will have compatible
architecture and forms with the
surrounding context. The addition
of detached sidewalks, a north-
south path connection and internal
connections will contribute to safe
routes to Crestview Elementary
School.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 518
BVCP Policy Excerpt from BVCP How the Proposal is Consistent with
BVCP Policies Urban Design Linkages 2.24
Commitment to
a Walkable and
Accessible City
2.25 Improve
Mobility Grid &
Grid
2.36 Physical
Design for People
“…promote the development of a
walkable and accessible
city…provide easy and safe access
by foot to places such as
neighborhood centers, community
facilities, transit stops or centers,
and shared public spaces and
amenities. (...)”
“The walkability, bikeability and
transit access should be improved
in parts of the city that need better
connectivity and mobility…will
occur through both public
investment and private
development.”
“…ensure that public and private
development and redevelopment
be designed in a manner that is
sensitive to social, health and
psychological needs…provision of
coordinated facilities for
pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-
riders; provision of functional
landscaping and open space; and
the appropriate scale and massing
of buildings related to
neighborhood context.
The proposed site plan gives
pedestrian and bicyclists priority
over the vehicle. The site design
includes connections for use by
pedestrians and bicyclists, which
connect to the existing multi-model
network. The proposal includes the
construction of a north-south 6-foot
path to connect Vine Avenue to
Violet Avenue, a 6-foot detached
sidewalk and a 5-foot bike lane
along Violet Avenue, and a 5-foot
detached sidewalk adjacent to the
property on 22nd Street. TDM
strategies includes the creation of
separate “Alternative
Transportation Subsidy Funds”,
which can be used for expenses
such as B-cycle and car-share
memberships, additional bicycle
parking racks for the project, and
transit passes. The design
incorporated landscaping and open
space to enhance the pedestrian
experience.
The proposal represents a
realization of connections
envisioned in the NBSP and the
Crestview East annexations. Vine
Street and a mid-block alley will be
constructed to the west property
lines and 22nd Street will be
extended to the south to connect to
Vine Street. The alley and Vine
Street are planned to extend to the
west to 19th Street and
construction of such is a condition
of annexation for properties that
annexed as part of the larger
Crestview East annexation in 2009.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 518
BVCP Policy Excerpt from BVCP How the Proposal is Consistent with
BVCP Policies Design Quality 2.41 Enhanced
Design for All
Projects
“b. The context. Projects should
become a coherent part of the
neighborhood in which they are
placed…”
“c. Relationship to the public realm.
Projects should relate positively to
public streets, plazas, sidewalks, paths
and natural features. Buildings and
landscaped areas—not parking lots—
should present a well-designed face to
the public realm, should not block
access to sunlight and should be
sensitive to important public view
corridors…”
“e. Transportation connections.
Projects should provide a complete
network of vehicular, bicycle and
pedestrian connections both internal to
the project and connecting to adjacent
properties, streets and paths, including
dedication of public rights-of-way and
easements where required.”
“f. Parking. The primary focus of any
site should be quality site design.
Parking should play a subordinate role
to site and building design and not
jeopardize open space or other
opportunities on the property. Parking
should be integrated between or within
buildings and be compact and dense…”
“i. On-site open spaces. Projects
should incorporate well-designed
functional open spaces with quality
landscaping, access to sunlight and
places to sit comfortably. Where public
parks or open spaces are not within
close proximity, shared open spaces for
a variety of activities should also be
provided within developments.”
“j. Buildings. Buildings should be
designed with a cohesive design that
enhances the streetscape and is
comfortable to the pedestrian.
Buildings should demonstrate
approachability and a relationship to
the street, with inviting entries that are
visible from public rights of way,
multiple entrances and four-sided
design. Foster appeal of buildings
through attractive, well-designed
architecture made of high-quality,
long-lasting materials and innovative
approaches to design.”
Buildings are oriented toward the
street and the requested setback
modifications would contribute to
creating a building forward design
that enhances the pedestrian
experience along Violet Avenue and
Vine Avenue. Pedestrian scale
architectural features and materials
are utilized at the pedestrian level,
adding to the pedestrian interest at
the street. Each building has four-
sided design, facing the street and
internal open spaces.
A complete network of multi-modal
connections will be provided, as
described above. The street system
has been minimized for the
development as much as possible,
given the general site layout.
The site design allows for open
space that is visually continuous.
Outdoor spaces will be useful,
attractive, and interesting and
include both sun and shade.
The development would have a
compact design with buildings with
prominent porches and entries
oriented directly to streets and
open spaces. Given these
architectural and site design
aspects, the project would relate
well to the streetscape and lend
strongly to pedestrian interest.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 518
Goals and Policies of the NBSP:
In general, the proposed development addresses the goals and policies expressed in the
North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) for orienting well designed buildings and
porches to the street and creating permanently affordable and diverse housing. The
proposal is consistent with the overall goal of providing a diversity of housing types, sizes,
and prices in the North Boulder Subcommunity as a whole. The design meets the objectives
for residential areas, including compatibility with the surrounding context, fronts of
buildings and lots that face the street and one another, and a diversity of housing types,
sizes, and price ranges. In addition, the proposed development would be consistent with the
following development guidelines that apply to all neighborhoods:
•Position houses so that their front doors and front yards face the street.
•Leave front yards open wherever possible. When front yard fences are provided,
they should be low and open.
•Design houses so that garage doors do not dominate the front facade. Locate
garage doors no less than 20' behind the principal plane of the front of the
houses; detached garages are preferred.
•Except in areas recommended for low density rural-type character, position
buildings close to the street to create a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere.
Rather than a conventional "setback", create a "build-to" line.
•Provide high quality building design with attention to detail. Avoid monotonous
building designs: include human scale features such as porches, varied building
elevations, and varied sizes and styles.
•In higher density areas where parking lots are needed, design the lots so that they
are small and clustered. Locate parking in the back of buildings, not in the front.
•Use alleys wherever possible to provide a "service" side to properties. Reduce
curb cuts and sidewalk interruptions on the "public" side of lots.
Further, the proposal for 100 percent permanently affordable uses on the site and the
proposal to transfer such uses from other single-family lots is consistent with the principal
NBSP Crestview East goals (found on page 12 of the NBSP), which include creating
permanently affordable and diverse housing and creating new development in a pattern that
supports walkability and good community design.
MATRIX OF OPTIONS
The site review request for the subject properties is contingent upon City Council approval
of the annexation agreement amendments and ordinance. In addition, the portion of the
annexation agreement amendment relating to increased density at 2180 Violet Avenue is
contingent upon City Council approval of the ordinance. If City Council denies the request
for an ordinance, the covenant of the annexation amendment related to increased density
would be revised.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 518
ATTACHMENTS
A.Draft Ordinance
B.Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
C.Applicant’s Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 518
K:\PLDR\o-8233 1st Rdg-2457.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8233
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ANNEXATION ORDINANCE
NO. 5932 WHICH ANNEXED THE PROPERTIES AT 2100
AND 2180 VIOLET AVENUE, TO AUTHORIZE
DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE PROPERTIES WITH
VARIATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE BOULDER
REVISED CODE THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE
ASSOCIATED ANNEXATION AGREEMENT OR
AMENDMENTS THERETO, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS
TO THE DENSITY STANDARDS IN THE RESIDENTIAL-
MEDIUM 2 (RM-2) ZONING DISTRICT, AND SETTING
FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO FINDS:
A.Habitat for Humanity of Boulder Valley, Inc. (the “Owner”), Colorado nonprofit
corporation, is the owner of the parcel which comprises the real property generally known as
2180 Violet Avenue and is more particularly described in Exhibit A (the "Property").
B.The Property was annexed in 1997 pursuant to Ordinance No. 5932 and with an
annexation agreement (the “Annexation Agreement”) that was recorded in the records of the
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder at Reception No. 1755860 on December 16, 1997.
C.The Owner purchased the Property in 2015 with the intent to build and maintain a
100 percent permanently affordable housing development on the Property.
D.The 100 percent permanently affordable housing development proposed at 2180
Violet Ave. is proposed to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of the annexation
agreements (the “Agreements”) associated with the properties at 2180 and 2100 Violet Avenue
and 1917 and 2145 Upland Avenue. Each of the Agreements currently requires provision of
affordable housing on the respective property; however, the requirements are not consistent with
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 518
K:\PLDR\o-8233 1st Rdg-2457.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
current City of Boulder policies for permanently affordable housing. The proposed 100 percent
permanently affordable housing development on the Property would provide a community
benefit greater than the housing benefit that would be achieved under the current requirements of
the Agreements.
E.The Owner and owners of 2100 Violet Avenue and 1917 and 2145 Upland
Avenue are seeking a modification to the Agreements to authorize this revised housing benefit to
be provided only on the Property, and, as part of the request to amend the Agreements, the
Owner is seeking a density on the Property consistent with that of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan Designation of Medium Residential, but exceeding the density allowed
under its zoning designation of Residential – Medium 2 (“RM-2”).
F.Annexation is a legislative process, and modifications and variations to the
Boulder Revised Code are commonly provided for in annexation agreements and authorized in
annexation ordinances if such modifications and variations are in the interest of public health,
safety, and welfare.
G.Annexation Ordinance No. 5932 did not expressly include such authority.
H.This ordinance is intended to amend Ordinance No. 5932 to expressly authorize
modifications and variations to the Boulder Revised Code that are provided for in the
Annexation Agreement or amendments thereto.
I.The Planning Board held a public hearing and reviewed this ordinance on
December 7, 2017, along with the proposed amendments to the Agreements and a site review
application for the Property, and recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance.
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 518
K:\PLDR\o-8233 1st Rdg-2457.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
J. Allowing a 100 percent permanently affordable residential development on the
Property to be built at a density exceeding the density allowed in the RM-2 zoning district but
consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is in the interest of public health, safety,
and welfare and achieves the creation of a considerable number permanently affordable units
which is identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as a special benefit intended to be
achieved in annexations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BOULDER, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The City Council approves any variations or modifications to the Boulder
Revised Code or other City ordinances that are in the Annexation Agreement or any amendment
to the Annexation Agreement (collectively referred to hereafter as “Annexation Agreement”),
including the density requirements of the RM-2 zoning district.
Section 2. The City Council authorizes the city manager to implement the terms of
the Annexation Agreement.
Section 3. This ordinance amends Ordinance No. 5932 and the Boulder Revised
Code in that it now expressly approves any variations and modifications to the Boulder Revised
Code or other City ordinances that are in the Annexation Agreement.
Section 4. The City Council finds this ordinance is in the interest of the public health,
safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City of Boulder; is consistent with the goals
and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and covers matters of local concern.
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 518
K:\PLDR\o-8233 1st Rdg-2457.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by
title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the City
Clerk for public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 4th day of January 2018.
_______________________________
Suzanne Jones
Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
Lynnette Beck
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 6th day of February 2018.
______________________________
Suzanne Jones
Mayor
Attest:
_______________________
Lynnette Beck
City Clerk
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 518
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
2180 VIOLET AVE.
REC. NO. 3498553, DATED 02/01/16
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION
18, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., DESCRIBED AS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST
1/4 OF SECTION 18, AND CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 18 AS MONUMENTED TO BEAR SOUTH 89°53'00" WEST WITH
ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF
SECTION 18 SOUTH 00°03'02" EAST 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF VIOLET
AVENUE;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF
SECTION 18 AND ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF VIOLET AVENUE SOUTH 89°53"00"
WEST 24.00 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF NORTH 22ND STREET, SAID POINT
BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF VIOLET AVENUE AND ALONG THE
SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF NORTH 22ND STREET SOUTH 00°03'02" EAST 152.00 FEET TO
THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VINE ALLEY; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF NORTH 22ND STREET AND ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF VINE
ALLEY SOUTH 89°53'00" WEST 407.43 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF TRACT 3021D;
THENCE DEPARTING SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF VINE ALLEY AND ALONG THE SAID EAST
LINE OF TRACT 3021D NORTH 00°04'27" EAST 152.00 FEET TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF VIOLET AVENUE;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE OF TRACT 30221D AND ALONG THE SOUTH SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF VIOLET AVENUE NORTH 89°53'00" EAST 407.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING,
COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO
THIS PARCEL CONTAINS 61,904 SQUARE FEET (1.421 ACRES).
A. JOHN BURI P.L.S. #24302
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1530 55TH STREET
BOULDER, COLORADO 80303
303-444-3051
PROJECT NO. 16252E
12/19/17
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
December 7, 2017
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Putnam, Chair
Liz Payton, Vice Chair
Bryan Bowen
David Ensign
Crystal Gray
Peter Vitale
Harmon Zuckerman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
N/A
STAFF PRESENT:
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager
Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney
Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III
Sloane Walbert, Planner II
Beth Roberts, Planner I
Caitlin Zacharias, Planner I
Jim Robertson, Director of PH+S
Jean Gatza, Senior Planner
Lauren Holm, Associate Planner
Chris Ranglos, Associate Planner
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager, PH+S
Molly Scarbrough, Senior Project Manager, Public Works
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair, J. Putnam, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by D. Ensign, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 6-0 (C.
Gray absent) to approve the October 19, 2017, November 2, 2017 and November 16, 2017
minutes as amended.
3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
a)Alan Delamere (pooling time with Sheila Delamere), spoke regarding the proposed
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 518
project at 311 Mapleton. He stated that the project appears to be more massive than
originally declared and that the public has not been informed of the three concurrent
reviews. He informed the board that the project’s information is inaccessible and
overwhelming.
4.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS /
CONTINUATIONS
A.Call-Up Item: FINAL PLAT to subdivide the existing 44.9-acre property at 2655 63rd
Street into three lots and two outlots. A Site Review Amendment (#LUR2016-00109)
was approved earlier this year to allow for the consolidation of three lots (previously Lots
3, 4 and 5) into one lot (proposed Lot 3) for a bus transportation and maintenance facility.
Case no. TEC2016-00060. The call-up period expires on December 12, 2017.
This item was not called up.
5.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A.AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of the following items relating to
four properties in Crestview East:
(1)Recommendation to City Council on proposed amendments to the annexation
agreements for 2180 Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., 1917 Upland Ave. and 2145
Upland Ave. to allow the affordable housing requirements of all the properties to be
met at 2180 Violet Ave. Proposal includes an amendment to allow an increase in
density at 2180 Violet Ave. for a total of 19 dwelling units and amendments to reduce
the required dedication of right-of-way for future Vine Street (LUR2017-00010);
(2)Recommendation to City Council on an ordinance amending the Boulder Revised
Code and annexation Ordinance No. 5932 to authorize development of 2180 Violet
Ave. in the RM-2 zoning district with 19 dwelling units consistent with the proposed
amendment to the annexation agreement for 2180 Violet Ave.; and
(3)Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review (case no. LUR2017-00011) to
develop the three properties at 2180 Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., and 2145 Upland
Ave. as follows:
a.2180 Violet Ave. Proposal for the construction of 19 residential units in five
buildings. The development would be 100 percent permanently affordable for-
sale residences built by Flatirons Habitat for Humanity. Seventeen of the units
are proposed to be two-story, three-bedroom townhouses and two units would
be one-story, one-bedroom accessible residences. Thirty parking spaces are
proposed.
b. 2100 Violet Ave. Proposal to subdivide the property into 6 lots for single-
family development. Design guidelines are proposed to guide the design of the
homes.
c.2145 Upland Ave. Proposal to subdivide the property into 3 lots for single-
family development. Design guidelines would be used to guide the design of
the homes.
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 518
Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item.
•H. Zuckerman, B. Bowen, L. Payton and C. Gray all stated that they had been on
Planning Board when the Concept Review was presented in 2016. All members
mentioned they had conducted site visits except for P. Vitale and L. Payton. Both B.
Bowen and C. Gray stated they had reviewed the packet but had no other ex-parte
contacts. H. Zuckerman said that he had worked for Habitat for Humanity in the past,
but that he could remain impartial. Finally, P. Vitale stated he had sat on the Habitat of
Humanity Board prior to being on Planning Board, but that he also could remain
impartial.
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
S. Walbert presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
S. Walbert and C. Ferro answered questions from the board, primarily related to planned
connections for the area, proposed TDM measures, and accessory dwelling units.
Applicant Presentation:
Robert Naumann, Susan Lythgoe, with Flatirons Habitat for Humanity, Don Ash, with Scott,
Cox and Associates, Inc., and Jeff Dawson, with Studio Architecture, presented the item to the
board.
Board Questions:
Don Ash, Jeff Dawson and Susan Lythgoe representing the Applicant, answered questions
from the board, primarily related to wiring for solar on rooftops and utility outlets for charging
stations in the carports.
S. Walbert, C. Ferro and B. Roberts answered questions from the board, primarily related to
livability standards, the proposed design guidelines, on-street parking, compatible development
and floor area, and affordable housing.
Public Hearing:
1) Janet Meyer spoke in support of the project with two concerns regarding the
proposed parking and the planned construction schedule. The proposed parking
reduction would be inadequate for the number of proposed units. The construction
schedule is proposed to be six years, which is an unreasonable impact on the
neighborhood.
2) Nolan Rosall, speaking as the President of the Board of Directors of Flatirons Habitat
for Humanity, spoke in support of the project. It will help support the mission of
providing quality affordable homes.
3)Jan Morzel spoke in support of the project and encouraged Habitat for Humanity to
develop an ECO pass or Carshare program with the existing neighborhood. He also
encouraged Habitat to communicate TDM measures to residents before they move in
to limit car ownership. However, he is opposed the developer of 2100 Violet Ave.
and 2145 Upland Ave. reducing their affordable housing requirements due to the
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 32 of 518
advantages they have already received through the original annexation.
Board Comments:
Key Issue #1: Is the proposal consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
and North Boulder (NBSP) Subcommunity Plan?
•All board members agreed with the staff recommendation that the proposal is consistent
with the BVCP and NBSP.
•L. Payton stated the BVCP has polices regarding middle-income housing, and the goals
may not be consistent with these policies.
Key Issue #2: Are the proposed annexation agreement amendments consistent with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies of annexation and the intent of the
original annexation terms?
•B. Bowen added that it is positive to be able to adjust the annexation agreements around
affordable housing.
•L. Payton voiced concerns about the size of the proposed single-family homes, referring
to the newly constructed Trail Head development as an example. She stated that she may
propose a condition or modification to the annexation amendment to address the potential
square footage of the homes, specifically maximum floor area ratio (FAR) She asked H.
Pannewig to assist in the drafting of a condition or modification.
Key Issue #3: Is the proposed land use intensity increase consistent with the BVCP land use
map and policies?
•The board agreed with the staff recommendation that the proposal is consistent with the
BVCP.
Key Issue #4: Does the development proposal meet the Site Review criteria found in Section
9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981?
•B. Bowen said that this was a strong proposal and the applicant adjusted the design to
respond to the Planning Board’s Concept Review recommendations. He complimented
the architecture, open space and focusing on diversity in affordability and age. He
suggested a few conditions to consider, such as requiring an EVSE mount, convenience
outlets in each storage unit or carport, and conduit for future PV on the rooftops of each
home. He clarified that there is no way to solar energy from the carports to feed back into
individual homes, due to the electrical code and Xcel.
•C. Gray appreciated that the applicant listened to the Planning Board’s comments from
the Concept Plan Review. She approved of the proposed community space and placing
the detention to the side rather than incorporating it into the open space.
•D. Ensign approved of the proposed multiple colors on the buildings. He agreed with B.
Bowen’s proposed condition regarding conduits on the rooftops.
•L. Payton stated that the project meets the Site Review criteria.
•H. Zuckerman approved of the site design. He said that he would have like to have seen
the height of the porch floors to be three or four steps high, rather than just 12-18 inches.
•J. Putman agreed that carports are a benefit to the site design and long-term livability.
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 33 of 518
EV provisions are important because that will make for affordable transportation in the
future. The condition should be not be too prescriptive and allow for flexibility. If it is not
incorporated now it will be a real barrier in the future.
•B. Bowen encouraged the Applicant to take advantage of grants for EV and PV.
Key Issue #5: Is the requested 16.7 percent parking reduction for the multi-family
development consistent with the criteria for parking reductions set forth in Subsection 9-2-
14(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981?
•B. Bowen suggested an alternative parking design and granting a smaller parking
reduction of four stalls, with an associated parking deferral for parking in front of the
proposed play lawn (six spaces). This would allow the parking lot to get smaller and
play area to get larger. On-street parking may not offer much relief to the development.
In this case, the developer would not be incumbered with the cost of building the parking
now if it is not necessary. The HOA and Habitat for Humanity could come back to
request the deferred parking (six stalls) if they realize that there is increased parking
demand in the future. He proposed that the deferred parking stalls would be on-plan, but
not constructed. In this case, the city has a mechanism in the future to build it.
•Staff agreed that conceptually, it could be done.
•D. Ensign said there may be some concern by the residents regarding a future decision to
build the parking and may create the probability of conflict.
•B. Bowen disagreed stating that residents would already have one space per unit and the
decision to implement the deferred parking would be made by the entire group.
•H. Zuckerman agreed that there may be an advantage to B. Bowen’s idea because it
may be a better design and have more permeable surface in the beginning.
•P. Vitale stated that B. Bowen’s idea would be “future-proofing” the site and there is the
notion that there would be less vehicles in the future, not more.
•L. Payton said if the residents do realize that there are not enough parking spaces, they
may park in other neighborhoods rather than eliminate the play lawn.
•H. Zuckerman added that scenario would be the trigger for staff to perform a parking
analysis and enact the parking deferral.
o Jeff Dawson, representing the applicant, was asked his opinion regarding the
deferred parking concept. He stated that there was some support for the idea;
however, they would prefer head-in parking along the alley rather than designing
a partial parking lot with four spaces. He suggested using tandem parking spaces.
He asked for some flexibility within the condition.
•The board discussed the construction phasing of the project.
o Susan Lythgoe, representing the Applicant, stated that the funding for the project
is over five years, one building per year. They build 3 days a week, bet 8 am and
4 pm, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. There is some flexibility is that schedule
if the neighborhood requests it.
•The board determined that due to the timing of funding, the phasing plan was
unavoidable.
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 34 of 518
Motion #1:
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to
approve Site Review case no. LUR2017-00011, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of
fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended
conditions of approval.
Friendly amendment by D. Ensign, accepted by L. Payton and H. Zuckerman, to add a
condition that conduit for future photovoltaic systems be brought to the rooftops of the
residential units.
Friendly amendment by J. Putnam, accepted by L. Payton and H. Zuckerman, that the
Applicant provide measures to facilitate the future installation of electrical vehicle (EV)
charging stations in the carports on Vine Alley at the technical document review stage.
•The board deliberated proposing the following motion regarding parking at 2180
Violet, but after discussion, it was not made:
“The final site plans shall show that two additional parking spaces can be
accommodated on site, meeting all applicable standards of the Boulder Revised Code. If
the city manager finds that the parking needs of the Property are not adequately met on
the Property, the Applicant shall construct such additional two parking spaces and
commence construction within 90 days’ notice by mail.”
Motion #2:
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to
recommend to City Council approval of the annexation agreement amendments as they are
consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies
pertaining to annexation as well as the intent of the original annexation terms.
Friendly amendment by L. Payton, accepted by H. Zuckerman, to add to Motion #2 that the
Planning Board recommends that the annexation agreements for 2145 Upland Avenue, 1917
Upland Avenue, and 2100 Violet Avenue be further revised to state that the Parties agree to
replace Paragraphs 7(f), 6(f), and 8(h), respectively, relating to floor area ratio, with the
following:
“The compatible development standards of Sections 9-8-2, 9-7-9, 9-7-10, and 9-7-11,
B.R.C. 1981, shall be complied with as they apply to the zoning district of the Subject
Property.”
On a motion by B. Bowen, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 4-3 (C.
Gray, D. Ensign, L. Payton opposed) to amend the main Motion #2 by deleting the friendly
amendment language requiring compliance with compatible development standards.
Motion #3:
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to
recommend to City Council on an ordinance amending the Boulder Revised Code and
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 35 of 518
annexation Ordinance No. 5932 to authorize development of 2180 Violet Ave. in the RM-2
zoning district with 19 dwelling units consistent with the proposed amendment to the annexation
agreement for 2180 Violet Ave.
Motion to Continue Tonight’s Meeting:
On a motion by H. Zuckerman, seconded by D. Ensign, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to
continue the Planning Board meeting and hear the remaining items on the agenda.
6.MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A.AGENDA TITLE: Alpine-Balsam Area Plan Update
Staff Presentation:
L. Ellis introduced the item.
C. Zacharias presented the item to the board.
Board Comments:
Project Purpose Statement
•Board members agreed the statement was clear.
•L. Payton added that everything in the area plan could be achieved, yet the city could
still end up with a jobs-housing imbalance. She recommended that it may be useful to
conduct a post-mortem on Transit Village Plan and conduct a comparison to the job-
housing plan so the same mistakes are not made.
•D. Ensign suggested adding “constituents” to the phrase “create a common
understanding with the larger Boulder neighborhoods”.
•C. Gray expressed concern about the nearby areas and would we be expecting them to
change.
Feedback on the Scope and Key Considerations
•C. Gray appreciated that this area will be connected to other sites along the corridor.
•D. Ensign, regarding parking and mobility, said he would like to see reference to the
transit support along that corridor.
•L. Payton said people are calling for this area to be used to solve several city problems,
and it is important to find a way to communicate what some of these key issues are that
this project might tackle. In addition, real number targets, e.g. for commercial space,
could be shown.
•J. Putnam suggested that the plan consider what is the highest and best use for the site.
•H. Zuckerman said that one thing that should be considered is a way to soften the
impact for nearby businesses from the loss of the hospital.
Feedback on the criteria for and definition of the planning and study areas
•P. Vitale said the map should clarify what is not the hospital site and what that will mean
for those residents within the circled area.
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 36 of 518
•B. Bowen added the criteria make sense. He recommended expanding the planning area
to both sides of 9th Street, to include the northeast corner of 13th and Balsam Streets, and
to extend further south down Broadway one or two blocks.
•J. Putnam was confused by the difference between the planning vs. study areas. The
labels should reflect and convey our intent more clearly.
•L. Payton agreed.
•D. Ensign agreed. In addition, he approved of the area plan being tied into the Broadway
corridor.
•C. Gray agreed. She has concerns regarding the planning area extending north of Balsam
along 13th Street as well as the neighborhood to the south of the Alpine-Balsam site and
the affect it may have on the existing neighborhood.
Suggestions to improve the purpose and objectives for communications and engagement.
•C. Gray said it is a good start and that transparency and reflecting back what was heard
will be important.
•D. Ensign reiterated having people from the community involved in working groups will
be advantageous with continuity.
•L. Payton suggested giving people advance notice to save the date for events. In
addition, the engagement objective should be that the community helps to plan and
design the site.
•J. Putnam stated that the engagement process is strong, but he advised to use some
different, strategic tools, methods and approaches to gain additional thoughts (e.g. tech
ideas).
•H. Zuckerman said the purpose needs to show a clear path to the eventual decision. The
language should be clearer, where the public is in the process of the engagement, what
the city is soliciting from them, and where the information will go from there.
•B. Bowen agreed that the language needs to be as clear and concise as possible.
Workshops in which residents are talking to each other are very positive and create a
strong community building exercise.
•P. Vitale agreed with all previous statements. He added that before the hospital is
deconstructed, the parking lot will be sitting empty. He suggested the parking lot and the
exterior of the building could be used for entertaining events by the local community.
This may bring additional and different types of people to come and talk about this area.
B.AGENDA TITLE: Letter to Council Discussion
Board Comments:
•The board reviewed and edited their previously submitted comments and
formatted the Letter to Council to address City Council’s three questions
presented to the Boards and Commissions.
7.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 37 of 518
8.ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:19 p.m.
APPROVED BY
___________________
Board Chair
___________________
DATE
Attachment B - Draft Dec. 1, 2016 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 38 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
Written Statement for 2180 Violet Ave. Site Review
01/16/2017
CURRENT OWNERSHIP:
The project is owned by Flatirons Habitat for Humanity
PROJECT OBJECTIVES:
LAND USE:
2180 Violet Ave is a 61,905 sf (1.42 acre) site near on the southwest corner of 22nd Street and Violet Avenue in
Boulder, currently zoned RM-2. Under the RM-2 zoning, this development proposes a total of 19 residential units in
five buildings. All of the units are proposed to be permanently affordable, for-sale residences. 17 of the units will be
~1,200 sf two-story, three-bedroom units, and the remaining two units will be ~750 sf one-story, one-bedroom,
accessible residences.
Four of the buildings are located along and facing Violet Avenue, and the other building is located along the alley.
This proposed layout provides street frontage along Violet, allows for maximum solar access throughout the site, and
allows the residents to take advantage of the views to the west, southwest, and northwest. All of the buildings are
oriented on the east-west axis with gracious open space to the south, which minimizes shadowing from adjacent
buildings and allows for maximum access to solar energy. A large open space is centered within the site and is
programmed to allow for a variety of uses. The site is accessed along 22nd Street from the proposed alley that runs
east-west along the south property line. The proposed alley will continue to the west in the future as adjacent
properties develop. 28 automobile parking spaces are provided along the alley, with 19 parking spaces (one per unit)
being covered by carports. At the front of each covered parking space is a storage space reserved for the respective
residential unit. The proposed carports will potentially have photovoltaics on the roof to offset the energy usage of
the proposed development and to minimize the use of non-renewable resources. A 6’ multi-modal path is proposed
within the existing 7’ public easement along the west property line to provide an easy, safe connection through the
site to the planned future pathways to the south and to the proposed bike lane along Violet Avenue to the north.
ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER:
The proposed development is comprised mainly of a typical two-story, three-bedroom unit that translates into an
easily recognizable visual pattern along Violet Avenue and throughout the project. To provide variety of mass and a
comfortable human scale, the 19 residential units have been broken out in to five smaller buildings as described
above. To further break down the mass of the structures, two of the buildings contain a residential unit that is a one-
story, one-bedroom unit that provides a variety of mass along Violet Avenue. Pitched roofs are used on every
building so the project fits in seamlessly with the surrounding character of the residential neighborhood. Front
porches and front yards are proposed to provide depth and shadow to the façade, to provide a pedestrian scale
along the sidewalk, and to create an environment that will encourage residents to activate the ground level. All
window and door sizes are easily recognized as residential in nature, and effort has been put to place a majority of
these windows facing Violet Avenue, to provide transparency along the street and as much light in to the unit as
possible. At the corners of each building, the front porches have added detail to provide visual interest and variety,
and stronger colors are used at the buildings that mark the corners of the project to create a “gateway” and sense of
arrival.
Engineered wood lap and shingle siding with trim is proposed and will be consistent with the surrounding
architectural character. Neutral gray and blue colors will be used in most areas, and a comfortable, bolder color will
be used in accent areas to enliven the neighborhood and create a sense of place.
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 39 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE:
The owner anticipates beginning construction immediately upon receipt of building permits from the City of Boulder,
and completing buildings as funding allows, which is anticipated to be one building per year.
COPIES OF ANY SPECIAL AGREEMENTS, CONVEYANCES, RESTRICTIONS, OR COVENANTS THAT WILL
GOVERN THE USE, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINUED PROTECTION OF THE GOALS OF THE PROJECT AND
ANY RELATED PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, PLAYGROUNDS, OUTLOTS, OR OPEN SPACE:
An annexation agreement amendment for this parcel is being applied for concurrently with this Site Review that
would change the allowable number of units in the RM-2 zone portion to 19, change the 30’ right-of-way to 20’ for
Vine Street along the south property line, and allow the affordable requirements for the 1917 Upland and 2145
Upland parcels to be satisfied on this property when the affordable units receive final Certificate of Occupancy.
RESPONSE TO GENERAL CRITERIA FOR ALL SITE REVIEW APPLICATIONS (9-2-14(h))
I. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
(A) How is the proposed site plan consistent with the land use map and the service area map and, on balance, the
policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan?
The site is located in the Medium Density Residential zone in the BVCP. The medium density designation in the
BVCP allows for a density of six to 14 units per acre. The proposed development falls within that range – by
proposing 13 units per acre (19 units on a 1.42 acre site). Other key policies that the proposed site plan addresses
include:
Sustainability, through thoughtful site plan design, connection to the larger neighborhood and city, the potential use of
renewable energy, and overall building and site design that reduces the use of non-renewable resources.
A welcoming and inclusive community, by providing 19 desperately needed permanently affordable, for-sale housing
units within Boulder that will help balance the disparity between jobs within the city and available affordable housing
within the city.
Strong city and county cooperation, by involving and responding to both City staff and surrounding community
member comments in the design direction of the proposed development.
The unique community identity and sense of place, by respecting the community’s setting and history in the proposed
architectural character and site plan design.
Compact, contiguous development and infill that supports evolution to a more sustainable urban form, by providing
appropriate and needed permanently affordable, for-sale density in a developing section of the North Boulder
residential area.
Environmental stewardship and climate action, by reducing and minimizing the use of non-renewable resources
throughout the proposed development
A diversity of housing types and price ranges, by providing two different permanently affordable, for-sale unit types:
(17) family-centric three-bedroom units and (2) accessible one-bedroom units.
An all-mode transportation system to make getting around without a car easy and accessible to everyone, by
providing a robust Transportation Demand Management plan to all residents and adding multi-modal connections to
existing and anticipated neighborhood and city systems.
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 40 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
Physical health and well-being, by providing central, usable open space well in excess of the City’s zoning
requirement for residents and neighbors alike, and by improving connections to Boulder’s network of trails and open
space.
(B)The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential
development within a 300 foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of:
(i) the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
(ii) the maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the
requirements of Chapter 9-7, "Bulk and Density Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
How is the proposed site plan consistent with the above density criteria?
According to the BVCP, the allowable density in the medium density designation in newly developing areas is from
six to 14 units per acre. The proposed development proposes 19 units on a 1.42 acre site, a density of 13 units per
acre. Neither the proposed development nor any existing residential development within a 300 foot area surrounding
the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the BVCP.
(C)How does the proposed development’s success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies consider the
economic feasibility of implementation techniques required to meet other site review criteria?
The project supports much needed opportunities for for-sale, below median income households by providing 19
permanently affordable, for-sale units in a couple of unit types; a three-bedroom unit that is suitable for families, and
a one-bedroom, fully accessible unit that supports the growing need for “age-in-place” residences. The proposed
architectural character is generally consistent with and an improvement on the modest established character of
surrounding neighborhoods while proposing a compact pattern of development which is consistent with both the
zoning and the density advocated by the BVCP.
II. Site Design:
Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects
historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design
techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving
agency will consider the following factors:
(A). Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds:
1. How is useable open space arranged to be accessible and functional, and how does it incorporate quality
landscaping, a mixture of sun and shade and places to gather?
The useable open space has been relocated to be more central to the site plan per Staff’s comments at concept
review in an effort to make the open space more functional and safe. The proposed open space has been designed
to accommodate a number of possible uses; some spaces are more public and appropriate for gatherings or group
play, and other spaces are more private and allow for rest and contemplation. There are multiple connections to the
open space through the site, making it easily accessible for both residents and neighbors alike. Benches have been
placed around the site to provide spaces to rest; a mostly flat lawn is proposed on the western side of the site to
allow for group play; a pergola is proposed in the center of the site where small groups can gather; a “meadow” with
flowers and grasses is proposed on the eastern side as a more organic place of discovery; the detention area slope
has been minimized to allow it to be usable open space; a multi-functional boardwalk that crosses the detention area
is proposed as both as a connector to the parking area as well as a place of rest or an impromptu stage for the
amphitheater; and seating for the amphitheater has been integrated in to the slope of the detention area.
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 41 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
2. How is private open space provided for each detached residential unit?
In addition to the public open space, private rear yards are proposed for each residential unit where the residents can
choose one of five landscape options at the time they take over ownership, providing variety of landscaping
throughout the project and a feeling of ownership for the residents. Front porches and landscaped front lawns are
proposed for each unit, adding to the useable private open space.
3. How does the project provide for the preservation of natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-
lived trees, terrain, significant plant communities, threatened and endangered species and habitat, ground and
surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, and drainage areas?
None of the existing trees are proposed to be preserved at this time. There are many existing specimens which are
either not desirable as defined by City approved selections or are in poor condition, grouped too closely, or dead, and
should be replaced. There are no significant plant communities present. A study of any existing prairie dog
population and a plan for their relocation will be completed once the project is approved by the City of Boulder.
Existing surface water is not present in any measurable quantity and therefore there are no wetlands, riparian areas
or drainage areas on this site to be preserved.
4. How does the open space provide a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding
development?
The surrounding development is not of high density. Within the proposed development, we have provided a number
of open space options for residents and visitors alike, including both private and public spaces. Each residential unit
has been provided with a private rear yard and a front porch. For the community as a whole, there is a large open
space in the center of the proposed development that is easily accessible and visible to all residents. The southeast
corner of the property is planned to take advantage of a low slope detention area to create another place to walk,
rest, or play. All of these spaces are connected by safe, comfortable sidewalks within the development.
5. How does the open space provide a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas?;
Along the north property line, we propose to landscape the setback with native grasses and trees to provide a buffer
from Violet Avenue.
6. If possible, how is open space linked to an area- or a city-wide system?
We are proposing to add a 6’ multi-modal path along the western property line that connects the proposed sidewalk
and bike lane along Violet Avenue on the north of the property to the proposed new alley on the south of the
property. This will allow for a multi-modal connection to future neighborhood trails once the surrounding parcels are
developed. Also proposed is a designated 5’ bike lane along Violet Avenue, which will connect the entire project to
the area- and city-wide system.
(B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments: Developments that contain a mix of residential and non-residential
uses:
1. How does the open space provide for a balance of private and shared areas for the residential uses and common
open space that is available for use by both the residential and non-residential uses that will meet the needs of the
anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property?
Not applicable, as this is a 100% residential project.
2. How does the open space provide active areas and passive areas that will meet the needs of the anticipated
residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property and how is the open space compatible with the
surrounding area or an adopted plan for the area?
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 42 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
Not applicable, as this is a 100% residential project.
(C) Landscaping:
1. How does the project provide for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and
how does the selection of materials provide for a variety of colors and contrast and how does it incorporate the
preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate?
Landscaping within the site will serve the users and the community both aesthetically and functionally. The specific
landscape materials chosen for the development will be of native species to minimize water consumption, and will
emphasize a variety of colors, textures and forms in order to provide year-round interest. Among the major
landscape objectives are the following:
i. Provide an attractive streetscape along 22nd and Violet Avenue,
ii. Visually enhance the architectural features on the corners and entries into the project,
iii. Provide comfortable, safe sidewalks within the proposed development by creating buffers between the
sidewalks and the parking areas,
iv. Provide shade and visual interest throughout the project by providing a variety of tree types and sizes,
v. Screen, and break up the parking along the alley with landscape areas, and
vi. Provide enclosed areas for trash and recycling.
2. How does the landscape and design attempt to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important native species,
plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing
natural environment into the project?
There are no important native species or plant communities of special concern. A study will be completed during site
review to determine if threatened and endangered species and habitat are present on the subject property if deemed
necessary by the City of Boulder staff. The proposed landscape palette will be a combination of xeriscaping and
adaptive and native plants that are known to thrive in the micro-climate of North Boulder.
3. How does the project provide significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping
requirements of Sections 9-9-12 and 9-9-13, "Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and "Streetscape Design
Standards," B.R.C. 1981;
Our plan exceeds the General Landscaping and Screening Requirements in the following ways:
1.Open Space: Over an acre of usable open space is provided where none is required.
2. Pedestrian Access: Although no walks are required in the RM zone, paved pedestrian walkways to
all units, parking areas and common open space are provided.
3. Minimum Overall Site Landscaping: Although no landscaping is required in the RM zone, 73 trees
and 466 shrubs are provided.
4. Minimum Plant Sizes: Deciduous trees shall be two and a half inches DBH where only two-inch
caliper is required. Evergreens shall be 6 feet tall where only five feet tall is required.
5. Tree Protection: All existing trees are noxious weeds. We will remove all of this invasive and
otherwise undesirable plant material and replace with landscaping that will improve the health of
the site.
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 43 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 - 866 | 529 | 9130
4. How are the setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way landscaped to provide attractive
streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan?
As shown in the plan, and alluded to above, the streetscape along Violet Avenue is very rich with the addition of
street trees, a 6’ sidewalk, and landscaped front yards that enhance the residential character and front porches.
Large deciduous trees have been placed at the main pedestrian entry along Violet, and evergreen trees have been
placed on the ends of the property along Violet Avenue to visually fortify the corners of the proposed development.
Street trees have been located along 22nd Street in a proposed new 8’ landscaping strip with a 5’ detached sidewalk
in an effort to both beautify and make safer the pedestrian experience along 22nd Street. In addition, trees have
been added along the proposed new alley to make it more attractive.
(D) Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or
private and whether constructed by the developer or not:
1. How are high speeds discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project provided?
A new 8’ landscaping strip with street trees and a detached sidewalk is proposed for both Violet and 22nd Street that
will provide a physical separation between the streets and the project. Along the proposed new alley, landscaping
areas, parking spaces, storage units, and sidewalks provide the physical separation from the adjacent open space
2. How are potential conflicts with vehicles minimized?
Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized through the physical separations outlined above, as well as the
decision to provide only a single curb cut to access the site where the proposed new alley connects to 22nd Street.
3. How are safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and
existing and proposed transportation systems provided, including without limitation streets, bikeways, pedestrian
ways and trails?
Within the project, safe and accessible sidewalks connect all the units to the proposed open space, parking areas, 6’
multi-modal path along the west property line, and the proposed detached sidewalks along both Violet and 22nd
Street. The well-placed sidewalk connections make the project permeable with great access to Violet Avenue. We
are proposing a 5’ bike lane along Violet Avenue to align with the BVCP’s vision of creating a future bike lane along
the entirety of Violet Avenue, which will connect the proposed development to city-wide transportation systems, paths
and trails.
4. How are alternatives to the automobile promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and
supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single occupant
vehicle?
· A robust TDM plan is proposed that would support and promote the use of alternative transportation in a
variety of ways.
· We propose to exceed the long-term bicycle parking requirements and meet the short-term bicycle parking
requirements set forth by the City.
· The safe and conveniently located sidewalks and paths are designed to encourage connections by walking,
rather than driving, especially in the future as the surrounding neighborhood develops.
5. Where practical and beneficial, how is a significant shift away from single- occupant vehicle use to alternate
modes promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques?
Please refer to the TDM plan submitted with the Site Review Application
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 44 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
6. What on-site facilities for external linkage with other modes of transportation are provided, where applicable?
Not Applicable
7. How is the amount of land devoted to the street system minimized?
A 20’ public ROW has been dedicated on the south property line to allow for an alley to connect through the site to
future development to the west. Automobile parking is accessed from the alley in an effort to minimize pavement
throughout the site, which was a positive site plan layout change that was suggested by City Staff members at the
time of Concept Review. Also, a parking reduction is being proposed to minimize the amount of pavement required
on site, to promote alternative modes of transportation, and to increase the useable open space available to
residents and the neighborhood as a whole.
8. How is the project designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles,
and pedestrians, and how does it provide safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust?; and
Traffic entering and leaving the proposed development will do so through one access point along 22nd Street, which
is located furthest away from the majority of the units as possible to control automobile noise and exhaust. This
minimal amount of interruption of the sidewalk also maximizes pedestrian safety. Detached sidewalks with 8’
landscaping strips proposed along Violet and 22nd Street increase pedestrian safety by maximizing separation from
automobile circulation. The 6’ multi-modal path will provide adequate space for runners, cyclists, and the like to
safely travel through the site.
9. How will city construction standards be met, and how will emergency vehicle use be facilitated?
City construction standards will be met by following the Design and Construction Standards where applicable.
Emergency vehicles will have access to the project’s buildings from Violet Avenue, 22nd Street, and the alley if
needed. All of the buildings, including Building A on the southwest corner of the site, are within 150’ of Violet Avenue
for fire emergency access.
E. Parking:
1.How does the project incorporate into the design of parking areas, measures to provide safety, convenience, and
separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements?
All of the parking is accessed from the alley at the far south of the property, keeping pedestrian and vehicular
circulation as separate as possible. Planters are proposed at the north edge of the unbundled parking area, and
storage sheds are located at the ends of each bundled parking stall to further separate, both physically and visually,
the parking areas from the pedestrian movements. Sidewalk access and site lighting has been carefully located to
provide safe, convenient access from each unit to the parking areas.
2. How does the design of parking areas make efficient use of the land and use the minimum amount of land
necessary to meet the parking needs of the project?
The parking area layout reflects Staff’s recommendations at Concept Review, where all of the parking spaces are
accessed from the alley, minimizing the need for additional pavement. A parking reduction is proposed that further
reduces the amount of land dedicated to the parking needs of the project.
3. How are the parking areas and lighting designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties
and adjacent streets?
The parking is located internal to the project and along the alley on the south property line, reducing the visual impact
of the parking from Violet Avenue and 22nd Street. In addition, the buildings and landscaping have been located to
screen most of the parking areas in the project. Lighting has been designed with luminaires that provide for
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 45 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
adequate safety and security while reducing light pollution that allows for an environmentally sensitive nighttime
atmosphere for both the proposed development and adjacent properties.
4. How do the parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in
Subsection 9-9-6(d), and Section 9-9-14, “Parking Lot Landscaping Standards,” B.R.C. 1981?
1. Shade: A solar carport will shade much of the parking lot and reduce urban heat island effect while
generating power.
2. Screening Parking Lots from The Street: A landscape strip planted with wildflowers and grasses of over 55’
is provided where a minimum width of only 12.5 feet is required.
3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: Our interior parking lot landscaped areas exceed the minimum
dimensional requirements.
(F)Building Design, Livability and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area:
1. How is the building height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture and configuration compatible with the existing
character of the area or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area?
The proposed building character utilizes pitched roofs, covered porches, residential-scale windows and openings,
landscaped front yards, and fenced rear yards to create a compatible character with the surrounding existing single-
family homes. The proposed orientation of the buildings mimic the housing developments to the east, where the
buildings face Violet Avenue while the main access is from the back. One and two-story buildings are proposed,
which is consistent with the surrounding context.
2. How are the height of buildings in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed projected
heights of approved buildings or approved plans or design guidelines for the immediate area:
The development proposes one and two-story buildings with pitched roofs, which are in proportion to the height of
existing surrounding one and two-story single-family homes.
3. How does the orientation of buildings minimize shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties?
The majority of the buildings are located along the north property line (Violet Avenue), which minimizes any shadows
on the adjacent property to the south. The buildings are positioned so that gaps between the buildings allow views to
permeate through the site from adjacent properties.
4. If the character of the area is identifiable, how is the project made compatible by the appropriate use of color,
materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting?
The proposed buildings use a simple palette of materials, which consist of horizontal lap siding, shingle siding,
asphalt roofs, decorative trim at corners, soffits and fascia boards, all of which is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. The vocabulary of the architecture is a traditional and under-stated residential style which is
compatible with the neighborhoods to the east, and an improvement on the mobile home park to the north.
Landscaping and lighting is designed to meet and exceed the standards of the City of Boulder and as such, will not
only “fit in,” but it will enhance the surrounding area.
5. How do buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate
to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians?
The proposed buildings are based on a suburban typology using substantial and traditional materials such as
horizontal and shingle siding with decorative trim, accented by human scale elements such as residential railings,
front porches, sloping roofs, and windows and doors which are easily recognizable as residential in character. The
pattern, massing, materials and volumes formed by the design are also easily understood as residential. Deep,
welcoming front porches face the sidewalks inviting interaction between residents and passersby. Safety of the area
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 46 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
is increased due to the exterior lighting, which will also be provided in accordance with the minimum standards of the
City of Boulder.
6. To the extent practical, how does the project provide public amenities and planned public facilities?
Even though there is no open space requirement in the RM-2 zone, this project proposes public amenities that are far
above and beyond many neighborhoods of its type. The permeability through the buildings to the central open space
is welcoming to neighbors and residents, and the much improved public sidewalks and multi-modal paths will benefit
the neighborhood now and in the future as development of this area continues. The proposed open space is
designed to be safe, dynamic, and multi-functional with areas for rest, play, discovery, exercise, and gathering for
individuals, small groups, and large groups.
7. For residential projects, how does the project assist the community in producing a variety of housing types, such
as multifamily, townhouses, and detached single family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and
sizes of units?
The project is proposing to provide desperately needed permanently affordable, for-sale housing in Boulder. 19 units
are proposed, with 17 of those units being two-story, ~1,200 sf three-bedroom units that are perfect for families. The
remaining two units will support the growing need to house “age-in-place” individuals with fully accessible, one-story,
750 sf one-bedroom units.
8. For residential projects, how is noise minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-
site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials?
Each of the units will be constructed using staggered stud demising walls and floors with acoustically insulating
components which provide STC ratings of approximately 60 between units. Each of the units will use insulated glass
in the windows and solid core front doors to reduce sound impacts from the street.
9. If a lighting plan is provided, how does it augment security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics?
The lighting plan aims to provide safe and comfortable lighting levels in the parking areas and along the pedestrian
paths by providing full cut off down-lighting at unit entries and lamp post lighting along the main sidewalks. Motion
activated lighting fixtures are proposed under the carports to conserve energy and provide safety in that area.
10. How does the project incorporate the natural environment into the design and avoid, minimize, or mitigate
impacts to natural systems?
By orienting all of the buildings on an east – west axis and designing the open spaces to the south of the majority of
the buildings, there is great access to solar energy. The generous open space, central open space, and water quality
pond in the southeast of the site acts as storm-water filter device utilizing designs based on previous work with the
EPA on micro management techniques.
11. How are cut and fill minimized on the site, and how does the design of buildings conform to the natural contours
of the land, and how does the site design minimize erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and
minimize the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards?
Cut and fill are minimized by maintaining the existing drainage patterns of the site. The site generally drains from
northwest to southeast currently and will continue the same general pattern after development. The site will utilize
the current standards and BMPs used to control erosion and sediment. Some of the BMPs that will be used on this
project may include sediment ponds, silt fencing, erosion control logs, inlet/outlet protection, and construction access
tracking control devices, concrete washouts and dust control.
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 47 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
(G)Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of insuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy
in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to
maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria:
1. Placement of Open Space and Streets. Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from
shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other
natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. How is this criterion met?
As demonstrated in the Solar Analysis submitted with the Site Review application, all buildings will have access to
solar energy. The open space is centralized on the site, with the majority of buildings being located along the north
property line. This minimizes any shading on the proposed buildings by adjacent development to the south, both now
and in the future. 22nd Street is located adjacent to the property to the East, which won’t cast any shadows on the
proposed development.
2. Lot Layout and Building Siting. Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar
potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other
nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the
south for better owner control of shading. How is this criterion met?
The proposed site plan locates four of the five buildings along the north lot line to maximize open space and control
of solar shading. This layout also minimizes the shading effect on the proposed buildings by adjacent properties, and
maximizes the solar access of the buildings on the site.
3. Building Form. The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet
the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Chapter 9-9- 17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. How is
this criterion met?
The project meets the criterion of the BRC as demonstrated in the solar shadow diagram submitted with the Site
Review application. As described above, the orientation of the buildings on the east-west axis and their location
along the north lot line with generous open space to the south of the buildings maximizes the residents’ access to
solar energy.
4. Landscaping. The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. How is this
criterion met?
Deciduous trees are used throughout the project to provide shading in the summer and allow access to the sun in the
winter.
(H) Additional Criteria for Poles above the Permitted Height. No site review application for a pole above the
permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following:
1. The light pole is required for nighttime recreation activities, which are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, or the light or traffic signal pole is required for safety, or the electrical utility pole is required to serve
the needs of the city?; and
Not Applicable
2. The pole is at the minimum height appropriate to accomplish the purposes for which the pole was erected and is
designed and constructed so as to minimize light and electromagnetic pollution. If applicable, how are these criteria
met?
Not Applicable
(I)Land Use intensity Modifications:
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 48 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com -1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -866 | 529 | 9130
1. Potential Land Use Intensity Modifications:
a. The density of a project may be increased in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot area
requirement or in the Downtown (DT), BR-2 or MU-3 districts through a reduction in the open space
requirements
Not Applicable
b. The open space requirements in all Downtown (DT) districts may be reduced by up to one hundred percent
Not Applicable
c. The open space per lot requirements for the total amount of open space required on the lot in the BR-2
district may be reduced by up to fifty percent
Not Applicable
d. Land use intensity may be increased up to twenty-five percent in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the
lot area requirement.
Not Applicable
2.A land use intensity increase will be permitted up to the maximum amount set forth below if the approving agency
finds that the criteria in paragraph (h)(1) through Subparagraph (h)(2)(H) of this section and following criteria have
been met:
a. Open Space Needs Met: How have the project’s occupants and visitors needs for high quality and
functional useable open space been met?
As outlined above, high quality and functional useable open space has been provided in the proposed site
plan via:
1. Private rear yards with different landscaping options for each residential unit that allows the owner
to personalize their space, which will in turn creates a variety of visually attractive outdoor spaces
for the neighborhood to enjoy as a whole
2.A pergola located centrally in the open space that allows for both small group gatherings and
impromptu meetings between neighbors
3. Benches conveniently placed along the internal sidewalks to provide residents and visitors a more
private place for rest and contemplation.
4. An open lawn on the west side of the pergola that provides the opportunity for exercise, large-
group gatherings, and game play.
5. A more organically planted and less structured “meadow” on the east side of the pergola where the
topography gently rises and falls that allows for discovery, slower-paced play, non-paved walking
paths, sledding in the winter, and more imaginative play.
6. A boardwalk that crosses the detention area that has been enlarged to provide a place of rest,
contemplation, and possibly a stage for plays.
7. Flat rock seating areas located in the slope of the detention pond that could act as small
amphitheater seating for the “stage” outlined above.
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 49 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 - 866 | 529 | 9130
b. Character of the Project and Area: The open space reduction does not adversely affect the character of the
development or the character of the surrounding area
There is no open space requirement in the RM-2 zone, therefore an open space reduction is not being
requested. Conversely, open space, as outlined above, is being provided far in excess of what is required
in the RM-2 zone.
c. Open Space and Lot Area Reductions: The specific percentage reduction in open space or lot area
requested by the applicant is justified by any one or combination of the following site design features not to
exceed the maximum reduction set forth above:
1. Close proximity to a public mall or park for which the development is specially assessed or to which
the project contributes funding of capital improvements beyond that required by the parks and
recreation component of the development excised tax set forth in chapter 3-8, “Development
Excise Tax,” B.R.C. 1981: maximum one hundred percent reduction in all Downtown (DT) districts
and ten percent in the BR-1 district;
Not Applicable
2. Architectural treatment that results in reducing the apparent bulk and mass of the structure or
structure and site planning which increases the openness of the site: maximum five percent
reduction;
The proposed development is a combination of mostly two-story residential units with a few one-
story residential units in an effort to fit in with the surrounding context, to provide a variety of
massing, and to provide a human scale to the entirety of the project. Front porches, sloped roofs,
and residential windows were implemented to further reduce the apparent mass of the buildings.
In addition, the 19 units have been broken up in to five separate buildings to allow visual and
physical permeability through the site, reducing the mass of the structures.
3. A common park, recreation or playground area functionally useable and accessible by the
development’s occupants for active recreational purposes and sized for the number of inhabitants
of the development, maximum five percent reduction: or developed facilities within the project
designed to meet the active recreational needs of the occupants: maximum five percent reduction;
A common open space has been provided that allows for a number of recreational activities, both
for large groups and small groups, active and sedentary play. The proposed open space has been
designed to be accessible to both the occupants and visitors of the neighborhood.
4. Permanent dedication of the development to use by a unique residential population whose needs
for conventional open space are reduced: maximum five percent reduction:
Not Applicable
5. The reduction in open space in part of a development with a mix of residential and nonresidential
uses within a BR-2 zoning district that, due to the ratio of residential to nonresidential uses and
because of the size, type and mix of dwelling units, the need for open space is reduced: maximum
fifteen percent reduction: and
Not Applicable
6. The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of residential and nonresidential
uses within a BR-2 zoning district that provides high quality urban design elements that will meet
the needs of anticipated residents, occupants, tenants and visitors of the property or will
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 50 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 - 866 | 529 | 9130
accommodate public gatherings, important activities or events in the life of the community and its
people, that may include, without limitation, recreational or cultural amenities, intimate spaces that
foster social interaction, street furniture, landscaping and hard surface treatments of the open
space: maximum twenty-five percent reduction.
Although the proposed development does not contain nonresidential uses, the open space will still
meet the needs of the anticipated residents and visitors of the property as well as accommodate
public gatherings and important activities or events in the life of the community and its people as
outlined above.
(J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-1 district:
Not Applicable
(K) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, “Parking
Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows:
i. Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking.
The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent.
ii. Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria,
the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-9-6,
“Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981 (see tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, and 9-4), if it finds that:
a. For residential uses, the probably number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to
dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated:
Being a 100% permanently affordable project providing low to moderate income housing, the parking
demand is anticipated to be short of the requirements set forth in Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C.
1981. The proposed off-street parking is proposed to be partially unbundled, where 19 of the 28 spaces will
be bundled at one parking space per unit, and the remaining nine spaces will be unbundled to
accommodate any additional resident or visitor parking. The proposed parking reduction will also
encourage the use of alternative transportation methods that will be supported by the proposed robust
Transportation Management Plan.
b. The parking needs of any nonresidential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking
or off-street parking:
Not Applicable
c. A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be
accommodated through shared parking:
Not Applicable
d. If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed
parking needs: and
Not Applicable
e. If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant
provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change.
The applicant is proposing a 100% permanently affordable development, which will not change in the future.
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 51 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 - 866 | 529 | 9130
(L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C.
1981, may be located on a separate lot if the following conditions are met:
Not Applicable
HEIGHT MODIFICATION:
Not Applicable
End of Written Statement
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 52 of 518
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -
866 | 529 | 9130
Written Statement for 2180 Violet Ave. – Annexation Agreement Amendment
01/16/2017
BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
POLICY 1.25
ANNEXATION. The policies in regard to annexation to be pursued by the city are:
a)Annexation will be required before adequate facilities and services are furnished;
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city. The applicant is proposing to amend the current annexation agreements as
follows:
i.2180 Violet Avenue (Rec #1755860)
1.Change the 30’ wide right-of-way for Vine St along the southern line of the
Subject Property to a 20’ wide right-of-way.
2.Change the number of allowed units in the RM-2 zone to 19 units
3.Allow the affordable housing requirements outlined in the annexation agreements
for 2145 Upland Avenue and 1917 Upland Avenue to be met by providing
affordable housing on this parcel only (2180 Violet Avenue).
ii.2145 Upland Avenue (Rec #1755861)
1.Allow the affordable housing requirements for this parcel to be met on the 2180
Violet Avenue parcel. The affordable and restricted requirements will be
considered to be satisfied once the affordable units on the 2180 Violet Avenue
parcel receive final Certificate of Occupancy
iii.1917 Upland Avenue (Rec # 1755859)
1.Change the 60’ wide right-of-way for Vine St. to 40’, vacating 10’ on the north
and south portions
2.Allow the affordable housing requirements for this parcel to be met on the 2180
Violet Avenue parcel. The affordable and restricted requirements will be
considered to be satisfied once the affordable units on the 2180 Violet Avenue
parcel receive final Certificate of Occupancy
b)The city will actively pursue annexation of county enclaves, Area II properties along the western
boundary, and other fully developed Area II properties. County enclave means an unincorporated area of
land entirely contained within the outer boundary of the city. Terms of annexation will be based on the
amount of development potential as described in (c), (d), and (e) of this policy. Applications made to
the county for development of enclaves and Area II lands in lieu of annexation shall be referred to the city
for review and comment. The county shall attach great weight to the city’s response and
may require that the landowner conform to one or more of the city’s development
standards so that any future annexation into the city will be consistent and compatible
with the city’s requirements.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record
numbers outlined above for more information.
c)Annexation of existing substantially developed areas will be offered in a manner and on terms and
conditions which respect existing lifestyles and densities, and the city will expect these areas to be
brought to city standards only where necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the
subject area or of the city. The city, in developing annexation plans of reasonable cost, may phase new
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 53 of 518
Title
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -
866 | 529 | 9130
facilities and services. The County, which now has jurisdiction over these areas, shall be a supportive
partner with the city in annexation efforts to the extent the county supports the terms and conditions
being proposed.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record
numbers outlined above for more information.
d)In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the Boulder Valley, the city shall annex
Area II land with significant development or redevelopment potential only on a very limited basis. Such
annexations will be supported only if the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city.
For annexation considerations, emphasis shall be given to the benefits achieved from the creation of
permanently affordable housing. Provision of the following may also be considered a special opportunity
or benefit: receiving sites for transferable development rights (TDRs), reduction of future employment
projections, land and/or facilities for public purposes over and above that required by the city’s
land use regulations, environmental preservation, or other amenities determined by the city to
be a special opportunity or benefit. Parcels that are proposed for annexation that are already developed
and which are seeking no greater density or building size would not be required to assume and provide
that same level of community benefit as vacant parcels unless and until such time as an application for
greater development were submitted.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city. The proposed development at 2180 Violet Avenue concurrently applying for
Site Review proposes 19 permanently affordable residential units and functional, accessible open
space far in excess of city requirements; both of which are outlined above as special benefits to the
city.
e)Annexation of substantially developed properties that allows for some additional residential units or
commercial square footage will be required to demonstrate community benefit commensurate with their
impacts. Further, annexations that resolve an issue of public health without creating additional development
impacts should be encouraged.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city. The proposed development at 2180 Violet Avenue concurrently applying for
Site Review proposes an increase in the allowable units in the RM-2 zone to 19 units. The
additional residential units provide community benefit, as all 19 units are proposed as permanently
affordable residential units. Also, functional, accessible open space is proposed far in excess of
city requirements.
f)There will be no annexation of areas outside the boundaries of the Boulder Valley Planning Area,
with the possible exception of annexation of acquired open space.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record numbers outlined
above for more information.
g)Area II is anticipated to become part of the city within the planning period. Area III is not anticipated to
become part of the city within the planning period. However, 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 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record numbers outlined
above for more information.
h)The Gunbarrel-Heatherwood subcommunity, which is unique because of its size, developed at an urban
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 54 of 518
Title
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -
866 | 529 | 9130
density with city water and sewer service. The commercial and industrial portion of Gunbarrel-
Heatherwood is annexed to the city, while much of the residential development is still unincorporated.
The Gunbarrel-Heatherwood Subcommunity is also unique because of the shared jurisdiction for planning
and service provision among the county, the city, the Gunbarrel General Improvement District and other
special districts. Those areas annexed to the city are provided with city services, although deficiencies
exist in developed park facilities and services. In the unincorporated area, a variety of arrangements for
service provision exist. Some services, such as road maintenance, flood control, and law enforcement,
are primarily provided by the county. Area residents now tax themselves through the Gunbarrel
General Improvement District to pay for open space acquisitions and possible park and major roadway
improvements. Fire protection is provided to the unincorporated area by Boulder Rural Fire District.
Although interest in voluntary annexation has been limited, the city and county continue to support the
eventual annexation of Gunbarrel-Heatherwood. If resident interest in annexation does occur in the future,
the city and county will negotiate new terms of annexation with the residents.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city and are not part of the Gunbarrel-Heatherwood subcommunity. Refer to the
respective Annexation Agreement record numbers outlined above for more information.
ANNEXATION PROCESS
It is anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan that Area IIA shall be annexed to the city of Boulder within three years,
consistent with the phased expansion of the city's capacity to provide adequate urban facilities and services. The
following statements describe very briefly and very generally the city's present annexation policies and procedures,
both of which may be modified from time to time without requiring an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.
The city's annexation process may vary somewhat to fit the circumstances of any particular annexation, but
shall be consistent with Policy 1.25.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record numbers outlined
above for more information.
State Law
Among other requirements, all annexations shall comply with requirements of Colorado State law which includes
the following provisions:
(1) Minimum Required Contiguity: At least one-sixth of the perimeter of the area to be
annexed shall be contiguous to the city limits.
(2) Annexation by Petition: A petition must be presented by more than half of the land
owners owning more than fifty percent of the area to be annexed. For enclaves
and municipally owned property, the city may take the initiative without
petition.
(3) Annexation by Election: Under certain conditions, an election may be held by the
property owners and registered electors within the area to be annexed.
Relationship to Existing City Boundaries and Consolidation of Petitions
The city may consolidate individual properties requesting annexation into larger aggregate parcels when the
request areas are adjacent and such grouping is desirable because of contiguity, compactness, or logical
extensions of then-existing city boundaries, or for the more efficient processing of numerous annexation requests.
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 55 of 518
Title
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -
866 | 529 | 9130
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record numbers outlined
above for more information.
Zoning and Land Use
While zoning classifications in the county will be recognized, annexation into the city will need to conform to
city zoning categories and the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are already
annexed in to the city and already conform to city zoning categories and the land use designations
of the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record numbers
outlined above for more information.
Environmental Features
Though detailed environmental impact statements generally will not be expected for lands within Area IIA,
commitments may be required at the time of annexation to protect parcels having special or unique natural
features or hazards.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record
numbers outlined above for more information.
Public Improvements
The following topics indicate the general terms and conditions that normally will be imposed for existing
development at time of annexation. These conditions may vary to some degree depending upon the annexation
of a particular area.
(1) Water and Ditch Rights: The city shall follow the procedures outlined in Ordinance No. 4351
concerning the acquisition of first right of refusal of water and ditch rights.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Each parcels Annexation Agreement contains language
regarding Water and Ditch Rights.
(2) Streets: The city will permit flexibility in the design and improvements of local streets
when desired by local residents. As a condition of annexation, the city shall require the
improvement of streets to levels which will ensure that the city will not incur extraordinary
maintenance costs as a result of new annexations. The city will consider petitions from
property owners to initiate a street improvement project at any time after annexation, so
long as such project will not conflict with other scheduled capital improvements.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Each parcels Annexation Agreement contains language
regarding the improvement of streets. The proposed changes to the Annexation
agreements regarding right-of-way widths are outlined above.
(3) Street Lights: Following annexation, street lights may be installed, upon petition of the
residents of the area, subject to Excel Energy (formerly Public Service Company) standards
and approval.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record
numbers outlined above for more information.
(4) Water and Sewer: At the time of annexation, a property owner of property other than a large
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 56 of 518
Title
www.theSTUDIOarchitecture.com - 1350 Pine Street | Suite 1 | Boulder | CO | 80302 -
866 | 529 | 9130
lot single family residence shall connect to the city water and sewer if the lines abut the
property. For a property owner of a large lot single family residence that has an existing
water and sewer system with no health-related problems, the property owner may continue
use of the individual system until said system fails or needs upgrading.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record
numbers outlined above for more information.
(5)Payment of Water and Sewer Plant Investment Fees and Front Foot Charges: The city
may consider financing and low-income deferrals for plant investment fees and front foot
charges for previously developed property within the city and developed property annexing
to the city. If the property is redeveloped or ownership changes, the outstanding charges will
become due and payable at that time.
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record
numbers outlined above for more information.
(6)Other Terms and Conditions: The items listed above will normally be imposed. Other
conditions may be imposed by the city to meet the particular circumstances of any annexation
and will be developed in a manner to allocate equitably the burdens, if any, of a particular
annexation between the property owners and the city
The 2180 Violet Avenue, 2145 Upland Avenue, and 1917 Upland Avenue parcels are
already annexed in to the city. Refer to the respective Annexation Agreement record
numbers outlined above for more information.
End of Written Statement
Attachment C - Applicant's Written Statement
City Council Meeting Page 57 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
Introduction, first reading and motion to publish by title only Ordinance 8234 updating the
city’s code provisions regulating short-term rentals, by amending C hapter 10-1, “Definitions,”
and Chapter 10-3, “Rental Licensing,” and setting forth related details
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
Tom C arr, C ity A ttorney
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Introduction, first reading and motion to publish by title only Ordinance 8234 updating the
city’s code provisions regulating short-term rentals, by amending C hapter 10-1, “Definitions,”
and Chapter 10-3, “Rental Licensing,” and setting forth related details
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachment
City Council Meeting Page 58 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2018
AGENDA TITLE
Introduction, first reading and motion to publish by title only an ordinance updating
the city’s code provisions regulating short-term rentals, by amending Chapter 10-1
“Definitions,” and Chapter 10-3 “Rental Licensing” and setting forth related details.
PRESENTERS
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Tom Carr, City Attorney
Maureen Rait, Executive Director, Public Works
Trish Jimenez, Deputy Director of Public Works for Development Services and
Interim Building Services Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this council agenda item is to amend the city’s code provisions relating to
short-term rentals. Council passed Ordinance 8050 on September 29, 2015. The
ordinance became effective January 4, 2016. After an education period, staff began
significant enforcement efforts in June 2016. With two years of experience, staff has
identified several areas where updates would be helpful. The proposed ordinance
includes the following proposed changes:
• Conforms definitions in title 10 to those in title 9.
• Clarifies that a license is required for advertising a vacant property.
• Clarifies that a short-term rental license is intended for residential uses and not
banquets, weddings and fund-raisers.
• Clarifies that applicants must file a complete application.
• Clarifies that all fees and fines must be paid prior to issuance of a license
except for fines that are the subject of an appeal.
City Council Meeting Page 59 of 518
• Requires an affidavit of exemption prior to rental of exempted properties.
In addition, staff seeks guidance about whether council wishes to consider a future
amendment limiting the number of occupants in short-term rentals to a fixed number
without regard to family relationship.
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to introduce on first reading and order published by title only an ordinance
updating the city’s code provisions regulating short-term rentals, by amending
Chapter 10-1 “Definitions,’ and Chapter 10-3 “Rental Licensing” and setting forth
related details.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic: Short-term rentals provide additional income for Boulder residents.
• Environmental: Not applicable.
• Social: Less expensive travel is an important social benefit. Short-term rentals
provide additional opportunities for visitors to Boulder. Short-term rentals can remove
housing stock from the long-term rental market. Boulder’s requirement of owner
occupancy was intended to limit this effect.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal-Budgetary: None.
• Staff Time: The proposed changes and clarifications may provide some staff time
savings.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
None.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
None.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Staff began issuing short-term rental licenses on January 4, 2016. As of December 18,
2017, short-term licensing statistics are as follows:
City Council Meeting Page 60 of 518
Licenses Issued: 738
Incomplete Applications Pending: 2
Applications Being Processed: 20
Applications Moved to Enforcement: 4
Denied/Withdrawn (could not meet requirements) 17
Through September 30, 2017, staff has received complaints about 61 properties and
undertaken pro-active investigations of another 449 properties. Prior to 2016, virtually
all enforcement was complaint-based. Beginning in 2016, council budgeted for dedicated
staff to shift to a more proactive enforcement model. As a result, there has been a
significant increase in compliance through enforcement, with almost 90% of enforcement
cases now being initiated by city staff.
PROPOSED CHANGES
Staff has developed a few recommendations for potential changes.
1. Definition Changes
Both title 9 and title 10 include definitions of “dwelling unit” and “family.” The
definitions are consistent, but not identical. The proposed changes would incorporate the
title 9 definitions into title 10.
In addition, the proposed ordinance would also amend the definition of “Short-
term rental” to clarify that short-term rentals include properties offered for rental as well
as those actually rented. The proposed ordinance also would prohibit the use of a short-
term rental license for weddings, banquets, fund raisers or similar gatherings.
2. Change to section 10-3-2
The proposed ordinance would eliminate the reference to “rental property” in
section 10-3-2 and replace it with the phrase “dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit.”
Rental property is defined as follows:
Rental property means all dwellings, dwelling units, and rooming units
located within the city and rented or leased for any valuable consideration,
but excludes dwellings owned by the federal government, the state, or any
of their agencies or political subdivisions and facilities licensed by the
state as health care facilities. Rental property includes any property used
as a short-term rental.
One recent challenger to a citation asserted the city could not enforce against a
unit that was not actually rented, because it did not meet the definition of “rental
property.” That is, because it was vacant, it was not “rented or leased for any valuable
consideration.” The proposed change would clarify that the regulations apply to vacant
properties as well as those being rented.
City Council Meeting Page 61 of 518
The proposed ordinance also would add a requirement that a person seeking to
rent without a license under two specific exemptions file an affidavit of exemption prior
to rental. The two specific exemptions are in subsections (1) and (2) of section 10-3-2(b).
They exempt from the licensing requirement “roomers” and properties leased for more
than 30 days by individuals traveling out of the county for up to a year. A few property
owners have used the exemption provision to avoid enforcement for illegal short-term
rentals by claiming that the rentals were exempted long-term rentals. The proposed
change would require prior documentation of the basis for the claimed exemption.
3. Change to Section 10-3-4.
The proposed ordinance would clarify that the city manager would have the
authority to issue a reduced term license if the licensee has received a penalty, suspension
or other administrative penalty.
4. Change to Section 10-3-6
The proposed ordinance would clarify that an applicant must submit a complete
license packet. It also requires that all fees and penalties be paid, other than penalties
subject to a pending appeal.
5. Change to Section 10-3-7
The proposed ordinance would make similar changes in section 10-3-7, which
addresses license rentals as are in section 10-3-6, which governs properties converted to
rentals.
OTHER POTENTIAL CHANGES
A bigger issue only partially addressed by these proposed changes is regulation of large
parties at short-term rentals. There have been circumstances in which a large group rents
a residence. The groups claim that they are not subject to occupancy restrictions because
they are “related.” By their nature short-term rentals are transitory. Thus, by the time the
city receives a complaint or discovers the rental, the renters are gone. This makes it very
difficult to prove an occupancy violation. Council could consider imposing a fixed
occupancy limit that would make enforcement much easier. This, of course, would be a
significant change that would require careful consideration of the various policy
implications.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 62 of 518
K:\CCAD\o-8234 1st Rdg-2329.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE 8234
AN ORDINANCE UPDATING THE CITY’S SHORT-TERM
RENTAL REGULATIONS BY AMENDING CHAPTER 10-1
“DEFINITIONS,” B.R.C. 1981; AND AMENDING CHAPTER
10-3 “RENTAL LICENSES” B.R.C. 1981; AND SETTING
FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. The following definitions in Chapter 10-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, are
amended as follows, all other definitions remain unchanged:
Chapter 10-1. - Definitions.
(a) The following terms used in this title have the following meanings unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
…
Dwelling unit shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 9-16-1, "General
Definitions," B.R.C. 1981.means one room or rooms connected together for residential occupancy
and including bathroom and kitchen facilities. If there is more than one meter for any utility,
address to the property or kitchen; or if there are separate entrances to rooms which could be used
as separate dwelling units; or if there is a lockable, physical separation between rooms in the
dwelling unit such that a room or rooms on each side of the separation could be used as a dwelling
unit, multiple dwelling units are presumed to exist; but this presumption may be rebutted by
evidence that the residents of the dwelling share utilities and keys to all entrances to the property
and that they: 1) share a single common bathroom as the primary bathroom, or 2) share a single
common kitchen as the primary kitchen.
…
Family shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 9-16-1, "General Definitions,"
B.R.C. 1981.
…
Owner shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 9-16-1, "General Definitions,"
B.R.C. 1981.means any person who is a commercial or industrial building owner, or is an owner's
representative, such as a property manager, who has charge of, or controls any building or parts
thereof.
…
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 63 of 518
K:\CCAD\o-8234 1st Rdg-2329.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Short-term rental means any dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, room or portion of any
dwelling unit, rooming unit, room being offered, advertised rented or leased to any person for
valuable consideration for periods of time less than thirty days, but excludes commercial hotels,
motels or bed and breakfasts. A short-term rental is a residential use that is accessory to such
dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or room and shall not be used for direct or indirect
compensation for meetings, including but not limited to weddings, banquets, fund raisers or similar
gatherings.
Section 2. Section 10-3-2, “Rental License Required Before Occupancy and License
Exemptions,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be amended as follows:
10-3-2. - Rental License Required Before Occupancy and License Exemptions.
(a) No operator shall allow, or offer to allow through advertisement or otherwise, any person to
occupy any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit rental property as a tenant or lessee or
otherwise for a valuable consideration unless each room or group of rooms constituting the
rental property has been issued a valid rental license by the city manager. Any advertisement
shall include the rental licensing number assigned by the city manager.
(b) Buildings, or building areas, described in one or more of the following paragraphs are
exempted from the requirement to obtain a rental license from the city manager, provided,
however that the exemptions in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) below shall not apply to short-
term rentals. No operator shall allow any person to occupy any dwelling, dwelling unit or
rooming unit exempted pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) below prior to submitting to
the city manager an Affidavit of Exemption for the dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit.
(1) Any dwelling unit occupied by the owner or members of the owner's family who are at
least 21 years of age and housing no more than two roomers who are unrelated to the
owner or the owner's family. An owner includes an occupant who certifies that the
occupant owns an interest in a corporation, firm, partnership, association, organization or
any other group acting as a unit that owns the rental property.
(2) A dwelling unit meeting all of the following conditions:
(A) The dwelling unit constitutes the owner's principal residence;
(B) The dwelling unit is temporarily rented by the owner for a period of time no greater
than twelve consecutive months in any twenty-four-month period;
(C) The dwelling unit was occupied by the owner immediately before its rental;
(D) The owner of the dwelling unit is temporarily living outside of Boulder County; and
(E) The owner intends to re-occupy the dwelling unit upon termination of the temporary
rental period identified in subparagraph (b)(2)(B) of this section.
(3) Commercial hotel and motel occupancies which offer lodging accommodations primarily
for periods of time less than thirty days, but bed and breakfast facilities are not excluded
from rental license requirements.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 64 of 518
K:\CCAD\o-8234 1st Rdg-2329.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(4) Common areas and elements of buildings containing attached, but individually owned,
dwelling units.
Section 3. Section 10-3-4, “Reduced Term License,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be amended as
follows:
10-3-4. - Reduced Term License.
(a) The city manager shall issue a reduced term license whenever the city manager determines
that:
(1) Violations of Chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, revealed during
an inspection, individually or in combination, demonstrate a failure to maintain the rental
property in a safe, sanitary and clean condition so that the dwelling endangers the health
and safety of the occupants;
(2) There is or has been a violation of a limitation on numbers of occupants or numbers of
dwelling units found in Title 9, "Land Use Code," B.R.C. 1981, which demonstrates a
failure to maintain the rental property in compliance with that title; or
(3) The term of an initial license or renewal of an existing license would otherwise extend
beyond December 31, 2018 for a property that has not received an "Energy efficiency
requirements inspection" demonstrating compliance with Chapter 10-2, "Property
Maintenance Code," Appendix C - "Energy Efficiency Requirements," B.R.C. 1981.
(A) For violations of Chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, the
license term shall be reduced to twenty- four months.
(B) For violations of Title 9, "Land Use Code," B.R.C. 1981, the license term shall be
reduced to twelve months.
(C) In the case of failure to demonstrate a satisfactory energy efficiency requirements
inspection for the subject property, under paragraph (3), above, the license term shall
expire December 31, 2018, unless, before that date, the city manager receives an
energy efficiency requirements inspection demonstrating compliance, in which case
the license term shall extend the full period otherwise prescribed by this chapter.
(b) The city manager may issue a reduced term license if the operator has received a penalty,
suspension or other order pursuant to section 10-3-16(a), “Administrative Remedy,” B.R.C.
1981.
(cb) If an operator disagrees with the decision of the city manager to issue a reduced term license
under subsection (a) of this section, such person may appeal the city manager's decision within
thirty days after the issuance of the reduced term license, as follows:
(1) For reduced term licenses issued as a result of violations of chapter 10-2, "Property
Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, the appeal shall be made as provided in section 10-2-
2, section 111, "Means of Appeal," B.R.C. 1981.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 65 of 518
K:\CCAD\o-8234 1st Rdg-2329.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2) For reduced term licenses issued as a result of violations of title 9, "Land Use Code,"
B.R.C. 1981, the appeal shall be made to the board of zoning adjustment, although the
fee amount shall be as specified for an appeal to the board of building appeals.
Section 4. Section 10-3-6, “License Application Procedure for Buildings Converted to
Rental Property,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be amended as follows:
10-3-6. - License Application Procedure for Buildings Converted to Rental Property.
Every operator converting a property to rental property shall follow the procedures in this
section for procuring a rental license:
(a) Submit a completewritten application packet for a license to the City, on official city forms
provided for that purpose, at least thirty days before rental of the property including:
(1) A rental housing inspector's certification of baseline inspection dated within twelve
months before the application. The operator shall make a copy of the inspection form
available to city staff and tenants of inspected units within fourteen days of a request; and
(2) A report on the condition and location of all smoke and carbon monoxide alarms required
by chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, made and verified by the
operator; and
(3) A trash removal plan meeting the requirements of subsection 6-3-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, made
and verified by the operator.
(b) Pay all license fees prescribed by section 4-20-18, "Rental License Fee," B.R.C. 1981, at the
time of submitting the license application. The city manager shall not issue any rental license
if the operator owes any fees or penalties, unless the penalties are subject to a pending appeal.
(c) Take all reasonable steps to notify any occupants of the property in advance of the date and
time of the inspection. The operator shall be present and accompany the inspector throughout
the inspection, unlocking and opening doors as required.
Section 5. Section 10-3-7, “License Renewal Procedure for Buildings Occupied as
Rental Property,” B.R.C. 1981, shall be amended as follows:
10-3-7. - License Renewal Procedure for Buildings Occupied as Rental Property.
Every operator of a rental property shall follow the procedures in this section when renewing
an unexpired license:
(a) Pay all license fees prescribed by section 4-20-18, "Rental License Fee," B.R.C. 1981, before
the expiration of the existing license. The city manager shall not issue any rental license if the
operator owes any fees or penalties, unless the penalties are subject to a pending appeal.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 66 of 518
K:\CCAD\o-8234 1st Rdg-2329.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(b) Submit to the city manager a complete application packet, on forms provided by the manager
including:
(1) A rental housing inspector's certification of renewal inspection within twelve months
before application. The operator shall make a copy of the inspection form available to
city staff and tenants of inspected units within fourteen days of a request;
(2) A report on the condition and location of all smoke and carbon monoxide alarms required
by chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, made and verified by the
operator; and
(3) A trash removal plan meeting the requirements of subsection 6-3-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, made
and verified by the operator.
(c) Take all reasonable steps to notify in advance all tenants of the property of the date and time
of the inspection. The operator shall be present and accompany the inspector throughout the
inspection, unlocking and opening doors as required.
Section 6. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 7. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 4th day of January 2018.
____________________________________
Suzanne Jones
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Lynette Beck
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 67 of 518
K:\CCAD\o-8234 1st Rdg-2329.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this 16th day of January 2018.
____________________________________
Suzanne Jones
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Lynette Beck
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance
City Council Meeting Page 68 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinances 8224, 8225, 8226, 8227,
8228, 8229, 8230 designating five properties at 1406-08 Pine St., 1414 Pine St., 2118 14th
St., 2124 14th St. and 2132 14th St., and portions of two properties at 1424 Pine St. and 1443
Spruce St. each as individual landmarks under the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
J ames Hewat, Senior Planner
Marcy C ameron, Historic Preservation- Planner II
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinances 8224, 8225, 8226, 8227,
8228, 8229, 8230 designating five properties at 1406-08 Pine St., 1414 Pine St., 2118 14th
St., 2124 14th St. and 2132 14th St., and portions of two properties at 1424 Pine St. and 1443
Spruce St. each as individual landmarks under the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachments
City Council Meeting Page 69 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2018
AGENDA TITLE:
Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinances 8224, 8225, 8226, 8227,
8228, 8229, 8230 designating five properties at 1406-08 Pine St., 1414 Pine St., 2118 14th St.,
2124 14th St. and 2132 14th St., and portions of two properties at 1424 Pine St. and 1443
Spruce St. each as individual landmarks under the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Owner/Applicant: First United Methodist Church / Shannon Cox Baker
PRESENTERS:
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Jim Robertson, Director of Planning, Housing& Sustainability
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is for City Council to determine whether the proposed individual
landmark designations of the properties at 1406-08 Pine St., 1414 Pine St., 2118 14th St.,
2124 14th St. and 2132 14th St., and portions of two properties at 1424 Pine St. and 1443
Spruce St. meet the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Sections
9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981). The property owner, First United Methodist Church, is in
support of the designations.
If approved, these ordinances (see Attachment A) would result in the designation of the
buildings and properties as individual landmarks. The findings are included in the
ordinances. These landmark designation applications were submitted by the property owner
on Nov. 9, 2016, and was heard by the Landmarks Board on Jan. 1 and Oct. 4, 2017. The
board voted 5-0 to recommend the designation to City Council. A second reading for these
designations is a quasi-judicial public hearing.
Landmark Designation vs. Historic District Designation
Seven individual landmark designation applications were submitted as a recommended
condition of Site Review approval by the Planning Board. Staff and the applicant discussed
designating the collection of properties as a historic district, but the applicant preferred to
City Council Meeting Page 70 of 518
designate the properties individually. Staff considers that individual designations would
afford the same level of protection as a historic district.
Individual landmark designation and historic districts provide similar protection to properties
located in historic districts and require the same procedures for review of exterior changes. In
both cases, property owners are eligible for certain exemptions and variances, and owners are
eligible for Historic Preservation Tax Credits.
Historic district designation recognizes a collection of buildings, structures and objects that
have a special character and historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value constituting a
distinct section of the city. Buildings within a historic districts are identified as
“contributing” or “non-contributing” to the historic character of the district. In addition to
protecting the individual properties, historic district designation also requires review to
changes in the public realm. In some cases, historic district design guidelines are developed
to address unique or special conditions within the district. Finally, streets signage is posted
within the historic district. Staff does not consider designating this group of seven buildings
as a historic district necessary at this time, and the property owner prefers to pursue
individual landmark designations.
Individual landmark designation recognizes properties for their architectural, historic and
environmental significance. The City will provide a bronze plaques to be mounted at each
property if the City Council considers the designations appropriate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to adopt Ordinances 8224, 8225, 8226, 8227, 8228, 8229, 8230 designating five
properties at 1406-08 Pine St., 1414 Pine St., 2118 14th St., 2124 14th St. and 2132 14th
St., and portions of two properties at 1424 Pine St. and 1443 Spruce St. each as
individual landmarks under the City of Boulder’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
Economic: Owners of locally designated landmarked properties are eligible for state and
local tax credits for approved rehabilitations and repairs, and studies have found that historic
preservation adds to economic vitality and tourism. Exterior changes to individually
landmarked buildings require a Landmark Alteration Certificate, issued by the Planning,
Housing & Sustainability department at no charge. The additional review process for
landmarked buildings may, however, add time and design expense to a project.
Environmental: The preservation of historic buildings is inherently sustainable. Owners of
individually landmarked buildings are encouraged to reuse and repair as much of the original
building as possible when making exterior alterations, thereby reducing the amount of
building material waste deposited in landfills. City staff can assist architects, contractors and
homeowners with design and material selections and sources that are environmentally
City Council Meeting Page 71 of 518
friendly. Also, the Historic Preservation website provides information on improving the
energy efficiency of older buildings.
Social: The Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted to “…enhance property values,
stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s
living heritage.” Section 9-11-1 (a), B.R.C., 1981. The primary beneficiaries of historic
designation are the property owners of a historic landmark and adjacent neighbors, who are
ensured that the character of the immediate area will be protected through the design review
process. The greater community also benefits from the preservation of the community’s
character and history.
OTHER IMPACTS:
Fiscal: The designation of individual historic landmarks is an anticipated and ongoing
function of the Historic Preservation Program.
Staff Time: This designation application is within the staff work plan.
LANDMARKS BOARD ACTION:
On November 1, 2017 the Landmarks Board voted 5-0 to recommend to City Council that
the buildings and portions of the properties be designated as local historic landmarks, finding
that they meet the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-
2, B.R.C. 1981, and is consistent with the criteria specified in section 9-11-5(c), B.R.C. 1981.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The seven buildings proposed for landmark designation are located on the city block bound
by Pine Street on the north, Spruce Street on the south, 14th Street on the west, and 15th Street
on the east (See Figures 1 and 2). Constructed between 1885 and 1903, the buildings are
excellent examples architectural styles popular in Boulder at the turn of the century,
including Queen Ann and Foursquare. The properties are historically significant for their
association with the First United Methodist Church, which was designated as an individual
landmark in 2000. The properties meet the criteria for environmental significance for their
location within the boundaries of the identified potential Whittier Historic District. At the
time the buildings were surveyed in 1988, each of the buildings was found to be contributing
to a potential historic district. The Parsonage, 2118 14th St. was found to be eligible for
individual landmark designation.
City Council Meeting Page 72 of 518
Figure 1: Location Map, 1400 Block of Pine Street
Figure 2: Detail map showing location of lots and proposed landmark boundaries on the
1400 block of Pine Street.
City Council Meeting Page 73 of 518
The First United Methodist Church began in 1859, the same year Boulder City was platted,
and is home to the oldest religious congregation in Boulder. The landmark designation memo
for the building recognizes not just its architectural merit as a grand Romanesque Revival
building designed by Harlan Thomas, but for its social history as well:
“From its mission to serve not only its own members, but those within the community
as a whole and beyond, coupled with its location in the heart of Boulder's historic
center, the church building has served as a religious as well as social center for many
Boulder citizens. The Methodist Church has played a vital role in providing a variety
of social services for the entire community over the years: it managed the
construction of the Frasier Meadows retirement facility and has provided space
within the church building for several community agencies, such as Hospice, the
Women's Resource Center, and the Boulder County Aids Project.”1
On May 30, 2017, the Planning Board conditionally approved (6-1, C. Gray opposed) the
Site Review and Use Review (LUR2017-00006 and LUR2017-00007) applications for the
Attention Homes project.
The Attention Homes project will provide housing for at-risk young adults between the ages
of 18 and 24 years old who are in need for supportive services. As part of the proposal, the
church submitted landmark designation applications for seven existing buildings on the site.
BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS AND STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1406-08 Pine St.
The building at 1406-08 Pine St. was constructed as a duplex around 1900. The façade of the
two and a half story building is symmetrically composed, with two projecting front gables.
The recessed entrance is centrally located, with a small pediment located above the entry.
Paired double hung windows are located on the second level, while wide, double hung
windows are located on the first floor of the façade. The northwest corner of the building is
chamfered, with decorative wooden brackets. The first level is masonry with stone sills,
while the upper stories are of frame construction clad in shingles. The building appears to be
largely intact to its original construction. The porch was remodeled and the brick has been
painted.
Figure 3: 1406-08 Pine St., 2016 (left) and Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c.1949 (right)
1 Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Memo. City of Boulder, 2000.
City Council Meeting Page 74 of 518
Notable Residents
In 1900, this duplex was home to the families of Benjamin Ellsworth and Marquis Hornbeck.
Ellsworth was a grocery dealer; Rev. Hornbeck was a minister with the Methodist Church.
They remained there only a short time, having moved away by 1903. Throughout the
building’s history, it has attracted primarily short-term residents, and has changed ownership
many times. The building was first owned by Charles Edward Coulehan, a local hay and feed
store owner.2 He acquired the land from John H. Obrien and Estella L. Knight in 1891 and
1893, respectively. Coulehan evidently invested heavily on this block, as he also owned 2132
14th St. and 1414 Pine St. at around the same time. He sold all three properties in 1919. The
property at 1406-08 Pine St. was purchased by Mary A. Schaltenbrand. The building would
pass through 10 more owners until 1967, when it was purchased by the First United
Methodist Church. During the mid 1940s, it became known as the White House Apartments,
a name which it retained until the late 1970s when the First United Methodist Church
converted it for office use.
The 1995 Building Inventory Form found the building to be potentially contributing to a
historic district, and significant as “one of the few examples of early multi-family housing
found on Pine Street. The building is unusual in that it is a large, styled building; most early
duplexes in Boulder were small vernacular building, usually only one-story in height.”3
Statement of Significance – 1406-08 Pine St.
The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark are: 1) its
historic significance relevant to its construction around 1900, as an example of early multi-
family housing in Boulder; and for its association with the First United Methodist Church;
and 2) its architectural significance as an example of a multi-family duplex with classical
detailing; and 3) its environmental significance for its prominent corner location; and its
location within the boundaries of the identified potential Whittier historic district.
Proposed Landmark Boundary and Name
2 Boulder Carnegie Library website description on file BHS 420-Coulehan-Charles.
3 1406-08 Pine St. Historic Building Inventory Form. City of Boulder, 1995.
Figure 4: Map of 1406-08 Pine St., showing proposed
landmark boundary.
City Council Meeting Page 75 of 518
The boundary is proposed to follow the property lines (see Figure 4). Staff recommends the
property be known as the White House Apartments, the name of the building from the mid-
1940s until the late 1970s.
1414 Pine St.
The one-story, hipped roof cottage at 1414 Pine St. was constructed in 1898. Rectangular in
plan, the building features a bay at the northwest corner, with a decorative porch extending
east. Hipped roof dormers with multi-paned windows are located on the north and west
elevations. The cornice is decorated with incised scrolls, and the building features segmental
brick arches and architrave surrounds at the bay window. The building rests on a stone
foundation. The building appears to be largely intact to its original construction, including
the leaded glass windows.
Figure 5. 1414 Pine St., 2016 (left) and Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c.1949 (right)
Notable Residents
This house was constructed under the ownership of local feed store owner Charles E.
Coulehan. Like his other properties in the area, Coulehan appears to have constructed 1414
Pine as a rental property; he is never listed as a resident here. In 1900, Samuel D. Hum, a
railway auditor born in Pennsylvania, lived here with his wife, Allie, and daughters Leila and
Frances. From 1903 to about 1910, Dr. Emley Barber Queal, his mother, Martha, and his
sister, Anna were the residents. Emley Queal was born in June, 1860 in Ohio.4 While in
Boulder, Dr. Queal operated a private practice out of the Physicians Building at 1345 Spruce
St. The Queals had moved out by 1913, when brothers Augustine C. and Clyde E. Seitz,
proprietors of the Boulderado Cleaning and Pressing Co. and Seitz Bros. Barbershop were
the listed occupants. Coulehan sold the property in 1919, when it was acquired by Benjamin
M. and Bert B. Dawson. They held the property until 1942. Bert was a Christian Science
practitioner, while her husband Benjamin was a cement worker. In 1942, the property was
purchased by Frances A. Nickols, who operated a music and gift shop with her aunt,
Josephine M. Bay. Bay and Nickols lived together at 1414 Pine St. until Josephine’s death in
1955.5 Nickols then worked as a private music teacher. She sold the property to its present
owner, the First United Methodist Church, in 1966.
4 Find A Grave Index. Find A Grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi.
5 Daily Camera. “Deaths: Miss Josephine Bay.” July 11, 1955.
City Council Meeting Page 76 of 518
The 1987 Historic Building Inventory Record found the building to be significant for its high
artistic value, and “a good example of a classic cottage design and retains most of its original
architectural details, including a cornice with incised scrolls, wooden porch trim, segmental
brick arches, and most, notably, wooden bay windows.”6 The building was found to be
contributing to the potential Whittier Historic District.
Statement of Significance – 1414 Pine St.
The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark are: 1) its
historic significance relevant to its construction in 1898; and for its association with the First
United Methodist Church; and 2) its architectural significance as an example of a Classic
Cottage, evidenced in its decorative cornice, segmental brick arches, and wooden bay
window; and 3) its environmental significance for its location within the boundaries of the
identified potential Whittier historic district.
Proposed Landmark Boundary and Name
The boundary is proposed to follow the property lines (see Figure 6). Staff recommends the
property be known as the Coulehan House, to recognize Charles E. Coulehan, who was
responsible for the construction of this building and two others on the block and owned the
property from 1900 to 1919.
1424 Pine St.
The one and one-half story Queen Anne cottage at 1424 Pine St. was constructed around
1895. Originally a single family house, it was remodeled into a duplex in 1986. The building
features a hipped roof with a projecting front gable at the north elevation. The first story is
constructed of finely executed masonry, with stone sills and lintels and decorative brickwork.
An alternating pattern of decorative shingles adorn the gable ends of the second story. The
windows and door on the façade are single light with a transom above.
The windows on side and rear elevations are tall, narrow semi-circular hung widows on the
lower level, and rectilinear hung windows on the upper level and in the bay window. A
single, tripartite window is located on the upper level of the northeast elevation. A frame,
shed roof addition is located at the rear and features square, four-light windows with
6 1414 Pine St. Historic Building Inventory Form. City of Boulder, 1995.
Figure 6: Map of 1414 Pine St., showing proposed landmark boundary.
City Council Meeting Page 77 of 518
prominent, white wood mullions. A matching, four-light wood door can be seen behind a
single-light aluminum storm door.
The building appears to be largely intact to its original construction. A wooden porch was
located at the entry from c. 1900 to c. 1960. It featured Classical detailing, including three
irregularly spaced wooden Doric columns with wooden bases and paneled detailing. A low
railing spanned between the eastern columns, with densely spaced turned spindles. The rear
addition was constructed between 1929 and 1949, replacing an earlier, wood frame addition.
Figure 7. 1424 Pine St., 2016 (left) and Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c.1949 (right)
Notable Residents
Frank Lounsberry, a builder and owner of a local lumberyard, resided here with his extended
family from 1895 until 1908. Frank married Mildred in 1881 and they had two children. The
family moved to Los Angeles by 1910, where Frank operated a lumber company. From 1906
until 1945, the house was occupied by a series of short-term renters, including a real estate
agent, livery operator, a painter and seamstress.
Around 1946, the property was purchased by John Priest, a retiree who had farmed property
in Newlands. He resided here with his daughter, Maude, a Boulder native and high school
teacher. She remained at the property until her death in 1976. Around 1979, the property was
purchased by First United Methodist Church, which has rented the property as housing for
ministerial staff.
Statement of Significance – 1424 Pine St.
The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark are: 1) its
historic significance relevant to its construction around 1895; and for its association with the
First United Methodist Church; and 2) its architectural significance as an example of a Queen
Anne Cottage, evidenced in its finely executed masonry, stone sills and lintels and decorative
brickwork; and 3) its environmental significance for its location within the boundaries of the
identified potential Whittier historic district.
City Council Meeting Page 78 of 518
Proposed Landmark Boundary and Name
The boundary is proposed to encompass the front portion of the property. Reference Figure
8; legal description to follow.
Staff recommends the property be known as the Lounsberry-Priest House, recognizing Frank
Lounsberry, who constructed the house in 1895, and for John and Maude Priest, who owned
and occupied the house from 1946 until 1976.
2118 14th St.
The house at 2118 14th St. was constructed in 1903 and has long been used as a parsonage for
the First United Methodist Church. The two-story American Four Square features a hipped
roof with wide, over-hanging eaves. A hipped roof dormer with paired double hung windows
is centrally located on the façade. The second story has flat-arched, double-hung windows
and corbelled brick decoration at the center. The first floor windows feature stone sills and
segmentally arched openings. Small, leaded glass windows are located on the north and west
elevations. A hipped roof porch with a front gable is located at the entrance and features
classical columns. The corners are adorned with brick quoining. The building originally had
three tall chimneys. The building appears to be largely intact to its original construction. The
windows, included the decorative, leaded windows, appear to be intact.
Figure 9. 2118 14th St., 2016 (left) and Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c.1949 (right)
Notable Residents
This building was constructed by the First United Methodist Church in 1903 as a parsonage.
It cost $5,600 to construct. The building served its intended purpose as a parsonage for most
Figure 8: Map of 1424 Pine St., showing proposed relocation and landmark boundary.
City Council Meeting Page 79 of 518
of its history, and it was the residence of several pastors and their families. In the late 1950s,
the church converted the structure into the Methodist Youth House. By the 1980s, it was
rented out as offices for a number of organizations.
The Historic Building Inventory Form found the building to potentially eligible for landmark
designation and as a contributing building to a potential historic district, noting the building
is a “good example of Foursquare architecture, embodying archetypical elements such as a
central dormer, symmetrical composition, and classical detailing. The parsonage is associated
with one of Colorado’s earliest church organizations.”
Statement of Significance – 2118 14th St.
The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark are: 1) its
historic significance relevant to its construction in 1903; and for its association with the First
United Methodist Church; and 2) its architectural significance as an example of the Four
Square style, evidenced in its two-story massing, symmetrical façade, and classical detailing;
and 3) its environmental significance for its location within the boundaries of the identified
potential Whittier historic district.
Proposed Landmark Boundary and Name
The boundary is proposed to property lines. Staff recommends the property be known as the
First United Methodist Parsonage, recognizing its historic use and the church, the building’s
sole owner.
2124 14th St.
The one-and-a-half story masonry house at 2124 14th St. was constructed around 1895. The
building features a double front gable with decorative wood shingles (alternating scallop and
diamond pattern) and double hung windows. A corbelled brick beltcourse defines the second
floor level, while a stone water table defines the first floor. The hipped roof front porch,
enclosed around 1956, features a brick foundation, with an inset entrance, and divided light
windows above beadboard wood paneling. Decorative diamond and heart wood detailing
adorns the wood panels.
Figure 10: Map of 2118 14th St., showing proposed landmark boundary.
City Council Meeting Page 80 of 518
The building appears to be largely intact to its original construction. The 1987 Historic
Building Inventory Form found the building to be in excellent condition with moderate
alterations, including a “new enclosed porch; painted brick and stone.” The original porch
featured a gable roof with turned spindle supports and latticework.
Figure 11. 2124 14th St., 2016 (left) and Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c.1929 (right)
Notable Residents
In 1896, the residents were R.H. Brenner, a clerk, B. F. Ellsworth, who operated a grocery
and utensil shop, Frances Peirson, a Nurse, and Maude Peirson. Ellsworth remained at the
property through 1898, but had moved away by 1900. The 1987 Survey form found the
building to be significant as a boarding house in the early 1900s. In 1900, it was occupied by
ten people, including Guy Adams and his wife Annie; his brother-in-law Theodore Strawn, a
grocery clerk; Ira Rothergerber, law student; Addie Sullivan and Louise Fisher, dressmakers;
and Burt Battles and Joseph Stamm, dairymen. Guy Adams was an early resident of
Colorado, who distinguished himself by promoting the advancement of Boulder through its
governmental, religious, and civic institutions. He served on the city council, as deputy
county clerk and as police judge for Boulder. He organized the Boulder County Abstract
Company and practiced law in Boulder for many years. Ira C. Rothgerber was a graduate of
the University of Colorado Law School, who later became a Denver County judge.
Rothgerber was a strong supporter of the University Law School after his graduation. By
1904, Strawn, by then proprietor of Strawn and Esgar Groceries, was the sole occupant listed.
In 1908, three men of the same family, Charles H., E. Glenn, and J. Guy Archibald were the
residents, along with Charles’s wife, Susie. Charles was a grocer, E. Glenn was a student,
and J. Guy was a Deputy Clerk for the District Court.
The property was acquired by Clarence W. Burner around 1916. He used it as an individual
residence of himself and his wife Lula, ending its history as a boarding house. Clarence
worked as a salesman at a shoe store.7 Following Clarence’s death on 3 November 1934,
Lulu owned the property, selling it shortly before 1940.8 In 1953, the house became the host
of a commercial operation for the first time when Dr. Donald P. and Esther J. Jensen
purchased the property. The Jensens both lived there and operated Jensen Chiropractic Clinic
7 United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930.
Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1930. Ancestry.com.
8 Find A Grave. Find A Grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi. Ancestry.com.
City Council Meeting Page 81 of 518
on the premises. They continued in this until 1970, when they sold the property to the First
United Methodist Church, the present owner. The FUMC rented the property out to a series
of restaurants, including Nancy’s Restaurant, Vicki’s Restaurant, and today, Lucile’s.
Statement of Significance – 2124 14th St.
The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark are: 1) its
historic significance relevant to its construction around 1895; and for its association with
Guy Adams, an early civic, religious and governmental leader; and 2) its architectural
significance for its artistic merit evident in its corbelled detailing; and 3) its environmental
significance for its location within the boundaries of the identified potential Whittier historic
district.
Proposed Landmark Boundary and Name
The boundary is proposed to follow the property lines (See Figure 12). Staff recommends the
property be known as the Adams House, to recognize Guy Adams, an early resident of
Colorado, who distinguished himself by promoting the advancement of Boulder through its
governmental, religious, and civic institutions.
2132 14th St.
The small, one-story wood frame building at 2132 14th St. was constructed around 1890 and
has been the offices of Out Boulder! since 2004. The side-gabled building features a gable
with decorative shingles above the central shed-roof front porch. The porch is supported by
delicate spindlework supports with brackets. The porch walls are covered with wood
shingles. Two windows with segmentally arches flank the entrance. The original masonry
exterior walls have been clad in stucco.
The building appears to be largely intact to its original construction. Stucco has been applied
over the exterior masonry. The 1988 Historic Building Inventory Form found the building to
be in fair condition with moderate alterations.
Figure 12: Map of 2124 14th St., showing
proposed landmark boundary.
City Council Meeting Page 82 of 518
Figure 13. 2132 14th St., 2016 (left) and Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c.1949 (right)
Notable Residents
In 1896, the house was the residence of Samuel Martin, a baker, and Amos Senior, a miner.
In 1900, the house was owned by Louis Herman (formerly Aronowitch), an immigrant from
Germany who was born in 1868. Herman is significant to Boulder’s history as an early
German immigrant and Boulder businessman, had a dry goods and shoe store at 1239 Pearl
St. His wife, Bessie, was born in 1869 in New York. The Herman’s children included
Mildred and Harry. Also living in the house was their servant, Hedois Carlson, a Swedish
immigrant. Through the 1940s, the 2132 12th was rented by a series of short-term renters,
including Anna E. Hawley, a dressmaker, Belshe C. Garbarino, owner of a garage at 1102
Pearl St., and Mrs. Laura Thompson, an instructor at Boulder Dance Studio. In 1945, it was
purchased by John S. and Mae Halfen, who occupied the residence themselves. They
remained there for the next 30 years. John was born in 1894, while Mae (alternately spelled
“May”) was born in 1897, both in Wisconsin.9 John served in the U.S. Navy during the
closing days of the First World War, enlisting in 1918 and serving until 1921.10 By 1940, he
and Mae were living in Sullivan, Wisconsin, where he owned a hardware store.11 After
coming to Boulder and purchasing 2132 14th St., he worked as a sheet metal worker for
Specht Plumbing and Heating. They sold the house to its current owner, the First United
Methodist Church, in 1975. Mae died in July of 1977, and John died in November of 1979.12
Statement of Significance – 2132 14th St.
The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark are: 1) its
historic significance relevant to its construction around 1890; and for its association with
Louis Herman, a German immigrant and Boulder businessman; and 2) its architectural
significance as an example of an early masonry vernacular residence; and 3) its
environmental significance for its location within the boundaries of the identified potential
Whittier historic district.
9 Social Security Administration. Social Security Death Index, Master File. Social Security
Administration. Ancestry.com.
10 Beneficiary Identification Records Locator Subsystem (BIRLS) Death File. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs. Ancestry.com.
11 United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940.
Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940. Ancestry.com.
12 Social Security Administration.
City Council Meeting Page 83 of 518
Proposed Landmark Boundary and Name
The boundary is proposed to follow the property lines. Staff recommends the property be
known as the Herman-Halfen House, to recognize Louis Herman, a significant figure in
Boulder’s history as an early German immigrant and Boulder businessman, and John S. and
Mae Halfen, who owned and resided at the property from 1945 until 1979.
1443 Spruce St.
Figure 15. 1443 Spruce St., 2016 (left) and Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c.1949 (right)
This house exemplifies the Italianate variant of late nineteenth century house design in
Boulder, with deep eaves supported by coupled brackets, segmental brick arched lintels with
brick headers and stone sills. A porch is located at the southeast corner and features wood
decorative trim. The one-story porch of the building has a lower pitch roof with shallower
eaves and more decorative splayed brackets, which are decorated with scrollwork. The
building was featured in Jane Barker’s 1976 books “76 Historic Homes of Boulder.”
Notable Residents
The house, one of the earliest in Boulder, was built by J. Levi Rachofsky in 1885. Rachofsky
was a dry goods merchant in Boulder in the 1880s and 1890s. He was a native of Poland, and
first settled in Central City. Jacob and Katherine Faus purchased the property in 1905, after
losing their house at 9th and Pearl streets in the 1894 flood. Mr. Faus, a native of Germany,
was a blacksmith and is said to have owned the second car in Boulder. They resided at 1443
Figure 14: Map of 2132 14th St., showing proposed landmark boundary.
City Council Meeting Page 84 of 518
Spruce St. until their deaths in 1941 and 1946. The First United Methodist Church purchased
the property in 1959. In 1974, the building was proposed for demolition due to a lack of
funding to bring the building up to current building codes. In response, Historic Boulder, Inc.
applied for landmark designation of the property. The church rescinded its request to
demolish the building, and the City Council voted to deny the landmark designation in order
to provide “more freedom to weigh plans” after members of the congregation expressed
concern about the ability to move the building. In 1978, a member of the congregation
offered funding to rehabilitate the building. It was then converted for office use and is
currently used by Attention Homes. A second landmark designation application was
submitted in 2012 by a member of the congregation, but was withdrawn due to lack of
support by the majority of the congregation.
The Historic Building Inventory Record found the building to possess high artistic value and
be historically significant for its association with Rachofsky and Faus. “Contrasted with the
mansions of Mapleton Hill, this house is an excellent example of the simpler, yet well-
designed homes of Boulder’s early merchants and tradesmen.”13
Statement of Significance – 1443 Spruce St.
The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark are: 1) its
historic significance relevant to its construction in 1885, making it one of the earliest houses
in Boulder; for its association with J. Levi Rachofsky , a dry goods merchant, and 2) its
architectural significance as an example of Italianate design evidenced in its deep eaves
supported by coupled brackets, segmental brick arched lintels and sandstone sills; and 3) its
environmental significance for its prominent location at the corner of 15th Street and Spruce
Street, within the boundaries of the identified potential Whittier historic district.
Proposed Landmark Boundary and Name
The boundary is proposed to encompass the front portion of the property. Reference Figure
16.
13 Historic Building Inventory Form. City of Boulder, 1986.
Figure 16: Map of 1443 Spruce St.,
showing proposed landmark
boundary.
City Council Meeting Page 85 of 518
Staff recommends the property be known as the Rachofsky-Faus House, to recognize J. Levi
Rachofsky, the original owner of the house, and Jacob and Katherine Faus, who owned the
property from 1905 until 1946.
ANALYSIS:
Criteria for Review
Section 9-11-6(b), B.R.C. 1981, specifies that during the review for an application for local
landmark designation, the council must consider “whether the designation meets the purposes
and standards in subsection 9-11-1(a) and section 9-11-2, “City Council May Designate or
Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts,” B.R.C. 1981, in balance with the goals and
policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan” and provides that the City Council
“shall approve by ordinance, modify and approve by ordinance, or disapprove the proposed
designation.”
Staff and the Landmarks Board find that the designation the five properties at 1406-08 Pine
St., 1414 Pine St., 2118 14th St., 2124 14th St. and 2132 14th St., and portions of two
properties at 1424 Pine St. and 1443 Spruce St. as individual landmarks will protect,
enhance, and perpetuate a building reminiscent of a past era, past events, and persons
important in local history and preserve an important example of Boulder’s historic
architecture. Staff considers the applications meet the historic criteria for individual landmark
designation as outlined following each property description above.
Does the proposed application develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments
for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods,
promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage?
Staff finds that the proposed applications would maintain appropriate settings and
environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize
neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living
heritage.
OPTIONS:
The City Council may approve, modify or not approve the ordinances.
Approved By:
_____________________
Jane S. Brautigam,
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Ordinances 8224, 8225, 8226, 8227, 8228, 8229, 8230
B: Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, “Purposes and Intent,” B.R.C., 1981
C: Significance Criteria for individual landmarks
City Council Meeting Page 86 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8224
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE BUILDING AND THE
PROPERTY AT 1406-08 PINE ST., CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE WHITE HOUSE
APARTMENTS, A LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 9-11,
“HISTORIC PRESERVATION” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section l. The City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter
9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, to designate as a landmark a property having a special
character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 2. The City Council finds that: 1) on or about Nov. 9, 2016, property owner First
United Methodist Church, applied to the City of Boulder to designate the building and property
at said property as a landmark; 2) the Landmarks Board held a public hearing on the proposed
designation on Jan. 1, 2017 and Oct. 4, 2017; and 3) on Oct. 4, 2017, the Board recommended
that the City Council approve the proposed designation.
Section 3. The City Council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the council
held a public hearing on the proposed designation on Jan. 4, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 and upon the
basis of the presentations at that hearing finds that the building and the property at 1406-08 Pine
St. possesses a special character and special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
warranting its designation as a landmark.
Section 4. The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark
are: 1) its historic significance is relevant to its construction around 1900, as an example of early
multi-family housing in Boulder and 2) its architectural significance as an example of a multi-
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 87 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
family duplex with classical detailing, and 3) its environmental significance for its prominent
corner location; and its location within the boundaries of the identified potential Whittier historic
district.
Section 5. The City Council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city.
Section 6. There is hereby created as a landmark the building and property located at 1406-
08 Pine St., also known as the White House Apartments, whose legal landmark boundary
encompasses the legal lots upon which it sits:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
N 70.54 FT OF W 10.79 FT LOT 5 & N 70.54 FT LOT 6 BLK 122 BO
as depicted in the proposed landmark boundary map, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. The City Council directs that the department of Planning, Housing and
Sustainability give prompt notice of this designation to the property owner and cause a copy of
this ordinance to be recorded as described in Subsection 9-11-6(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Section 8. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY THIS 5th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
Mayor
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 88 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY THIS 4th DAY OF JANUARY 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A – Landmark Boundary Map for 1406-08 Pine St.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
N 70.54 FT OF W 10.79 FT LOT 5 & N 70.54 FT LOT 6 BLK 122 BO
Map of 1406-08 Pine St. with landmark boundary.
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 89 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8225
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE BUILDING AND THE
PROPERTY AT 1414 PINE ST., CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE COULEHAN HOUSE, A
LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 9-11, “HISTORIC
PRESERVATION” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH
DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section l. The City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter
9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, to designate as a landmark a property having a special
character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 2. The City Council finds that: 1) on or about Nov. 9, 2016, property owner First
United Methodist Church, applied to the City of Boulder to designate the building and property
at said property as a landmark; 2) the Landmarks Board held a public hearing on the proposed
designation on Jan. 1, 2017 and Oct. 4, 2017; and 3) on Oct. 4, 2017, the Board recommended
that the City Council approve the proposed designation.
Section 3. The City Council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the council
held a public hearing on the proposed designation on Jan. 4, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 and upon the
basis of the presentations at that hearing finds that the building and the property at 1414 Pine St.
possesses a special character and special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
warranting its designation as a landmark.
Section 4. The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark
are: 1) its historic significance is relevant to its construction in 1898, for its association with the
First United Methodist Church; and 2) its architectural significance as an example of a Classic
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 90 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cottage, evidenced in its decorative cornice, segmental brick arches, and wooden bay window;
and (3) its environmental significance for its location within the boundaries of the identified
potential Whitter historic district.
Section 5. The City Council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city.
Section 6. There is hereby created as a landmark the building and property located at 1414
Pine St., also known as the Coulehan House, whose legal landmark boundary encompasses the
legal lots upon which it sits:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
N PT LOTS 4 & 5 BLK 122 BOULDE R O T AKA TR 997 30-1N-70 PER DEED
827669 09/21/66 BCR
as depicted in the proposed landmark boundary map, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. The City Council directs that the department of Planning, Housing and
Sustainability give prompt notice of this designation to the property owner and cause a copy of
this ordinance to be recorded as described in Subsection 9-11-6(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Section 8. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
Mayor
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 91 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A – Landmark Boundary Map for 1414 Pine St.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
N PT LOTS 4 & 5 BLK 122 BOULDE R O T AKA TR 997 30-1N-70 PER DEED
827669 09/21/66 BCR
Map of 1414 Pine St. with landmark boundary.
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 92 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8226
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE BUILDING AND THE
PROPERTY AT 2118 14th St., CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE FIRST METHODIST
CHURCH PARSONAGE, A LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 9-
11, “HISTORIC PRESERVATION” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section l. The City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter
9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, to designate as a landmark a property having a special
character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 2. The City Council finds that: 1) on or about Nov. 9, 2016, property owner First
United Methodist Church, applied to the City of Boulder to designate the building and property
at said property as a landmark; 2) the Landmarks Board held a public hearing on the proposed
designation on Jan. 1, 2017 and Oct. 4, 2017; and 3) on Oct. 4, 2017, the Board recommended
that the City Council approve the proposed designation.
Section 3. The City Council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the
council held a public hearing on the proposed designation on Jan. 4, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 and
upon the basis of the presentations at that hearing finds that the building and the property at 2118
14th St. possesses a special character and special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or
value warranting its designation as a landmark.
Section 4. The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark
are: 1) its historic significance is relevant to its construction in 1903; and for its association with
the First United Methodist Church; and 2) its architectural significance as an example of the Four
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 93 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Square style, evidenced in its two-story massing, symmetrical façade, and classical detailing; and
3) its environmental significance for its location within the boundaries of the identified potential
Whittier historic district.
Section 5. The City Council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city.
Section 6. There is hereby created as a landmark the building and property located at 2118
14th St., also known as the First Methodist Church Parsonage, whose legal landmark boundary
encompasses the legal lots upon which it sits:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 7-11 BLK 122 BOULDER O T DPT FILE 07-01-025-09
as depicted in the proposed landmark boundary map, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. The City Council directs that the department of Planning, Housing and
Sustainability give prompt notice of this designation to the property owner and cause a copy of
this ordinance to be recorded as described in Subsection 9-11-6(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Section 8. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
Mayor
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 94 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A – Landmark Boundary Map for 2118 14th St.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 7-11 BLK 122 BOULDER OT DPT FILE 07-01-025-09
Map of 2118 14th St., with landmark boundary.
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 95 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8227
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE BUILDING AND THE
PROPERTY AT 2124 14th St., CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE GUY ADAMS HOUSE,
A LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 9-11, “HISTORIC
PRESERVATION” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH
DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section l. The City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter
9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, to designate as a landmark a property having a special
character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 2. The City Council finds that: 1) on or about Nov. 9, 2016, property owner First
United Methodist Church, applied to the City of Boulder to designate the building and property
at said property as a landmark; 2) the Landmarks Board held a public hearing on the proposed
designation on Jan. 1, 2017 and Oct. 4, 2017; and 3) on Oct. 4, 2017, the Board recommended
that the City Council approve the proposed designation.
Section 3. The City Council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the
council held a public hearing on the proposed designation on Jan. 4, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 and
upon the basis of the presentations at that hearing finds that the building and the property at 2124
14th St. possesses a special character and special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or
value warranting its designation as a landmark.
Section 4. The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark
are: 1) its historic significance is relevant to its construction 1895, for its association with Guy
Adams, an early civic, religious and governmental leader; and 2) its architectural significance for
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 96 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
its artistic merit evident in its corbelled detailing; and 3) its environmental significance for its
location within the boundaries of the identified potential Whittier historic district.
Section 5. The City Council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city.
Section 6. There is hereby created as a landmark the building and property located at 2124
14th St., also known as the Guy Adams House, whose legal landmark boundary encompasses the
legal lots upon which it sits:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
S 34 1/2 FT OF W 10 FT LOT 4 & S 34 1/2 FT OF LOTS 5-6 BLK 1 22 BOULDER
as depicted in the proposed landmark boundary map, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. The City Council directs that the department of Planning, Housing and
Sustainability give prompt notice of this designation to the property owner and cause a copy of
this ordinance to be recorded as described in Subsection 9-11-6(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Section 8. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
Mayor
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 97 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A – Landmark Boundary Map for 2124 14th St.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
S 34 1/2 FT OF W 10 FT LOT 4 & S 34 1/2 FT OF LOTS 5-6 BLK 1 22 BOULDER
Figure 12: Map of 2124 14th St., showing proposed landmark boundary.
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 98 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8228
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE BUILDING AND THE
PROPERTY AT 2132 14TH ST., CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE HERMAN-HALFEN
HOUSE, A LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 9-11, “HISTORIC
PRESERVATION” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH
DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section l. The City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter
9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, to designate as a landmark a property having a special
character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 2. The City Council finds that: 1) on or about Nov. 9, 2016, property owner First
United Methodist Church, applied to the City of Boulder to designate the building and property
at said property as a landmark; 2) the Landmarks Board held a public hearing on the proposed
designation on Jan. 1, 2017 and Oct. 4, 2017; and 3) on Oct. 4, 2017, the Board recommended
that the City Council approve the proposed designation.
Section 3. The City Council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the council
held a public hearing on the proposed designation on Jan. 4, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 and upon the
basis of the presentations at that hearing finds that the building and the property at 2132 14th St.
possesses a special character and special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
warranting its designation as a landmark.
Section 4. The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark
are: 1) its historic significance is relevant to its construction around 1890, for its association with
Louis Herman, a German immigrant and Boulder businessman; and 2) its architectural significance
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 99 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as an example of an early masonry vernacular residence; and 3) its environmental significance for
its location within the boundaries of the identified potential Whittier historic district.
Section 5. The City Council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city.
Section 6. There is hereby created as a landmark the building and property located at 2132
14th St., also known as the Herman-Halfen House, whose legal landmark boundary encompasses
the legal lots upon which it sits:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PT LOTS 4 5 & 6 BLK 122 BOULDE R O T AKA TRACT 996 30-1N-70 P ER DEED
131194 03/07/75 BCR 10 0% TAX EXEMPT PER DPT 07-01-02 5-08
as depicted in the proposed landmark boundary map, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. The City Council directs that the department of Planning, Housing and
Sustainability give prompt notice of this designation to the property owner and cause a copy of
this ordinance to be recorded as described in Subsection 9-11-6(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Section 8. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
Mayor
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 100 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A – Landmark Boundary Map for 2132 14th St.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PT LOTS 4 5 & 6 BLK 122 BOULDE R O T AKA TRACT 996 30-1N-70 P ER DEED 131194
03/07/75 BCR 10 0% TAX EXEMPT PER DPT 07-01-02 5-08
Map of 2132 14th St. with landmark boundary.
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 101 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8229
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE BUILDING AND THE
PROPERTY AT 1424 PINE ST., CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE LOUNSBERRY HOUSE,
A LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 9-11, “HISTORIC
PRESERVATION” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH
DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section l. The City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter
9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, to designate as a landmark a property having a special
character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 2. The City Council finds that: 1) on or about June 9, 2016, property owner First
United Methodist Church, applied to the City of Boulder to designate the building and property
at said property as a landmark; 2) the Landmarks Board held a public hearing on the proposed
designation on Jan. 1, 2017 and Oct. 4, 2017; and 3) on Oct. 4, 2017, the Board recommended
that the City Council approve the proposed designation.
Section 3. The City Council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the council
held a public hearing on the proposed designation on Jan. 4, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 and upon the
basis of the presentations at that hearing finds that the building and the property at 1424 Pine St.
possesses a special character and special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
warranting its designation as a landmark.
Section 4. The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark
are: 1) its historic significance is relevant to its construction around 1895, and for its association
with First United Methodist Church; and 2) its architectural significance as an example of Queen
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 102 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Anne Cottage, evidenced in its finely executed masonry, stone sills and lintels and decorative
brickwork; and 3) its environmental significance for its location within the boundaries of the
identified potential Whittier historic district.
Section 5. The City Council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city.
Section 6. There is hereby created as a landmark the building and property located at 1424
Pine St., also known as the Lounsberry House, whose legal landmark boundary encompasses the
north 100’ feet of the property, extending from the east to the west property lines of the legal lot
upon which it sits:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
E 40 FT LOT 4 BLK 122 BOULDER OT DPT 07-01-025-05 6/13/1989
as depicted in the proposed landmark boundary map, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. The City Council directs that the department of Planning, Housing and
Sustainability give prompt notice of this designation to the property owner and cause a copy of
this ordinance to be recorded as described in Subsection 9-11-6(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Section 8. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
Mayor
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 103 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A – Landmark Boundary Map for 1424 Pine St.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
E 40 FT LOT 4 BLK 122 BOULDER OT DPT 07-01-025-05 6/13/1989
Map of 1424 Pine St., showing approved relocation and landmark boundary.
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 104 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8230
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE BUILDING AND THE
PROPERTY AT 1443 SPRUCE ST., CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE RACHOFSKY-FAUS
HOUSE A LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 9-11, “HISTORIC
PRESERVATION” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH
DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section l. The City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter
9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, to designate as a landmark a property having a special
character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 2. The City Council finds that: 1) on or about Nov. 9, 2016, property owner First
United Methodist Church, applied to the City of Boulder to designate the building and property
at said property as a landmark; 2) the Landmarks Board held a public hearing on the proposed
designation on Jan. 1, 2017 and Oct. 4, 2017; and 3) on Oct. 4, 2017, the Board recommended
that the City Council approve the proposed designation.
Section 3. The City Council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the council
held a public hearing on the proposed designation on Jan. 4, 2017 and Nov. 1, 2017 and upon the
basis of the presentations at that hearing finds that the building and the property at 1443 Spruce
St. possesses a special character and special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
warranting its designation as a landmark.
Section 4. The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a landmark
are: 1) its historic significance is relevant to its construction in 1885, making it one of the earliest
houses in Boulder; for its association with J. Levi Rachofsky, a dry goods merchant, and 2) its
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 105 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
architectural significance as an example of Italianate design evidenced in its deep eaves supported
by coupled brackets, segmental brick arched lintels and sandstone sills; and 3) its environmental
significance for its prominent location at the corner of 15th Street and Spruce Street, within the
boundaries of the identified potential Whittier historic district.
Section 5. The City Council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city.
Section 6. There is hereby created as a landmark the building and property located at 1443
Spruce St., also known as the Rachofsky-Faus House, whose legal landmark boundary
encompasses the south 90’ feet of the property, extending from the east to the west property lines
of the legal lot upon which it sits:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 12 BLK 122 BOULDER O T DPT FILE 07-01025-10
as depicted in the proposed landmark boundary map, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. The City Council directs that the department of Planning, Housing and
Sustainability give prompt notice of this designation to the property owner and cause a copy of
this ordinance to be recorded as described in Subsection 9-11-6(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Section 8. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the City Clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
Mayor
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 106 of 518
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A – Landmark Boundary Map for 1443 Spruce St.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 12 BLK 122 BOULDER O T DPT FILE 07-01025-10
Map of 1443 Spruce St. with landmark boundary
Attachment A - Ordinances
City Council Meeting Page 107 of 518
9-11-1 & 9-11-2 Purposes and Intent
Boulder Revised Code, 1981
9-11-1: Purpose and Legislative Intent states:
(a)The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by protecting,
enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras,
events, and persons important in local, state, or national history or providing significant
examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop
and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to
enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and
foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage.
(b)The City Council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the city but
instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in
preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition
of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other
alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and structures and new construction will
respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by
being compatible with them.
(c)The City Council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new
construction on landmarks or structures in a historic district, the Landmarks Board shall
follow relevant city policies, including, without limitation, energy-efficient design, access for
the disabled and creative approaches to renovation.
9-11-2: City Council may Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts states:
(a)Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the City Council may by ordinance:
(1)Designate as a landmark an individual building or other feature or an
integrated group of structures or features on a single lot or site having a
special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
and designate a landmark site for each landmark;
(2)Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of
sites, buildings, structures or features having a special character and
historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a
distinct section of the city;
(3)Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites, buildings,
structures, or features which are contained in two or more geographically
separate areas, having a special character and historical, architectural, or
aesthetic interest or value that are united together by historical, architectural,
or aesthetic characteristics; and
(4)Amend designations to add features or property to or from the site or district.
(b)Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the
requirements of this code and other ordinances of the city.
Attachment B - Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, "Purposes and Intent," B.R.C., 1981
City Council Meeting Page 108 of 518
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Individual Landmark
September 1975
On September 6, 1975, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures
for the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The purpose of
the ordinance is the preservation of the City’s permitted cultural, historic, and architectural
heritage. The Landmarks Board is permitted by the ordinance to adopt rules and regulations as it
deems necessary for its own organization and procedures. The following Significance Criteria
have been adopted by the board to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and
equitable manner.
Historic Significance
The place (building, site, area) should show character, interest or value as part of the
development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state or nation; be the
site of a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the
cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community.
Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age
of the structure.
Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state,
or local.
Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most applicable to
an institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure, though in some
cases residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places
which demonstrate the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in
order to maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage.
Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the Boulder
Historical Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock,
Schooland, etc), State Historical Society, The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado by F.L.
Olmsted, or others in published form as having historic interest and value.
Other, if applicable.
Architectural Significance
The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type
specimen, a good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master builder,
known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later
Attachment C - Significance Criteria for individual landmarks
City Council Meeting Page 109 of 518
development; contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship
which represent a significant innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon.
Recognized Period/Style: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural
period/style, i.e.: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American
Building Survey Criteria, Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barkar), The
History of Architectural Style (Marcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Francisco (Gebhard
et al), History of Architecture (Fletcher), Architecture/Colorado, and any other published
source of universal or local analysis of a style.
Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an architect or
builder who is recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or locally.
Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of excellent
visual quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship.
Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, details, or craftsmanship
that are representative of a significant innovation.
Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder
area.
Other, if applicable.
Environmental Significance
The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by
the protection of the unique natural and man-made environment.
Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation.
Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement, or
other qualities of design with respect to its site.
Geographic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, it
represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community.
Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is
situated in a manner particularly suited to its function.
Area Integrity: Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental
importance and continuity of an existing condition, although taken singularly or out of
context might not qualify under other criteria.
Attachment C - Significance Criteria for individual landmarks
City Council Meeting Page 110 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8231, as an
amendment to Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C . 1981, granting authority to the
C ity Manager to approve a day shelter and overnight shelter use at 2691 30th
street, to modify density and parking standards as they apply to the use, and
setting forth details in relation thereto.
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
C harles Ferro, Development Review Manager
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8231, an
emergency Ordinance that, as an amendment to Title 9, “Land Use C ode,”
B.R.C . 1981, grants authority to the C ity Manager to approve a day shelter and
overnight shelter use at 2691 30th street and to modify density and parking
standards as they apply to the use, and setting forth details in relation thereto.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachment
City Council Meeting Page 111 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2018
AGENDA TITLE:
Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8231, an
emergency Ordinance that, as an amendment to Title 9, “Land Use Code,”
B.R.C. 1981, grants authority to the City Manager to approve a day shelter
and overnight shelter use at 2691 30th street and to modify density and
parking standards as they apply to the use, and setting forth details in
relation thereto.
PRESENTER/S
Jane Brautigam, City Manager
Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager
Jim Robertson, Executive Director of Planning, Housing & Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bridge House seeks to site its Path to Home Navigation Center and day and overnight
shelter at 2691 30th Street. The Path to Home Navigation program (PTHN) will provide
24/7 sheltering and case management services for homeless adults. PTHN has been
selected to provide the navigation services called for in the City of Boulder’s
Homelessness Strategy. PTHN will host onsite coordinated entry services in addition to
program services including meals, sleeping and supportive services for program
participants. The building can accommodate up to 50 persons and in order to serve the
largest amount of program participants possible Bridge House would like the ability to
serve 50 occupants.
In order to do so, the following modifications to the city’s code are required:
1.Occupancy of Overnight Shelter, Section 9-6-6(b)(4)(D)
The maximum occupancy in the Business Transition One (BT-1) zone is based on a
standard of six persons per dwelling unit. A minimum of 1,200 square feet of open space
is also required per dwelling unit. The .93 acre site is mostly paved and has approximately
5,056 square feet of existing open space, which equates to 4 dwelling units and thus (at six
City Council Meeting Page 112 of 518
persons per dwelling unit) would allow approximately 24 persons in the overnight shelter
whereas the building can accommodate 50 persons.
2.Parking, Section 9-6-6(b)(2)(D)/9-6-6(b)(4)(C) (refers to Table 9-2 (overnight
shelter), Table 9-3 (day shelter)).
Since the use is considered both a day and overnight shelter, the applicant must provide
parking for both uses on site. 61 spaces are required where 40 will be provided, resulting
in a parking reduction of 34%. Per Bridge House, a vast majority of those seeking services
do not have vehicles. Staff finds that parking can appropriately be managed based on the
limited number of vehicles that program participants are expected to bring to the site.
Additionally, the maximum amount of staff and volunteers on-site at one time would be
15.
The proposed code modifications are being considered as an emergency ordinance due to
the immediate human service needs of the homeless population. The proposed
modifications are reflected in Attachment A.
An informational item was forwarded to Planning Board on December 12, 2017. City
Council approved first reading of the ordinance on December 19, 2017.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to adopt second reading of Ordinance 8231, an emergency
Ordinance that, as an amendment to Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C.
1981, grants authority to the City Manager to approve a day shelter and
overnight shelter use at 2691 30th street and to modify density and parking
standards as they apply to the use, and setting forth details in relation
thereto.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
•Economic – None identified.
•Environmental – None identified.
•Social – The proposed use will provide the services specified in the Homelessness
Strategy.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Ordinance 8231
City Council Meeting Page 113 of 518
k:\pldr\o-8231-2nd-2666.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8231
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE THAT, AS AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981,
GRANTS AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO
APPROVE A DAY SHELTER AND OVERNIGHT SHELTER
USE AT 2691 30TH STREET AND TO MODIFY DENSITY AND
PARKING STANDARDS AS THEY APPLY TO THE USE,
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO,
FINDS THAT:
A.The Carriage House Community Table, also known as the Bridge House (“Bridge
House”), has filed land use application ADR2017-00280 (the “Project”) for a day shelter
and an overnight shelter use at a property located at 2691 30th Street and more particular
described on Exhibit A (the “Property”).
B.Bridge House proposes to utilize a tenant space within a building on the Property to site a
Path to Home Navigation Center and Lodge which would provide 24/7 sheltering and
case management services for homeless adults.
C.The proposed Path to Home Navigation Center and Lodge would also provide navigation
services to homeless adults called for in the City of Boulder Homelessness Strategy,
including coordinated entry services.
D.The Project proposes to provide overnight shelter for up to 50 persons.
E.The Property is located in the Business-Transitional 1 (BT-1) zoning district, and the
Project is inconsistent with parking and density or occupancy standards applicable to the
proposed uses.
F.Although inconsistent with the applicable parking and density or occupancy standards,
the Project is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in that the Project
Attachment A - Ordinance 8231
City Council Meeting Page 114 of 518
k:\pldr\o-8231-2nd-2666.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would provide human services programs that are based on best practices, address
immediate human needs, and, through its programming, assist individuals in exiting
homelessness. The Project is also consistent with the City of Boulder Homelessness
Strategy.
G.The Planning Board was notified of this ordinance on December 12, 2017 consistent with
Charter Section 79.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. The city council authorizes the city manager to grant the necessary approvals
under Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, for a day shelter and overnight shelter use on the
Property generally consistent with the Project.
Section 2. To accomplish the objectives of this ordinance, the city council authorizes the
city manager to modify standards established in Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C 1981,
including, in particular, the parking and density or occupancy requirements under Paragraphs 9-
6-6(b)(2)(D), (b)(4)(C) and (D), B.R.C. 1981, for the Project.
Section 3. For the limited purposes of this ordinance, the city council suspends the
provisions of Subsection 9-1-5(a), “Amendments and Effect of Pending Amendments,” B.R.C.
1981.
Section 4. All other City of Boulder regulations and ordinances that have not been
mentioned herein continue to apply to the Property.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be considered an amendment to Title 9, “Land Use
Code,” B.R.C. 1981. To the extent that this ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of the
Attachment A - Ordinance 8231
City Council Meeting Page 115 of 518
k:\pldr\o-8231-2nd-2666.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
city, such ordinance shall be suspended for the limited purpose of implementing this ordinance.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as a waiver of the city’s police power.
Section 6. The city council finds that this ordinance furthers important human services
goals for the City of Boulder. Further the city council finds that the benefits of the city’s human
services goals made possible through this ordinance outweigh the benefits that accrue to the city
through the standards that are waived by this ordinance.
Section 7. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency measure due to
immediate human service needs of the city’s homeless population and as such shall be in full
force and effect upon its final passage.
Section 8. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 9. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 19th day of December 2017.
Suzanne Jones
Mayor
Attest:
Lynnette Beck
City Clerk
Attachment A - Ordinance 8231
City Council Meeting Page 116 of 518
k:\pldr\o-8231-2nd-2666.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, AND ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY
MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, this ____ day of January
2018.
Suzanne Jones
Mayor
Attest:
Lynnette Beck
City Clerk
Attachment A - Ordinance 8231
City Council Meeting Page 117 of 518
k:\pldr\o-8231-2nd-2666.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1
NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE
OF 698.5 FEET; THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 20 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 309.535 FEET;
THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 140.72 FEET; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE
OF 309.535 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 140.72 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF
COLORADO; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO
THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 22, 1972
UNDER RECEPTION NO. 23533.
Attachment A - Ordinance 8231
City Council Meeting Page 118 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
Discussion of Major Planning and Housing Work Plan Items (including Information on
Subcommunity and Area Planning, Regulatory C hanges to Address Enhanced C ommunity
Benefits, and C ommercial Linkage Fees)
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
J im Robertson, Director of Planning, Housing and Sustainability
Lesli Ellis, C omprehensive Planning Manager
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Discussion of Major Planning and Housing Work Plan Items (including Information on
Subcommunity and Area Planning, Regulatory C hanges to Address Enhanced C ommunity
Benefits, and C ommercial Linkage Fees)
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachments
City Council Meeting Page 119 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2018
AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of Major Planning and Housing Work Plan Items
(including Information on Subcommunity and Area Planning, Regulatory Changes to
Address Enhanced Community Benefits, and Commercial Linkage Fees)
PRESENTER/S
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Jim Robertson, Executive Director, Planning, Housing & Sustainability (PH&S)
Kurt Firnhauber, Deputy Director of Housing, PH&S
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager, PH&S
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager, PH&S
Jay Sugnet, Senior Planner, PH&S
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner, PH&S
Phil Kleisler, Planner II, PH&S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for staff to provide City Council an overview of the proposed Planning
Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) 2018/2018 Planning and Housing Work Plan and the 2018/2019
Timeline for projects, including what is expected for community engagement. (See Attachments A and
B.) Staff will answer questions and hear input and discussion from council about other priorities and
approaches to the work in advance of the council retreat on Jan. 19 and Jan. 20, 2018, particularly if
adjustments to the work plan may be necessary to achieve council priorities. To aid council’s discussion,
this packet includes additional information about items that may not have originally been part of the
2018/2019 work plan but for which multiple council members have indicated interest, including:
1. Subcommunity and area planning (p. 6 and Attachment D);
2. Regulations to address enhanced community benefit (on the work plan) (p. 7); and
3. Commercial linkage fees (p. 8).
Finally, this packet includes brief updates on projects that are in progress and a summary of community
engagement and input to date: (1) the Accessory Dwelling Unit Update (See Attachment E); and
City Council Meeting Page 120 of 518
(2) the Building Height code change project. (See Attachment F.) The Central Broadway planning
projects are on council’s study session agenda for Jan. 9, 2018, so no project updates are included in this
packet. Additionally, the Housing Board study session has been scheduled for Jan. 23, 2018, and staff
will be prepared to update council on current mobile home park actions on Jan. 4, 2018.
BACKGROUND
Planning, Housing, and Sustainability (PH&S) Planning Work Overview
The work of PH&S falls into two broad categories: (1) core services and (2) special projects and
initiatives, as further described below.
1. Core Services account for about 80 percent of planning and housing staff time and resources and
is the work performed in support of the City Charter to serve customers of planning and
development services and to implement the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and community
goals through development review. This memo does not address the core services; however, the
work plan in PH&S does consider resource needs to be put toward core services and the services
and work performed in 2017 that will continue into 2018, such as:
o Development and land use review (e.g., concept plans; site reviews; technical document
submittals; building permits; use reviews, etc.).
o Historic Preservation: review of landmark designations; alteration permits; demolition
applications.
o Housing Programs (i.e., homeownership, community investment, compliance monitoring,
and development/land use review support).
o Staff support of housing committees: Technical Review Group, Home Ownership
Committee, HOME and Community Development Advisory Committee.
o Staff support for boards: Planning Board; Design Advisory Board; Landmarks Board and
Landmarks Design Review Committee; and Board of Zoning Adjustment.
o Provision of demographic and building data.
o Annual Capital Improvements Program.
o Master Plan Coordinating Committee.
o Rental licensing.
o LandLink Replacement (EnerGov going live April of 2018).
2. Special Projects and Initiatives account for the remaining 20 percent, or so, of planning and
housing staff time and resources, including initiatives prioritized by City Council. Some projects
are identified in the updated Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) (adopted Aug. 2017)
and identified in the BVCP Action Plan (approved Sept. 2017).
Following two years of community engagement, multiple revisions of policies, and 50+ meetings
and hearings with the four approval bodies for the BVCP and the resulting Action Plan, the
community has identified many of its policies and priorities that have subsequently carried over
into the 2018/2019 Planning and Housing Work Plan. These include topics such as housing
affordability and diversity, affordable commercial space, land use compatibility and quality urban
design, neighborhood/community character, and enhanced community benefits.
Other departments of the city also lead projects that are council work plan priorities and on the
council agenda, such as the Open Space Master Plan and Transportation Master Plan updates.
City Council Meeting Page 121 of 518
Those projects are not included in this packet, but planning staff provide some level of support
and the community invests time and interest in those projects, too.
The next sections focus on the PH&S-led special projects and initiatives that are currently planned and
budgeted according to available departmental and staff resources. If items shift on the work plan to
accomplish other council and community goals, they need to fit department resources or will trigger an
adjustment. In other words, replacing a “smaller” project with a “larger” one may necessitate an
adjustment to base for the planning or housing division resources. Furthermore, trading different types of
projects (e.g., an area plan for a land use code project) may create different staffing and resource
demands.
Implementing Council and Community Planning and Housing Goals
The city uses a variety of planning tools to address planning challenges and implement the policies of the
comprehensive plan, as shown in the graphic below. 2018 and 2019 are anticipated to be time to focus on
policy implementation, particularly around area planning and regulatory changes (e.g., in the Land Use
Code) to address BVCP, community, and council directions and achieve great outcomes for the
community and city.
Certain tools lend themselves to particular challenges.
For example, area planning is useful to address
challenges associated with character, service
provision, and unique needs around areas of change.
Such fine-grained planning may be suited to meet
needs at the local level, however, it can be resource-,
time- and community engagement-intensive and
results in a policy document with a path toward
implementation strategy but not regulations or specific
programs.
For other challenges and more immediate needs, Land
Use Code amendments (i.e., regulatory changes) or
fees, which tend to work at a citywide scale but that
can be tailored locally, may be the most effective implementation tools. Examples might include
amending the Land Use Code to limit non-residential development in the Boulder Valley Regional Center
while accomplishing affordable and diverse housing and affordability goals; adjusting site review criteria
to address community benefit standards; or amending parking standards to further multi-modal mobility
goals. The regulatory projects currently occurring around building height and ADU/OAUs can also be
tailored by geographic location if desired.
2018 - 2019 Work Plan
Attachment A shows the 2018/19 Planning and Housing timeline, and it reflects what appears on the
2018 City Council Work Plan Draft (aka, the “Dot Chart”) and Nov. 2017 Council Action Guide and
2018-2019 Department Work Plans. Those documents provide information about major Planning and
Housing projects, including:
City Council Meeting Page 122 of 518
• Central Broadway: Alpine-Balsam and Civic Area East Bookend Area Plans
• Homelessness Strategy Implementation
• Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Implementation (which includes reference to the Central
Broadway projects noted above, CU South coordination, Land Use Code amendments to address
building height and Accessory Dwelling Units, the neighborhood plan/residential infill pilot
project, and other Land Use Code changes for enhanced community benefit/site review),
• Housing (which references Middle Income Housing, Regional Affordable Housing Strategy,
Ponderosa Community Stabilization, and 30th and Pearl Redevelopment), and
• Public Participation Working Group Engagement Framework Implementation, included here
because the recommendations and principles and “public participation spectrum” defining the
public’s role in different aspects of the participation process will be implemented through the
Central Broadway planning projects and other planning and housing projects noted above.
Since November, City Council has discussed additional planning and housing projects and priorities,
including the following:
A. Housing Advisory Board Council discussed this item under matters at a regular meeting on Dec.
5 and directed staff to expedite this work plan item and schedule a study session (accompanied by
a draft ordinance) for Jan. 23, 2018.
B. Homeless Strategy Council adopted the strategy in June 2017 and in October directed staff to
secure a location for Coordinated Entry and Navigation Services (i.e., Robb’s Music) and
increase the creation and placement of new and existing Permanent Supportive Housing
units/vouchers.
C. As part of the Hotline response: A number of council members have expressed priority for
commercial linkage fees, subcommunity planning, large lots/subdivisions, regulatory changes to
address community benefits, and mobile home park actions.
2018 - 2019 Work Plan Items: Description and Timeline
A brief description of each project is noted below. As noted above, Attachment A includes a timeline
and information about planning and housing projects and major milestones. Attachment B shows the
anticipated level of engagement anticipated for each of the scoped projects, consistent with Boulder’s
Engagement Strategic Framework (p. 7).
2018-2019 Planning (in BVCP Action Plan)
A. Alpine-Balsam Area Plan and Civic Area East Bookend Area Plan (coordinated with
Central Area Planning Projects). These two projects, anticipated to unfold over the coming 18-
months, will result in area plans for the area around the city-owned properties at Alpine-Balsam
and the East Bookend of the Civic Area. The timing of the two area plans is guided in part by the
desire to complete them before the city assumes full financial responsibility for the
deconstruction of the hospital at Alpine-Balsam. A high level of community, staff, and City
Council engagement is anticipated, with a minimum of two study sessions in 2018 and adoption
in mid-2019. Project information is at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/alpinebalsam and
https://bouldercolorado.gov/civic-area/east-bookend-of-the-civic-area
B. Land Use Code amendment to address building heights (up to 55-foot City Charter)
modifications through Site Review and affordable housing community benefit. This is a six-
to eight-month project to complete any necessary changes to site review criteria in the Land Use
Code, per Ordinance 8172 which expires in July 2018. Project information is at:
City Council Meeting Page 123 of 518
https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/building-heights and in Attachment F, which summarizes
input from focus groups that have been occurring this month. This project focus and timeline
could have some flexibility, as noted in a later section (p. 9). Multiple council members have
indicated they would like to extend the date of the ordinance.
C. Land Use Code amendments to address enhanced community benefit and other code
changes as recommended by Planning Board to implement BVCP. Staff has not yet scoped
the full range of code changes, including regulatory changes to address enhanced community
benefit but has been gathering input through the building height focus group discussions.
Additionally, a staff team is preparing a memo regarding code changes as a discussion item for
Planning Board on Jan. 4 and will share feedback from the board in a council Information Packet
in mid-Jan. 2018. Finally, the enhanced community benefit topic is addressed below, under
“focused topics” section of this mamo below. (See p. 7.)
D. Coordination on South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation and CU-South planning and
annexation terms, as informed by the BVCP Guiding Principles and following completion of the
preliminary engineering for South Boulder Creek as it affects the site. The project is addressed in
the 2018-2019 Department Work Plans (p. 44). Preliminary design for flood mitigation is
underway, and the coordination and CU/City annexation agreement process is being scoped.
Project information is at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/flood/south-boulder-creek-flood-
mitigation-planning-study. Planning staff are mainly in a support role for the first part of the year;
exact resource needs are unknown for the later part of the year.
E. Neighborhood Plan/Residential Infill Pilot Project. This project, prioritized through the BVCP
Action Plan, is anticipated for mid-2018, with a process to define the purpose, criteria and
selection process and then planning work commencing in late 2018 and continuing through 2019
– if council prioritizes this work.
2018-2019 Housing
The housing work plan is as follows:
A. Housing Strategy Governance, Advisory Board creation. Create a city board to provide advice
to council and staff on housing issues.
B. 30th and Pearl. Redevelop the site of the former Pollard Motors into a mixed-income, mixed-use
community on city-owned property at 30th and Pearl.
C. Accessory Dwelling Unit/Owner Accessory Units. A project to identify and prepare minor
code changes to address barriers to accessory housing. Estimated completion is by June of 2018.
Project information is at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/housing/adu and in Attachment E which
summarizes community input from two meetings and an online campaign to “Share Your ADU
Story.”
D. Inclusionary Housing Update implementation. Based on the 2017 update to the ordinance,
create a middle-income requirement and incentivize on-site affordable units, and create an
affordable housing design review process and online incentive calculator.
E. Affordable Housing Community Benefit. Adopt regulations to establish incentive-based
zoning specific to affordable housing.
F. Ponderosa Community Stabilization. Work with already engaged residents to ensure the
upgrade of infrastructure, annexation into the city and the creation of sustainable housing options.
G. Affordable Commercial Space. Develop a program to preserve permanently affordable
commercial space.
H. Regional Housing Strategy implementation. Pursue the outlined collaborative approach to
addressing affordable housing and establishing regional housing goals (i.e., targets for
units/funding by 2035).
City Council Meeting Page 124 of 518
I. Homeless Strategy implementation. Support the City’s Homeless Strategy by generating
affordable units serving those most vulnerable to a lack of housing, including those who are
chronically homeless. Create a homeless resource center and coordinated entry facility.
J. Middle Income Homebuyer Assistance pilot implementation. Address middle income
downpayment assistance. Explore a potential program creating a revolving loan for middle-
income home purchases.
Planning and Housing Projects Slated for 2019-2020 and Beyond
2019-2020 Planning (In BVCP Action Plan):
A. 55th and Arapahoe Area Plan and other locations.
B. Phase 2 Transit Village Area Plan.
C. Land Use Code amendments for Boulder Valley Regional Center to encourage better balance jobs
and housing and diverse and affordable housing opportunities.
D. Land Use Code amendments for Light Industrial zoning districts to encourage compatible diverse
and affordable residential and mixed use along with affordable service industrial.
2019-2020 Housing:
E. Fee waivers, expedited review and other tools to encourage affordable housing.
F. Tiny Homes and Microunits.
FOCUSED PLANNING AND HOUSING TOPICS
This section is intended to provide a bit more discussion of some topics that appear to be council
priorities, based on recent discussions and input provided via Hotline.
1—Subcommunity and Area Planning
Boulder’s Approach to Localized Planning
Some council and community members have indicated interest in doing more subcommunity and area
planning to address local needs and community goals. The BVCP provides guidance and explains
Boulder’s approach, which is to bridge the gap between the broader policies and guidance of the BVCP
and site-specific project review (e.g., development applications or capital projects). (See BVCP, Ch. V,
pp. 119-127 and Attachment D for more information.) Area plans typically address planning issues at a
more detailed level than subcommunity plans and focus on areas or corridors with special problems or
opportunities that are not addressed in the comprehensive plan or regulations. Each are created with
extensive engagement and coordination with neighbors, property owners, businesses, and the city and
(sometimes county) departments toward defining the vision, goals and implementation strategies. The
BVCP contains the criteria for selecting and prioritizing areas for planning, on pp. 111-112 of the plan.
Since 1992, Boulder has completed seven local plans (one subcommunity plan for North Boulder and six
area plans, with the last one – Junior Academy – completed in 2009). Each plan averages about 18
months to complete, which is partly driven by community expectations for a high level of involvement,
and because the plans include a level of detail sufficient to guide their implementation (e.g., financing
strategies or regulatory changes). They are fairly staff, Planning Board, and council-intensive as well.
City Council Meeting Page 125 of 518
BVCP Information at Subcommunity Level
During the recent BVCP major update, staff made information available at the subcommunity level to
assess and assist with updating the plan, including:
• Fact Sheets that include a summary of the conditions, history, and resources for each of 10
subcommunities.
• Online story maps that provide that information in an interactive, web-based, 3-D format, and
• BVCP Survey and Listening Session input as “key findings” for each subcommunity. (Note:
this information is roughly compiled but needs formatting and completion.)
Area Planning - Underway and Anticipated in 2018/2018 Work Plan
As noted above, the city is resourced in 2018 and 2019 to develop area plans for the Central Broadway
Planning Projects (including Alpine-Balsam Area Plan and Civic Area East Bookend). Additionally, in
mid-2018, if guided by council, staff will work with council and the community to initiate the
neighborhood plan/residential infill pilot project, as guided by the criteria in the BVCP. Staff understands
that some council members would like to discuss a broader subcommunity planning program and/or
initiating a subcommunity plan and that may be established as a higher priority.
City staff have been researched best practices and lessons from other communities such as Denver,
Madison, Lakewood, Austin, and Ashville about local area planning. On Jan. 4, staff will be prepared to
describe some comparable community approaches, outcomes, and considerations.
2—Enhanced Community Benefit Code Changes
During the BVCP update, Planning Board expressed interest in improving policies and regulations to
achieve a higher level of community benefit than currently gained from development. The city currently
requires:
• Basic standards set forth in the Land Use Code to provide open space, street connections, etc.
• A requirement for Inclusionary Housing (20 percent of all residential units or cash in lieu for low
and moderate-income affordable housing and 5 percent toward middle income affordable
housing).
• The Commercial Linkage Fee modified and adopted in January 2017, requires a per square foot
fee for Affordable Housing Impact Fees on non-residential development. It is further described
below.
• Developments that are annexed into the city are required to provide larger community benefits as
guided by the BVCP (e.g., 50 percent affordable housing or other benefits).
• Developers also are required to provide high levels of design as implemented through the
development review process.
Last year, the Planning Board began to identify community objectives or benefits. That input from the
board and public made its way into the BVCP, which now includes a policy about Enhanced Community
Benefit (Policy 1.11, p. 26). It states:
For land use or zoning district changes that result in increases in the density or intensity of
development beyond what is permitted by the underlying zoning or for added height that
increases intensity, the city will develop regulations and incentives so that the new
City Council Meeting Page 126 of 518
development provides benefits to the community beyond those otherwise required by the
underlying zoning. Any incentives are intended to address the community economic, social
and environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan. Community objectives include
without limitation affordable housing, affordable commercial space, spaces for the arts,
community gathering space, public art, land for parks, open space, environmental protection
or restoration, outdoor spaces and other identified social needs and services. Community
objectives also may be identified through other planning or policymaking efforts of the city.
The BVCP Action Plan notes that work related to regulatory changes in the Land Use Code site review
criteria to address community benefit will be conducted in 2018 through early to mid-2019. Additionally,
the building height project, currently underway, is affording staff and the community an opportunity to
discuss the topic of community benefit, focusing on the affordable housing tied to height modifications.
Additionally, Ch. V, Subcommunity and Area Planning, notes that an outcome of area planning could be
to identify and prioritize community benefits from developments that are a priority for the area (p. 110).
Any new regulations would account for current requirements.
3—Commercial Linkage Fee: Summary of 2017 Updates
The Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee is one of a handful of “development impact fees”
designed to offset or mitigate the impacts of new development on the community. These impact fees flow
from Policy 1.22 in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan stating that new growth should “pay its own
way.” Impact fees (including the Affordable Housing Linkage Fee) are a one-time fee to be paid (for new
construction) prior to the scheduling of the final building inspection. For other types of development,
payment occurs at the issuance of a building permit. Colorado law sets forth the requirements for
adoption of an impact fee, including: the amount of the fee must be based upon “the reasonable impacts
of proposed development” and assessed at a level no greater than necessary to defray the impacts directly
related to the proposed development. The fee also needs to be based on a study that quantifies the
impacts.
In 2015, the city adopted an Affordable Housing Linkage Fee for non-residential development. Also in
May 2015, the City Council directed staff to initiate studies to update the work performed by Tischler-
Bise in 2009 upon which the fee was based. This work resulted in, among other things, a report by
Keyser Marston Associates. That report, “2016 Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis in Support of Non-
Residential Affordable Housing Impact Fees,” was presented to City Council on June 14, 2016.
The jobs-housing nexus study completed by Keyser Marston Associates established that the maximum
impact fee that could be charged for new non-residential development to mitigate the its impacts on the
need for affordable housing are quite significant and not recommended. This is common in linkage fee
nexus analyses and therefore setting the fee is a policy decision that takes into consideration a variety of
factors.
At the June 14, 2016 study session, council feedback was to set the updated fee based on market and
economic factors, and to bring forward options for office building type fee levels of $10, $20 and $35/sq.
ft. Key economic factors include the development cost context, market adjustments to absorb fees and fee
rates in other communities. On Nov. 15, 2016, council directed staff to prepare an ordinance based on an
office building type feel level of $12/sq. ft. That ordinance became effective on July 1, 2017.
City Council Meeting Page 127 of 518
If council is interested in revisiting the fee level for the affordable housing commercial linkage fee, the
previous options presented based on the Keyser Marston Associates report may be used. Staff would
recommend a study session to present the options and for council to provide feedback on any ordinance
changes.
Updates on Ongoing Projects: Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Project Update and
Building Height
Accessory Dwelling Units
Work on accessory dwelling unit regulations has been underway for the past several months, and the
community has provided input through a “Share your ADU Story” format online and attended two open
houses, generally sharing favorable input about continuing work on the project. The boards have also
provided input. Attachment E includes a summary of the input. At the Jan. 4 meeting, if council would
like additional information about the project, staff will be prepared to share that.
Building Height Land Use Code Amendment
In November, the city started the building height regulatory project with the community to address
standards for building heights as guided by the BVCP and its policies. Land Use Code changes could
regulate where buildings up to the 55-foot City Charter height limit may be permitted. In exchange for
increased building height, applicants will be required to provide additional affordable housing. The
project’s anticipated completion is July 2018 because of the expiration of Ordinance 8172. Prior to a
2015 ordinance, the city code permitted height requests to build between 35-feet and 55-feet through the
Site Review process anywhere in the city. In early 2015, City Council adopted a two-year building height
ordinance to address the community concern that height modification requests (up to 55 feet) could have
been considered on any property in the city through the Site Review process. The ordinance does allow
height modification requests in a few select areas within the city. It also requires city staff to analyze,
through a public process, circumstances where height modifications may be appropriate.
Staff has been involving the community in focus groups and discussions and building on extensive
community feedback from recent projects, including two surveys as part of the BVCP update. City
Council could decide to remove the expiration date on the ordinance and keep the standards in place, or
shift the focus on the project based on some of the feedback received to date which seems to be centered
around urban design quality and ability to achieve affordable housing community benefits, along with a
few other key points of feedback as summarized in Attachment F.
NEXT STEPS
Upcoming events at which planning and housing-related issues will be discussed:
- Jan. 9, Council Study Session: Central Broadway Planning Projects, including Alpine-Balsam
Area Plan.
- Jan. 19 to 20, Council Retreat
- Jan. 23, Council Study Session: Housing Advisory Board
City Council Meeting Page 128 of 518
ATTACHMENTS
A. 2018/19 Timeline for Planning and Housing Work Items
B. 2018/19 Planning and Housing Work Plan with Public Engagement Spectrum
C. BVCP Action Plan, Sept. 2017
D. Subcommunity and Area Planning Description
E. Summary of ADU Regulatory Project, community feedback
F. Summary of Building Height Regulatory Project, community feedback
City Council Meeting Page 129 of 518
20182019...Q1Q2Q3Q4 “Outcomes” Building Height 2018, Q1-Q2:1/9 - Central Broadway, Alpine-Balsam Study Session1/23 - Housing Board Study SessionQ1 (TBD) - Commercial Linkage Fees, revisitQ1/2 - Housing Board, seated and funcƟoningQ1 - 30th and Pearl joint development agreement and review Q1 - Ponderosa Mobile Home Park concept planQ2 - CU South/South Boulder Creek Flood MiƟgaƟon Study Session Q2 - OpƟons for Alpine-Balsam and Civic Area East BookendQ2 - Middle income downpayment assistance pilot scopedQ2 - Open Homeless Resource CenterCity of Boulder 2018/19 Ɵmeline for planning work items (See p. 2 for housing items)2018, Q3-Q4: Q3 - Ponderosa annexaƟon/site planQ3 - Consider ADU ordinanceQ3 - Land Use Code Changes - Building Height (on current work plan) Q3/4 - Regional housing best pracƟcesQ4 - Alpine-Balsam and Civic Area Preferred DirecƟons 2019, Q1/Q2: TBD - Land Use Code changes - Community Benefit(if building height schedule changes)TBD - Other Land Use Code updates Q2 - Alpine-Balsam and Civic Area East Bookend Area PlansQ3 - Begin other area planning effortsQ3 - Begin other Land Use Code updates May/JuneNeighborhood Plan/PilotLinkage Fees Q4JulyQ22/?Council (SS, direcƟon, adopt)Major public engagement milestonekey milestoneFebMarMayJanAprJun JulAug Sept OctNov DecTBDQ4Q4Q1/2Alpine-Balsam and Civic Area East Bookend Area PlansLand Use Code changes - enhanced community benefits and other code updates, counci lP in Jan.Commercial Linkage fees is a potenƟal new item, per council prioriƟes - Timing TBDNeighborhood Plan/Infill ResidenƟal Pilot... Or other Subcommunity or Area PlanningMayLand Use Code changes - building height ordinanceUpdated 12/26/17 CU South CoordinaƟonTBDCoordinate with uƟliƟes on South Boulder Creek Flood MiƟgaƟon and potenƟal annexaƟon of the property5/22TBDQ1PLANNING ITEMS1/9Central BroadwayMarJuneEnhanced Community BenefitLarge Lot/Subdivision Address large lot, home size issues - Not currently on work planDRAFTAFAAFAFwill be modified aŌer Jan. 4JanrJAttachment A - 2018/19 Timeline for Planning and Housing Work Items City Council Meeting Page 130 of 518
DRAFTwill be modified aŌer Jan. 420182019...Q1Q2Q3Q430th and PearlHousing BoardCity of Boulder 2018/19 Ɵmeline for housing work items (See p. 1 for planning items)ADUs - Land Use CodeQ1Inclusionary Housing UpdatePonderosa Council (SS, direcƟon, adopt)Major public engagement milestonekey milestoneFebMarMayJanAprJun JulAug Sept OctNov DecQ2Land Use Code changes - Accessory Dwelling Units/Owner Accesory UnitsImplement new ordinance (50% effecƟve July 1) - Council consider design review in JuneMobile Home Park community stabilizaƟonQ2Updated 12/26/17 Affordable Commercial SpaceQ2form based code review - Planning Board review (Q3)1/23Finalize redevelopment plans for city owned 30th and Pearl siteCreate and seat a Housing Advisory Boardboard commences reviewimplementaƟon conƟnuesAddress commercial space affordability challengesSee page 1 for “outcomes”Regional Housing Strategy?Work with county partners on housing strategyconcept planannexaƟon/site planteam formed (Q1)10 best pracƟces (Q3/4)implement best pracƟcesMiddle Income DownpaymentScope middle income downpayment assistance pilotiniƟal scopingHomeless Strategy Homeless Strategy ImplementaƟon conƟnue to place vouchersopen homeless resource centerFair Housing AssessmentFee Waivers and Expedited Reviewto be addressed by housing boardTiny Homes and Microunitsnot on work plantech docs/construcƟonQ1HOUSING ITEMSAttachment A - 2018/19 Timeline for Planning and Housing Work Items City Council Meeting Page 131 of 518
December 26, 2017
Planning & Housing
Draft 2018/19 Work Plan
L – low effort / time commitment
M – medium effort / time
H – high effort / time
$ Indicates level of consulting resource support.
See Key to Public Participation Spectrum on next page
Scope 2018 Q1-2 2018 Q3-4 2019 Staff Effort Public Engagement Council / Boards Planned Actions Planned Actions Anticipated
Work
PLANNING
A Alpine-Balsam Area Plan (and coordination with Civic Area
East Bookend and Central Area Planning Projects). Prepare
area plans for the area around the hospital site and the east
end of the civic area. $$
H H H
Study Session Jan. 9.
Develop preliminary
options and analysis for
Study Session May/
June.
Work toward preferred
plan and implementation
strategies. Study session
Nov./Dec.
Finalize area plans.
Adoption June
B Land Use Code amendment to address building heights.
Standards will address buildings up to 55-foot City Charter and
modifications through site review and affordable housing
community benefit. $
M M M
Hold focus groups and
prepare analysis and
recommendations. 1st
and 2nd reading (May,
June)
3rd reading (July)
C Community Benefit. Land Use Code amendments to address
enhanced community benefit and other code changes as
recommended by Planning Board to implement BVCP. $
Have begun to gather
some input on community
benefit as part of building
height discussions.
Otherwise needs to be
scoped
Initiate work around the
code changes
TBD
D CU South. Coordination on South Boulder Creek Flood
Mitigation and CU-South planning and annexation terms, as
informed by the BVCP Guiding Principles and following
completion of the preliminary design for the site.
M ? ?
Utilities is coordinating
flood analysis work
through May. PH&S will
coordinate next steps
Level of engagement and
work depends on previous
steps
TBD
E Neighborhood Plan/Residential Infill Pilot Project. Develop
process to define the purpose, criteria and selection process
and then commence planning work in late 2018
M ? ? Scoping and input TBD TBD
Commercial Linkage Fees, revisit M ? ? TBD
Large Lot Subivision/ House size Not scoped - TBD
Area Plan for 55th and Arapahoe, or other local planning
efforts
TBD
Phase 2 Transit Village Area Plan. TBD
BVRC. Land Use Code amendments for Boulder Valley Regional
Center to encourage better balance jobs and housing and
diverse and affordable housing opportunities. TBD
Industrial Lands. Land Use Code amendments for Light
Industrial zoning districts to encourage compatible diverse and
affordable residential and mixed use along with affordable
service industrial.
TBD
HOUSING
A Housing Advisory Board. Create a city board to provide advice
to City Council and staff on housing issues. L L L Study Session scheduled
for Jan. 23 Board up and functioning
B 30th and Pearl Redevelopment. $ A mixed-income, mixed-use
redevelopment on the city-owned property at 30th and Pearl. M L L
Council consideration of a
joint development
agreement in March
Form-based code review
submittal
Technical document
submittal and
construction to begin
C Accessory Dwelling Units / Owner Accessory Units. Identify
minor code changes to reduce barriers to accessory housing.
H M M
Study Session scheduled
for February 27 and
Council consideration of
changes scheduled for
May
Monitoring and
enforcement
Monitoring and
enforcement
D Inclusionary Housing Program Update Implementation. Based
on the 2017 update to create a middle-income requirement
and incentivize on-site affordable units, create an affordable
housing design review process and online incentive calculator.
H M M
Design review in place
and implementation of
new middle income
requirement begins Jul. 1
E Ponderosa Community Stabilization. $ Ensure the upgrade of
infrastructure, annexation into the city and the creation of
sustainable housing options. M L L
Refine housing options –
rehab existing homes and
build new small, energy-
efficient homes. Concept
Plan in the first quarter
Consultant team will bring
forward and annexation
and site plan in the third
quarter
F Affordable Housing Community Benefit. $ Adopt community
benefit regulations to establish incentive-based zoning specific
to affordable housing.
H M M
Building Height Code
Amendment project to be
completed by July
G Affordable Commercial Space. Develop a program to preserve
permanently affordable commercial space.
M L L Study Session scheduled
for June
Implement pilot at 30th
and Pearl. Coordinate
program refinements with
the city’s retail strategy
Continue to identify
strategies/opportunities
to secure affordable
commercial space
Attachment B - 2018/19 Planning and Housing Work Plan with Public Engagement Spectrum
City Council Meeting Page 132 of 518
December 26, 2017
Key to Public Participation Spectrum (level of engagement with community)
= inform (lower level, mostly communication)
= consult or involve (medium to high level, listen to concerns and aspirations and reflect in alternatives, may include some collaboration
with boards and council)
= collaborate (high level, with multiple groups, community wide, look for advice and innovation and incorporate recommendations)
= collaborate (high level but more focused with a smaller group, look for advice and innovation and incorporate recommendations)
= need to scope project and level of effort for 2019 and beyond
H Middle Income Down Payment Assistance Pilot. $ Explore a
pilot program creating a revolving loan for middle-income
home purchases.
M M M Initial scoping completed
I Regional Housing Strategy Implementation. Outlines a
collaborative approach to addressing affordable housing and
establishes regional housing goals (targets for units/funding by
2035). M L L
Develop regional policy
team to support local
housing tools. Develop a
monitoring and evaluation
plan to measure the
outcomes
Identify best practices for
each community
Implement unique
housing policies in each
community
J Homeless Strategy Implementation. Support the City’s
Homeless Strategy by generating affordable units serving
those most vulnerable to a lack of housing, including those
who are chronically homeless.
Create a homeless resource center and coordinated entry
facility.
M L L
First year of voucher
match. Continue
collaboration to place
vouchers. Identify
opportunity to add new
units in support of the
strategy
Complete renovations for
the opening of the
homeless resource center
and coordinated entry
facility
Third year of voucher
match. Continue
collaboration to place
vouchers. Invest in new
units
K Fair Housing Assessment. $ Participate in a regional HUD
required assessment that helps communities analyze
challenges to fair housing choice and establish their own goals
and priorities to address the fair housing barriers.
M L L
Complete research/draft
plan, request public
comment, submit to HUD
Implementation Implementation
L Fee Waivers and Expedited Review. Explore options for
projects that provide more than the minimum required
affordable housing.
M M M TBD
M Tiny Homes and Micro Units. Address code and related issues
that hinder development of “tiny homes” and “microunits” in
Boulder; consider potential pilot/demonstration projects.
H M M TBD
Attachment B - 2018/19 Planning and Housing Work Plan with Public Engagement Spectrum
City Council Meeting Page 133 of 518
1
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Action Plan
2015 Major Update to the BVCP
September 5, 2017
The Action Plan serves as an implementation tool of the
BVCP and outlines the actions needed to implement
policies that are currently not addressed through other
plans and programs. It establishes the timing and
priorities for new program initiatives, planning projects
and regulatory changes to implement this major update
–before the next major update. It is intended to be
flexible and responsive to city goals and resources. Each
action item has varying levels of timing, complexity, and
resource needs, but almost all projects will entail
community engagement and public participation.
The BVCP Action Plan is adopted by City Council after
each Major Update and revisited alongside the council
work plan and budget process – in this case in early 2018.
It creates a framework to help council set priorities for
new initiatives or programs, planning projects and
regulatory changes to implement the major update to
the BVCP. The county is sent a referral and invited to
identify those actions, projects or other implementation
activities in which they wish to participate. The county
may also propose new or additional collaborative actions
for city consideration during the major update.
The Action Plan does not include reference to work being
led by other departments that may implement the plan
or that will be part of other efforts (e.g., the
Transportation Master Plan, Open Space Master Plan,
Economic Sustainability Strategy, other items on the
Housing Boulder work plan, or ongoing core services in
Planning, Housing & Sustainability department).
The Action Plan table includes:
•Action Item: The type of work to be done.
•BVCP Topic & Chapter: The focus area addressed
and the BVCP chapter (and policy).
•Lead Department: The department that will oversee
the initiative, recognizing most work is collaborative
with other departments, organizations, businesses,
and community members.
•Timing: The year to initiate the project based on
priorities within the work plan:
o Near-term: 2017-2018
o Mid-term: 2019-2020
o Long-term: 2021+
•Level of Effort: An estimate of staff time and
resources and council and community effort needed
to complete the work.
•Status: A note about whether project has been
started.
Ongoing and Near-Term Actions
The following ongoing and near-term projects are
underway or will be initiated and continue into 2018:
1)Alpine-Balsam Area Plan, including coordination
with Boulder County regarding the Iris and
Broadway site.
2)Coordination with CU on next steps for planning
for the CU South site mainly focused around
utilities studies.
3)Modifications to the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
4)Land Use Code Amendments to address height
modifications through Site Review (up to City
Charter 55-foot height limit) and address the
affordable housing community benefit.
5)Land Use Code Amendments for accessory
dwelling units (ADUs).
6)Initiating Neighborhood Plan/Residential Infill
Pilot Project.
7)Initiate Land Use Code Amendments to address
Enhanced Community Benefit/Site Review,
including some other Code amendments
prioritized from the ongoing list.
Attachment C- BVCP Action Plan Sept. 2017
City Council Meeting Page 134 of 518
2
BVCP Action Plan
ACTION ITEMS
BVCP
TOPIC
&
CHAPTER
LEAD
DEPT. TIMING
LEVEL
OF
EFFORT
STATUS
SUBCOMMUNITY & AREA PLANNING
Develop an area plan for Alpine-Balsam, possibly with county-
owned site at Iris and Broadway.
The city will use the foundation of the guiding principles, strategies,
and performance criteria in the Alpine-Balsam Vision Plan, outline
the desired character of redevelopment, including its character and
scale, land uses, streets and parking, and other aspects of the public
realm. Additionally, staff will coordinate with Civic Area / Central
Area planning efforts and the City Facilities Assessment and the
county. Use innovative and creative community engagement
processes, as recommended through the Public Participation
Working Group’s process and Alpine-Balsam Vision Plan.
Subcom-
munity
and Area
Planning,
Ch. V
PH&S:
Planning
Near-
term
High Started
Coordinate on CU South next steps.
The city will define an ongoing public engagement process for future
coordination and planning for the site with CU and the county using
the BVCP land use designation and guiding principles to guide that
process and to work toward an annexation agreement
(intergovernmental agreement) with CU.
Ch. III,
Sec. 1
(Policy
1.05)
CU South
Guiding
Principles
PH&S:
Planning
coord.
with
Public
Works
utilities
Near-
term
(ongoing)
Medium Started
Determine a neighborhood planning/infill pilot project.
The plan notes that a self-selected neighborhood may move forward
according to the criteria in the plan and interests in certain
outcomes, including addressing housing types that may be
appropriate as infill in residential areas of Boulder. Outcomes of the
neighborhood infill or planning project may include but are not
limited to area plans, regulations, new residential building types or
others. While the survey supported all infill types (e.g., Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs), detached homes on existing lot, duplex
conversion, or cottage court style units), responses varied by
neighborhood.
Subcom-
munity
and Area
Plans, Ch.
V
PH&S:
Planning
with CMO
Near-
term
High Not
Started
Begin phase 2 of the 2007 Transit Village Area Plan.
The city will determine when to begin Phase 2 of Transit Village Area
Plan (TVAP) – for the area east of the tracks and west of 30th Street.
The Implementation Plan for TVAP notes that Phase 2 will occur
after Phase 1, 10 to 15 years after plan adoption. The plan calls for:
reassessing TVAP Phase 2 plan land uses, determining if any
adjustments are necessary for the Boulder Junction area, developing
a plan for providing public improvements in Phase 2 and a market
study for land uses, and beginning Phase 2 land use and zoning
changes. Property owners would be part of the effort.
Subcom-
munity
and Area
Planning
PH&S:
Planning
Mid to
Long-
term
Medium
to High
Not
Started
Attachment C- BVCP Action Plan Sept. 2017
City Council Meeting Page 135 of 518
3
ACTION ITEMS
BVCP
TOPIC
&
CHAPTER
LEAD
DEPT. TIMING
LEVEL
OF
EFFORT
STATUS
Develop an area plan for 55th Street and Arapahoe Avenue.
Use the policies identified in the BVCP for neighborhood activity
centers to develop an area plan for the area near 55th and Arapahoe
focusing on the future mix of uses that may be appropriate. Develop
a public engagement process that includes businesses, residents and
neighbors and property owners. Coordinate with East Arapahoe
Transportation Plan project to ensure compatibility between
mobility options and land use.
Subcom-
munity
and Area
Planning,
Ch. V
PH&S:
Planning
Mid-
term
High Not
started
Prioritize other future area plans.
Based on the policies of the plan for mixed use centers, the city will
identify other neighborhood centers or mixed-use commercial areas
where area planning should be done accomplish BVCP policies. The
city will prepare community engagement plans that include affected
and interested parties and neighbors. Areas that may be planned for
over a slightly longer time horizon include: (1) East Walnut area, east
of 33rd Street / South of Pearl Street, (2) Basemar Center, (3)
Meadows Center, (4) Table Mesa Center, and (5) Diagonal Plaza.
Subcom-
munity
and Area
Planning,
Ch. V
PH&S:
Planning
Long-
term
Medium Not
started
Update and expand the subcommunity fact sheets and maps.
Using input from surveys and community meetings, staff is compiling
a summary planning sheet for each subcommunity that identifies
issues, needs and desires. Staff is cataloging the information and
adding it to the existing subcommunity fact sheets and online
storymaps.
Subcom-
munity
and Area
Planning,
Ch. V
PH&S:
Planning
Long-
term
Low Started
LAND USE CODE UPDATES TO SUPPORT BVCP GOALS INCLUDING HOUSING
Update Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
The city will amend the ordinance to include a middle-income
housing requirement in addition to the 20 percent requirement for
low- and moderate- income households, add incentives for on-site
units, increase the ceiling on the annual adjustment and introduce a
staff-level design review.
Housing
Afford-
ability
and
Diversity
Ch. III,
Sec. 7
PH&S:
Housing
Near-
term
Medium Started
(comp-
lete in
Oct.)
Amend the Land Use Code for building height (up to City Charter
55-ft.) including affordable housing community benefit.
The city will review and update site review criteria to provide clear
guidance on height and intensity (floor area ratio) of land uses and
to address relationship of building height (up to the City Charter 55-
foot height limit) as an incentive in exchange for community benefits
that further community objectives such as affordable housing
beyond that otherwise required by the underlying zoning. The
process will include technical and economic analysis and community
outreach. It will be completed by July 2018 (the expiration of the
building height ordinance).
Design
Quality
and Place-
making
(Height),
Ch. III,
Sec. 1
(Policy
1.11), Sec.
2 (Policy
2.35,
Building
Height)
PH&S:
Planning
Near-
term
(finish
July
2018)
Medium
to High
Started
Attachment C- BVCP Action Plan Sept. 2017
City Council Meeting Page 136 of 518
4
ACTION ITEMS
BVCP
TOPIC
&
CHAPTER
LEAD
DEPT. TIMING
LEVEL
OF
EFFORT
STATUS
Amend the Land Use Code for accessory dwelling units (ADU).
The city will identify incremental changes to encourage accessory
dwelling units with the goal of promoting a diversity of housing
opportunities in the city. The five areas include:
•Simplifying current regulations;
•Modifying the saturation requirement to increase it;
•Providing flexibility in limits to unit size;
•Removing or modifying the parking requirement;
•Exploring location-specific implementation.
Staff will engage the community prior to preparing a proposal for
public hearings.
Housing
Afford-
ability
and
Diversity
Ch. III,
Secs. 2
(Policy
2.11) and
7 (Policy
7.06)
PH&S:
Housing
with
Planning
Near-
term
Medium Started
Amend the Land Use Code, Site Review Criteria for enhanced
community benefit and to achieve more affordable housing.
For land use or zoning district changes that result in increases in
density or intensity of development beyond what is permitted by
underlying zoning, the city will develop regulations and incentives so
that new development provides benefits to the community beyond
those otherwise required by the underlying zoning. Develop a scope
of work that includes reference to Policy 1.11 and the benefits
identified therein, addresses technical and economic analysis, and
includes a process for community outreach and collaboration.
Develop regulations to ensure that when additional intensity is
provided through changes to zoning or variances to zoning
requirements, a larger proportion of the additional development
potential for the residential use will be permanently affordable
housing.
Design
Quality
and Place-
making
(Com-
munity
Benefit),
Ch. III,
Sec. 1
(Policy
1.11)
Housing
Afford-
ability
and
Diversity
Ch. III,
Sec. 7
PH&S:
Planning
Near-
Term
(may
start
with
building
height
item but
take
longer to
finish)
Medium
to High
Not
Started
Prioritize and ongoing list of potential Land Use Code amendments.
The city has compiled a list of potential Land Use Code amendments
based on input from staff, Planning Board, the community, and
council. Many of those changes relate to aspects of the Code and
regulations that are not yielding desired development outcomes,
either procedures or technical provisions (e.g., parking, use tables,
site review criteria beyond community benefits). In fall 2017, staff,
Planning Board and Council will again evaluate proposed
amendments on the list and prioritize work to be done to
accomplish community goals identified through the BVCP and as
part of separate efforts. The list of Proposed Changes to the Land
Use Code will go to Planning Board and then council as an
information packet to invite prioritization.
Housing
Afford-
ability
and
Diversity,
Design
Quality
and Place-
making
PH&S:
Planning
Some
code
changes
Near-
term,
others
Mid-
term
High Not
Started
Attachment C- BVCP Action Plan Sept. 2017
City Council Meeting Page 137 of 518
5
ACTION ITEMS
BVCP
TOPIC
&
CHAPTER
LEAD
DEPT. TIMING
LEVEL
OF
EFFORT
STATUS
Amend the Land Use Code BR-1 & BC-2 to encourage future
housing opportunities in the Boulder Valley Regional Center.
The city will explore how to allow and incentivize additional diverse
housing types in the Boulder Valley Regional Center while addressing
other community priorities such as high quality urban design and
walkable places. This work will entail additional community,
business, and property owner engagement. Code amendments may
address standards in these districts such as parking, open space,
connections, mixed-use, mobility, community benefits and building
scale for each zoning district. Amendments may include revisions to
the BVRC design guidelines or potential for form-based plans and
codes.
Housing
Afford-
ability
and
Diversity,
Jobs/
Housing
Balance,
Ch. III,
Sec. 2
(Policy
2.18)
PH&S:
Planning
with
Housing
Mid-
term
High Not
Started
Amend the Land Use Code for Light Industrial Areas and General
Industrial (IG) zoning district.
The city will include the public and stakeholders in a process to
analyze and modify criteria to encourage residential and retail infill
in IG zoning districts. Reevaluate contiguity requirements and
encourage residential development in locations near services, retail
and transit. Maintain existing allowed industrial uses. Allow
additional limited retail and foster redevelopment into walkable
mixed-use “industrial districts”. Address other standards for the IG
district such as shared parking and open space. Consider modifying
review procedures for any residential project in an IG zone (e.g., Site
Review).
Housing
Afford-
ability
and
Diversity,
Jobs/
Housing
Balance,
Ch. III,
Sec. 2
(Policy
2.21)
PH&S:
Planning
Mid-
term
High Not
Started
METRICS & OTHER ITEMS
Update the BVCP Natural Ecosystems Map.
The city will assess the current data and criteria used in the
Ecosystems map to determine relationship with the city’s current
Ecosystem Services. Provide this information in conjunction with the
Open Space Mountain Parks (OSMP) master planning process.
Resilience
Natural
Environ-
ment, &
Master
Planning
PH&S:
planning
with
OSMP
and
others
Mid to
Long-
term
Low to
Mediu
m
Started
Refine BVCP indicators.
In coordination with the city’s new online dashboard, establish a
process for narrowing, measuring, and using indicators to track
progress and understand when major changes to the BVCP may be
needed.
Metrics
for Plan
Ch. I,
BVCP
Indicators
PH&S:
Planning
with City
Manager
’s Office
Long-
term
ongoing
Low to
Mediu
m
Started
with
CMO
Attachment C- BVCP Action Plan Sept. 2017
City Council Meeting Page 138 of 518
1
ATTACHMENT D - SUBCOMMUNITY AND AREA PLANNING
Council members have expressed interest in subcommunity and area planning. This white paper
provides information on:
1.How Boulder currently defines subcommunity and area planning.
2.How the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) major 2015 update addresses the issue.
3.Initial research of cities and how they address area planning or neighborhood planning. (Note:
more research will follow for the Jan. 4 discussion.)1—Boulder’s Definitions and Approach to Area Planning
The BVCP provides background and guidance on the use of subcommunity and area planning in Boulder.
Content from that section is summarized below; the full text can be reviewed in Ch. V, pp. 119-127.
Subcommunity and area planning bridges the gap between the broad policies of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan and site-specific project review (development applications or city capital projects).
Area plans typically address planning issues at a more detailed level than subcommunity plans. The
planning horizon is the same as that for the Comprehensive Plan – 15 years. Such plans are prepared
through a process that requires residents, neighbors, businesses and landowners and city (and
sometimes county) departments to work together toward defining the vision, goals and actions for an
area. The subcommunity and area planning process includes:
•Approach to Area Planning
•Identifying opportunities to address Comprehensive Plan goals;
•Developing criteria for decision-making that balance local area interests with those of the
broader community;
•Involving the community;
•Identifying priorities and financing for recommendations; and
•Establishing a framework for implementing and ensuring future compliance with the plan.
Attachment D - Subcommunity and Area Planning Description
City Council Meeting Page 139 of 518
2
Subcommunity Planning
Boulder has ten subcommunity planning
areas within the Service Area: Central
Boulder (north and south), Crossroads,
the University of Colorado, East
Boulder, Southeast Boulder, South
Boulder, North Boulder, Palo Park, and
Gunbarrel.
When the subcommunity and area
planning program was instituted in
1990, the idea was to develop plans for
all of the subcommunities. The North
Boulder (NoBo) Subcommunity Plan was
the first because the area had the
largest amount of vacant land in the city
at the time and a significant amount of
change was anticipated. As the city has
become more fully developed, that
same type of planning at the
subcommunity level has lessened, and
the shift has been on area plans. If
subcommunity plans were to be
developed, they likely would address
fewer issues than were tackled in the
NoBo plan and would be prioritized
according to the criteria below. Area Planning
Area plans are developed for areas or corridors with special problems or opportunities that are not
adequately addressed by comprehensive planning, subcommunity planning or existing land use
regulations. Area planning is initiated as issues or opportunities arise following the criteria below.
Subcommunity and area plans are evaluated as needed and monitored annually through the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Action Plan.
Criteria for Selecting the Priority for Subcommunity and Area Plans
The criteria for selecting the priority for the development of subcommunity and area plans are:
•Extent to which the plan implements Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan goals;
•Imminence of change anticipated in the area;
•Magnitude of an identified problem;
•Likelihood of addressing a recurring problem;
•Cost and time effectiveness of doing the plan; and
•Extent to which plan improves land use regulations, the development review process and the
quality of public and private improvements.
Attachment D - Subcommunity and Area Planning Description
City Council Meeting Page 140 of 518
3
Boulder’s Adopted Plans
The city has adopted the following plans shown on the map on the previous page, and with a link
available on the Planning, Housing & Sustainability department webpage:
•Boulder Plaza Subarea Plan, 1992;
•North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, 1995;
•University Hill Area Plan, 1996;
•Crossroads East/ Sunrise Center Area Plan, 1997;
•Gunbarrel Community Center Plan, 2004;
•Transit Village Area Plan, 2007; and
•Junior Academy Area Plan, 2009.
Each of these plans typically took about 18 months to two years to complete to adoption, involved
community members, boards and council (and sometimes county) extensively. The final plans include a
level of detail to convey not only vision and policy intent but also implementation strategies such as
financing and necessary regulatory changes. 2—Subcommunity Planning and the BVCP Major Update
The 2015 Major Update to the BVCP included a new section entitled “Criteria for Determining a
Neighborhood Planning/Infill Pilot Project” which is described below and resides on page 121 of the
plan. Additionally, a staff completed work at the subcommunity level as part of the BVCP update,
including:
•includes the Subcommunity Fact Sheets and online Story Maps with existing conditions data, land
use maps, historic timelines.
•Two sets of community Listening Sessions to collect input and feedback on issues of importance
at the subcommunity level and priority focus topics.
•The two BVCP Surveys were cross-tabulated by subcommunity, providing another source of
insight on issues and opinions at this scale.
Some additional work could be done to address other topics such as neighborhood character (e.g., areas
of stability), unique assets, land use compatibility, and other service and infrastructure needs. Rather,
this would be more appropriate as part of future small area or subcommunity plans that would be
individually scoped for that purpose. Criteria for Determining a Neighborhood Planning/Infill Pilot Project
Outcomes of a neighborhood infill or planning project may include but are not limited to area plans,
regulations, new residential building types or other outcomes. The criteria for establishing a
neighborhood planning/infill pilot include:
•A high level of interest on the part of the neighborhood residents and an organization that will
work with the city and sponsor the plan or project;
•Recent trends that have created changes in the neighborhood and identified imminence of
change anticipated in the future;
•Desire to address neighborhood needs and/or improvements through creative solutions;
Attachment D - Subcommunity and Area Planning Description
City Council Meeting Page 141 of 518
4
•Agreeableness to identify solutions for communitywide goals and challenges as well as to address
local needs;
•Interest in addressing risk mitigation (e.g., addressing potential hazards) and in building
community capacity and the ability to be more self-sufficient and resilient; and
•Demonstrated interest on the part of the neighborhood residents and organization to test and
apply innovative, contextually-appropriate residential infill including but not limited to duplex
conversions, cottage courts, detached alley houses or accessory dwelling units or small mixed-
use or retail projects considering areas of preservation.BVCP Updated Policies and Action Plan – Area Planning
Certain BVCP policies also acknowledge the role of area planning. For instance, Policy 2.18, Boulder
Valley Regional Center and 28th Street, and Policy 2.19, Neighborhood Centers states “the city… will
pursue area planning efforts to support evolution of these centers to become mixed use places and
strive to accomplish the guiding principles”… noted as part of the policy. 2.41, Enhanced Design, also
references area planning as a tool.
The BVCP Action Plan also identifies “55th Street and Arapahoe Avenue” as a mid-term area planning
priority and “Prioritizing other area plans” (e.g., East Walnut Area, east of 33rd/South of Pearl, Base Mar,
Diagonal Plaza) as longer-term items 3—Case Studies: How Other Cities Approach Small Area and Neighborhood Planning
To help inform the treatment of subcommunity planning in the BVCP, staff has begun research on small
area planning programs in other somewhat comparable cities, asking questions such as how the
program is resourced; how city service units are organized; how the community prioritizes areas for
planning; and how communities address their full breadth of planning needs by combining different
approaches. Initially, research is focusing on communities such as:
-Ashville, NC
-Austin, TX
-Boise, ID
-Denver, CO
-Fort Collins, CO
-Lakewood, CO
-Madison, WI
-Seattle, W
In early 2018, staff will be prepared to present more information to council.
Attachment D - Subcommunity and Area Planning Description
City Council Meeting Page 142 of 518
Background
City Council responded to community requests to encourage the creation of new Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) by requesting that staff bring forward a list of incremental changes to
city regulations that better allow accessory units while still addressing potential neighborhood
impacts. Council has identified this as a work plan item for the past several years. On Aug. 22,
2017, staff presented council with a list of potential regulatory changes that would remove
some of the barriers to creating accessory units, including but not limited to, addressing
standards regarding unit concentration, sizes, and parking. The project will include incremental
and focused changes to the regulations, not wholesale changes.
DRAFT Why Statement
Increasing the diversity of housing opportunities is a city goal and priority as identified in the
recent Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update, discussed during a 2012 Study of ADUs, and
as part of community discussions regarding housing over the past decade or more. The current
regulations regarding accessory dwelling units have resulted in a relatively small number of
legal accessory dwelling units (230 as of October 2017) being constructed since the first
ordinance was adopted in 1983.
DRAFT Purpose Statement
The city, in collaboration with the community, will craft a proposal for incremental changes to
the relevant regulations addressing accessory dwelling units (i.e. Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) and Owner’s Accessory Units (OAUs)) to simplify the regulations and remove apparent
barriers to the construction of this housing type in ways that are compatible with
neighborhoods.
The update is intended to achieve the following:
1.Provide additional flexibility to homeowners to stay in their homes by allowing for
options that may either create supplemental revenue sources or allow for aging in place
on the property.
2.Increase workforce and long-term rental housing opportunities while addressing
potential impacts to existing neighborhoods.
Attachment E - Summary of ADU Regulatory Project, community feedback
City Council Meeting Page 143 of 518
Early Community Engagement
Since the council direction in August, staff has engaged community members to provide
feedback in several ways.
•Online “share your ADU story” (over 230 comments have been received),
•Open Houses with staff presentation, Q&A, feedback forms (approximately 190 people
attended the 2 events), and
•Meetings with groups, boards, individuals.
Feedback summaries and verbatim feedback can be found on the project website.
All of the feedback from the early phases of engagement will be documented and assessed to
inform the discussion draft for community feedback early 2018. Common themes from the input received to date:
•Generally, the in-person and written feedback has indicated strong support for ADUs as
one tool to address Boulder’s housing affordability challenges and there is a high level
of support for making changes to the regulations. Estimates show about 80 percent of
comments either in support of ADUs or suggesting constructive changes to the code to
address issues. Approximately twenty percent of comments oppose increasing ADUs.
•The concerns cited about ADUs pertain mostly to issues with rental housing in general.
Many perceive rentals as a root problem of neighborhood nuisances (e.g., noise,
parking, trash, upkeep, over-occupancy, etc.). Many believe the city is not doing
enough to address these nuisances and enforcement needs to be strengthened. People
also comment that illegal units are problematic and that if changes are considered, the
city should work to help people make their units legal so there could be better
enforcement.
•Many people expressed the desire to add an ADU but the requirements are currently
prohibitive and confusing. While concerns have been expressed, a majority of the
feedback indicates support for changes to allow more ADUs.
•Many ADU stories shared online illustrate how important ADUs are to households (e.g.,
housing for family members with special needs, additional income enabling them to
stay in Boulder amid rising living costs, providing an option for aging in place, providing
socio-economic diversity, increasing the ability to make upgrades to the property, etc.).Responses to request for specific feedback
1.The draft purpose and why statements for the project
In-person and written comments indicate a high level of support for the purpose and
why statements. Participants have suggested adding a goal to further define the
Attachment E - Summary of ADU Regulatory Project, community feedback
City Council Meeting Page 144 of 518
purposes of increasing the feasibility of creating ADUs (e.g., aging in place, affordability,
housing inter-generational family members, etc.) Staff heard suggestions that the
purpose statement does not go far enough and should include other types of units such
as tiny homes. Conversely, a small segment of people is not supportive of the purpose
statements expressing doubt that ADUs truly address affordability issues and will further
exacerbate negative neighborhood impacts.
2.Feedback on the list of focused code changes
Participants have provided a broad range of feedback on the list of potential code
changes. Participants so far are overwhelmingly in favor of simplifying the regulations.
Many suggest allowing a higher saturation level and making it easier to measure
neighborhood saturation. Results are mixed regarding easing parking requirements
ranging from “why are we more concerned with housing cars than people” to “parking is
the biggest issue in my neighborhood and ADUs will only make it worse”. Similarly, the
feedback option to prohibit short term rentals in ADUs in mixed. Short-term rentals are
perceived as having higher neighborhood impacts but some current and future owners
would like to retain the flexibility, and some financed the construction of their ADU with
that additional income in mind. Keeping owner occupancy requirements is widely
supported.
3.Suggestions for analysis to understand potential benefits and impacts?
The most frequent suggestions include better understanding the number of existing
unpermitted units that could be made legal; assessing demand and the potential
number of new units that might be expected if code changes are approved; and
understanding how adding ADUS or more ADUs in the neighborhood will affect housing
prices and values.
4.Additional factors to consider around neighborhood compatibility? (question listed
size and/or height of house, good design, sufficient yard or personal open space,
parking, noise, lighting, and energy efficiency).
Suggestions include: the degree to which the neighborhood already exhibits many of the
stated objectives (e.g. inclusive of a variety of housing options); floor area ratio (FAR);
setback requirements; potential increase in crime or vandalism; and vehicle speeds.
Attachment E - Summary of ADU Regulatory Project, community feedback
City Council Meeting Page 145 of 518
Attachment F: Building Height Modification Code Amendment Project Preliminary Input
Staff began the current phase of engagement in November with the start of a series of focus group
sessions. In an effort to hear a broad range of opinions on the topic, city staff reached out to active
members in the community, design professionals, developers, business owners, and neighborhood
representatives. To complement these discussions, RRC Associates (the firm that conducted the 2015
and 2016 comprehensive plan surveys) conducted three additional focus group sessions. The groups
organized by RRC Associates included a segment of the community not normally engaged in policy issues
and included varying viewpoints (such as those with a relatively neutral position). Eight focus group
sessions have been conducted, with the possibility of additional sessions in January. While more input is
needed, some preliminary areas of agreement include:
Building Design/massing and Site Design
•Most participants view the design and massing of buildings and site layout as central issues. To
many, the topic of building massing and site design overrode the issue of how tall a building
should be.
•To some, there were concerns about the clustering of taller buildings located close to the street.
It was expressed that despite some urban design principles to the contrary, taller buildings
should be set back further from the street with more greenspace and amenities provided along
the streetscape and that taller buildings not be located near one another.
•The code should encourage the first floor to be human scale, the materials should be high
quality and the building should be contextually appropriate with the neighborhood.
•To many, viewshed protection (to the mountains) and how a project enhances residents’ quality
of life are the central issues.
Location of Taller Buildings.
•There appears to be some general agreement around allowing for the possibility of additional
building height in the eastern industrial areas of the city, and if adjacent neighborhoods have
buy-in, some neighborhood centers like Basemar, Diagonal Plaza and Table Mesa Shopping
Center may be appropriate for additional height.
•Many participants commented that subcommunity and area plans may help resolve challenging
issues by identifying local solutions.
•Locations should be able to be self-mitigating for impacts (e.g., be transit-rich, have buy-in from
nearby residents).
Connection to Affordable Housing
•Most agreed that affordable housing is the right priority to focus on now.
•Most participants in the development field described the current housing requirement for
height modifications (i.e., 40% of floor area dedicated to affordable housing) as a roadblock to
achieving more housing. These concerns were generally based on the complexities of financing
mixed use projects, designing a profitable project and managing the unit inventory once built.
•Some were more concerned about the resultant building design and how the site and building
could be experienced by the community rather than what uses the building might have within it
to justify additional height.
Attachment F - Summary of Building Height Regulatory Project, community feedback
City Council Meeting Page 146 of 518
Public Review Process
•A majority, if not all, participants appeared to agree that the process to consider building height
modifications must be transparent and predictable.
Attachment F - Summary of Building Height Regulatory Project, community feedback
City Council Meeting Page 147 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
Establishment of a Working Group for analysis of and recommendations to the city council
concerning changes to the city of Boulder C harter and Code provisions addressing C ampaign
Finance, Initiative, Referendum and other Election rules and addressing other Election matters
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
J ane Brautigam, C ity Manager
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Establishment of a Working Group for analysis of and recommendations to the city council
concerning changes to the city of Boulder C harter and Code provisions addressing C ampaign
Finance, Initiative, Referendum and other Election rules and addressing other Election matters
I T E M U P D AT E S
Added Item 6B-Establishment of a Working Group for analysis of and recommendations to
the city council concerning changes to the city of Boulder C harter and C ode provisions
addressing C ampaign Finance, Initiative, Referendum and other Election rules and addressing
other Election matters
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Attachment
City Council Meeting Page 148 of 518
Establishment of a Working Group for analysis of and recommendations to the city council
concerning changes to the city of Boulder Charter and Code provisions addressing Campaign
Finance, Initiative, Referendum and other Election rules and addressing other Election matters
This document will set forth the charter for the working group established by the city council
for analysis of the city of Boulder Charter and Code provisions related to campaign finance,
initiative and referendum provisions and other election matters, with the expectation that the
working group will prepare recommendations to the city council to tighten existing provisions,
clarify certain requirements and simplify filing provisions.
1. The working group will be appointed by the city manager with the advice and consent
of the city council. Preference will be given to members of the public with demonstrated
knowledge and/or interest in election matters. Persons with strongly held opinions will
be welcome to apply. The working group will endeavor to study, consider and
recommend campaign finance regulations, as described in paragraph 4 below that may
be permitted by the United States Constitution and the Colorado Constitution. The
working group will also study, consider, and make recommendations to the council on
election procedures and requirements. See paragraph 4 below for further direction on
options sought by city council.
2. The working group will include, but not be limited to the following members:
a. Representative(s) of the League of Women Voters of Boulder County, CO;
b. Person(s) who participated in drafting the 1999 citizen initiated campaign finance
reform measure for the Boulder City Charter;
c. A person associated with Colorado Ethics Watch, a recently dissolved association
focused on ethics in elections or similar organization;
d. Person(s) who may have served on candidate or ballot measure committees in
recent city of Boulder elections;
e. Residents of the city of Boulder with a demonstrated interest in election matters.
This may include persons who have been participants in the initiative process in the
last three years or have other perspectives that may be helpful to the working
group.
3. One person may represent multiple interests described above. Persons representing
items 2(a) and 2(c) need not be residents of the city of Boulder. The working group shall
have no more than 12 members, although it is preferred that the number be limited to
9.
4. It is the specific direction of the city council that the working group does not need to
reach consensus on its recommendations. The council will welcome options for matters
in which there is not consensus and arguments for and against any such options. In that
regard, the working group is specifically directed to report to city council with the
following options:
City Council Meeting Page 149 of 518
a. For campaign finance reform, propose recommended options to change the city
charter or code that promote the integrity of the election process by:
i. providing for maximum campaign finance disclosure under existing law;
AND
ii. providing for maximum campaign finance disclosure in ways that have
not previously been judicially recognized, considering both the objectives
of election integrity and constitutional rights.
b. The working group will also study, consider, and make recommendations to the
council on election procedures and requirements, including the following subject
matter areas:
i. Initiative and referendum filing dates, petition review and signatures;
ii. Clarifying the role of the City Clerk in election contests;
iii. Combined campaign ads and literature;
iv. Charter amendments related to Ballot Measure 2Q on the November 2017
ballot; and
v. Other matters such as the use of social media or technology in elections.
5. The city attorney will assign a member of the City Attorney’s Office as the project
manager of the working group.
6. The city manager will retain outside legal counsel knowledgeable in election law in
Colorado to assist the working group in its analysis of election laws.
7. The City Clerk or a member of the City Clerk’s staff should also attend the meetings of
the working group to provide insight into the process used by the Clerk in handling
petitions and other election matters.
8. The city manager will appoint a member of the city staff skilled in facilitation to be the
facilitator of the working group.
9. All meetings of the working group will be open to the public and will be held only after
public notice of the date, time and place.
10. The working group will provide regular updates to the city council and will prioritize
time-sensitive issues, particularly any recommendations that would require the city
council to place a measure or measures amending the Boulder City Charter on the
November 2018 ballot. With that in mind, it is recommended that the working group
provide options and recommendations to the Boulder city council in accordance with
the following schedule:
City Council Meeting Page 150 of 518
a. Proposed Code amendments related to initiative and referendum shall be reported
to the City council not later than March 15, 2018;
b. Proposed Charter amendments shall be reported to city council not later than April
15, 2018;
c. Proposed Code amendments related to campaign finance and other election
provisions shall be reported to city council not later than June 19, 2018;
d. Other recommendations addressing election related matters such as appropriate
use of social media and technology in campaigns shall be reported to city council not
later than August 31, 2018.
11. Council intends that the working group will not continue to meet after it delivers its final
report to the city council. This report will be delivered not later than August 31, 2018.
The city council reserves the right to extend these deadlines at the request of the
working group.
APPROVED this _____ day of __________________, 2018.
________________________
Suzanne Jones, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________
City Clerk
City Council Meeting Page 151 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
Discussion of Potential Climate Change Litigation
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
Tom C arr, C ity A ttorney
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Motion to direct the city manager and the city attorney to expend city resources to
participate in litigation against large fossil fuel producers and/or large greenhouse gas
(G HG) emitters to seek recovery of damages caused to the city by human-caused climate
change.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachments
City Council Meeting Page 152 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2018
AGENDA TITLE
Discussion of Potential Climate Change Litigation
PRESENTERS
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Tom Carr, City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this council agenda item is to seek council direction regarding the city’s
potential participation in a lawsuit against large fossil fuel producers and/or large
greenhouse gas emitters to compensate local governments for their climate mitigation and
resilience expenses and damages caused by a changing climate. The lawsuit would be filed
by a group of Colorado local governments, potentially including Boulder County.
Suggested Motion Language
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to direct the city manager and the city attorney to expend city resources to
participate in litigation against large fossil fuel producers and/or large greenhouse gas
emitters to seek recovery of damages caused to the city by human-caused climate
change.
City Council Meeting Page 153 of 518
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic: The purpose of the litigation would be to seek to recover the additional
costs that the city has incurred and will incur because of human-caused climate
change.
• Environmental: Human-caused climate change is most likely the most important
environmental issue facing the planet.
• Social: The entire social fabric is affected by the human-caused climate change.
Locally, the city already has seen an unprecedent flood in 2013 and increased
wildland fire activity. Scientists predict that such events will become more
common as temperatures rise causing increased injury, dislocation and death.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal-Budgetary: Although the lawsuit will be brought by lawyers acting pro
bono, the city could be at risk for attorneys’ fees in the worst case and at a minimum
will need to expend staff time and resources to participate.
• Staff Time: The litigation would require support from the Chief Sustainability
Officer and the Regional Sustainability Coordinator as well as from the City
Attorney’s office. This work is not in the city’s work plan. Other work would need
to be delayed. The individuals most likely to be required are already fully engaged
in the city’s broadband initiative and the city’s sustainability efforts, including the
effort to create a municipal electric utility.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
None.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
Public comment may be provided on Motions made under Matters.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Communities, businesses and local governments all have to adapt to a climate future that
will include longer droughts, more frequent and intense wildfires, and flooding. A critical,
and often overlooked, part of the climate debate is who should bear the costs of adapting
to our climate future.
At the December 11 Council Agenda Committee meeting, the Boulder City Council
directed the City Attorney to evaluate the city’s participation in litigation to be brought
against specific large fossil fuel producers (with a substantial presence in Colorado) and/or
large in-state greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters
A recent study attributes two-thirds of all GHG emissions since the industrial revolution to
90 entities. Many of the largest contributors on that list, like Chevron (responsible for 3.52
percent of historic GHGs) and Exxon (responsible for 3.22 percent), also knew about the
City Council Meeting Page 154 of 518
risks of excessive fossil fuel use when different energy choices could have prevented
climate change. Instead of disclosing the risks of fossil fuel use, these companies
accelerated production and possibly spread misinformation, obstructing public policy and
consumer choices. Their conduct was (and continues to be) detrimental to local
communities’ climate mitigation efforts.
It is important to bear in mind that climate change is not an “on or off” scenario. With
current concentrations of GHGs, all new emissions will make climate injuries worse. At
the very least, companies may be liable to the extent that they have exacerbated climate
change. This approach could allow local governments to recover some of their adaptation
costs. While no single company has contributed enough GHGs (by itself) to cause the
climate change injuries that we are seeing, a small number of entities account for a
substantial share of the excess emissions that are responsible for climate change
The city’s action could be patterned after litigation currently pending in California. Five
local governments in California have filed litigation against fossil fuel seeking to recover
damages caused by climate change. There are two separate actions. One filed by San
Mateo County, Marin County and the City of Imperial Beach and another filed by the City
and County of San Francisco and the City of Oakland. Each jurisdiction filed its own
complaint. All five complaints have been removed to federal court and are being treated
as two separate cases. Copies of one complaint from each litigation, the complaint by San
Mateo County and the complaint by the city and county of San Francisco, are attached as
attachments A and B respectively.
In the San Mateo litigation, the governments filed complaints against over forty fossil fuel
companies alleging that fossil fuel companies’ “production, promotion, marketing, and use
of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products,
and their championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and
proximately caused” injuries to the plaintiff jurisdictions, including more frequent and
more severe flooding and sea level rise that jeopardized infrastructure, beaches, schools,
and communities. Their complaints included claims for public nuisance, strict liability for
failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, private nuisance, negligence, negligent
failure to warn, and trespass. The relief sought by the local governments includes
compensatory damages, abatement of the alleged nuisance, attorneys’ fees, punitive
damages, and disgorgement of profits.
In the San Francisco litigation, the parties sued five oil and gas companies, BP, Chevron,
ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and Shell, alleging that the carbon emissions from their fossil fuel
production had created an unlawful public nuisance. The complaints alleged that the
defendants had produced and promoted the use of “massive amounts” of fossil fuels despite
having been aware since the 1950s, based on information from the American Petroleum
Institute, that emissions from fossil fuels would cause severe and even catastrophic climate
change impacts. The complaints alleged that plaintiffs were already experiencing impacts
from accelerated sea level rise due to climate change. The parties asked the court to require
the companies to abate the nuisance by funding climate adaptation programs to build sea
walls and other infrastructure necessary to protect public and private property from sea
level rise and other climate impacts.
City Council Meeting Page 155 of 518
While the city of Boulder could perhaps not be more geographically different from the
coastal communities in California currently litigating, and will not be affected directly by
rising sea levels, the city will face distinct and serious impacts from human-caused climate
change. The proposed litigation would make clear that climate change is not just an issue
for coastal communities.
The challenge for the city is staff resources. The city is engaged in several labor-intensive
efforts that rely on individuals who would be required to participate at some level in the
proposed litigation. Although staff expects that the primary effort will be handled by
outside counsel, there will be significant work required of city staff.
This would not be the first time that the city engaged in climate change litigation. In 2002,
the city joined with Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the City of Arcata, California and
the City of Oakland, California in litigation against the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation and the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The lawsuit sought to
compel the defendants to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act to assess
domestic climate impacts of overseas projects. The litigation was settled in January 2009.
Staff requests council direction regarding next steps. If council seeks to explore
participation further, staff would work with outside council to refine the potential claims
and damages. Staff also would reach out to other jurisdictions and communities to seek
additional potential plaintiffs.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – San Mateo County Complaint
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 156 of 518
Attachment A - San Mateo County ComplaintCity Council Meeting Page 157 of 518
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
INC.; RIO TINTO PLC; RIO TINTO LTD.;
RIO TINTO ENERGY AMERICA INC.; RIO
TINTO MINERALS, INC.; RIO TINTO
SERVICES INC.; STATOIL ASA;
ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP.;
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP.;
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP.; REPSOL
S.A.; REPSOL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA
CORP.; REPSOL TRADING USA CORP.;
MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON
OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON
PETROLEUM CORP.; HESS CORP.; DEVON
ENERGY CORP.; DEVON ENERGY
PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P.; ENCANA
CORP.; APACHE CORP.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 158 of 518
COMPLAINT i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
II. PARTIES ................................................................................................................................ 4
A. Plaintiffs ..................................................................................................................... 4
B. Defendants ................................................................................................................. 6
III. AGENCY .............................................................................................................................. 22
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................... 23
V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 23
A. Global Warming—Observed Effects and Known Cause ......................................... 23
B. Sea Level Rise—Known Causes and Observed Effects .......................................... 28
C. Attribution ................................................................................................................ 32
D. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Hazards Associated with and
Knew or Should Have Known of the Dangers Associated with the Extraction,
Promotion and Sale of Their Fossil Fuel Products. ................................................. 34
E. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Extraction,
Promotion and Consumption of Their Fossil Fuel Products and Instead
Affirmatively Acted to Obscure Those Harms and Engaged in a Concerted
Campaign to Evade Regulation................................................................................ 47
F. In Contrast to Their Public Statements, Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate
their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel
Products. ................................................................................................................... 63
G. Defendants’ Actions Prevented the Development of Alternatives That Would Have
Eased the Transition to a Less Fossil Fuel Dependent Economy. ........................... 65
H. Defendants Caused Plaintiffs’ Injuries .................................................................... 72
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION ......................................................................................................... 78
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance on Behalf of the People of the State of California) ................................. 78
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance on Behalf of San Mateo County) ............................................................. 81
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 159 of 518
COMPLAINT ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Liability—Failure to Warn on behalf of San Mateo County) ................................... 84
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Liability—Design Defect on behalf of San Mateo County) ..................................... 86
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Private Nuisance on behalf of San Mateo County) ............................................................ 90
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence on Behalf of San Mateo County) ..................................................................... 92
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ....................................................................................... 95
(Negligence - Failure to Warn on Behalf of San Mateo County) ........................................ 95
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass on Behalf of San Mateo County) ......................................................................... 96
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................... 98
VIII. JURY DEMAND ................................................................................................................. 99
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 160 of 518
COMPLAINT 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Defendants, major corporate members of the fossil fuel industry, have known for
nearly a half century that unrestricted production and use of their fossil fuel products create
greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate. They have known for
decades that those impacts could be catastrophic and that only a narrow window existed to take
action before the consequences would not be reversible. They have nevertheless engaged in a
coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and deny their own knowledge of those threats, discredit
the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in the
minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media, journalists, teachers, and the public about
the reality and consequences of the impacts of their fossil fuel pollution. At the same time,
Defendants have promoted and profited from a massive increase in the extraction and consumption
of oil, coal, and natural gas, which has in turn caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable
increase in global greenhouse gas pollution and a concordant increase in the concentration of
greenhouse gases,1 particularly carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and methane, in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Those disruptions of the Earth’s otherwise balanced carbon cycle have substantially contributed
to a wide range of dire climate-related effects, including global warming, rising atmospheric and
ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, melting polar ice caps and glaciers, more extreme and
volatile weather, and sea level rise.2 Plaintiffs, the People of the State of California and San Mateo
County,3 along with the County’s residents, taxpayers, and infrastructure, suffer the consequences.
2. Defendants are vertically integrated extractors, producers, refiners, manufacturers,
distributors, promoters, marketers, and sellers of fossil fuel products. Decades of scientific
research show that pollution from the production and use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products plays
1 As used in this Complaint, “greenhouse gases” refers collectively to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Where a source refers to a specific gas or gases, or when a process relates only to a specific gas or gases, this
Complaint refers to them by name.
2 Exhibit A, attached to this Complaint, is a timeline highlighting information alleged in the paragraphs below. The
timeline illustrates what the fossil fuel companies knew, when they knew it, and what they failed to do to prevent the
environmental effects that are now imposing real costs on people and communities around the country. The
information comes from key industry documents and other sources.
3 As used in this Complaint, “San Mateo County” refers to all areas within the geographic boundaries of the County,
including incorporated towns and cities.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 161 of 518
COMPLAINT 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
a direct and substantial role in the unprecedented rise in emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid-20th century. This dramatic increase in
atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases is the main driver of the gravely dangerous changes
occurring to the global climate.
3. Anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas pollution, primarily in the form of
CO2, is far and away the dominant cause of global warming and sea level rise.4 The primary source
of this pollution is the extraction, production and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas, referred
to collectively in this Complaint as “fossil fuel products.”5
4. The rate at which Defendants have extracted and sold fossil fuel products has
exploded since the Second World War, as have emissions from those products. The substantial
majority of all greenhouse gas emissions in history has occurred since the 1950s, a period known
as the “Great Acceleration.”6 About three quarters of all industrial CO2 emissions in history have
occurred since the 1960s,7 and more than half have occurred since the late 1980s.8 The annual rate
of CO2 emissions from production, consumption and use of fossil fuels has increased by more than
60% since 1990.9
5. Defendants have known for nearly 50 years that greenhouse gas pollution from their
fossil fuel products has a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels. Defendants’
awareness of the negative implications of their own behavior corresponds almost exactly with the
Great Acceleration, and with skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions. With that knowledge,
4See IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A.
Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Page 6, Figure SMP.3, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
5 See C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 632 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-
data.net/8/605/2016/. Cumulative emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution to 2015 were 413 GtC
attributable to fossil fuels, and 190 GtC attributable to land use change. Id. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
and industry remained nearly constant at 9.9 GtC in 2015, distributed among coal (41 %), oil (34 %), gas (19 %),
cement (5.6 %), and gas flaring (0.7 %). Id. at 629.
6 Will Steffen et al., The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration (2015),
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053019614564785.
7 R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 1851
(2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.
8 R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 1851
(2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.
9 C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 630 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-
data.net/8/605/2016/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 162 of 518
COMPLAINT 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Defendants took steps to protect their own assets from these threats through immense internal
investment in research, infrastructure improvements, and plans to exploit new opportunities in a
warming world.
6. Instead of working to reduce the use and combustion of fossil fuel products, lower
the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, minimize the damage associated with continued high use
and combustion of such products, and ease the transition to a lower carbon economy, Defendants
concealed the dangers, sought to undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation, and
engaged in massive campaigns to promote the ever-increasing use of their products at ever greater
volumes. Thus, each Defendant’s conduct has contributed substantially to the buildup of CO2 in
the environment that drives sea level rise.
7. Defendants are directly responsible for 227.6 gigatons of CO2 emissions between
1965 and 2015, representing 20.3% of total emissions of that potent greenhouse gas during that
period. Accordingly, Defendants are directly responsible for a substantial portion of committed
sea level rise (that is, sea level rise that will occur even in the absence of any future emissions)
because of the consumption of their fossil fuel products.
8. Extreme flooding events will more than double in frequency on California’s Pacific
coast by 2050.10 Flooding and storms will become more frequent and more severe, and average
sea level will rise substantially along California’s coast, and in the San Francisco Bay Area
including San Mateo County. The County, bordered on two sides by water and among the most
vulnerable counties to sea level rise in California, has already spent millions of dollars to study
and mitigate the effects of global warming. Sea level rise already adversely affects the County and
jeopardizes San Mateo’s sewer systems, beaches, parks, roads, civil infrastructure, and essential
public services, and communities.
10 Sean Vitousek et al., Doubling of coastal flooding frequency within decades due to sea-level rise, Scientific
Reports, (May 18, 2017) (“Only 10 cm of SLR doubles the flooding potential in high-latitude regions with small
shape parameters, notably the North American west coast (including the major population centers Vancouver,
Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles), and the European Atlantic coast.”); USGS, In Next Decades, Frequency of
Coastal Flooding Will Double Globally (May 18, 2017), https://www.usgs.gov/news/next-decades-frequency-
coastal-flooding-will-double-globally.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 163 of 518
COMPLAINT 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
9. Defendants’ production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products,
simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-
regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
10. Accordingly, the County brings claims against Defendants for Public Nuisance on
behalf of the People of California as well as itself, Strict Liability for Failure to Warn, Strict
Liability for Design Defect, Private Nuisance, Negligence, Negligent Failure to Warn,
and Trespass.
11. By this action, the County seeks to ensure that the parties responsible for sea level
rise bear the costs of its impacts on the County, rather than Plaintiffs, local taxpayers or residents.
II. PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
12. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California (“the People”), by and through the
County Counsel of San Mateo County, brings this suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
731, and Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494, to abate the nuisance caused by sea
level rise in the County’s jurisdiction.
13. Plaintiff County of San Mateo (“the County” or “San Mateo”) is a political
subdivision of the State of California. The County is located in the San Francisco Bay Area on the
central portion of the San Francisco Peninsula, with its county seat in Redwood City.
a. The County is bordered by water on two sides, with the San Francisco Bay
to the East, and the Pacific Ocean to the West, and contains approximately 109 total miles of
ocean-and bay-adjacent coastline.
b. Sea level has already risen significantly along both the County’s ocean side
and bay side. The County anticipates and is planning for significant sea level rise over 1992 levels
by the year 2100,11 and the State of California projects possible sea level rise well above the
11 County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 26 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 164 of 518
COMPLAINT 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
County’s estimates in that same period under a “business-as-usual” emissions scenario.12
c. The sea level rise impacts on the County associated with an increase in
average mean sea level height include, but are not limited to, increased inundation (permanent)
and flooding (temporary) in natural and built environments with higher tides and intensified wave
and storm surge events; aggravated wave impacts, including erosion, damage, and destruction of
built structures, as well as natural features like cliffs, beaches and dunes, with consequent
landslides; changes in sediment supply that could alter or destroy natural coastal habitats like
beaches and wetlands, which would otherwise naturally mitigate sea level rise impacts; saltwater
intrusion on groundwater aquifers, agricultural land, and infrastructure; and magnification of other
climate change impacts, due to the superimposition on sea level rise on shifts in precipitation
patterns that result in more rain and attendant flooding; increased frequency and severity of storms
that cause erosion, flooding, and temporary sea level rise increases; and others. Compounding
these environmental impacts are cascading social and economic impacts, which are secondary and
tertiary injuries that arise out of physical sea-level rise injuries to the County.
d. Accounting for population increases over that time (by the year 2100), San
Mateo is the only county on the West Coast with more than 100,000 residents at risk of three feet
of sea level rise.13
e. The County owns and operates civil infrastructure including, but not limited
to levees, stormwater and sewage transport systems, an airport, and roads. The County owns, leases
and/or controls real property within its jurisdiction. Much of the County’s infrastructure and real
property is on or near the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay coasts, and has already suffered
damage from rising sea levels and will suffer increasing damage in the future through rising sea
levels and through the exacerbation of natural climate phenomena such as coastal erosion and El
Niño.
12 Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science
Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-
update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf.
13 County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 29 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 165 of 518
COMPLAINT 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
B. Defendants
14. Defendants’ are responsible for a substantial portion of the total greenhouse gases
emitted between 1965 and 2015. Defendants, individually and collectively, are responsible for
extracting, refining, processing, producing, promoting and marketing fossil fuel products, the
normal and intended use of which has led to the emission of a substantial percentage of the total
volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1965. Indeed, between 1965 and
2015, the named Defendants extracted from the earth enough fossil fuel materials (i.e. crude oil,
coal, and natural gas) to account for more than one in every five tons of CO2 and methane emitted
worldwide. Accounting for their wrongful promotion and marketing activities, Defendants bear a
dominant responsibility for global warming generally and for Plaintiffs’ injuries in particular.
15. When reference in this complaint is made to an act or omission of the Defendants,
unless specifically attributed or otherwise stated, such references should be interpreted to mean
that the officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives of the Defendants committed or
authorized such an act or omission, or failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct
their employees while engaged in the management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of
Defendants, and did so while acting within the scope of their employment or agency.
16. Chevron Entities
a. Chevron Corporation is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and
chemicals company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its global headquarters and
principal place of business in San Ramon, California.
b. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place
of business located in San Ramon, California. Chevron USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Chevron Corporation.
c. “Chevron” as used hereafter, means collectively, Defendants Chevron
Corp. and Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
d. Chevron operates through a web of U.S. and international subsidiaries at all
levels of the fossil fuel supply chain. Chevron’s and its subsidiaries’ operations consist of
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 166 of 518
COMPLAINT 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
exploring for, developing, and producing crude oil and natural gas; processing, liquefaction,
transportation, and regasification associated with liquefied natural gas; transporting crude oil by
major international oil export pipelines; transporting, storage, and marketing of natural gas;
refining crude oil into petroleum products; marketing of crude oil and refined products;
transporting crude oil and refined products by pipeline, marine vessel, motor equipment and rail
car; basic and applied research in multiple scientific fields including of chemistry, geology, and
engineering; and manufacturing and marketing of commodity petrochemicals, plastics for
industrial uses, and fuel and lubricant additives.
17. ExxonMobil Corporation
a. ExxonMobil Corporation (“Exxon”) is a multi-national, vertically
integrated energy and chemicals company incorporated in the State of New Jersey with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Irving, Texas. Exxon is among the largest publicly
traded international oil and gas companies in the world.
b. Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossil
fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture
of petroleum products; and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and
petroleum products. Exxon is also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity
petrochemical products.
c. Exxon does substantial fossil fuel product related business in California,
and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded,
distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. Among other operations, more than 540 Exxon-,
Mobil-, or Esso-branded gas stations operate throughout the state, and Exxon owns and operates a
petroleum storage and transport facility in the San Ardo Oil Field in San Ardo, Monterey County,
California. From 1966 to 2016, Exxon owned and operated an oil refinery in Torrance, Los
Angeles County, California. Exxon Co. USA, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, operated a petroleum
refinery in Benicia, Solano County, California, from 1968 to 2000.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 167 of 518
COMPLAINT 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
18. BP Entities
a. BP P.L.C. is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and
petrochemical public limited company, registered in England and Wales with its principal place of
business in London, England. BP P.L.C. consists of three main operating segments: (1) exploration
and production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas power and renewables.
b. BP P.L.C. does substantial fossil-fuel related business in the United States,
by marketing through licensure; franchising its petroleum products in the U.S. under the BP,
ARCO and ARAL brands; and by operating oil and gas extraction and refining projects in the Gulf
of Mexico, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming.
c. BP America, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP P.L.C. BP America
Inc. is a vertically integrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the State of
Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business in Houston, Texas. BP America,
Inc., consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including
exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture of petroleum products;
and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. BP is
also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity petrochemical products. BP America Inc.
is registered to do business in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of
process with the California Secretary of State.
d. Defendants BP P.L.C. and BP America, Inc. are collectively referred to
herein as “BP.”
e. BP does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California, and a
substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed,
marketed, and/or sold in California. Among other operations, BP operates 275 ARCO-licensed
and branded gas stations in California and more than 70 compressed natural gas and liquefied
natural gas fueling stations, provides natural gas used to power more than 6.9 million California
households, and distributes and markets petroleum-based lubricants marketed under the “Castrol”
brand name throughout the state. From 2000 to 2013, BP also owned and operated an oil refinery
in Carson, Los Angeles County, California. BP’s marketing and trading business maintains an
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 168 of 518
COMPLAINT 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
office in Irvine, Orange County, California. BP maintains an energy research center in San Diego,
San Diego County, California.
19. Shell Entities
a. Royal Dutch Shell PLC is a vertically integrated, multinational energy and
petrochemical company. Royal Dutch Shell is incorporated in England and Wales, with its
headquarters and principle place of business in the Hague, Netherlands. Royal Dutch Shell PLC
consists of numerous divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuel
industry, including exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing and energy production,
transport, trading, marketing and sales.
b. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal
Dutch Shell PLC. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is incorporated in the State of Delaware and
maintains its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is
registered to do business in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of process
in California. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is an energy and petrochemical company involved
in refining, transportation, distribution and marketing of Shell fossil fuel products.
c. Defendants Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil Products Company LLC
are collectively referred to as “Shell.”
d. Shell does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California, and
a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded,
distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. Among other endeavors, Shell operates a
petroleum refinery in Martinez, Contra Costa County, California; operates a distribution center in
Carson, California; and produces heavy oil and natural gas within the state. Shell also owned and
operated a refinery in Wilmington (Los Angeles), Los Angeles County, California from 1998 to
2007, and a refinery in Bakersfield, Kern County, California from 2001 to 2005. Shell also operates
hundreds of Shell-branded gas stations in California.
20. Citgo Petroleum Corporation (“Citgo”)
a. Citgo is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of PDV America, Incorporated,
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of PDV Holding, Incorporated. These organizations’ ultimate
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 169 of 518
COMPLAINT 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
parent is Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), an entity wholly owned by the Republic of
Venezuela that plans, coordinates, supervises and controls activities carried out by its subsidiaries.
Citgo is incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintains its headquarters in Houston, Texas.
b. Citgo and its subsidiaries are engaged in the refining, marketing, and
transportation of petroleum products including gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, petrochemicals,
lubricants, asphalt, and refined waxes.
c. Citgo is registered to do business in the State of California and has
designated an agent for service of process in California. Citgo further does substantial fossil fuel
product-related business in California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are
extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For
instance, Citgo sells significant volumes of fossil-fuel derived consumer motor oils and automobile
lubricants through retail and wholesale distributers. Citgo further sells a wide variety of greases
and oils for use in construction, mining, agricultural, and metalworking machinery and vehicles,
and in many other industrial and commercial settings, through licensed distributors in California.
21. ConocoPhillips Entities
a. ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company incorporated in the State
of Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. ConocoPhillips consists
of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry,
including exploration, extraction, production, manufacture, transport, and marketing.
b. ConocoPhillips Company is 100% owned by ConocoPhillips.
ConocoPhillips Company is registered to do business in California and has a registered agent for
service of process in California.
c. Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemical company
incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It
encompasses downstream fossil fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments that
were formerly owned and/or controlled by ConocoPhillips. Phillips 66 is registered to do business
in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of process in California.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 170 of 518
COMPLAINT 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
d. Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, and Phillips 66 are
collectively referred to herein as “ConocoPhillips.”
e. ConocoPhillips does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in
California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,
traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For instance, ConocoPhillips owns and
operates oil and natural gas terminals in California, owns and operates refineries in Arroyo Grande
(San Luis Obispo County), Colton (San Bernardino County), and Wilmington (Los Angeles
County), California, and distributes its products throughout California. Phillips 66 also owns and
operates oil refineries in Rodeo (Contra Costa County), Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), and
Wilmington (Los Angeles County), California, each of which was owned and operated by
ConocoPhillips and its predecessors in interest from 1997 to 2012.
22. Peabody Energy
a. Peabody Energy Corporation (“Peabody”) is a multi-national energy
company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in St. Louis,
Missouri. Through a diverse web of affiliates and subsidiaries, Peabody is the world’s largest coal
extractor by volume.
b. Peabody does and has done substantial fossil fuel product-related business
in California, including exporting substantial volumes of coal through coal shipping terminals in
California, particularly from the ports of Long Beach (Los Angeles County), Stockton (San
Joaquin County), Richmond (Contra Costa County), and San Francisco. Peabody exported coal
mined from its western state mining operations through the Los Angeles Export Terminal while
that terminal was in operation from 1997 through 2003, and continues to export coal out of
California ports.
23. Total Entities
a. Total E&P USA Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Total S.A.—a French
energy conglomerate—engaged in the North American segment of Total SA’s fossil fuel products-
related business. Total E&P USA Inc. and its subsidiaries are involved in the exploration for,
extraction, transportation, research, and marketing of Total S.A.’s fossil fuel products. Total E&P
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 171 of 518
COMPLAINT 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
USA Inc. is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an agent for
service of process in California.
b. Total Specialties USA Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Total SA,
involved in the marketing and distribution of Total S.A.’s fossil fuel products. Total Specialties
USA Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas. Total
Specialties USA Inc. is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an
agent for service of process in California. Total Specialties USA Inc. does substantial fossil fuel
product-related business in California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are
extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For
instance, Total Specialties USA Inc. maintains regular distributorship relationships with several
California distributors of Total fossil fuel products, including engine oils, lubricants, greases, and
industrial petroleum products.
24. Arch Coal, Inc.
a. Arch Coal, Inc. (“Arch Coal”) is a publicly traded company incorporated in
Delaware with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the second largest coal
producer in the United States, selling 128 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which it
extracted from mines owned by the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. Arch Coal explores
for, extracts, produces, markets and distributes its fossil fuel products.
b. Arch Coal’s conducts substantial fossil fuel product-related business in
California, including its ownership and long-term leasing of coal land in California. Arch Coal
furthermore has historically exported substantial volumes of coal mined from its western state
mines through California ports including Long Beach (Los Angeles County), Stockton (San
Joaquin County), Richmond (Contra Costa County), and San Francisco.
c. Arch Coal also owns a 99% stake in Arch Western Resources, LLC, which
was created in a 1998 transaction under which Arch Coal absorbed all of Atlantic Ritchfield
Company’s domestic coal operations. Included in that transaction, Arch Western Resources
acquired a 9% ownership stake in the Los Angeles Export Terminal, a coal export terminal
operation in the Port of Los Angeles from 1997 through 2003. Arch Coal and Arch Western
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 172 of 518
COMPLAINT 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Resources both exported substantial volumes of coal, originating from their western state mining
operations, including mines in Colorado and Utah, through the Export Terminal until its closure.
25. Eni Entities
a. Eni S.p.A. (“Eni”) is a vertically integrated, multinational energy company
focusing on petroleum and natural gas. Eni is incorporated in the Republic of Italy, with its
principal place of business in Rome, Italy. With its consolidated subsidiaries, Eni engages in the
exploration, development and production of hydrocarbons; in the supply and marketing of gas,
liquid natural gas, and power; in the refining and marketing of petroleum products; in the
production and marketing of basic petrochemicals, plastics and elastomers; in commodity trading;
and in electricity marketing and generation.
b. Eni Oil & Gas Inc. is incorporated in Texas, with its principal place of
business in Houston, Texas. Eni Oil & Gas Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni America Ltd.,
a Delaware corporation doing business in the United States. Eni America, Ltd. Is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Eni UHL Ltd., a British corporation with its registered office in London, United
Kingdom. Eni UHL Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni ULT, Ltd., a British corporation with
its registered office on London, United Kingdom. Eni ULT, Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Eni Lasmo Plc, a British corporation with its registered office on London, United Kingdom. Eni
Investments Plc, a British corporation with its registered office in London, United Kingdom, holds
a 99.9% ownership interest in Eni Lasmo Plc (the other 0.01% ownership interest is held by another
Eni entity, Eni UK Ltd, a British corporation with its registered office in London, United
Kingdom). Eni S.p.A owns a 99.99% interest in Eni Investments Plc. Eni UK Ltd. holds the
remainder interest in Eni Investments Plc. Collectively, these entities are referred to as “Eni.”
c. Eni Oil & Gas Inc. is a successor-in-interest to Golden Eagle Refining
Company, Inc. (“Golden Eagle”). At times relevant to this complaint, Golden Eagle did substantial
fossil fuel-related business in California. Specifically, Golden Eagle owned and/or operated oil
refineries in Carson (Los Angeles County) and Martinez (Contra Costa County), California, and
owned and/or operated oil pipelines in or near Long Beach (Los Angeles County), California.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 173 of 518
COMPLAINT 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
26. Rio Tinto Group
a. Rio Tinto PLC is incorporated in England and Wales, with its principal
place of business in London, England. Rio Tino Limited is incorporated in the Commonwealth of
Australia with its principle place of business in Melbourne, Australia. Collectively, these Rio Tinto
PLC and Rio Tinto Limited, along with their affiliates, divisions and subsidiaries, including those
described below, are referred to as “Rio Tinto.”
b. Rio Tinto is a dual-listed, multinational, vertically integrated metals and
mining corporation. Through its vast network of affiliates and subsidiaries, Riot Tinto extracts an
array of metals and other commodities. Pertinent here, Rio Tinto explores for, extracts, produces,
transports and markets coal.
c. Rio Tinto Energy America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto,
incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Gillette, Wyoming.
Previously known as Kennecott Energy, Rio Tinto Energy America Inc. operates coal mines in
Wyoming and Montana.
d. Rio Tinto does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California.
In 2007, for example, Hydrogen Energy California, a joint venture of BP and Rio Tinto, invested
$2.3 billion in a project to construct an experimental petroleum coke fired power plant in Kern
County, California.
e. In addition, Rio Tinto’s subsidiary Rio Tino Minerals, Inc., operates the
largest open pit mine in California, where it extracts approximately 30% of the world’s refined
boron. Rio Tinto Minerals, Inc., has also registered substantial legislative and regulatory lobbying
activities in California related to Rio Tinto’s fossil fuel products business since at least 2005,
including lobbying directed at legislation and regulation regarding greenhouse gas pollution
policy, air quality standards, and energy efficiency standards, as well as California’s so-called
“cap-and-trade” carbon emissions program, such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
f. Rio Tinto Services Inc. is a Rio Tinto subsidiary incorporated in Delaware
and with its principal place of business in South Jordan, Utah. Rio Tinto Services, Inc. is registered
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 174 of 518
COMPLAINT 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
to do business in California and has designated an agent for service of process in California.
27. Statoil ASA
a. Statoil ASA (“Statoil”) is an international, vertically integrated energy
company incorporated in the Kingdom of Norway and headquartered in Stavanger, Norway. The
Norwegian State is the majority shareholder in Statoil. Statoil’s operations consist of multiple
segments, including exploration, production, extraction, marketing, processing, and technology
support of its fossil fuel products, which include both petroleum and natural gas products.
b. Statoil has substantial contacts with California arising out of the production,
marketing, and promotion of its fossil fuel products. For instance, Statoil partnered with the
University of California, Berkeley (Alameda County), to review management of the company’s
complex development projects; Statoil partnered on a methanol fueling station in Sacramento
(Sacramento County); Statoil was involved in a business project with a California company called
Quantum Technologies; and partnered with the University of California, San Diego’s (San Diego
County) Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
28. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
a. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) is incorporated in the State
of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in The Woodlands, Texas. Anadarko is
a multinational, vertically integrated energy company comprised of multiple upstream and
downstream segments. These include exploration, production, gathering, processing, treating,
transporting, marketing, and selling fossil fuel products derived primarily from petroleum and
natural gas. In the United States, Anadarko entities operate fossil fuel product exploration and
production concerns in Texas, the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the Powder River Basin, Utah,
Colorado, and the Marcellus Shale Formation. Anadarko operates fossil fuel product production
and exploration activities internationally in Algeria, Ghana, Mozambique, and Columbia, among
others. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is registered to do business in California and has
designated an agent for service of process in California.
b. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is a successor-in-interest to HS Resources
Inc. (“HS”). HS was an energy company headquartered in San Francisco, San Francisco County,
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 175 of 518
COMPLAINT 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
California. It owned natural gas reserves in Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and
along the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, which it extracted and imported to California. HS was
acquired by Kerr-McGee Corporation in 2001. Kerr-McGee was an energy exploration and
production company owning oil and natural gas rights in the Gulf of Mexico, Colorado, and Utah,
with its corporate headquarters in Oklahoma. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation acquired Kerr-
McGee Corporation in 2006.
29. Occidental Entities
a. Occidental Petroleum Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated
energy and chemical company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with its principal place
of business in Houston, Texas. Occidental’s operations consist of three segments: Occidental’s
operations consist of three segments: (1) the exploration for, extraction of, and production of oil
and natural gas products; (2) the manufacture and marketing of chemicals and vinyls; and (3)
processing, transport, storage, purchase, and marketing of oil, natural gas, and power. Occidental
Petroleum Corporation is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an
agent for service of process in the State of California.
b. Occidental Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer and marketer of
petrochemicals, such as polyvinyl chloride resins, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Occidental
Petroleum Corporation. Occidental Chemical Corporation is registered to do business in the State
of California and has designated an agent for service of process in the State of California.
c. Defendants Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Chemical
Corporation are collectively referred to as “Occidental.”
d. Occidental does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in the State
of California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,
traded, distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. For instance, Occidental extracted and
transported its fossil fuel products from approximately 30,900 drilling locations within the San
Joaquin, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Sacramento Basins in California.
e. In addition, Occidental conducts has conducted substantial activities in the
state, including marketing and promotion; efforts to avoid or minimize regulation of greenhouse
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 176 of 518
COMPLAINT 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
gas pollution in and from California; and efforts to influence statutory and regulatory debate
regarding fossil fuel consumption, electric power distribution, and greenhouse gas pollution
policies such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. Since 1999, Occidental Petroleum Corp. and its subsidiaries have reported more
than $4.6 million in lobbying expenditures directed at numerous statutory and regulatory proposals
before the California legislature and executive agencies, including the California Energy
Commission, California Air Resources Board, and California Public Utilities Commission, related
to its fossil fuel products business.
30. Repsol S.A.
a. Repsol S.A. (“Repsol”) is a vertically integrated, multinational global
energy company, incorporated in the Kingdom of Spain, with its principal place of business in
Madrid, Spain. Repsol is involved in multiple aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including
exploration, production, marketing, and trading. Repsol engages in significant fossil fuel
exploration and production activities in the United States, including in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Mississippi Lime in
Oklahoma and Kansas, the North Slope in Alaska, and the Trenton-Black River in New York
b. Repsol does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in the State of
California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,
traded, distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. For instance, Repsol subsidiary Repsol
Energy North America Corporation, incorporated in the State of Texas and with its principal place
of business in The Woodlands, Texas, is listed as a natural gas procurement, storage,
transportation, scheduling, and risk management provider by Pacific Gas and Electric, a California
utility. Repsol Energy North America Corporation is registered to do business in California and
has designated an agent for service of process in California. Repsol subsidiary Repsol Trading
USA Corporation, incorporated in the State of Texas and with its principal place of business in
The Woodlands, Texas, is also registered do business in California and has designated an agent
for service of process in California. Additionally, Repsol represents on its website that it is
engaging in strategic opportunities involving its fossil fuel products in California, which may
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 177 of 518
COMPLAINT 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
consist of crude oil, gasoline, diesel, and/or jet fuel.
31. Marathon Entities
a. Marathon Oil Company is an energy company incorporated in the State of
Ohio and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Marathon Oil Company is
registered to do business in California and has designated an agent for service of process in
California. Marathon Oil Company is a corporate ancestor of Marathon Oil Corporation and
Marathon Petroleum Company.
b. Marathon Oil Company is a successor-in-interest to Husky Oil Ltd.
(“Husky”), which it acquired in 1984. During times relevant to this Complaint, Husky operated oil
production facilities near Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), California, where it produced
nearly 1,100 barrels per day. During the period relevant to this litigation, Husky did substantial
fossil fuel product-related business in California.
c. Marathon Oil Corporation is a multinational energy company incorporated
in the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Marathon Oil
Corporation consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in the exploration for,
extraction, production, and marketing of fossil fuel products.
d. Marathon Petroleum Corporation is a multinational energy company
incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon
Petroleum Corporation was spun off from the operations of Marathon Oil Corporation in 2011. It
consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in fossil fuel product refining, marketing,
retail, and transport, including both petroleum and natural gas products.
e. Defendants Marathon Oil Company, Marathon Oil Corporation, and
Marathon Petroleum Corporation are collectively referred to as “Marathon.”
32. Hess Corporation
a. Hess Corp. (“Hess”is a global, vertically integrated petroleum exploration
and extraction company incorporated in the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal
place of business in New York, New York.
b. Hess is engaged in the exploration, development, production,
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 178 of 518
COMPLAINT 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
transportation, purchase, marketing and sale of crude oil and natural gas. Its oil and gas production
operations are located primarily in the United States, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia,
Thailand, and Norway. Prior to 2014, Hess also conducted extensive retail operations in its own
name and through subsidiaries. Hess owned and operated more than 1,000 gas stations throughout
the United States, including in California during times relevant to this complaint. Prior to 2013,
Hess also operated oil refineries in the continental United States and U.S. Virgin Islands.
33. Devon Energy Corporation
a. Devon Energy Corp. is an independent energy company engaged in the
exploration, development, and production of oil, and natural gas. It is incorporated in the State of
Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Devon is
engaged in multiple aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including exploration, development,
production, and marketing of its fossil fuel products.
b. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. is a Devon subsidiary registered
to do business in the State of California and with a designated agent for service of process in
California. Devon Energy does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California.
c. Devon Energy Corp. is a successor-in-interest to the Pauley Petroleum
Company (“Pauley”). At times relevant to this complaint, Pauley did substantial fossil-fuel related
business in California. Specifically, this included owning and operating a petroleum refinery in
Newhall (Los Angeles County), California from 1959 to 1989, and a refinery in Wilmington (Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County), California from 1988 to 1992. Pauley merged with Hondo Oil and
Gas Co. (“Hondo”) in 1987. Subsequently, Devon Energy Corp. acquired Hondo in 1992.
d. Defendants Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. and Devon Energy
Corp. are collectively referred to as “Devon.”
34. Encana Corporation
a. Encana Corp. is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Encana is an extractor and marketer of oil and natural gas and has
facilities including gas plants and gas wells in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, and
New Mexico. By approximately 2005, Encana was the largest independent owner and operator of
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 179 of 518
COMPLAINT 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
natural gas storage facilities in North America.
b. Encana has done and continues to do substantial fossil fuel product-related
business in California. Between 1997 and 2006, Encana owned and operated the Wild Goose
Storage underground natural gas storage facility in Butte County, California. In 2003, Encana
began transporting natural gas through a 25-mile pipeline from the Wild Goose Station to a Pacific
Gas & Electric Co. (“PG&E”) compressor station in Colusa County, where gas entered the main
PG&E pipeline. Encana invested in a 100 billion cubic foot expansion of the facility in 2004,
bringing gas storage capacity at Wild Goose to 24 billion cubic feet.
35. Apache Corporation
a. Apache Corp. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Houston, Texas. Apache is an oil and gas exploration and production company,
with crude oil and natural gas exploration and extraction operations in the United States, Canada,
Egypt, and in the North Sea.
b. During the time at issue, Apache extracted natural gas from wells developed
on approximately seven million acres of land held in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia,
Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and Apache did substantial fossil fuel product-related business in
California. Apache transported a substantial volume of the natural gas extracted from its Canadian
holdings to California, where it sold that gas to electric utilities, end-users, other fossil fuel
companies, supply aggregators, and other fossil fuel marketers. Apache directed sales of its natural
gas to California in addition to markets in Washington state, Chicago, and western Canada, to
intentionally retain a diverse customer base and maximize profits from the differential price rates
and demand levels in those respective markets.
36. Doe Defendants
a. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
otherwise of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore
sue said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 474. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 180 of 518
COMPLAINT 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts and occurrences herein
alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages were caused by such Defendants.
37. Relevant Non-Parties: Fossil Fuel Industry Associations
38. As set forth in greater detail below, each Defendant had actual knowledge that its
fossil fuel products were hazardous. Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their
products independently and through their membership and involvement in trade associations.
39. Each Defendant’s fossil fuel promotion and marketing efforts were assisted by the
trade associations described below. Acting on behalf of the Defendants, the industry associations
engaged in a long-term course of conduct to misrepresent, omit, and conceal the dangers of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products.
a. The American Petroleum Institute (API): API is a national trade
association representing the oil and gas industry, formed in 1919. The following Defendants and/or
their predecessors in interest are and/or have been API members at times relevant to this litigation:
Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Statoil, Anadarko, Occidental, Repsol, Marathon,
EnCana, and Apache.14
b. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE): ACCCE
is a national coal industry trade association. Arch Coal and Peabody were part of the ACCCE at
times relevant to this complaint.15
c. The National Mining Association (NMA): NMA is a national trade
organization that advocates for mining interests, including coal mining. Arch Coal, Inc., Peabody
Energy, and Rio Tinto/Kennecott Utah Copper are all members.16
d. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA): WSPA is a trade
association representing oil producers in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.17
Its members include, and at times relevant to this Complaint, have included, BP, Chevron, Shell,
14 American Petroleum Institute (API), Members, http://www.api.org/membership/members (as of June 1, 2017).
15 Energy and Policy Institute, ACCCE Members, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2199289-accce-
members.html (as of June 1, 2017).
16 National Mining Association (NMA), Members, http://nma.org/about-nma/member-list (As of June 1, 2017).
17 WSPA, What is WSPA, https://www.wspa.org/what-is-wspa (as of June 1, 2017).
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 181 of 518
COMPLAINT 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Occidental, and ExxonMobil.18
e. The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is a
national association of petroleum and petrochemical companies. At relevant times, its members
included, but were not limited to, BP Petrochemicals, BP Products North America, Chevron
U.S.A. Inc., CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, Phillips 66, Shell Chemical Company, and Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA,
Inc. 19
f. The Information Council for the Environment (ICE): ICE was formed
by coal companies and their allies, including Western Fuels Association and the National Coal
Association. Associated companies included Peabody, Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining
(Chevron),20 and Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental).
g. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC): GCC was an industry group formed
to oppose greenhouse gas emission reduction policies and the Kyoto Protocol. It was founded in
1989 shortly after the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting was held, and
disbanded in 2001. Founding members included the National Association of Manufacturers, the
National Coal Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the United States Chamber of
Commerce. The GCC’s early individual corporate members included Amoco (BP), API, Chevron,
Exxon, Ford, Shell Oil, Texaco (Chevron) and Phillips Petroleum (ConocoPhillips). Over its
existence other members and funders included ARCO (BP), BHP, the National Mining
Association, and the Western Fuels Association. The coalition also operated for several years out
of the National Association of Manufacturers’ offices.
III. AGENCY
40. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,
partner, aider and abettor, co-conspirator, and/or joint venturer of each of the remaining
Defendants herein and was at all times operating and acting within the purpose and scope of said
18 WSPA, Member List, https://www.wspa.org/member-list (as of June 1, 2017).
19 AFPM, Membership Directory, https://www.afpm.org/membership-directory/ (As of June 30, 2017).
20 Hereinafter, parenthetical references to Defendants indicate corporate ancestry and/or affiliation.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 182 of 518
COMPLAINT 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, and joint venture and rendered substantial
assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants, knowing that their conduct was wrongful
and/or constituted a breach of duty.
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
41. This court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants named herein is proper because
each Defendant maintains substantial contacts with California by and through their fossil fuel
business operations in this state, as described above, and because Plaintiffs’ injuries described
herein arose out of and relate to those operations and occurred in California.
42. The Superior Court of California for San Mateo County is a court of general
jurisdiction and therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
43. Venue is proper in San Mateo County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections
395 and 395.5 because the injury giving rise to the County’s claims occurred in San Mateo County.
V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Global Warming—Observed Effects and Known Cause
44. The Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in human history.
45. Atmospheric and ocean temperatures have both increased substantially since the
beginning of the global industrial revolution, and the rate of warming has also dramatically
increased since the end of World War II.
46. In the geological short term, ocean and land surface temperatures have increased at
a rapid pace during the late 20th and early 21st centuries:
a. 2016 was the hottest year on record by globally averaged surface
temperatures, exceeding mid-20th century mean ocean and land surface
temperatures by approximately 1.69–1.78° F.21 Eight of the twelve months
in 2016 were hotter by globally averaged surface temperatures than those
respective months in any previous year. October, November, and December
21 NOAA, Global Summary Information – December 2016, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-
info/global/201612; NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 183 of 518
COMPLAINT 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
2016 showed the second hottest average surface temperatures for those
months, second only to temperatures recorded in 2015.22
b. The Earth’s hottest month ever recorded was February 2016, followed
immediately by the second hottest month on record, March 2016.23
c. The second hottest year on record by globally averaged surface
temperatures was 2015, and the third hottest was 2014.24
d. The ten hottest years on record by globally averaged surface temperature
have all occurred since 1998, and sixteen of the seventeen hottest years have
occurred since 2001.25
e. Each of the past three decades has been warmer by average surface
temperature than any preceding decade on record.26
f. The period between 1983 and 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period
in the Northern Hemisphere since approximately 700 AD.27
47. The average global surface and ocean temperature in 2016 was approximately 1.7°
F warmer than the 20th century baseline, which is the greatest positive anomaly observed since at
least 1880.28 The increase in hotter temperatures and more frequent positive anomalies during the
Great Acceleration is occurring both globally and locally, including in San Mateo County. The
graph below shows the increase in global land and ocean temperature anomalies since 1880, as
measured against the 1910–2000 global average temperature.29
22 NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.
23 Jugal K. Patel, How 2016 Became Earth’s Hottest Year on Record, N.Y. Times (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html.
24 NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.
25 Id.
26 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
27 Id.
28 NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information, Climate at a Glance (Global Time Series) (June 2017)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2016.
29 Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 184 of 518
COMPLAINT 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January - December
48. The mechanism by which human activity causes global warming and climate
change is well established: ocean and atmospheric warming is overwhelmingly caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.30
49. When emitted, greenhouse gases trap heat within the Earth’s atmosphere that would
otherwise radiate into space.
50. Greenhouse gases are largely byproducts of humans’ burning fossil fuels to produce
energy, and using fossil fuels to create petrochemical products.
51. Human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, is the primary cause of
global warming and its associated effects on Earth’s climate.
52. Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic CO2 emissions were caused by land-use
practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global biosphere
to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; the impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate were
relatively minor. Since the beginning of the Great Acceleration, however, both the annual rate and
total volume of human CO2 emissions have increased enormously following the advent of major
30 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 185 of 518
COMPLAINT 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
uses of oil, gas, and coal. The graph below shows that while CO2 emissions attributable to forestry
and other land-use change have remained relatively constant, total emissions attributable to fossil
fuels have increased dramatically since the 1950s.31
Total Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source, 1860-2015:
53. As human reliance on fossil fuels for industrial and mechanical processes has
increased, so too have greenhouse gas emissions, especially of CO2. The Great Acceleration is
marked by a massive increase in the annual rate of fossil fuel emissions: more than half of all
cumulative CO2 emissions have occurred since 1988.32 The rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
and industry, moreover, has increased threefold since the 1960s, and by more than 60% since
31 Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2016 (November 14, 2016),
www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf, citing CDIAC; R.A. Houghton
et al., Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change (2012),
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/5125/2012/bg-9-5125-2012.html; Louis Giglio et al., Analysis of daily, monthly,
and annual burned area using the fourth-generation global fire emissions database (2013),
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrg.20042/abstract; C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016,
Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/.
32 R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 1851
(2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 186 of 518
COMPLAINT 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1990.33 The graph below illustrates the increasing rate of global CO2 emissions since the industrial
era began.34
Cumulative Annual Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1751-2014:
54. Because of the increased use of fossil fuel products, concentrations of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere are now at a level unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.35 The graph
below illustrates the nearly 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration above pre-Industrial
levels since 1960.36
33 C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 625, 630 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-
sci-data.net/8/605/2016/ (“Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry have increased every decade from an
average of 3.1±0.2 GtC/yr in the 1960s to an average of 9.3±0.5 GtC/yr during 2006–2015”).
34 Peter Frumhoff, et al. The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, Climatic Change 132:157-
171, 164 (2015).
35 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
36 C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 608 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-
data.net/8/605/2016/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 187 of 518
COMPLAINT 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Parts Per Million, 1960-2015:
B. Sea Level Rise—Known Causes and Observed Effects
55. Sea level rise is the physical consequence of (a) the thermal expansion of ocean
waters as they warm; (b) increased mass loss from land-based glaciers that are melting as ambient
air temperature increases; and (c) the shrinking of land-based ice sheets due to increasing ocean
and air temperature.37
56. Of the increase in energy that has accumulated in the Earth’s atmosphere between
1971 and 2010, more than 90% is stored in the oceans.38
57. Anthropogenic forcing, in the form of greenhouse gas pollution largely from the
production, use and combustion of fossil fuel products, is the dominant cause of global mean sea
level rise since 1970, explaining at least 70% of the sea level rise observed between 1970 and
2000.39 Natural radiative forcing—that is, causes of climate change not related to human activity—
“makes essentially zero contribution [to observed sea level rise] over the twentieth century (2%
37 NOAA, Is sea level rising, Ocean Facts http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html (as of June 1, 2017).
38 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
39 Slangen et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, Nature Climate
Change, Vol. 6, 701 (2016).
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 188 of 518
COMPLAINT 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
over the period 1900–2005).”40
58. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution is the dominant factor in each of the
independent causes of sea level rise, including the increase in ocean thermal expansion,41 in glacier
mass loss, and in more negative surface mass balance from the ice sheets.42
59. There is a well-defined relation between cumulative emissions of CO2 and
committed global mean sea level. This relation, moreover, holds proportionately for committed
regional sea level rise.43
60. Nearly 100% of the sea level rise from any projected greenhouse gas emissions
scenario will persist for at least 10,000 years.44 This owes to the long residence time of CO2 in the
atmosphere that sustains temperature increases, and inertia in the climate system.45
61. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution caused the increased frequency and
severity of extreme sea level events (temporary sea level height increases due to storm surges or
extreme tides, exacerbated by elevated baseline sea level) observed during the Great
Acceleration.46 The incidence and magnitude of extreme sea level events has increased globally
since 1970.47 The impacts of such events, which generally occur with large storms, high tidal
events, offshore low-pressure systems associated with high winds, or the confluence of any of
these factors,48 are exacerbated with higher average sea level, which functionally raises the
baseline for the destructive impact of extreme weather and tidal events. Indeed, the magnitude and
40 Slangen et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, Nature Climate
Change, Vol. 6, 701 (2016).
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).
44 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 361 (2016).
45 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 360 (2016).
46 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers, page 7, Table SPM.1 (2013), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf.
47 IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the IPCC, 290 (2013),
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.
48 Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 189 of 518
COMPLAINT 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
frequency of extreme sea level events can occur in the absence of increased intensity of storm
events, given the increased average elevation from which flooding and inundation events begin.
These effects, and others, significantly and adversely affect Plaintiffs, with increased severity in
the future.
62. Historical greenhouse gas emissions alone through 2000 will cause a global mean
sea level rise of at least 7.4 feet.49 Additional greenhouse gas emissions from 2001–2015 have
caused approximately 10 additional feet of committed sea level rise. Even immediate and
permanent cessation of all additional anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would not prevent
the eventual inundation of land at elevations between current average mean sea level and 17.4 feet
of elevation in the absence of adaptive measures.
63. The relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and committed sea level
rise is nearly linear and always positive. For emissions, including future emissions, from the year
2001, the relation is approximately 0.25 inches of committed sea level rise per 1 GtCO2 released.
For the period 1965 to 2000, the relation is approximately 0.05 inches of committed sea level rose
per 1 GtCO2 released. For the period 1965 to 2015, normal use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products
caused a substantial portion of committed sea level rise. Each and every additional unit of CO2
emitted from the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products will add to the sea level rise already
committed to the geophysical system.
64. Projected onshore impacts associated with rising sea temperature and water level
include increases in flooding and erosion; increases in the occurrence, persistence, and severity of
storm surges; infrastructure inundation; public and private property damage; and pollution
associated with damaged control and waste infrastructure, and the lack thereof. All of these effects
significantly and adversely affect Plaintiffs.
65. Sea level rise has already taken grave tolls on inhabited coastlines. For instance, the
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) estimates that nuisance
49 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 190 of 518
COMPLAINT 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
flooding occurs from 300% to 900% more frequently within U.S. coastal communities today than
just 50 years ago.50
66. Nationwide, more than three quarters (76%) of flood days caused by high water
levels from sea level rise between 2005 and 2014 (2,505 of the 3,291 flood days) would not have
happened but for human-caused climate change. More than two-thirds (67%) of flood days since
1950 would not have happened without the sea level rise caused by increasing greenhouse
gas emissions.51
67. Regional expressions of sea level rise will differ from the global mean, and are
especially influenced by changes in ocean and atmospheric dynamics, as well as the gravitational,
deformational, and rotational effects of the loss of glaciers and ice sheets.52 Due to these effects,
San Mateo County will experience significantly greater absolute committed sea level rise than the
global mean.53
68. The County’s assessments show that the San Francisco Bay Area and San Mateo
County are “particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and changes in salinity, temperature, and
runoff.”54 This is because San Mateo’s topography, geography, and land use patterns make it
particularly susceptible to injuries from sea level rise; and because the California coast South of
Cape Mendocino, including San Mateo, is projected, due to its geophysical characteristics, to
experience a higher rate of sea level rise and a greater absolute amount of sea level rise than the
global mean.55
69. Given an emissions scenario in which the current rate of greenhouse gas pollution
50 NOAA, Is sea level rising, Ocean Facts, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html, (as of June 1, 2017).
51 Climate Central, Sea Level Rise Upping Ante on ‘Sunny Day’ Floods (October 17, 2016),
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-increases-sunny-day-floods-20784.
52 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 364, (2016).
53 See id., Figure 3(c).
54 County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 27 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
55 Global sea level rise is projected to be 82.7 cm (32.6 inches) above 2000 levels by 2100. See National Research
Council, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future (2012) at
page 107 at Table 5.2; page 117 at Table 5.3. The San Francisco Bay Area sea level rise is projected to be 91.9 cm
(36.2 inches) over 2000 by 2100. Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 191 of 518
COMPLAINT 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
continues unabated, sea level in the San Francisco Bay Area, including San Mateo County, will
rise significantly by the year 2100.56
70. San Mateo County’s sea level rise vulnerability analyses anticipate extreme sea
level rise events equivalent to a 1% annual-chance flood of 42-inches over and above expected
changes to the mean sea level height along the County.57 Such an event, even with the minimum
anticipated sea level rise, would inundate thousands of acres of County land,58 breach flood
protection infrastructure,59 and swamp San Francisco International Airport 60 (located within the
County), among other impacts.
71. Without Defendants’ fossil fuel-related greenhouse gas pollution, current sea level
rise would have been far less than the observed sea level rise to date.61 Similarly, committed sea
level rise that will occur in the future would also be far less.62
C. Attribution
72. “Carbon factors” analysis, devised by the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), the United Nations International Energy Agency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, quantifies the amount of CO2 emissions attributable to a unit of raw fossil fuel extracted
from the Earth.63 Emissions factors for oil, coal, liquid natural gas, and natural gas are different
for each material but are nevertheless known and quantifiable for each.64 This analysis accounts
for the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, including non-combustion purposes that sequester
56 Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science
Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-
update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf.
57 See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 46-7, 102 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
58 See id. at page 82-3.
59 See id. at page 97.
60 See id. at page 102.
61 Robert E. Kopp et al., Temperature-driven Global Sea-level Variability in the Common Era, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, No. 11, E1434-E1441, E1438 (2016),
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.full.
62Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).
63 See Richard Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions to Fossil Fuel and Cement
Producers, 1854-2010, Climatic Change 122, 232-33 (2014), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-
0986-y.
64 See, e.g., id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 192 of 518
COMPLAINT 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
CO2 rather than emit it (e.g., production of asphalt).
73. Defendants’ historical and current fossil fuel extraction and production records are
publicly available in various fora. These include university and public library collections, company
websites, company reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, company
histories, and other sources. The cumulative CO2 and methane emissions attributable to
Defendants’ fossil fuel products were calculated by reference to such publicly available
documents.
74. While it is possible to distinguish CO2 derived from fossil fuels from other sources,
it is not possible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of CO2 in the
atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic sources because such greenhouse gas molecules do not
bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhouse gasses quickly
diffuse and comingle in the atmosphere. However, cumulative carbon analysis allows an accurate
calculation of net annual CO2 and methane emissions attributable to each Defendant by quantifying
the amount and type of fossil fuels products each Defendant extracted and placed into the stream
of commerce, and multiplying those quantities by each fossil fuel product’s carbon factor.
75. Defendants, through their extraction, promotion, marketing, and sale of their fossil
fuel products, caused approximately 20% of global fossil fuel product-related CO2 between 1965
and 2015, with contributions currently continuing unabated. This constitutes a substantial portion
of all such emissions in history, and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level
rise associated therewith.
76. Total cumulative emissions increased from 470 GtC in 2000 to 600 GtC gigatons
through 2015, representing an almost 30% increase in total emissions in only sixteen years.65
77. By quantifying CO2 and methane pollution attributable to Defendants by and
through their fossil fuel products, ambient air and ocean temperature and sea level responses to
those emissions are also calculable, and can be attributed to Defendants on an individual and
aggregate basis. Individually and collectively, Defendants’ extraction, sale, and promotion of their
65 See C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 633, table 10 (2016),
http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 193 of 518
COMPLAINT 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
fossil fuel products are responsible for substantial increases in ambient (surface) temperature,
ocean temperature, sea level, extreme storm events, and other adverse impacts on Plaintiffs
described herein.
78. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions through 2015 have caused approximately 17.4 feet
of committed mean global sea level rise.66 Defendants, through their extraction, promotion,
marketing, and sale of their fossil fuel products, caused a substantial portion of both those
emissions and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level rise.
79. As explained above, this analysis considers only the volume of raw material
actually extracted from the Earth by these Defendants. Many of these Defendants actually are
responsible for far greater volumes of emissions because they also refine, manufacture, produce,
market, promote, and sell more fossil fuel derivatives than they extract themselves by purchasing
fossil fuel products extracted by independent third parties.
80. In addition, considering the Defendants’ lead role in promoting, marketing, and
selling their fossil fuels products between 1965 and 2015; their efforts to conceal the hazards of
those products from consumers; their promotion of their fossil fuel products despite knowing the
dangers associate with those products; their dogged campaign against regulation of those products
based on falsehoods, omissions, and deceptions; and their failure to pursue less hazardous
alternatives available to them, Defendants, individually and together, have substantially and
measurably contributed to the Plaintiffs’ sea level rise-related injuries.
D. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Hazards Associated with and Knew or Should Have Known of the Dangers Associated with the Extraction, Promotion and Sale of Their Fossil Fuel Products.
81. By 1965, concern about the risks of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
reached the highest level of the United States’ scientific community. In that year, President Lyndon
B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution reported that by the
year 2000, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would “modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to
66 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 194 of 518
COMPLAINT 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
such an extent that marked changes in climate . . . could occur.”67 President Johnson announced
in a special message to Congress that “[t]his generation has altered the composition of the
atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of
fossil fuels.”68
82. These statements from the Johnson Administration, at a minimum, put Defendants
on notice of the potentially substantial dangers to people, communities, and the planet associated
with unabated use of their fossil fuel products. Moreover, Defendants had amassed a considerable
body of knowledge on the subject through their own independent efforts.
83. In 1968, a Stanford Research Institute (SRI) report commissioned by the American
Petroleum Institute (“API”) and made available to all of its members, concluded, among
other things:
If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis. . . .
It is clear that we are unsure as to what our long-lived pollutants are doing to our environment; however, there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe. . . . [T]he prospect for the future must be of serious concern.69
84. In 1969, Shell memorialized an on-going 18-month project to collect ocean data
from oil platforms to develop and calibrate environmental forecasting theories related to predicting
wave, wind, storm, sea level, and current changes and trends.70 Several Defendants and/or their
predecessors in interest participated in the project, including Esso Production Research Company
(ExxonMobil), Mobil Research and Development Company (ExxonMobil), Pan American
Petroleum Corporation (BP), Gulf Oil Corporation (Chevron), Texaco Inc. (Chevron), and the
Chevron Oil Field Research Company.
67 President’s Science Advisory Committee, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the
Environmental Pollution Panel, page 9 (November 1965), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b4315678.
68 President Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Message to Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty
(February 8, 1965), http://acsc.lib.udel.edu/items/show/292.
69 Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, Stanford
Research Institute (February 1968), https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16.
70 M.M. Patterson, An Ocean Data Gathering Program for the Gulf of Mexico, Society of Petroleum Engineers
(1969), https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-2638-MS.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 195 of 518
COMPLAINT 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
85. In 1972, API members, including Defendants, received a status report on all
environmental research projects funded by API. The report summarized the 1968 SRI report
describing the impact of Defendants’ fossil fuel products on the environment, including global
warming and sea level rise. Industry participants who received this report include: American
Standard of Indiana (BP), Asiatic (Shell), Ashland (Marathon), Atlantic Richfield (BP), British
Petroleum (BP), Chevron Standard of California (Chevron), Cities Service (Citgo), Continental
(ConocoPhillips), Dupont (former owner of Conoco), Esso Research (ExxonMobil), Ethyl
(formerly affiliated with Esso, which was subsumed by ExxonMobil), Getty
(Lukoil/ExxonMobil), Gulf (Chevron, among others), Humble Standard of New Jersey
(ExxonMobil/Chevron/BP), Marathon, Mobil (ExxonMobil), Pan American (BP), Phillips
(ConocoPhillips), Shell, Standard of Ohio (BP), Texaco (Chevron), Union (Chevron), Edison
Electric Institute (representing electric utilities), Bituminous Coal Research (coal industry research
group), Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association (presently the U.S. Oil & Gas Association, a
national trade association), Western Oil & Gas Association, National Petroleum Refiners
Association (presently the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association, a
national trade association), Champlin (Anadarko), Skelly (Lukoil/ExxonMobil), Colonial Pipeline
(ownership has included BP, Citgo, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron entities, among others)
and Caltex (Chevron), among others.71
86. In a 1977 presentation and again in a 1978 briefing, Exxon scientists warned the
Exxon Corporation Management Committee that CO2 concentrations were building in the Earth’s
atmosphere at an increasing rate, that CO2 emissions attributable to fossil fuels were retained in
the atmosphere, and that CO2 was contributing to global warming.72 The report stated:
There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels . . . [and that] Man has a time window of five to ten years before the
71 American Petroleum Institute, Environmental Research, A Status Report, Committee for Air and Water
Conservation (January 1972), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf.
72 Memo from J.F. Black to F.G. Turpin, The Greenhouse Effect, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (June
6, 1978), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1978-exxon-memo -on-greenhouse-effect-for-exxon-corporation-
management-committee/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 196 of 518
COMPLAINT 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.73
87. Thereafter, Exxon engaged in a research program to study the environmental fate
of fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gases and their impacts, which included publication of peer-
reviewed research by Exxon staff scientists and the conversion of a supertanker into a research
vessel to study the greenhouse effect and the role of the oceans in absorbing anthropogenic CO2.
Much of this research was shared in a variety of fora, symposia, and shared papers through trade
associations and directly with other Defendants.
88. Exxon scientists made the case internally for using company resources to build
corporate knowledge about the impacts of the promotion, marketing, and consumption of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products. Exxon climate researcher Henry Shaw wrote in 1978: “The
rationale for Exxon’s involvement and commitment of funds and personnel is based on our need
to assess the possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business. Exxon must develop a
credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be
able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.”74 Moreover, Shaw emphasized the need to
collaborate with universities and government to more completely understand what he called the
“CO2 problem.”75
89. In 1979, API and its members, including Defendants, convened a Task Force to
monitor and share cutting edge climate research among the oil industry. The group was initially
called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task
Force in 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “API CO2 Task Force”). Membership included senior
scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company,
including Exxon, Mobil (ExxonMobil), Amoco (BP), Phillips (ConocoPhillips), Texaco
(Chevron), Shell, Sunoco, Sohio (BP) as well as Standard Oil of California (BP) and Gulf Oil
73 Id.
74Henry Shaw, Memo to Edward David Jr. on the “Greenhouse Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company
(December 7, 1978).
75 Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 197 of 518
COMPLAINT 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
(Chevron, among others). The Task Force was charged with assessing the implications of emerging
science on the petroleum and gas industries and identifying where reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products could be made.76
90. In 1979, API sent its members a background memo related to the API CO2 and
Climate Task Force’s efforts, stating that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily in the
atmosphere, and predicting when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt.77
91. Also in 1979, Exxon scientists advocated internally for additional fossil fuel
industry-generated atmospheric research in light of the growing consensus that consumption of
fossil fuel products was changing the Earth’s climate:
“We should determine how Exxon can best participate in all these [atmospheric
science research] areas and influence possible legislation on environmental
controls. It is important to begin to anticipate the strong intervention of
environmental groups and be prepared to respond with reliable and credible data. It
behooves [Exxon] to start a very aggressive defensive program in the indicated
areas of atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability that
legislation affecting our business will be passed. Clearly, it is in our interest for
such legislation to be based on hard scientific data. The data obtained from research
on the global damage from pollution, e.g., from coal combustion, will give us the
needed focus for further research to avoid or control such pollutants.”78
92. That same year, Exxon Research and Engineering reported that: “The most widely
held theory [about increasing CO2 concentration] is that the increase is due to fossil fuel
combustion, increasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface, and the
present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year
76American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting Minutes (March 18, 1980),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-
9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf (AQ-9 refers to the “CO2 and Climate” Task Force).
77 Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-
about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.
78 Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to H.N. Weinberg about “Research in Atmospheric Science”, Exxon Inter-Office
Correspondence (November 19, 1979),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Probable%20Legislation%20Memo%20(1979).pdf.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 198 of 518
COMPLAINT 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
2050.”79 Further, the report stated that unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be
“noticeable temperature changes” associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 280
parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 400 parts per million by the year 2010.80 Those
projections proved remarkably accurate—atmospheric CO2 concentrations surpassed 400 parts per
million in May 2013, for the first time in millions of years.81 In 2015, the annual average CO2
concentration rose above 400 parts per million, and in 2016 the annual low surpassed 400 parts
per million, meaning atmospheric CO2 concentration remained above that threshold all year.82
93. In 1980, API’s CO2 Task Force members discussed the oil industry’s responsibility
to reduce CO2 emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emit less CO2.
The minutes from the Task Force’s February 29, 1980, meeting included a summary of a
presentation on “The CO2 Problem” given by Dr. John Laurmann, which identified the “scientific
consensus on the potential for large future climatic response to increased CO2 levels” as a reason
for API members to have concern with the “CO2 problem” and informed attendees that there was
“strong empirical evidence that rise [in CO2 concentration was] caused by anthropogenic release
of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel combustion.”83 Moreover, Dr. Laurmann warned that the amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere could double by 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5° C (4.5º
F) rise in global average temperatures with “major economic consequences.” He then told the Task
Force that models showed a 5°C (9º F) rise by 2067, with “globally catastrophic effects.”84 A
taskforce member and representative of Texaco leadership present at the meeting posited that the
API CO2 Task Force should develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of
fuels as they relate to CO2 creation.
79 W.L. Ferrall, Exxon Memo to R.L. Hirsch about “Controlling Atmospheric CO2”, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company (October 16, 1979),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/CO2%20and%20Fuel%20Use%20Projections.pdf.
80 Id.
81 Nicola Jones, How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why it Matters, Yale Environment 360 (Jan. 26,
2017), http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters.
82 Id.
83 American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting Minutes (March 18, 1980),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-
9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf (AQ-9 refers to the “CO2 and Climate” Task Force).
84 Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 199 of 518
COMPLAINT 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
94. In 1980, the API CO2 Task Force also discussed a potential area for investigation:
alternative energy sources as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel
products. These efforts called for research and development to “Investigate the Market Penetration
Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.” Such investigation was
to include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing, and
requirements.85
95. By 1980, Exxon’s senior leadership had become intimately familiar with the
greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. In that year, Exxon Senior Vice President
and Board member George Piercy questioned Exxon researchers on the minutiae of the ocean’s
role in absorbing atmospheric CO2, including whether there was a net CO2 flux out of the ocean
into the atmosphere in certain zones where upwelling of cold water to the surface occurs, because
Piercy evidently believed that the oceans could absorb and retain higher concentrations of CO2
than the atmosphere.86 This inquiry aligns with Exxon supertanker research into whether the ocean
would act as a significant CO2 sink that would sequester atmospheric CO2 long enough to allow
unabated emissions without triggering dire climatic consequences. As described below, Exxon
eventually scrapped this research before it produced enough data from which to derive a
conclusion.87
96. Also in 1980, Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) reported to Esso and Exxon managers
and environmental staff that increases in fossil fuel usage aggravates CO2 in the atmosphere.
Noting that the United Nations was encouraging research into the carbon cycle, Imperial reported
that “[t]echnology exists to remove CO2 from [fossil fuel power plant] stack gases but removal of
only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.” Imperial also reported that its
coordination department had been internally evaluating its and Exxon’s products to determine
85 Id.
86 Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate
News (Dec. 1, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-senior-
executives-engage-and-warming-forecast.
87 Neela Banerjee et al., Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business, Inside
Climate News (Sept. 17, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-
climate-research-would-protect-its-business.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 200 of 518
COMPLAINT 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
whether disclosure of a human health hazard was necessary. The report notes that Section (8e) of
Toxic Substances Control Act, 55 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., requires that anyone who discovers that
a material or substance in commercial use is or may be a significant risk to human health must
report such findings to the Environmental Protection Agency within 15 days. Although greenhouse
gases are human health hazards (because they have serious consequences in terms of global food
production, disease virulence, and sanitation infrastructure, among other impacts), neither
Imperial, Exxon, nor any other Defendant has ever filed a disclosure with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Exxon scientist Roger Cohen
warned his colleagues in a 1981 internal memorandum that “future developments in global data
gathering and analysis, along with advances in climate modeling, may provide strong evidence for
a delayed CO2 effect of a truly substantial magnitude,” and that under certain circumstances it
would be “very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the threat by the year 2000.”88 Cohen
had expressed concern that the memorandum mischaracterized potential effects of unabated CO2
emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products: “. . . it is distinctly possible that the . . . [Exxon
Planning Division’s] scenario will produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for
a substantial fraction of the world’s population).”89
97. In 1981, Exxon’s Henry Shaw, the company’s lead climate researcher at the time,
prepared a summary of Exxon’s current position on the greenhouse effect for Edward David Jr.,
president of Exxon Research and Engineering, stating in relevant part:
• “Atmospheric CO2 will double in 100 years if fossil fuels grow at 1.4%/ a2.
• 3oC global average temperature rise and 10oC at poles if CO2 doubles.
o Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture
o Polar ice may melt”90
88 Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo to W. Glass about possible “catastrophic” effect of CO2, Exxon Inter-Office
Correspondence (Aug. 18, 1981), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxon-memo -on-possible-
emission-consequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption/.
89 Id.
90 Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to E. E. David, Jr. about “CO2Position Statement”, Exxon Inter-Office
Correspondence (May 15, 1981),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exxon%20Position%20on%20CO2%20%281981%29.pd
f.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 201 of 518
COMPLAINT 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
98. In 1982, another report prepared for API by scientists at the Lamont-Doherty
Geological Observatory at Columbia University recognized that atmospheric CO2 concentration
had risen significantly compared to the beginning of the industrial revolution from about 290 parts
per million to about 340 parts per million in 1981 and acknowledged that despite differences in
climate modelers’ predictions, all models indicated a temperature increase caused by
anthropogenic CO2 within a global mean range of 4º C (7.2° F). The report advised that there was
scientific consensus that “a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from [] pre-industrial revolution value
would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [5.4 ± 2.7° F].” It went further,
warning that “[s]uch a warming can have serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival
since patterns of aridity and rainfall can change, the height of the sea level can increase
considerably and the world food supply can be affected.”91 Exxon’s own modeling research
confirmed this, and the company’s results were later published in at least three peer-reviewed
scientific papers.92
99. Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Manager distributed a primer on
climate change to a “wide circulation [of] Exxon management . . . intended to familiarize Exxon
personnel with the subject.”93 The primer also was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not to be
distributed externally.”94 The primer compiled science on climate change available at the time,
and confirmed fossil fuel combustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor to global warming.
The report estimated a CO2 doubling around 2090 based on Exxon’s long-range modeled outlook.
The author warned that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet could result in global sea level rise
91 American Petroleum Institute, Climate Models and CO2 Warming: A Selective Review and Summary, Lamont-
Doherty Geological Observatory (Columbia University) (March 1982),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2805626/1982-API-Climate-Models-and-CO2-Warming-a.pdf.
92 See Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company (September 2, 1982),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%2
0(1982).pdf. (discussing research articles).
93 M. B. Glaser, Exxon Memo to Management about “CO2 ‘Greenhouse’ Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering
Company (November 12, 1982),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhou
se%20Effect.pdf.
94 Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 202 of 518
COMPLAINT 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
of five feet which would “cause flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast, including the State of
Florida and Washington, D.C.”95 Indeed, it warned that “there are some potentially catastrophic
events that must be considered,” including sea level rise from melting polar ice sheets. It noted
that some scientific groups were concerned “that once the effects are measurable, they might not
be reversible.”96
100. In a summary of Exxon’s climate modeling research from 1982, Director of
Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory Roger Cohen wrote that “the time
required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels.”
Cohen concluded that Exxon’s own results were “consistent with the published predictions of more
complex climate models” and “in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased
atmospheric CO2 on climate.”97
101. At the fourth biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium at the Lamont-Doherty
Geophysical Observatory in October 1982, attended by members of API, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company president E.E. David delivered a speech titled: “Inventing the Future:
Energy and the CO2 ‘Greenhouse Effect.’”98 His remarks included the following statement: “[F]ew
people doubt that the world has entered an energy transition away from dependence upon fossil
fuels and toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose problems of CO2
accumulation.” He went on, discussing the human opportunity to address anthropogenic climate
change before the point of no return:
It is ironic that the biggest uncertainties about the CO2 buildup are not in predicting
what the climate will do, but in predicting what people will do. . . . [It] appears we
still have time to generate the wealth and knowledge we will need to invent the
transition to a stable energy system.
95 Id.
96 Id.
97 Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company (September 2, 1982),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%2
0(1982).pdf.
98 E. E. David, Jr., Inventing the Future: Energy and the CO2 Greenhouse Effect: Remarks at the Fourth Annual
Ewing Symposium, Tenafly, NJ (1982), http://sites.agu.org/publications/files/2015/09/ch1.pdf.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 203 of 518
COMPLAINT 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
102. Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry
Shaw forecasted emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use. Those estimates were incorporated into
Exxon’s 21st century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various divisions.
Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would double in
2090 per the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6º F average global temperature increase. Shaw
compared his model results to those of the U.S. EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, indicating that the Exxon model predicted a longer delay
than any of the other models, although its temperature increase prediction was in the mid-range of
the four projections.99
103. During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their own research units focused on
climate modeling. The API, including the API CO2 Task Force, provided a forum for Defendants
to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions.100
104. During this time, Defendants’ statements express an understanding of their
obligation to consider and mitigate the externalities of unabated promotion, marketing, and sale of
their fossil fuel products. For example, in 1988, Richard Tucker, the president of Mobil Oil,
presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers National Meeting, the premier
educational forum for chemical engineers, where he stated:
[H]umanity, which has created the industrial system that has transformed civilities,
is also responsible for the environment, which sometimes is at risk because of
unintended consequences of industrialization. . . . Maintaining the health of this
life-support system is emerging as one of the highest priorities. . . . [W]e must all
be environmentalists.
The environmental covenant requires action on many fronts…the low-atmosphere
ozone problem, the upper-atmosphere ozone problem and the greenhouse effect,
99 Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate
News (Dec. 1, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-senior-
executives-engage-and-warming-forecast.
100 Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-
about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 204 of 518
COMPLAINT 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
to name a few. . . . Our strategy must be to reduce pollution before it is ever
generated – to prevent problems at the source.
Prevention means engineering a new generation of fuels, lubricants and chemical
products. . . . Prevention means designing catalysts and processes that minimize
or eliminate the production of unwanted byproducts. . . . Prevention on a global
scale may even require a dramatic reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels—
and a shift towards solar, hydrogen, and safe nuclear power. It may be possible
that—just possible—that the energy industry will transform itself so completely
that observers will declare it a new industry. . . . Brute force, low-tech responses
and money alone won’t meet the challenges we face in the energy industry.101
105. In 1989, Esso Resources Canada (ExxonMobil) commissioned a report on the
impacts of climate change on existing and proposed natural gas facilities in the Mackenzie River
Valley and Delta, including extraction facilities on the Beaufort Sea and a pipeline crossing
Canada’s Northwest Territory.102 It reported that “large zones of the Mackenzie Valley could be
affected dramatically by climatic change” and that “the greatest concern in Norman Wells [oil
town in North West Territories, Canada] should be the changes in permafrost that are likely to
occur under conditions of climate warming.” The report concluded that, in light of climate models
showing a “general tendency towards warmer and wetter climate,” operation of those facilities
would be compromised by increased precipitation, increase in air temperature, changes in
permafrost conditions, and significantly, sea level rise and erosion damage.103 The authors
recommended factoring these eventualities into future development planning and also warned that
“a rise in sea level could cause increased flooding and erosion damage on Richards Island.”
106. In 1991, Shell produced a film called “Climate of Concern.” The film advises that
while “no two [climate change projection] scenarios fully agree . . . [they] have each prompted the
same serious warning. A warning endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their
report to the UN at the end of 1990.” The warning was an increasing frequency of abnormal
weather, and of sea level rise of about one meter over the coming century. Shell specifically
101 Richard E. Tucker, High Tech Frontiers in the Energy Industry: The Challenge Ahead, AIChE National Meeting
(November 30, 1988), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754074119482?urlappend=%3Bseq=522.
102Stephen Lonergan and Kathy Young, An Assessment of the Effects of Climate Warming on Energy
Developments in the Mackenzie River Valley and Delta, Canadian Arctic, Energy Exploration & Exploitation, Vol.
7, Issue 5 (Oct. 1, 1989), http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014459878900700508.
103 Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 205 of 518
COMPLAINT 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
described the impacts of anthropogenic sea level rise on tropical islands, “barely afloat even now
. . . [f]irst made uninhabitable and then obliterated beneath the waves. Wetland habitats destroyed
by intruding salt. Coastal lowlands suffering pollution of precious groundwater.” It warned of
“greenhouse refugees,” people who abandoned homelands inundated by the sea, or displaced
because of catastrophic changes to the environment. The video concludes with a stark admonition:
“Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that the wait for final proof would be
irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.”104
107. In the mid-1990s, ExxonMobil, Shell and Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) jointly
undertook the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Nova Scotia. The project’s own Environmental
Impact Statement declared: “The impact of a global warming sea-level rise may be particularly
significant in Nova Scotia. The long-term tide gauge records at a number of locations along the
N.S. coast have shown sea level has been rising over the past century . . . . For the design of coastal
and offshore structures, an estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 m [1.64
feet] may be assumed for the proposed project life (25 years).”105
108. Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations
frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling—those uncertainties, however,
were merely with respect to the magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from fossil fuel
consumption, not that significant changes would eventually occur. The Defendants’ researchers
and the researchers at their industry associations harbored little doubt that climate change was
occurring and that fossil fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.
109. Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet
posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, Defendants failed to act as they
reasonably should have to mitigate or avoid those dire adverse impacts. Defendants instead
adopted the position, as described below, that the absence of meaningful regulations on the
104Jelmer Mommers, Shell made a film about climate change in 1991 (then neglected to heed its own warning), de
Correspondent (Feb. 27, 2017), https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in-
1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning/692663565-875331f6.
105 ExxonMobil, Sable Project, Development Plan, Volume 3 – Environmental Impact Statement
http://soep.com/about-the-project/development-plan-application/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 206 of 518
COMPLAINT 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
consumption of their fossil fuel products was the equivalent of a social license to continue the
unfettered pursuit of profits from those products. This position was an abdication of Defendants’
responsibility to consumers and the public, including Plaintiffs, to act on their unique knowledge
of the reasonably foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of their fossil
fuel products.
E. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Extraction,
Promotion and Consumption of Their Fossil Fuel Products and Instead
Affirmatively Acted to Obscure Those Harms and Engaged in a Concerted
Campaign to Evade Regulation.
110. By 1988, Defendants had amassed a compelling body of knowledge about the role
of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and specifically those emitted from the normal use of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products, in causing global warming and sea level rise and the attendant
consequences for human communities and the environment. On notice that their products were
causing global climate change and dire effects on the planet, Defendants were faced with the
decision of whether to take steps to limit the damages their fossil fuel products were causing and
would continue to cause for virtually every one of Earth’s inhabitants, including the People of the
State of California, and the County of San Mateo and its citizens.
111. Defendants at any time before or thereafter could and should reasonably have taken
any of a number of steps to mitigate the damages caused by their fossil fuel products, and their
own comments reveal an awareness of what some of these steps may have been. Defendants should
have made reasonable warnings to consumers, the public, and regulators of the dangers known to
Defendants of the unabated consumption of their fossil fuel products, and they should have taken
reasonable steps to limit the potential greenhouse gas emissions arising out of their fossil
fuel products.
112. But several key events during the period 1988–1992 appear to have prompted
Defendants to change their tactics from general research and internal discussion on climate change
to a public campaign aimed at evading regulation of their fossil fuel products and/or emissions
therefrom. These include:
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 207 of 518
COMPLAINT 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
a. In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists
confirmed that human activities were actually contributing to global
warming.106 On June 23 of that year, NASA scientist James Hansen’s
presentation of this information to Congress engendered significant news
coverage and publicity for the announcement, including coverage on the
front page of the New York Times.
b. On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and four bipartisan co-sponsors
introduced S. 2666, “The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to regulate
CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Four more bipartisan bills to significantly
reduce CO2 pollution were introduced over the following ten weeks, and in
August, U.S. Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush pledged that his
presidency would “combat the greenhouse effect with the White House
effect.”107 Political will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the harms associated with
Defendants’ fossil fuel products was gaining momentum.
c. In December 1988, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific panel dedicated to providing the
world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climate
change and its environmental, political, and economic impacts.
d. In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic
climate change,108 in which it concluded that (1) “there is a natural
greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would
otherwise be,” and (2) that
106 See Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, Climatic Change, Vol.
132, 161 (2015).
107 New York Times, The White House and the Greenhouse, May 9, 1998,
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-house-and-the-greenhouse.html.
108 See IPCC, Reports, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 208 of 518
COMPLAINT 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.109
The IPCC reconfirmed these conclusions in a 1992 supplement to
the First Assessment report.110
e. The United Nations began preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, a major, newsworthy gathering of 172 world governments,
of which 116 sent their heads of state. The Summit resulted in the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an
international environmental treaty providing protocols for future
negotiations aimed at “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.”111
113. These world events marked a shift in public discussion of climate change, and the
initiation of international efforts to curb anthropogenic greenhouse emissions – developments that
had stark implications for, and would have diminished the profitability of, Defendants’ fossil fuel
products.
114. But rather than collaborating with the international community by acting to
forestall, or at least decrease, their fossil fuel products’ contributions to global warming, sea level
rise, and injuries to San Mateo and other coastal communities, Defendants embarked on a decades-
long campaign designed to maximize continued dependence on their products and undermine
national and international efforts like the Kyoto Protocol to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.
109 IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Policymakers Summary (1990),
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf.
110 IPCC, 1992 IPCC Supplement to the First Assessment Report (1992),
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_90_92_assessments_far.shtml.
111 United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 2 (1992),
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 209 of 518
COMPLAINT 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
115. Defendants’ campaign, which focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or
misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting consumption of (and thereby
decreasing demand for) Defendants’ fossil fuel products, took several forms. The campaign
enabled Defendants to accelerate their business practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves, and
concurrently externalize the social and environmental costs of their fossil fuel products. These
activities stood in direct contradiction to Defendants’ own prior recognition that the science of
anthropogenic climate change was clear and that the greatest uncertainties involved responsive
human behavior, not scientific understanding of the issue.
116. Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal, from Plaintiffs and the general public,
the foreseeable impacts of the use of their fossil fuel products on the Earth’s climate and associated
harms to people and communities. Defendants embarked on a concerted public relations campaign
to cast doubt on the science connecting global climate change to fossil fuel products and
greenhouse gas emissions, in order to influence public perception of the existence of anthropogenic
global warming and sea level rise. The effort included promoting their hazardous products through
advertising campaigns and the initiation and funding of climate change denialist organizations,
designed to influence consumers to continue using Defendants’ fossil fuel products irrespective of
those products’ damage to communities and the environment.
117. For example, in 1988, Joseph Carlson, an Exxon public affairs manager, described
the “Exxon Position,” which included among others, two important messaging tenets: (1)
“[e]mphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced
Greenhouse Effect;” and (2) “[r]esist the overstatement and sensationalization [sic] of potential
greenhouse effect which could lead to noneconomic development of non-fossil fuel resources.”112
118. In 1991, for example, the Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”), whose
members included affiliates, predecessors and/or subsidiaries of Defendants, including Peabody,
Ohio Valley Coal Company (Murray Energy), Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining (Chevron), and
Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental), launched a national climate change science denial
112Joseph M. Carlson, Exxon Memo on “The Greenhouse Effect” (August 3, 1988),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo -on-the-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 210 of 518
COMPLAINT 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
campaign with full-page newspaper ads, radio commercials, a public relations tour schedule,
“mailers,” and research tools to measure campaign success. Included among the campaign
strategies was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” Its target audience included
older less-educated males who are “predisposed to favor the ICE agenda, and likely to be even
more supportive of that agenda following exposure to new info” as well as younger, lower-income
women likely to be “green” consumers but who “are also most likely to soften their support for
federal legislation after hearing new information on global warming.”113 The effort focused on a
few select cities for their test marketing; these cities were selected on the basis that the majority of
their electricity came from coal, they were home to members of the U.S. House of Representatives
Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means committees, and they had low media costs.114
119. An implicit goal of ICE’s advertising campaign was to change public opinion and
avoid regulation. A memo from Richard Lawson, president of the National Coal Association asked
members to contribute to the ICE campaign with the justification that “policymakers are prepared
to act [on global warming]. Public opinion polls reveal that 60% of the American people already
believe global warming is a serious environmental problem. Our industry cannot sit on the
sidelines in this debate.”115
120. The following images are examples of ICE-funded print advertisements
challenging the validity of climate science and intended to obscure the scientific consensus on
anthropogenic climate change and induce political inertia to address it.116
113 Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham,
(1991), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.
114 Id.
115 Naomi Oreskes, My Facts Are Better Than Your Facts: Spreading Good News about Global Warming (2010), in
Peter Howlett et al., How Well Do Facts Travel?: The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, 136-166. Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511762154.008.8.
116 Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham,
47–49 (1991), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 211 of 518
COMPLAINT 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
121. In 1996, Exxon released a publication called “Global Warming: Who’s Right?
Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers.” In the publication’s preface,
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond stated that “taking drastic action immediately is unnecessary since
many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate system.” The subsequent
article described the greenhouse effect as “unquestionably real and definitely a good thing,” while
ignoring the severe consequences that would result from the influence of the increased CO2
concentration on the Earth’s climate. Instead, it characterized the greenhouse effect as simply
“what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable.” Directly contradicting their own internal reports and
peer-reviewed science, the article ascribed the rise in temperature since the late 19th century to
“natural fluctuations that occur over long periods of time” rather than to the anthropogenic
emissions that Exxon and other scientists had confirmed were responsible. The article also falsely
challenged the computer models that projected the future impacts of unabated fossil fuel product
consumption, including those developed by Exxon’s own employees, as having been “proved to
be inaccurate.” The article contradicted the numerous reports circulated among Exxon’s staff, and
by the API, by stating that “the indications are that a warmer world would be far more benign than
many imagine . . . moderate warming would reduce mortality rates in the US, so a slightly warmer
climate would be more healthful.” Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for
limiting the use of his company’s fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic, or
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 212 of 518
COMPLAINT 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
unrealistic assumptions”—despite the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in
compiling those same scientific underpinnings.117
122. In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which
many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated these views. This time,
he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the marketing,
promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products known to Defendants to be hazardous. He stated:
Some people who argue that we should drastically curtail our use of fossil fuels
for environmental reasons…my belief [is] that such proposals are neither prudent
nor practical. With no readily available economic alternatives on the horizon,
fossil fuels will continue to supply most of the world’s and this region’s energy
for the foreseeable future.
Governments also need to provide a stable investment climate…They should
avoid the temptation to intervene in energy markets in ways that give advantage
to one competitor over another or one fuel over another.
We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effects comes from
natural sources . . . . Leaping to radically cut this tiny sliver of the greenhouse pie
on the premise that it will affect climate defies common sense and lacks foundation
in our current understanding of the climate system.
Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in
the 21st century and beyond. . . . It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the
middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are
enacted now or 20 years from now. It’s bad public policy to impose very costly
regulations and restrictions when their need has yet to be proven.118
123. Imperial Oil CEO Robert Peterson falsely denied the established connection
between Defendants’ fossil fuel products and anthropogenic climate change in the Summer 1998
Imperial Oil Review, “A Cleaner Canada”:
[T]his issue [referring to climate change] has absolutely nothing to do with
pollution and air quality. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential
ingredient of life on this planet. . . . [T]he question of whether or not the trapping
117 Exxon Corp., Global warming: who’s right?, (1996), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805542-
Exxon-Global-Warming-Whos-Right.html.
118 Lee R. Raymond, Energy – Key to growth and a better environment for Asia-Pacific nations, World Petroleum
Congress (October 13, 1997), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2840902/1997-Lee-Raymond -Speech-at-
China-World-Petroleum.pdf.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 213 of 518
COMPLAINT 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
of ‘greenhouse gases will result in the planet’s getting warmer…has no connection
whatsoever with our day-to-day weather.
There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planet
is getting warmer, or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-made
factors or natural variations in the climate. . . . I feel very safe in saying that the
view that burning fossil fuels will result in global climate change remains an
unproved hypothesis.119
124. Mobil (ExxonMobil) paid for a series of “advertorials,” advertisements located in
the editorial section of the New York Times and meant to look like editorials rather than paid ads.
These ads discussed various aspects of the public discussion of climate change and sought to
undermine the justifications for tackling greenhouse gas emissions as unsettled science. The 1997
advertorial below 120 argued that economic analysis of emissions restrictions was faulty and
inconclusive and therefore a justification for delaying action on climate change.
119 Robert Peterson, A Cleaner Canada in Imperial Oil Review (Summer 1998),
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827818-1998-Imperial-Oil-Robert-Peterson-A-Cleaner-Canada.html.
120 Mobil, When Facts Don’t Square with the Theory, Throw Out the Facts (1997) New York Times, A31 (August
14, 1997), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705550-mob-nyt-1997-aug-14-whenfactsdontsquare.html.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 214 of 518
COMPLAINT 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 215 of 518
COMPLAINT 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
125. In 1998, API, on behalf of Defendants, among other fossil fuel companies and
organizations supported by fossil fuel corporate grants, developed a Global Climate Science
Communications Plan that stated that unless “climate change becomes a non-issue . . . there may
be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts.” Rather, API proclaimed that “[v]ictory
will be achieved when . . . average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate
science; [and when] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”121
The multi-million-dollar, multi-year proposed budget included public outreach and the
dissemination of educational materials to schools to “begin to erect a barrier against further efforts
to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future”122—a blatant attempt to disrupt international efforts,
pursuant to the UNFCCC, to negotiate a treaty that curbed greenhouse gas emissions.
126. Soon after, API distributed a memo to its members identifying public agreement on
fossil fuel role in climate change as its highest priority issue.123 The memorandum illuminates
API’s and Defendants’ concern over the potential regulation of Defendants’ fossil fuel products:
“Climate is at the center of the industry’s business interests. Policies limiting carbon emissions
reduce petroleum product use. That is why it is API’s highest priority issue and defined as
‘strategic.’”124 Further, the API memo stresses many of the strategies that Defendants individually
and collectively utilized to combat the perception of their fossil fuel products as hazardous. These
included:
a. Influencing the tenor of the climate change “debate” as a means to establish
that greenhouse gas reduction policies like the Kyoto Protocol were not
necessary to responsibly address climate change;
121 Joe Walker, E-mail to Global Climate Science Team, attaching the Draft Global Science Communications Plan
(April 3, 1998), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communications-
plan.pdf.
122 Joe Walker, E-mail to Global Climate Science Team, attaching the Draft Global Science Communications Plan
(April 3, 1998), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communications-
plan.pdf.
123 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Allegations of Political Interference with Government
Climate Change Science, page 51 (March 19, 2007), https://ia601904.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-
110hhrg37415/CHRG-110hhrg37415.pdf.
124 Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 216 of 518
COMPLAINT 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
b. Maintaining strong working relationships between government regulators
and communications-oriented organizations like the Global Climate
Coalition, the Heartland Institute, and other groups carrying Defendants’
message minimizing the hazards of the unabated use of their fossil fuel
products and opposing regulation thereof;
c. Building the case for (and falsely dichotomizing) Defendants’ positive
contributions to a “long-term approach” (ostensibly for regulation of their
products) as a reason for society to reject short term fossil fuel emissions
regulations, and engaging in climate change science uncertainty research;
and
d. Presenting Defendants’ positions on climate change in domestic and
international forums, including by preparing rebuttals to IPCC reports.
127. Additionally, Defendants mounted a campaign against regulation of their business
practices in order to continue placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, despite
their own knowledge and the growing national and international scientific consensus about the
hazards of doing so. These efforts came despite Defendants’ recent recognition that “risks to nearly
every facet of life on Earth . . . could be avoided only if timely steps were taken to address climate
change.”125
128. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), on behalf of Defendants and other fossil fuel
companies, funded advertising campaigns and distributed material to generate public uncertainty
around the climate debate, with the specific purpose of preventing U.S. adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol, despite the leading role that the U.S. had played in the Protocol negotiations.126 Despite
an internal primer stating that various “contrarian theories” [i.e., climate change skepticism] do
125 Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-
about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.
126 Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-
about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 217 of 518
COMPLAINT 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
not “offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-
induced climate change,” GCC excluded this section from the public version of the backgrounder
and instead funded efforts to promote some of those same contrarian theories over subsequent
years.127
129. The efforts by the Defendants and other fossil fuel interests to sow uncertainty and
prevent regulation have been successful. GCC and its cohorts staved off greenhouse gas regulation
in the U.S., as indicated by U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky’s talking points
compiled before a 2001 meeting with GCC representatives: “POTUS [President of the United
States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on [GCC’s] input.”128 When GCC disbanded later that year,
it commemorated the occasion on its website by stating that “the industry voice on climate change
has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming.”129
130. A key strategy in Defendants’ efforts to discredit scientific consensus on climate
change and the IPCC was to bankroll scientists who, although accredited, held fringe opinions that
were even more questionable given the sources of their research funding. These scientists obtained
part or all of their research budget from Defendants directly or through Defendant-funded
organizations like API,130 but they frequently failed to disclose their fossil fuel industry
underwriters.131
131. Creating a false sense of disagreement in the scientific community (despite the
consensus that its own scientists, experts, and managers had previously acknowledged) has had an
evident impact on public opinion. A 2007 Yale University-Gallup poll found that while 71% of
127 Gregory J. Dana, Memo to AIAM Technical Committee Re: Global Climate Coalition (GCC) – Primer on
Climate Change Science – Final Draft, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (January 18, 1996),
http://www.webcitation.org/6FyqHawb9.
128 Ken Brill, Briefing Memorandum to Under Secretary Dobriansky, Your Meeting with members of the Global
Climate Coalition, June 21, 2001, 9:10 – 9:50 a.m., United States Department of State (June 20, 2001),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Global%20Climate%20Coalition%20Meeting%20%2820
01%29.pdf.
129 Global Climate Coalition, A Voice for Business in the Global Warming Debate (April 3, 2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20030408231206/http:/globalclimate.org/index.htm.
130 Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years, Climate
Research 23, 88-110 (January 31, 2003), http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf.
131 Newsdesk, Smithsonian Statement: Dr. Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, Smithsonian (February 26, 2015),
http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 218 of 518
COMPLAINT 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Americans personally believed global warming was happening, only 48% believed that there was
a consensus among the scientific community, and 40% believed there was a lot of disagreement
among scientists over whether global warming was occurring.132
132. 2007 was the same year the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report, in which
it concluded that “there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750
has been one of warming.”133 The IPCC defined “very high confidence” as at least a 9 out of 10
chance.134
133. Defendants borrowed pages out of the playbook of prior denialist campaigns. A
“Global Climate Science Team” (“GCST”) was created that mirrored a front group created by the
tobacco industry, known as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, whose purpose was to
sow uncertainty about the fact that cigarette smoke is carcinogenic. The GCST’s membership
included Steve Milloy (a key player on the tobacco industry’s front group), Exxon’s senior
environmental lobbyist; an API public relations representative; and representatives from Chevron
and Southern Company that drafted API’s 1998 Communications Plan. There were no scientists
on the “Global Climate Science Team.” GCST developed a strategy to spend millions of dollars
manufacturing climate change uncertainty. Between 2000 and 2004, Exxon donated $110,000 to
Milloy’s efforts and another organization, the Free Enterprise Education Institute and $50,000 to
the Free Enterprise Action Institute, both registered to Milloy’s home address.135
134. Defendants by and through their trade association memberships, worked directly,
and often in a deliberately obscured manner, to evade regulation of the emissions resulting from
use of their fossil fuel products. For instance, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
132 American Opinions on Global Warming: A Yale/Gallup/Clearvision Poll, Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication (July 31, 2007), http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/american-opinions-on-global-
warming//.
133 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers, page 3 (emphasis in original), Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (2007), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
134 Id.
135Seth Shulman et al. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture
Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, 19 (January 2007),
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 219 of 518
COMPLAINT 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
(ACCCE), on behalf of Defendants, hired a lobbying firm, which posed as various nonprofits and
sent letters to persuade members of Congress to vote against the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009, which would have imposed a carbon cap and trade program in the U.S.136
Instead, the letters falsely and misleadingly purported to come from groups representing local
minority communities, including a local NAACP chapter and a Latino advocacy group.137
135. The same year, in 2009, a leaked email revealed a campaign by API to organize
“grass roots” rallies of “energy citizens” to coincide with the United States Congress’s August
recess, to oppose the Clean Energy and Security Act, the climate change bill that had just passed
the House and was headed to the Senate for debate.138 Ostensibly intended to “allow people to
voice their concerns” and opposing the need for concerted efforts to combat climate change, emails
from API to its members state that “it’s important our views be heard,” and that “success for these
events will be the diversity of the participants expressing the same message,” which was ultimately
misleading and contrary to the acknowledged scientific consensus.139 The purpose of the events
was to “put a human face” on the industry’s misleading and unsupported position and to reinforce
that misleading position in the minds of the public. The same emails to API members stated that
“our messages on [similar] legislation work extremely well and are very persuasive with the
general public and policy influentials.” Moreover, the email stated that API would “provide the
up-front resources to ensure logistical issues do not become a problem,” but insisted that member
companies “provide significant attendance.”140
136. Emails between American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (“AFPM”), a
national lobbying group, and the office of then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt evidence
136 Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #4: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Forged
Letters (2009) http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-4_ACCCE-
forged-letters.pdf.
137 Brian McNeill, Lobbying letters to Perriello found to be fakes, Richmond Times-Dispatch (Aug. 1, 2009)
http://www.richmond.com/news/lobbying-letters-to-perriello-found-to-be-fakes/article_3f8f5a2b-cf38-54d9-98f7-
ba21c4eb51fe.html.
138 Alex Kaplun, ‘Energy Citizens’ Take Aim at Climate Legislation, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2009)
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/08/12/12greenwire-energy-citizens-take-aim-at-climate-legislatio-54732.html.
139 Phil Radford, Letter to Jack Gerard, President & CEO of API, Greenpeace (August 2009)
https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/GP%20API%20letter%20August%202009-1.pdf.
140 Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 220 of 518
COMPLAINT 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
an effort to influence EPA regulations that would have mitigated reliance on Defendants’ fossil
fuel products by requiring renewable fuel production.141 BP Petrochemicals, BP Products North
America, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Occidental Chemical Corporation, Phillips 66, Shell Chemical Company, Total Petrochemicals &
Refining USA, Inc., are among AFPM’s members.
137. A 2014 presentation revealed that the Western States Petroleum Association, on
behalf of Defendants, among other fossil fuel companies, funded dozens of supposedly grassroots
organizations to block progressive energy regulation.142 This practice is called “astroturfing”:
astroturf is meant to look like grass, but it is fake. Similarly, large companies and corporate
organizations like WSPA fund fake grassroots movements to gain credibility from the public, who
does not know the true source of the propaganda.
138. Beyond direct interference, Defendants have funded dozens of think tanks, front
groups, lobbyists, and dark money foundations pushing climate change denial. These include the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, Frontiers for Freedom, Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow, and Heritage Foundation. From 1998 to 2014 ExxonMobil spent almost
$31 million funding numerous organizations misrepresenting the scientific consensus that
Defendants’ fossil fuel products were causing climate change, sea level rise, and injuries to San
Mateo, among other coastal communities.143 Several Defendants have been linked to other groups
that undermine the scientific basis linking Defendants’ fossil fuel products to climate change and
sea level rise, including the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (Arch Coal 144) and the Frontiers
of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change (Peabody Energy).145
141 Email chain from Moskowitz to Eubanks, Renewable Fuel Standard -Background Information (July 13, 2013)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3472961-2013-Pruitt-and-American-Fuel-and-Petrochemical.html.
142 WSPA Priority Issues, Western States Petroleum Association (November 11, 2014)
https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/12/washington_research_council_-_cathy_reheis-boyd.pdf.
143 ExxonSecrets.org, ExxonMobil Climate Denial Funding 1998–2014 http://exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php.
144 Seth Shulman et al. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture
Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, 19 (January 2007),
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf.
145 In re: Peabody Energy Corporation, et al., (E.D. Mo.), Certificate of Service, Doc. Number 602, 140 (May 27,
2016), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2859772.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 221 of 518
COMPLAINT 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
139. Exxon acknowledged its own previous success in sowing uncertainty and slowing
mitigation through funding of climate denial groups. In its 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report,
Exxon declared: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research
groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on
how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally
responsible manner.”146 Despite this pronouncement, Exxon remained financially associated with
several such groups after the report’s publication.
140. Defendants could have contributed to the global effort to mitigate the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions by, for example delineating practical policy goals and regulatory
structures that would have allowed them to continue their business ventures while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and supporting a transition to a lower carbon future. Instead, Defendants
undertook a momentous effort to evade international and national regulation of greenhouse gas
emissions to enable them to continue unabated fossil fuel production.
141. As a result of Defendants’ tortious, false and misleading conduct, reasonable
consumers of Defendants’ fossil fuel products and policy-makers, have been deliberately and
unnecessarily deceived about: the role of fossil fuel products in causing global warming and sea
level rise; the acceleration of global warming since the mid-20th century and the continuation
thereof; and about the fact that the continued increase in fossil fuel product consumption that
creates severe environmental threats and significant economic costs for coastal communities,
including San Mateo County. Reasonable consumers and policy makers have also been deceived
about the depth and breadth of the state of the scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate change,
and in particular on the strength of the scientific consensus demonstrating the role of fossil fuels
in causing both climate change and a wide range of potentially destructive impacts, including sea
level rise.
146 ExxonMobil, 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report (December 31, 2007).).
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 222 of 518
COMPLAINT 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
F. In Contrast to Their Public Statements, Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel Products.
142. In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientific
consensus about anthropogenic climate change, Defendants’ acts and omissions evidence their
internal acknowledgement of the reality of sea level rise and its likely consequences. These actions
include, but are not limited to, making multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investments for their own
operations that acknowledge the reality of coming anthropogenic climate-related change. These
investments included (among others), raising offshore oil platforms to protect against sea level
rise; reinforcing offshore oil platforms to withstand increased wave strength and storm severity;
and developing and patenting designs for equipment intended to extract crude oil and/or natural
gas in areas previously unreachable because of the presence of polar ice sheets.147
143. For example, in 1973 Exxon obtained a patent for a cargo ship capable of breaking
through sea ice 148 and for an oil tanker149 designed specifically for use in previously unreachable
areas of the Arctic.
144. In 1974, Chevron obtained a patent for a mobile arctic drilling platform designed
to withstand significant interference from lateral ice masses,150 allowing for drilling in areas with
increased ice floe movement due to elevated temperature.
145. That same year, Texaco (Chevron) worked toward obtaining a patent for a method
and apparatus for reducing ice forces on a marine structure prone to being frozen in ice through
natural weather conditions,151 allowing for drilling in previously unreachable Arctic areas that
would become seasonally accessible.
147 Amy Lieberman and Suzanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A. Times
(December 31, 2015) http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/.
148Patents, Icebreaking cargo vessel, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (April 17, 1973)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3727571.
149 Patents, Tanker vessel, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (July 17, 1973)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3745960.
150 Patents, Arctic offshore platform, Chevron Res (August 27, 1974) https://www.google.com/patents/US3831385.
151 Patents, Mobile, arctic drilling and production platform, Texaco Inc. (February 26, 1974)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3793840.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 223 of 518
COMPLAINT 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
146. Shell obtained a patent similar to Texaco’s (Chevron) in 1984.152
147. In 1989, Norske Shell, Royal Dutch Shell’s Norwegian subsidiary, altered designs
for a natural gas platform planned for construction in the North Sea to account for anticipated sea
level rise. Those design changes were ultimately carried out by Shell’s contractors, adding
substantial costs to the project.153
a. The Troll field, off the Norwegian coast in the North Sea, was proven to
contain large natural oil and gas deposits in 1979, shortly after Norske Shell
was approved by Norwegian oil and gas regulators to operate a portion of
the field.
b. In 1986, the Norwegian parliament granted Norske Shell authority to
complete the first development phase of the Troll field gas deposits, and
Norske Shell began designing the “Troll A” gas platform, with the intent to
begin operation of the platform in approximately 1995. Based on the very
large size of the gas deposits in the Troll field, the Troll A platform was
projected to operate for approximately 70 years.
c. The platform was originally designed to stand approximately 100 feet above
sea level—the amount necessary to stay above waves in a once-in-a-century
strength storm.
d. In 1989, Shell engineers revised their plans to increase the above-water
height of the platform by 3–6 feet, specifically to account for higher
anticipated average sea levels and increased storm intensity due to global
warming over the platform’s 70-year operational life.154
e. Shell projected that the additional 3–6 feet of above-water construction
would increase the cost of the Troll A platform by as much as $40 million.
152 Patents, Arctic offshore platform, Shell Oil Company (January 24, 1984)
https://www.google.com/patents/US4427320.
153 Greenhouse Effect: Shell Anticipates A Sea Change, N.Y. Times (December 20, 1989)
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/greenhouse-effect-shell-anticipates-a-sea-change.html.
154 Id.; Amy Lieberman and Suzanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A.
Times (December 31, 2015), http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 224 of 518
COMPLAINT 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
G. Defendants’ Actions Prevented the Development of Alternatives That Would
Have Eased the Transition to a Less Fossil Fuel Dependent Economy.
148. The harms and benefits of Defendants’ conduct can be balanced in part by weighing
the social benefit of extracting and burning a unit of fossil fuels against the costs that a unit of fuel
imposes on society, known as the “social cost of carbon” or “SCC.”
149. Because climatic responses to atmospheric temperature increases are non-linear,
and because greenhouse gas pollution accumulates in the atmosphere, some of which does not
dissipate for potentially thousands of years (namely CO2), there is broad agreement that SCC
increases as emissions rise, and as the climate warms. Relatedly, as atmospheric CO2 levels and
surface temperature increase, the costs of remediating any individual environmental injury—for
example infrastructure to mitigate sea level rise, and changes to agricultural processes—also
increases. In short, each additional ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere will have a greater net
social cost as emissions increase, and each additional ton of CO2 will have a greater net social cost
as global warming accelerates.
150. A critical corollary of the non-linear relationship between atmospheric CO2
concentrations and SCC is that delayed efforts to curb those emissions have increased
environmental harms and will increase the magnitude and cost to remediate harms that have
already occurred or are locked in by previous emissions. Therefore, Defendants’ campaign to
obscure the science of climate change and to expand the extraction and use of fossil fuels greatly
increased and continues to increase the harms and rate of harms suffered by the County and
the People.
151. The consequences of delayed action on climate change, exacerbated by Defendants’
actions, has already drastically increased the cost of mitigating further harm. Had concerted action
begun even as late as 2005, an annual 3.5% reduction in CO2 emissions to lower atmospheric CO2
to 350 ppm by the year 2100 would have restored earth’s energy balance 155 and halted future global
155 “Climate equilibrium” is the balance between Earth’s absorption of solar energy and its own energy radiation.
Earth is currently out of equilibrium due to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which prevent
radiation of energy into space. Earth therefore warms and move back toward energy balance. Reduction of global
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 225 of 518
COMPLAINT 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
warming, although such efforts would not forestall committed sea level rise already locked in156
If efforts do not begin until 2020, however, a 15% annual reduction will be required to restore the
Earth’s energy balance by the end of the century.157 Earlier steps to reduce emissions would have
led to smaller—and less disruptive—measures needed to mitigate the impacts of fossil fuel
production.
152. The costs of inaction and the opportunities to confront anthropogenic climate
change and sea level rise caused by normal consumption of their fossil fuel products, were not lost
on Defendants. In a 1997 speech by John Browne, Group Executive for BP America, at Stanford
University, Browne described Defendants’ and the entire fossil fuel industry’s responsibility and
opportunities to reduce use of fossil fuel products, reduce global CO2 emissions, and mitigate the
harms associated with the use and consumption of such products:
A new age demands a fresh perspective of the nature of society and responsibility.
We need to go beyond analysis and to take action. It is a moment for change and
for a rethinking of corporate responsibility. . . .
[T]here is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and
serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a
discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration
of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.
The prediction of the IPCC is that over the next century temperatures might rise by
a further 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade [1.8º – 6.3º F], and that sea levels might rise
by between 15 and 95 centimetres [5.9 and 37.4 inches]. Some of that impact is
probably unavoidable, because it results from current emissions. . . .
[I]t would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.
The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link
CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm is necessary to re-achieve energy balance, if the aim is to stabilize climate without
further global warming and attendant sea level rise. See James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate
Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8
PLOS ONE 1, 4-5 (December 3, 2013), http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.
156 James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to
Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8 PLOS ONE 1, 10 (December 3, 2013),
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.
157James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to
Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8 PLOS ONE 1, 10 (December 3, 2013),
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 226 of 518
COMPLAINT 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven . . . but when
the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which
we are part. . . .
We [the fossil fuel industry] have a responsibility to act, and I hope that through
our actions we can contribute to the much wider process which is desirable and
necessary.
BP accepts that responsibility and we're therefore taking some specific steps.
To control our own emissions.
To fund continuing scientific research.
To take initiatives for joint implementation.
To develop alternative fuels for the long term.
And to contribute to the public policy debate in search of the wider global answers
to the problem.”158
153. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the foreseeable, measurable harms associated
with the unabated consumption and use of their fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and
Defendants’ knowledge of technologies and practices that could have helped to reduce the
foreseeable dangers associated with their fossil fuel products, Defendants continued to market and
promote heavy fossil fuel use, dramatically increasing the cost of abatement. At all relevant times,
Defendants were deeply familiar with opportunities to reduce the use of their fossil fuel products,
reduce global CO2 emissions associated therewith, and mitigate the harms associated with the use
and consumption of such products. Examples of that recognition include, but are not limited to the
following:
a. In 1963, Esso (Exxon) obtained multiple patents on technologies for fuel
cells, including on the design of a fuel cell and necessary electrodes,159 and
on a process for increasing the oxidation of a fuel, specifically methanol, to
158 John Browne, BP Climate Change Speech to Stanford, Climate Files (May 19, 1997),
http://www.climatefiles.com/bp/bp-climate-change-speech-to-stanford/.
159 Patents, Fuel cell and fuel cell electrodes, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (December 31, 1963)
https://www.google.com/p atents/US3116169.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 227 of 518
COMPLAINT 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
produce electricity in a fuel cell.160
b. In 1970, Esso (ExxonMobil) obtained a patent for a “low-polluting engine
and drive system” that used an interburner and air compressor to reduce
pollutant emissions, including CO2 emissions, from gasoline combustion
engines (the system also increased the efficiency of the fossil fuel products
used in such engines, thereby lowering the amount of fossil fuel product
necessary to operate engines equipped with this technology).161
154. Defendants could have made major inroads to mitigate Plaintiffs’ injuries through
technology by developing and employing technologies to capture and sequester greenhouse gases
emissions associated with conventional use of their fossil fuel products. Defendants had
knowledge dating at least back to the 1960s, and indeed, internally researched and perfected many
such technologies. For instance:
a. The first patent for enhanced oil recovery technology, a process by which
CO2 is captured and reinjected into oil deposits, was granted to an ARCO
(BP) subsidiary in 1952.162 This technology could have been further
developed as a carbon capture and sequestration technique;
b. Phillips Petroleum Company (ConocoPhillips) obtained a patent in 1966 for
a “Method for recovering a purified component from a gas” outlining a
process to remove carbon from natural gas and gasoline streams;163 and
c. In 1973, Shell was granted a patent for a process to remove acidic gases,
including CO2, from gaseous mixtures.
160 Patents, Direct production of electrical energy from liquid fuels, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (December 3,
1963) https://www.google.com/patents/US3113049.
161 Patents, Low-polluting engine and drive system, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (May 16, 1970)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3513929.
162 James P. Meyer, Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) Injection Well Technology,
American Petroleum Institute, page 1, http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/EHS/climate-change/Summary-carbon-
dioxide-enhanced-oil-recovery-well-tech.pdf.
163 Patents, Method for recovering a purified component from a gas, Phillips Petroleum Co (January 11, 1966)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3228874.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 228 of 518
COMPLAINT 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
155. Despite this knowledge, Defendants’ later forays into the alternative energy sector
were largely pretenses. For instance, in 2001, Chevron developed and shared a sophisticated
information management system to gather greenhouse gas emissions data from its explorations
and production to help regulate and set reduction goals.164 Beyond this technological
breakthrough, Chevron touted “profitable renewable energy” as part of its business plan for several
years and launched a 2010 advertising campaign promoting the company’s move towards
renewable energy. Despite all this, Chevron rolled back its renewable and alternative energy
projects in 2014.165
156. Similarly, ConocoPhillips’ 2012 Sustainable Development report declared
developing renewable energy a priority in keeping with their position on sustainable development
and climate change.166 Their 10-K filing from the same year told a different story: “As an
independent E&P company, we are solely focused on our core business of exploring for,
developing and producing crude oil and natural gas globally.”167
157. Likewise, while Shell orchestrated an entire public relations campaign around
energy transitions towards net zero emissions, a fine-print disclaimer in its 2016 net-zero pathways
report reads: “We have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our
investment horizon of 10–20 years.”168
158. BP, appearing to abide by the representations Lord Browne made in his 1997
speech described above, engaged in a rebranding campaign to convey an air of environmental
stewardship and renewable energy to its consumers. This included renouncing its membership in
the GCC in 2007, changing its name from “British Petroleum” to “BP” while adopting the slogan
164 Chevron, Chevron Press Release – Chevron Introduces New System to Manage Energy Use (September 25,
2001) https://www.chevron.com/stories/chevron-introduces-new-system-to-manage-energy-use.
165 Benjamin Elgin, Chevron Dims the Lights on Green Power, Bloomberg (May 29, 2014)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-29/chevron-dims-the-lights-on-renewable-energy-projects.
166 ConocoPhillips, Sustainable Development (2013) http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainable-
development/Documents/2013.11.7%201200%20Our%20Approach%20Section%20Final.pdf.
167 ConocoPhillips Form 10-K, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Webpage (December 31, 2012)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1163165/000119312513065426/d452384d10k.htm.
168 Energy Transitions Towards Net Zero Emissions (NZE), Shell (2016),
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_L1nw8WLu0Bbi1QWnJRcHlZblE/view (as of June 2, 2017).
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 229 of 518
COMPLAINT 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
“Beyond Petroleum,” and adopting a conspicuously green corporate logo. However, BP’s self-
touted “alternative energy” investments during this turnaround included investments in natural
gas, a fossil fuel, and in 2007 the company reinvested in Canadian tar sands, a particularly high-
carbon source of oil.169 The company ultimately abandoned its wind and solar assets in 2011 and
2013, respectively, and even the “Beyond Petroleum” moniker in 2013.170
159. After posting a $10 billion quarterly profit, Exxon in 2005 stated that “We’re an oil
and gas company. In times past, when we tried to get into other businesses, we didn’t do it well.
We’d rather re-invest in what we know.”171
160. Even if Defendants did not adopt technological or energy source alternatives that
would have reduced use of fossil fuel products, reduced global greenhouse gas pollution, and/or
mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products, Defendants could
have taken other practical, cost-effective steps to reduce the use of their fossil fuel products, reduce
global greenhouse gas pollution associated therewith, and mitigate the harms associated with the
use and consumption of such products. These alternatives could have included, among other
measures:
a. Accepting scientific evidence on the validity of anthropogenic climate
change and the damages it will cause people and communities, including
Plaintiffs, and the environment. Mere acceptance of that information would
have altered the debate from whether to combat climate change and sea
level rise to how to combat it; and avoided much of the public confusion
that has ensued over nearly 30 years, since at least 1988;
b. Forthrightly communicating with Defendants’ shareholders, banks,
insurers, the public, regulators and Plaintiffs about the global warming and
sea level rise hazards of Defendants’ fossil fuel products that were known
169 Fred Pearce, Greenwash: BP and the Myth of a World ‘Beyond Petroleum,’ The Guardian, (November 20, 2008)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/20/fossilfuels-energy.
170 Javier E. David, ‘Beyond Petroleum’ No More? BP Goes Back to Basics, CNBC (April 20, 2013)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100647034.
171 James R. Healy, Alternate Energy Not in Cards at ExxonMobil (October 28, 2005)
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 230 of 518
COMPLAINT 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
to Defendants, would have enabled those groups to make material, informed
decisions about whether and how to address climate change and sea level
rise vis-à-vis Defendants’ products;
c. Refraining from affirmative efforts, whether directly, through coalitions, or
through front groups, to distort public debate, and to cause many consumers
and business and political leaders to think the relevant science was far less
certain that it actually was;
d. Sharing their internal scientific research with the public, and with other
scientists and business leaders, so as to increase public understanding of the
scientific underpinnings of climate change its relation to Defendants’ fossil
fuel products;
e. Supporting and encouraging policies to avoid dangerous climate change,
and demonstrating corporate leadership in addressing the challenges of
transitioning to a low-carbon economy;
f. Prioritizing alternative sources of energy through sustained investment
and research on renewable energy sources to replace dependence on
Defendants’ inherently hazardous fossil fuel products;
g. Adopting their shareholders’ concerns about Defendants’ need to protect
their businesses from the inevitable consequences of profiting from their
fossil fuel products. Over the period of 1990-2015, Defendants’
shareholders proposed hundreds of resolutions to change Defendants’
policies and business practices regarding climate change. These included
increasing renewable energy investment, cutting emissions, and performing
carbon risk assessments, among others.
161. Despite their knowledge of the foreseeable harms associated with the consumption
of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and fossil fuel industry knowledge
of opportunities that would have reduced the foreseeable dangers associated with those products,
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 231 of 518
COMPLAINT 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Defendants wrongfully and falsely promoted, campaigned against regulation of, and concealed the
hazards of use of their fossil fuel products.
H. Defendants Caused Plaintiffs’ Injuries
162. Defendants individually and collectively extracted a substantial percentage of all
raw fossil fuels extracted globally since 1965.
163. CO2 emissions that are attributable to fossil fuels that Defendants extracted from
the Earth and injected into the market are responsible for a substantial percentage of greenhouse
gas pollution since 1965.
164. Defendants’ individual and collective conduct, including, but not limited to, their
extraction, refining, and/or formulation of fossil fuel products; their introduction of fossil fuel
products into the stream of commerce; their wrongful promotion of their fossil fuel products and
concealment of known hazards associated with use of those products; and their failure to pursue
less hazardous alternatives available to them; is a substantial factor in causing the increase in global
mean temperature and consequent increase in global mean sea surface height since 1965.
165. Defendants have actually and proximately caused the sea levels to rise, increased
the destructive impacts of storm surges, increased coastal erosion, exacerbated the onshore impact
of regular tidal ebb and flow, caused saltwater intrusion, and caused consequent social and
economic injuries associated with the aforementioned physical and environmental impacts, among
other impacts, resulting in inundation, destruction, and/or other interference with Plaintiffs’
property and citizenry.
166. Plaintiffs have already incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, injuries and
damages because of sea level rise caused by Defendants’ conduct.
167. But for Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs would have suffered no or far less injuries
and damages than they have, and will foreseeably endure, due to expected anthropogenic sea level
rise.
168. San Mateo County has experienced significant sea level rise over the last half
century attributable to Defendants’ conduct.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 232 of 518
COMPLAINT 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
169. The San Francisco Bay Area, including San Mateo County, has experienced
significant sea level rise over the last half century attributable to Defendants’ conduct.172 San
Mateo County will experience additional, significant, and dangerous sea level rise by 2100,173 and
the increases will continue and accelerate. Additionally, San Mateo County will experience greater
committed sea level rise due to the “locked in” greenhouse gases already emitted.174 The County
will suffer greater overall sea level rise than the global average.175
170. In addition to weather and climate changes already observed, the County is at an
increased risk of suffering extreme injuries in the future. For example, there is a 93% chance that
the County experiences a devastating three-foot flood before the year 2050, and a 50% chance that
such a flood occurs before 2030. Average sea level rise along the County’s shores are expected to
rise by almost three feet by the year 2100, causing multiple, predictable impacts, and exacerbating
the impacts of extreme events.
171. San Mateo County published a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis on April 5,
2017. The Assessment is the County’s first analysis of its overall vulnerability to sea level rise and
its impacts from permanent inundation, temporary flooding caused by storm events, erosion, and
saltwater intrusion. The Assessment formally identifies actual risks to the County expected with
three feet of sea level rise, and the consequences associated with taking no action to prevent or
mitigate the harms associated with those expected impacts.
172. Areas of the County that already experience regular flooding and that will suffer
further due to elevated sea level include, but are not limited to, Pescadero (especially near
Pescadero and Butano Creeks), Half Moon Bay (especially near Denniston Creek), East Palo Alto,
172 Griggs, et al. (CA Ocean Protection Council Science Advisory Team Working Group), Rising Seas in California:
An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science Trust (April 2017) p. 23, box 2, figure 2.
173 Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science
Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-
update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf.
174Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 363-65 (2016).
175Global sea level rise is projected to be 82.7 cm (32.6 inches) above 2000 levels by 2100. See National Research
Council, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future (2012) at
page 107 at Table 5.2; page 117 at Table 5.3. The San Francisco Bay Area sea level rise is projected to be 91.9 cm
(36.2 inches) over 2000 by 2100. Id.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 233 of 518
COMPLAINT 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Menlo Park, and the Bayshore communities that adjoin the Bayfront and Highline Canals, the
Atherton Channel, and Belmont, San Mateo, Colma, San Francisquito and San Bruno Creeks.176
a. Among other County-owned facilities threatened by the rising water level,
San Mateo owns and operates the Coyote Point Recreation Area and Coyote
Point Marina, in the City of San Mateo on the shore of San Francisco Bay.
The recreation area includes a beach with swimming and wind-surfing
areas; several areas for picnicking; a youth playground; a Merchant Marine
Memorial; and houses a riflery range, a Wildlife Center, and the Coyote
Point Yacht club. The recreation area and Marina are at sea level, and the
recreation area is almost entirely flat, such that it is highly vulnerable to
inundation in the event of flooding.
b. In addition, the County operates the James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve on
the Pacific Coast in the town of Moss Beach. The Fitzgerald Marine Reserve
covers three miles of shoreline, and encompasses a fragile, rocky intertidal
ecosystem featuring seaweed, crabs, sponges, anemones, sea stars,
mollusks, seals, and fish. The Reserve is a popular and scientifically and
ecologically important feature of the County, both for its residents and as
an attraction for visitors. Because the Reserve is an intertidal habitat and
includes partially submerged reefs, it is extremely sensitive to sea level
change, and could be permanently destroyed by inundation and flooding.
c. The County further owns and operates critical civil infrastructure that will
be threatened with flooding and other harm from increase sea level rise,
including the County Center and Hall of Justice, a county animal shelter,
the San Carlos Airport, the Maple Street Shelter (a transitional and
emergency housing center), two county jails, and unincorporated residential
regions including portions of North Fair Oaks, and unincorporated mobile
176See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 66(April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 234 of 518
COMPLAINT 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
home parks near Redwood City. Indeed, the unincorporated Harbor
Industrial Area adjacent to the City of Belmont is already vulnerable to
flooding today.
173. Areas of the county that are already erosion hot spots and that will suffer further
erosion due to sea level rise include, but are not limited to, Middle and South Ocean Beach, Middle
and Lower Daly City, Manor District, Beach Boulevard, Sharp Park, Rockaway Cove, Linda Mar,
Princeton and the Pillar Point Harbor, El Granada County Beach, Mirada Road in Half Moon Bay,
and Año Nuevo State Park.177
\ \ \
177 See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 71, Figure 3A.2 (April
2017), http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 235 of 518
COMPLAINT 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
174. The following figure depicts the average high tide level on a daily basis with 1, 2,
and 3 feet of sea level rise. With different storm scenarios, much more area could be inundated.
As the image shows, much of the County, including some of its most critical infrastructure and
valuable Bay-front property, will be submerged at one foot of sea level rise.178 Importantly, the
figure does not include inundation from storms or increased erosion; it shows only inundation
threats under average daily clear-weather high tides based on existing shoreline measurements.
178See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 87 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 236 of 518
COMPLAINT 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
175. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants’
alleged herein, Plaintiffs have incurred millions of dollars of expenses related to planning for and
predicting future sea level rise injuries to its real property, improvements thereon, civil
infrastructure, and citizens, to preemptively mitigate and/or prevent such injuries. This includes
performing a Sea Level Vulnerability Assessment in 2017 at significant expense to the County,
which found that parcels of real property valued at a total of $23 billion situated on Plaintiff’s San
Francisco Bay shoreline will be threatened with serious or permanent inundation, and a need for
$910 million of infrastructural repair on its ocean coastline. Expected injuries include erosion of
ocean- and bay-adjacent public land, erosion and/or inundation of privately owned properties and
displacement of residents within the County.
176. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,
Plaintiffs have incurred sea level rise-related injuries and damages. These include infrastructural
repair and reinforcement of roads and beach access.
177. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,
Plaintiff’s real property has been inundated by sea water, causing injury and damages thereto and
to improvements thereon, and preventing free passage on, use of, and normal enjoyment of that
real property, or permanently destroying it. By way of example, Surfer’s Beach, one of Plaintiff’s
public beach properties near the city of Half Moon Bay, has lost 140 feet of accessible beach since
1964 due to erosion, which has been exacerbated and substantially contributed to by sea level rise
and increased extreme weather.179
178. Defendants’ conduct as described herein is therefore an actual, substantial, and
proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ sea level rise-related injuries.
\ \ \
179 See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 87 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 237 of 518
COMPLAINT 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance on Behalf of the People of the State of California)
(Against All Defendants)
179. The People incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above, as
though set forth herein in full.
180. Defendants, and each of them, by their affirmative acts and omissions, have created,
contributed to, and assisted in creating, a condition in San Mateo County, and permitted that
condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by, inter alia, increasing local sea level,
increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity and frequency of
storms and storm-related damage to the County and its residents.
181. Defendants specifically created, contributed to, and/or assisted, and/or were a
substantial contributing factor in the creation of the public nuisance, by, inter alia:
a. extracting raw fossil fuel products, including crude oil, coal, and natural gas
from the Earth, and placing those fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce;
b. affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel
products which Defendants knew to be hazardous and knew would lead to
global warming, sea level rise, more frequent and more intense flooding,
and more frequent and more intense storm surges;
c. affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Defendants knew
would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products by
misrepresenting and casting doubt on the integrity of scientific information
related to climate change;
d. disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intended to
mislead customers, consumers, elected officials and regulators regarding
known and foreseeable risk of climate change and its consequences, which
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 238 of 518
COMPLAINT 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
follow from the normal, intended use and foreseeable misuse of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products;
e. affirmatively and knowingly campaigning against the regulation of their
fossil fuel products, despite knowing the hazards associated with the normal
use of those products, in order to continue profiting from use of those
products by externalizing those known costs onto people, the environment,
and communities, including the People; and failing to warn the public about
the hazards associated with the use of fossil fuel products.
182. The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects the
interests of the public at large. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency and
intensity, and increased flooding: (1) are harmful and dangerous to human health; (2) are indecent
and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person; (3) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free use
of the People’s property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and
(4) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers, bays,
streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways within San Mateo County.
183. The People of the State of California have a common right to be free from the
increased severity of these hazards due to climate change and sea level rise.
184. The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding
is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct because, inter alia,
a. interference with the public’s rights as described above is expected to
become so regular and severe that it will cause permanent inundation;
b. the ultimate nature of the harm is the destruction of real and personal
property, rather than mere annoyance;
c. the interference borne is the loss of property and infrastructure within San
Mateo County, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s citizens as loss
of use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of tax dollars
away from other public services to sea level rise;
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 239 of 518
COMPLAINT 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
d. Plaintiff’s coastal property, which serves myriad uses including industrial,
residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological, is not suitable for
regular inundation;
e. the social benefit of placing fossil fuels into the stream of commerce is
outweighed by the availability of other sources of energy that could have
been placed into the stream of commerce that would not have caused sea
level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the external costs of
placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, and rather
than striving to mitigate those externalities, Defendants instead acted
affirmatively to obscure them from public consciousness;
f. the cost to society of each ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the
atmosphere increases as total global emissions increase, so that unchecked
extraction and consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and
costly than moderated extraction and consumption; and
g. it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive
knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better
technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available
technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have
mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower
carbon economy.
185. This public nuisance affects and/or interferes with the rights of an entire community
and/or the rights of a considerable number of persons in the State of California to health, safety,
peace, comfort, and convenience.
186. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 240 of 518
COMPLAINT 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
187. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, the
common rights enjoyed by the People of the State of California and by the general public in the
County of San Mateo have been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or should
have known that their conduct would create a continuing problem with long-lasting significant
negative effects on the rights of the public.
188. Defendants’ actions are a direct and legal cause of the public nuisance.
189. The People of the State of California, acting through the County of San Mateo, have
a clearly ascertainable right to have the public nuisance created by Defendants abated.
190. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
the People of the State of California’s injuries as alleged herein.
191. Wherefore, the People of the State of California pray for relief as set forth below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance on Behalf of San Mateo County)
(Against All Defendants)
192. Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
193. Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and omission, have created a condition
and permitted that condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by increasing sea level,
increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity and frequency of
storms, all of which have resulted in, and will continue to result in, injury to Plaintiff.
194. The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects the
interests of the public at large. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency and
intensity, and increased flooding: (1) are harmful and dangerous to human health; (2) are indecent
and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person; (3) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free use
of property within the County so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and
property; and (4) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes,
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 241 of 518
COMPLAINT 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
rivers, bays, streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways within San
Mateo County.
195. Plaintiff San Mateo County includes coastal communities with substantial numbers
of residents and citizens living on and near the coast, and substantial numbers of businesses and
amenities on or near the coast; the condition created by Defendants therefore affects substantial
numbers of people in Plaintiff’s communities at the same time.
196. The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding
is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. The seriousness of the
harm to Plaintiff San Mateo County outweighs the benefit of Defendants’ and each of their
conduct, because
a. the interference with Plaintiff’s property is expected to become so regular
and severe as to be a permanent inundation;
b. the nature of the harm is the destruction of Plaintiff’s property, rather than
mere annoyance;
c. the interference borne by Plaintiff is the loss of its property and
infrastructure, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s citizens as loss of
use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of tax dollars away
from other public services to sea level rise;
d. Plaintiff’s coastal public and private property, which serves myriad uses
including industrial, residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological,
is not suitable for regular inundation;
e. the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with its
property is significant and severe, as costs associated with addressing sea
level rise caused by Defendants are projected to be in the billions of dollars
over the next several decades;
f. the social benefit of placing fossil fuels into the stream of commerce, if any,
is outweighed by the availability of other sources of energy that could have
been placed into the stream of commerce that would not have caused sea
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 242 of 518
COMPLAINT 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the external costs of
placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, and rather
than striving to mitigate those externalities, instead acted affirmatively to
obscure them from public consciousness;
g. the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as
total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and
consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than
moderated extraction and consumption; and
h. it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive
knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better
technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available
technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have
mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower
carbon economy.
197. In addition to the harms suffered by the public at large, Plaintiff has suffered special
injuries different in kind. Among other harms,
a. Plaintiff has been forced to spend or set aside significant funds to assess,
plan for, and enact infrastructure changes needed to mitigate rising sea
levels on Plaintiff’s publicly owned beaches and other public coastal
property;
b. Plaintiff has had to plan for and provide additional emergency and other
public services in response to more frequent and more intense flooding and
storm surges on both properties owned by Plaintiff, and properties owned,
leased, and utilized by residents, citizens, and visitors to Plaintiff’s
communities.
198. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 243 of 518
COMPLAINT 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
199. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, the
County of San Mateo has been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or should
have known that their conduct would create a continuing problem with long-lasting significant
negative effects on the rights of the public.
200. Defendants’ actions are a direct and legal cause of the public nuisance.
201. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
San Mateo County’s injuries as alleged herein.
202. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Liability—Failure to Warn on behalf of San Mateo County)
(Against All Defendants)
203. Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
204. Defendants, and each of them, extracted raw fossil fuel products, including crude
oil, coal, and natural gas from the Earth, and placed those fossil fuel products into the stream
of commerce.
205. Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined, formulated, designed, packaged,
distributed, tested, constructed, fabricated, analyzed, recommended, merchandised, advertised,
promoted and/or sold fossil fuel products, which were intended by Defendants, and each of them,
to be burned for energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into
petrochemical products including fuels and plastics.
206. Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and advertised fossil
fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective affiliates and
subsidiaries. Defendants received direct financial benefit from their affiliates’ and subsidiaries’
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 244 of 518
COMPLAINT 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
sales of fossil fuel products. Defendants’ role as promoter and marketer was integral to their
respective businesses and a necessary factor in bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives
to the consumer market, such that Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to
influence, the manufacturing and distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.
207. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and collectively knew or
should have known, in light of the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time, that fossil
fuel products, whether used as intended or misused in a foreseeable manner, release greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere that inevitably cause inter alia global warming, sea level rise, increased
intensity and frequency of nuisance flooding, and increased intensity and frequency of
storm surges.
208. Throughout the times at issue and continuing today, fossil fuel products presented
and still present a substantial risk of injury to Plaintiff through the climate effects described above,
whether used as intended or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
209. Throughout the times at issue, the ordinary consumer would not recognize that the
use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products causes global and localized changes in climate,
including those effects described herein.
210. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely
disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,
and advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations campaigns
and materials that prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel
products would cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.
211. Defendants, and each of them, failed to adequately warn customers, consumers,
elected officials and regulators of known and foreseeable risk of climate change and the
consequences that inevitably follow from the normal, intended use and foreseeable misuse of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products.
212. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 245 of 518
COMPLAINT 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
213. As a direct and proximate result of the defects previously described, fossil fuel
products caused Plaintiff San Mateo County to sustain the injuries and damages set forth in this
Complaint, including damage to publicly owned infrastructure and real property, and the creation
and maintenance of a nuisance that interferes with the rights of the County, its residents, and of
the People.
214. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
San Mateo County’s injuries as alleged herein.
215. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Liability—Design Defect on behalf of San Mateo County)
(Against All Defendants)
216. Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
217. Defendants, and each of them, extracted raw fossil fuel products, including crude
oil, coal, and natural gas from the Earth and placed those fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce.
218. Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined, formulated, designed, packaged,
distributed, tested, constructed, fabricated, analyzed, recommended, merchandised, advertised,
promoted and/or sold fossil fuel products, which were intended by Defendants, and each of them,
to be burned for energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into
petrochemical products including but not limited to fuels and plastics.
219. Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and advertised fossil
fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective affiliates and
subsidiaries. Defendants’ received direct financial benefit from their affiliates’ and subsidiaries’
sales of fossil fuel products. Defendants role as promoter and marketer was integral to their
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 246 of 518
COMPLAINT 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
respective businesses and a necessary factor in bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives
to the consumer market, such that Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to
influence, the manufacturing and distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.
220. Throughout the time at issue, fossil fuel products have not performed as safely as
an ordinary consumer would expect them to because greenhouse gas emissions from their use
cause numerous global and local changes to Earth’s climate. In particular, ordinary consumers did
not expect that:
a. fossil fuel products are the primary cause of global warming since the dawn
of the industrial revolution, and by far the primary cause of global warming
acceleration in the 20th and 21st centuries;
b. fossil fuel products are the primary cause of accelerating sea level rise since
the beginning of the 20th century;
c. unmitigated use of fossil fuel products causes increased frequency and
intensity of nuisance flooding in coastal communities;
d. fossil fuel products cause increased frequency and intensity of storm surges
in coastal communities;
e. by increasing sea level rise, nuisance flooding, and storm surges, fossil fuel
products cause damage to publicly and privately owned coastal
infrastructure and buildings, including homes;
f. the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as
total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and
consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than
moderated extraction and consumption; and
g. for these reasons and others, the unmitigated use of fossil fuel products
present significant threats to the environment and human health and
welfare, especially in coastal communities.
221. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely
disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 247 of 518
COMPLAINT 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials, among
other public messaging efforts, that prevented reasonable consumers from forming an expectation
that fossil fuel products would cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.
222. Additionally, and in the alternative, Defendants’ fossil fuel products are defective
because the risks they pose to consumers and to the public, including and especially to Plaintiff,
outweigh their benefits.
a. the gravity of the potential harms caused by fossil fuel products is extreme;
global warming and its attendant consequences are guaranteed to occur
following the use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products because fossil
fuel products inherently release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and
global warming would continue to occur for decades even if all greenhouse
gas emissions ceased.
b. the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of
commerce is overshadowed by the availability of other sources of energy
that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would not
have caused sea level rise and accordingly Plaintiff’s injuries; Defendants,
and each of them, knew of the external costs of placing their fossil fuel
products into the stream of commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate
those externalities, instead acted affirmatively to obscure them from public
consciousness.
c. Defendants’ campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and the
climatic effects of fossil fuel products prevented customers, consumers,
regulators, and the general public from taking steps to mitigate the
inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating those
consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning.
d. the cost to society of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases
as total global emissions increase so that unchecked extraction and
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 248 of 518
COMPLAINT 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than
moderated extraction and consumption.
e. it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive
knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce, to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available
technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have
mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower
carbon economy, reduced global CO2 emissions, and mitigated the harms
associated with the use and consumption of such products.
223. Defendants’ individual and aggregate fossil fuel products were used in a manner
for which they were intended to be used, or misused in a manner foreseeable to Defendants and
each of them, by individual and corporate consumers, the result of which was the addition of CO2
emissions to the global atmosphere with attendant global and local consequences.
224. As a direct and proximate result of the defects in fossil fuel products described
herein, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint, including damage
to publicly and privately owned infrastructure and real property.
225. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
226. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
227. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 249 of 518
COMPLAINT 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Private Nuisance on behalf of San Mateo County)
(Against All Defendants)
228. Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
229. Plaintiff owns and manages extensive property within San Mateo County borders
that has been injured and will be injured by rising sea levels.
230. Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and omission, have created a condition
on Plaintiff’s property, and permitted that condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by
increasing sea level, increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity
and frequency of storms.
231. The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects Plaintiff’s
interest in its own coastal real property. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency
and intensity, and increased flooding are:
a. harmful and dangerous to human health;
b. indecent and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person;
c. threatening to obstruct the free use of Plaintiff’s property and property
owned by Plaintiff’s residents and citizens, so as to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and
d. threatening to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers,
bays, streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways
within Plaintiff’s communities.
232. The condition described above created by Defendants’ conduct substantially
interferes with Plaintiff’s use and quiet enjoyment of its coastal properties.
233. Plaintiff has not consented to Defendants’ conduct in creating the condition that has
led to sea level rise and its associated harms.
234. The ordinary person, and the ordinary city or county in Plaintiff’s position, would
be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by Defendants’ conduct and the condition created thereby,
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 250 of 518
COMPLAINT 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
because, inter alia, it infringes on Plaintiff’s ability to provide public space to residents and
visitors, and has forced Plaintiff to plan for and provide additional emergency and other public
services in response to more frequent and more intense flooding and storm surges on properties
owned by Plaintiff.
235. The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding
is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. The seriousness of the
harm to Plaintiff outweighs the benefit of Defendants’ and each of their conduct, because:
a. the interference with Plaintiff’s property is expected to become so regular
and severe as to be a permanent inundation;
b. the nature of the harm is the destruction of Plaintiff’s public and private real
and personal property, rather than mere annoyance;
c. the interference borne by Plaintiff is the loss of its private and public
property and infrastructure, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s
citizens as loss of use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of
tax dollars away from other public services to sea level rise;
d. Plaintiff’s coastal public and private property, which serves myriad uses
including industrial, residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological,
is not suitable for regular inundation;
e. the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with its
property is significant and severe, as costs associated with addressing sea
level rise caused by Defendants are projected to be in the billions of dollars
over the next several decades;
f. the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of
commerce is overshadowed by the availability of other sources of energy
that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would not
have caused sea level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the
external costs of placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate those externalities,
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 251 of 518
COMPLAINT 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
Defendants acted affirmatively to obscure those costs from public
consciousness;
g. the social cost each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as
total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and
consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than
moderated extraction and consumption;
h. Defendants’ campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and the
climatic effects of fossil fuel products prevented customers, consumers,
regulators, and the general public from staking steps to mitigate the
inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating those
consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning; and
i. It was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive
knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce, to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available
technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have
mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower
carbon economy, reduced global CO2 emissions, and mitigated the harms
associated with the use and consumption of such products.
236. Defendants’ conduct was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and a
substantial factor in the harms suffered by Plaintiff as described in this Complaint.
237. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
238. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence on Behalf of San Mateo County)
(Against All Defendants)
239. Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 252 of 518
COMPLAINT 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
240. Defendants knew or should have known of the climate effects inherently caused by
the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel products, including the likelihood and likely
severity of global and local sea level rise and its consequences, and including Plaintiff’s injuries
and damages described herein.
241. Defendants, collectively and individually, had a duty to use due care in developing,
designing, testing, inspecting and distributing their fossil fuel products. That duty obligated
Defendants collectively and individually to, inter alia, prevent defective products from entering
the stream of commerce, and prevent reasonably foreseeable harm that could have resulted from
the ordinary use or reasonably foreseeable misuse of Defendants’ products.
242. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty of due care by, inter alia:
a. allowing fossil fuel products to enter the stream of commerce, despite
knowing them to be defective due to their inevitable propensity to cause sea
level rise and its consequences;
b. failing to act on the information and warnings they received from their own
internal research staff, as well as from the international scientific
community, that the unabated extraction, promotion and sale of their fossil
fuel products would result in material dangers to the public, including San
Mateo County;
c. failing to take actions including but not limited to pursuing and adopting
known, practical, and available technologies, energy sources, and business
practices that would have mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and
eased the transition to a lower carbon economy; shifting to non-fossil fuel
products, and researching and/or offering technologies to mitigate CO2
emissions in conjunction with sale and distribution of their fossil fuel
products; and pursuing other available alternatives that would have
prevented or mitigated the injuries to Plaintiff caused by sea level rise that
Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have foreseen would
inevitably result from use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products;
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 253 of 518
COMPLAINT 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
d. engaging in a campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and
the climatic effects of fossil fuel products that prevented customers,
consumers, regulators, and the general public from staking steps to mitigate
the inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating
those consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning.
243. Defendants individual and collective acts and omissions were actual, substantial
causes of sea level rise and its consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages set forth
herein, as sea levels would not have risen to the levels that caused Plaintiff’s injuries but for
Defendants introduction of their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce.
244. Defendants individual and collective acts and omissions were proximate causes of
sea level rise and its consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages set forth herein. No
other act, omission, or natural phenomenon intervened in the chain of causation between
Defendants’ conduct and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, or superseded Defendants’ breach of
their duties’ substantiality in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
245. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and each of their acts and
omissions, Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as set forth herein.
246. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
247. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
248. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 254 of 518
COMPLAINT 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence - Failure to Warn on Behalf of San Mateo County)
(Against All Defendants)
249. Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
250. Defendants knew or should have known, based on information passed to them from
their internal research divisions and affiliates and/or from the international scientific community,
of the climate effects inherently caused by the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel
products, including the likelihood and likely severity of global warming, global and local sea level
rise, and their associated consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages described
herein.
251. Defendants knew or should have known, based on information passed to them from
their internal research divisions and affiliates and/or from the international scientific community,
that the climate effects described above rendered their fossil fuel products dangerous, or likely to
be dangerous, when used as intended or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
252. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants failed to adequately warn any consumers
or any other party of the climate effects that inevitably flow from the use or foreseeable misuse of
their fossil fuel products.
253. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely
disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,
advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials that
prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel products would cause
grave climate changes, undermining and rendering ineffective any warnings that Defendants may
have also disseminated.
254. Given the grave dangers presented by the climate effects that inevitably flow from
the normal use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products, a reasonable extractor, manufacturer,
formulator, seller, or other participant responsible for introducing fossil fuel products into the
stream of commerce, would have warned of those known, inevitable climate effects.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 255 of 518
COMPLAINT 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
255. Defendants’ conduct was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and a
substantial factor in the harms suffered by Plaintiff as described in this Complaint.
256. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
257. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
258. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass on Behalf of San Mateo County)
(Against All Defendants)
259. Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
260. Plaintiff San Mateo County owns, leases, occupies, and/or controls real property
within Plaintiff’s county boundaries and within communities located within the County.
261. Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally, recklessly, or negligently caused
ocean waters to enter Plaintiff San Mateo County’s property, by extracting, refining, formulating,
designing, packaging, distributing, testing, constructing, fabricating, analyzing, recommending,
merchandising, advertising, promoting, marketing, and/or selling fossil fuel products, knowing
those products in their normal operation and use or foreseeable misuse would cause global and
local sea levels to rise, cause flooding to become more frequent and more intense, and cause storm
surges to become more frequent and more intense.
262. Plaintiff San Mateo County did not give permission for Defendants, or any of them,
to cause ocean water to enter its property.
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 256 of 518
COMPLAINT 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP
263. Plaintiff San Mateo County has been and continues to be actually injured and
continues to suffer damages as a result of Defendants and each of their having caused ocean water
to enter their real property, by inter alia permanently submerging real property owned by Plaintiff,
causing flooding which have invaded and threatens to invade real property owned by Plaintiff and
rendered it unusable, and causing storm surges which have invaded and threatened to invade real
Property owned by Plaintiff and rendered it unusable.
264. Defendants’ and each Defendant’s introduction of their fossil fuel products into the
stream of commerce was a substantial factor in causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff’s
public and private real property.
265. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
266. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
267. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 257 of 518
17
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 258 of 518
17
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 259 of 518
EXHIBIT A
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 260 of 518
DATE DOCUMENT TEXT
NOV. 5, 1965
“RESTORING THE QUALITY OF
OUR ENVIRONMENT,” REPORT OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
PANEL, PRESIDENT’S SCIENCE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee
finds that “[P]ollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon
dioxide content of the air” and “[M]an is unwittingly conducting
a vast geophysical experiment” by burning fossil fuels that are
injecting CO2 into the atmosphere. The committee concludes
that by the year 2000, we could see “measurable and perhaps
marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause
significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the
stratosphere.”
FEB. 1968
“SOURCES, ABUNDANCE, AND
FATE OF GASEOUS ATMOSPHERIC
POLLUTANTS,” REPORT PREPARED
BY STANFORD RESEARCH
INSTITUTE SCIENTISTS ELMER
ROBINSON AND R.C. ROBBINS
FOR THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE (API)
The American Petroleum Institute commissions a report
finding that:
• “[A]lthough there are other possible sources for the additional
CO2 now being observed in the atmosphere, none seems to
fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel
emanation theory.”
• “Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by
the year 2000, and these could bring about climatic changes.”
• “There seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our
environment could be severe.”
• “What is lacking, however, is an application of these CO2 data
to air pollution technology and work toward systems in which
CO2 emissions would be brought under control.”
JUNE 6, 1978
PRESENTATION SHARED
WITH EXXON MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE FROM EXXON
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
SCIENCE ADVISOR, JAMES BLACK
Exxon Science Advisor James Black tells the company’s
Management Committee that “[T]here is general scientific
agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is
influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release
from the burning of fossil fuels” and that “[M]an has a time
window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions
regarding changes in energy strategy might become critical.”
SEPT. 17, 1978 CONGRESS PASSES NATIONAL
CLIMATE POLICY ACT
Congress passes the National Climate Policy Act to help
“the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural
and man-induced climate processes and their implications.”
MAJOR FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES have known the
truth for nearly 50 years: their oil, gas, and coal
products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms
the planet and changes our climate. They’ve known for
decades that the consequences could be catastrophic and
that only a narrow window of time existed to take action
before the damage might not be reversible. They have
nevertheless engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort
to conceal and contradict their own knowledge of these
threats, discredit the growing body of publicly available
scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in the
minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media,
journalists, teachers, and the general public about the
reality and consequences of climate change.
This timeline highlights information, alleged in the
Complaints filed by San Mateo County, Marin County, and
Imperial Beach, that comes from key industry documents
and other sources. It illustrates what the industry knew,
when they knew it, and what they didn’t do to prevent the
impacts that are now imposing real costs on people and
communities around the country. While the early warnings
from the industry’s own scientists and experts often
acknowledged the uncertainties in their projections, those
uncertainties were typically about the timing and magnitude
of the climate change impacts – not about whether those
impacts would occur or whether the industry’s oil, gas,
and coal were the primary cause. On those latter points,
as these documents show, they were quite certain.
Truth or CO2nsequences
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 261 of 518
Truth or CO2nsequences
DEC. 7, 1978
CO2 RESEARCH PROPOSAL
FROM EXXON RESEARCH AND
ENGINEERING’S ENVIRONMENTAL
AREA MANAGER, HENRY SHAW
Exxon scientist Henry Shaw proposes that the company
initiate a comprehensive research program “to assess the
possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business.”
He argues that the company needs “a credible scientific team that
can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject
and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.”
OCT. 16, 1979
“CONTROLLING THE CO2
CONCENTRATION IN THE
ATMOSPHERE,” STUDY BY EXXON
EMPLOYEE STEVE KNISELY
An Exxon internal study finds that:
• “The present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause
dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.”
• “[R]ecognizing the uncertainty, there is a possibility that an
atmospheric CO2 buildup will cause adverse environmental
effects in enough areas of the world to consider limiting the
future use of fossil fuels as major energy sources.”
• “The potential problem is great and urgent.”
FEB. 29, 1980
MEETING MINUTES FROM
THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE’S (API’S) CO2
AND CLIMATE TASK FORCE:
PRESENTATION BY DR. J.
LAURMAN
Dr. J. Laurman tells API’s Climate Task Force that “there is
a scientific consensus on the potential for large future climatic
response to increased CO2 levels” and that “remedial actions will
take a long time to become effective.”
AUG. 6, 1980
“REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ACTIVITIES FOR
1978-1979,” IMPERIAL OIL REPORT
An internal “Review of Environmental Protection Activities
for 1978-1979” by Imperial Oil, which was distributed widely
to Exxon/Esso Corporate Managers, finds that
“[T]echnology exists to remove CO2 from stack gases but
removal of only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power
generation.”
AUG. 18, 1981
MEMO FROM ROGER
COHEN, DIRECTOR OF
EXXON’S THEORETICAL AND
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE
LABORATORY, TO SCIENTIST
WERNER GLASS
Exxon Strategic Planning Manager Roger Cohen comments
on an internal assessment of CO2 emissions and the
greenhouse effect that is prepared at the request of Senior
VP and Director Morey O’Loughlin:
• “[I]t is very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the
threat by the year 2000 because of advances in climate
modeling and the beginning of real experimental confirmation
of the CO2 effect.”
• “Whereas I can agree with the statement that our best guess
is that observable effects in the year 2030 will be ‘well short
of catastrophic’, it is distinctly possible that the [Planning
Division’s] scenario will later produce effects that will indeed
be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s
population).”
APRIL 1, 1982
“CO2 ‘GREENHOUSE’ EFFECT,”
INTERNALLY DISTRIBUTED
SUMMARY BY EXXON MANAGER
M.B. GLASER OF A TECHNICAL
REVIEW PREPARED BY EXXON
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
COMPANY’S COORDINATION AND
PLANNING DIVISION
An internal Exxon “CO2 ‘Greenhouse Effect’ Summary” finds
that “[T]here is concern among some scientific groups that once
the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little
could be done to correct the situation in the short term” and
that “[M]itigation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ could require major
reductions in fossil fuel combustion.”
DATE DOCUMENT TEXT
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 262 of 518
Truth or CO2nsequences
SEPT. 2, 1982
MEMO FROM ROGER
COHEN, DIRECTOR OF
EXXON’S THEORETICAL AND
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE
LABORATORY, TO EXXON
MANAGEMENT INCLUDING
PRESIDENT OF EXXON
CORPORATION’S RESEARCH AND
ENGINEERING, E. E. DAVID JR.
The Director of Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical
Sciences Laboratory, Roger Cohen, summarizes the findings
of their research in climate modeling:
• “[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific consensus has
emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of increased
atmospheric CO2.”
• “It is generally believed that the first unambiguous CO2-induced
temperature increase wiIl not be observable until around the
year 2000.”
• “[T]he results of our research are in accord with the scientific
consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on
climate.”
OCT. 1982
“INVENTING THE FUTURE: ENERGY
AND THE CO2 ‘GREENHOUSE’
EFFECT,” E. E. DAVID JR. REMARKS
AT THE FOURTH ANNUAL EWING
SYMPOSIUM, TENAFLY, NJ
In a speech, E. E. David Jr., President of Exxon Research and
Engineering Company, states: “It is ironic that the biggest
uncertainties about the CO2 buildup are not in predicting what
the climate will do, but in predicting what people will do. . .[It]
appears we still have time to generate the wealth and knowledge
we will need to invent the transition to a stable energy system.”
SUMMER 1988
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE
GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND
EFFORTS TO COMBAT IT RAMP UP
The summer of 1988 sees a flurry of activity around climate
change policy:
• Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, tells Congress that the Institute’s greenhouse
effect research shows “the global warming is now large enough
that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause
and effect relationship with the greenhouse effect.”
• At least four bipartisan bills are introduced in Congress, three
championed by Republicans, to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions.
AUG. 3, 1988
“THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT,”
DRAFT WRITTEN BY JOSEPH M.
CARLSON, AN EXXON PUBLIC
AFFAIRS MANAGER
Despite declaring the Greenhouse Effect “one of the most
significant environmental issues for the 1990s,” Carlson writes
that Exxon’s position should be to “emphasize the uncertainty
in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced
Greenhouse Effect.”
AUG. 31, 1988
VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W.
BUSH CAMPAIGN SPEECH IN
MICHIGAN
Vice President George H.W. Bush, in a speech while running
for President, says “[T]hose who think we are powerless to do
anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the ‘White
House effect’; as President, I intend to do something about it.”
DEC. 6, 1988
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL
ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) IS
FORMED
The IPCC is formed in December 1988 by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers with
regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change,
its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and
mitigation.
DEC. 20, 1989
“GREENHOUSE EFFECT: SHELL
ANTICIPATES A SEA CHANGE,”
ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
A New York Times article reports: “In what is considered
the first major project that takes account of the changes the
greenhouse effect is expected to bring, [Shell] engineers are
designing a huge platform that anticipates rising water in the
North Sea by raising the platform from the standard 30 meters -
the height now thought necessary to stay above the waves that
come in a once-a-century storm - to 31 or 32 meters.”
DATE DOCUMENT TEXT
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 263 of 518
Truth or CO2nsequences
1991
“CLIMATE OF CONCERN,”
DOCUMENTARY PRODUCED AND
DISTRIBUTED BY SHELL
Shell releases a 30-minute educational video warning of
climate change’s negative consequences ranging from sea level rise
and wetland destruction to “greenhouse refugees.” It concludes:
“Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that the wait
for final proof would be irresponsible. Action now is seen as the
only safe insurance.”
MAY 1991
INFORMATION COUNCIL FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT (ICE) PR
CAMPAIGN
The Information Council for the Environment (ICE), formed by the
coal industry, launches a national climate change science denial
campaign with data collection, full-page newspaper ads, radio
commercials, a PR tour, and mailers.
DEC. 1995
“PREDICTING FUTURE CLIMATE
CHANGE: A PRIMER,” GLOBAL
CLIMATE COALITION’S (GCC)
INTERNAL PRIMER DRAFT,
PREPARED BY GCC’S SCIENCE
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE V. THEIR PUBLICLY
DISTRIBUTED BACKGROUNDER,
“SCIENCE AND GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
WHAT ARE THE UNCERTAINTIES?”
The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a fossil fuel industry
group, drafts an internal primer analyzing “contrarian
theories” and concluding that they do not “offer convincing
arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas
emission-induced climate change.” However, a publicly distributed
version excluded this section while focusing on scientific
disagreement and uncertainty by citing some of those same
contrarian scientists.
FALL 1996
“GLOBAL WARMING: WHO’S
RIGHT? FACTS ABOUT A DEBATE
THAT’S TURNED UP MORE
QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS,”
PUBLICATION FROM EXXON
CORPORATION
An eight-page Exxon publication questions the negative impact
the greenhouse effect might have and plays up the uncertainty.
The introductory statement by Lee Raymond, Exxon’s chairman
and CEO, claims that “[S]cientific evidence remains inconclusive as
to whether human activities affect global climate.”
APRIL 3, 1998
“GLOBAL SCIENCE
COMMUNICATIONS ACTION
PLAN,” DRAFT BY THE AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API)
The American Petroleum Institute develops a multi-million
dollar communications and outreach plan to ensure that
“climate change becomes a non-issue.” It maintains that “[V]ictory
will be achieved when...uncertainties in climate science [become]
part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”
DEC. 11, 2000
LETTER FROM LLOYD KEIGWIN,
SENIOR SCIENTIST AT THE
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC
INSTITUTION, TO PETER
ALTMAN, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN
COORDINATOR FOR EXXONMOBIL
A senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Lloyd Keigwin, sends a letter to Exxon’s Peter Altman,
summarizing their email and phone conversations regarding
Exxon’s misleading use of Keigwin’s study results.
“The sad thing is that a company with the resources of
ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes when they
could actually get much better press by supporting research into
the role of the ocean in climate change.”
JUNE 20, 2001
“YOUR MEETING WITH MEMBERS
OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE
COALITION,” US DEPARTMENT
OF STATE MEMO AND TALKING
POINTS
Talking points for State Department Undersecretary Paula
Dobriansky’s meeting with the Global Climate Coalition at
API’s headquarters: “POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on
input from you.”
DATE DOCUMENT TEXT
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 264 of 518
Truth or CO2nsequences
SEPT. 26, 2002
LETTER FROM MICHAEL
MACCRACKEN, RETIRING SENIOR
SCIENTIST FROM THE OFFICE
OF THE US GLOBAL CHANGE
RESEARCH PROGRAM, TO EXXON
CEO LEE RAYMOND: “RE: WITH
REGARD TO THE EXXONMOBIL
FACSIMILE ON FEBRUARY 6, 2001
FROM DR. AG RANDOL TO MR.
JOHN HOWARD OF THE COUNCIL
ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY”
Michael MacCracken, the former director of the National
Assessment Coordination Office of the US Global Change
Research Program, writes to Exxon CEO Lee Raymond in
response to ExxonMobil’s criticism of a US climate change
assessment: “In my earlier experience, arguing for study of
adaptation had been a position of industry, but now when this
was attempted, ExxonMobil argued this was premature. Roughly,
this is equivalent to turning your back on the future and putting
your head in the sand—with this position, it is no wonder
ExxonMobil is the target of environmental and shareholder
critics...Certainly, there are uncertainties, but decisions are made
under uncertainty all the time--that is what executives are well
paid to do. In this case, ExxonMobil is on the wrong side of the
international scientific community, the wrong side of the findings
of all the world’s leading academies of science, and the wrong
side of virtually all of the world’s countries as expressed, without
dissent, in the IPCC reports...To call ExxonMobil’s position out of
the mainstream is thus a gross understatement. There can be all
kinds of perspectives about what one might or might not do to
start to limit the extent of the change, but to be in opposition
to the key scientific findings is rather appalling for such an
established and scientific organization.”
OCT. 21, 2002
MARKUPS BY PHILIP COONEY,
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ON
A DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR
THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE
PROGRAM
Philip Cooney, Chief of Staff for the White House Council of
Environmental Quality and a former lawyer and lobbyist for the
American Petroleum Institute with no scientific credentials, edits a
Draft Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program
to introduce uncertainty about global warming and its impacts. In
2005, Cooney resigns after being accused of doctoring scientific
reports and is hired by Exxon. A Union of Concerned Scientists
report published samples of Cooney’s edits (p.56).
JUNE 11, 2009
“THE PROPORTIONALITY
OF GLOBAL WARMING
TO CUMULATIVE CARBON
EMISSIONS,” PUBLICATION BY
DAMON MATTHEWS PUBLISHED
IN NATURE
Damon Matthews publishes seminal research in the peer-
reviewed Nature journal showing a linear relationship between
greenhouse gas emissions and increasing global temperatures.
AUG. 12, 2009
EMAIL FROM API CEO JACK
GERARD TO API’S MEMBERSHIP
REGARDING A SERIES OF “ENERGY
CITIZEN” RALLIES IN 20 STATES
DURING THE END OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECESS
The American Petroleum Institute’s CEO, Jack Gerard,
emails API’s membership promising “up front resources” and
encouraging turnout for “Energy Citizen” rallies in about
20 states. Gerard says they are “collaborating closely with the
allied oil and natural gas associations” in order to “aim a loud
message at those states’ U.S. Senators to avoid the mistakes
embodied in the House climate bill.”
NOV. 22, 2013
“TRACING ANTHROPOGENIC
CARBON DIOXIDE AND METHANE
EMISSIONS TO FOSSIL FUEL AND
CEMENT PRODUCERS, 1854-2010,”
PUBLICATION BY RICK HEEDE
PUBLISHED IN CLIMATIC CHANGE
Rick Heede, co-founder and director of the Climate
Accountability Institute, authors a peer-reviewed study
revealing that 90 producers of oil, natural gas, coal, and cement
– the “carbon majors” – are responsible for 63 percent of
cumulative industrial CO2 and methane emissions worldwide
between 1751 and 2010. Just 28 companies are responsible for
25 percent of all emissions since 1965.
DATE DOCUMENT TEXT
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 265 of 518
Truth or CO2nsequences
NOV. 11, 2014
“WSPA PRIORITY ISSUES,”
PRESENTATION BY WESTERN
STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
PRESIDENT CATHERINE REHEIS-
BOYD
The Western States Petroleum Association, a top lobbying
and trade association for the oil industry, describes in a
presentation the “campaigns and coalitions [it has] activated
that have contributed to WSPA’s advocacy goals and continue
to respond to aggressive anti-oil initiatives in the West,”
including investment “in several coalitions that are best suited
to drive consumer and grassroots messages to regulators and
policymakers.”
SEPT. 2016 “2016 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
SEA LEVEL RISE ASSESSMENT”
The City of Imperial Beach, California, releases a report
that assesses the city’s vulnerability to sea level rise and identifies
adaptation strategies, along with estimated costs, to address
those impacts.
APRIL 2017
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
MARIN COUNTY, AND
SAN MATEO COUNTY SEA LEVEL
RISE ASSESSMENT REPORTS
The State of California, along with San Mateo and Marin
Counties, release separate reports that assess the impacts
of sea level rise on their communities, detailing the substantial
monetary losses, infrastructure and property damage, and
decrease in quality of life residents will face.
JUNE 26, 2017
“THE INCREASING RATE OF
GLOBAL MEAN SEA-LEVEL RISE
DURING 1993-2014,” CHEN, ET.AL.,
PUBLISHED IN NATURE CLIMATE
CHANGE
A new peer-reviewed study confirms that the rate of sea level
rise is accelerating and concludes that, for coastal communities,
it “highlights the importance and urgency of mitigating climate
change and formulating coastal adaptation plans to mitigate the
impacts of ongoing sea level rise.”
DATE DOCUMENT TEXT
Attachment A - San Mateo County Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 266 of 518
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186
Chief Deputy City Attorney
YVONNE R. MERE, State Bar #173594
Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation
ROBB W. KAPLA, State Bar #238896
MATTHEW D. GOLDBERG, State Bar #240776
Deputy City Attorneys
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4602
Telephone: (415) 554-4748
Facsimile: (415) 554-4715
Email: brittanv.feitelberg@sfgov.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney
DENNIS J. HERRERA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
San Franpmee aunty ,,,,aerier .-ourt
AP 1 gl017
CLERK F •OURT
BY:
lerk
11
[Other Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
13 :
14
case NO:GC e 1 7 1,56 1 3/
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the San
Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J.
HERRERA,
Plaintiff and Real Party in Interest,
vs.
BP P.L.C., a public limited company of
England and Wales, CHEVRON
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation,
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, a public limited
company of England and Wales, and DOES 1
through 10,
Defendants.
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 267 of 518
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5
III. PARTIES 6
A. Plaintiff 6
B. Defendants 6
C. Defendants' Connections To California. 10
IV. FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. 12
V. DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF FOSSIL FUELS
AND HAVE CONTINUED TO DO SO EVEN AS GLOBAL WARMING HAS
BECOME GRAVELY DANGEROUS. 16
VI. DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOSSIL FUELS
DESPITE HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE FROM THEIR IN-HOUSE SCIENTIFIC
STAFF, OR FROM THE API, THAT FOSSIL FUELS WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL
WARMING. 18
VII. DESPITE THEIR EARLY KNOWLEDGE THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS
REAL AND POSED GRAVE THREATS, DEFENDANTS PROMOTED FOSSIL
FUELS FOR PERVASIVE USE WHILE DOWNPLAYING THE REALITY AND
RISKS OF GLOBAL WARMING. 23
A. Defendants Borrowed The Big Tobacco Playbook In Order To Promote Their
Products. 24
B. Defendants' Direct Promotion Of Fossil Fuels. 28
VIII. SAN FRANCISCO WILL INCUR SERIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE INJURIES THAT
WILL REQUIRE BILLIONS IN EXPENDITURES TO ABATE THE GLOBAL
WARMING NUISANCE. 31
IX. CAUSE OF ACTION: PUBLIC NUISANCE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE 37
X. RELIEF REQUESTED 39
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 1 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 268 of 518
• •
Plaintiff, the People of the State of California ("the People"), by and through San Francisco
City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, brings this action against Defendants BP p.l.c. ("BP"), Chevron
Corporation ("Chevron"), ConocoPhillips Company ("ConocoPhillips"), Exxon Mobil Corporation
("Exxon"), and Royal Dutch Shell plc ("Shell") (collectively, "Defendants"), and alleges as
follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Global warming is here and it is harming San Francisco now. Global warming
causes accelerated sea level rise through thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of land-
based ice. Sea levels are rising at rates unprecedented in the history of human civilization due to
global warming.' Global warming-induced sea level rise is already causing flooding of low-lying
areas of San Francisco, increased shoreline erosion, and salt water impacts to San Francisco's
water treatment system.2 The rapidly rising sea level along the Pacific coast and in San Francisco
Bay, moreover, poses an imminent threat of catastrophic storm surge flooding because any storm
would be superimposed on a higher sea level.3 This threat to human safety and to public and
private property is becoming more dire every day as global warming reaches ever more dangerous
levels and sea level rise accelerates. The City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco" or
"City") must take abatement action now to protect public and private property from this looming
threat by building sea walls and other sea level rise adaptation infrastructure. Exhibits 1 and 24 to
1 Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: an update on sea-level rise science, California Ocean
Science Trust, at 8 (Apr. 2017) ("Rising Seas in California"), available at
http ://www .opc .ca. gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/doc s/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-
rise-science.pdf.
2 San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan at 6 (Mar. 2016), available at
http://defaultsfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/sea-level-
rise/160309_SLRAP_Executive_Summary_EDreduced.pdf.
3 Rising Seas in California at 16-17 (Apr. 2017); Climate Change Impacts in the United States:
The Third National Climate Assessment, southwest chapter at 469-70 (2014), available at
http://nca2014. globalchange. gov/system/files_force/downloads/low/NCA3_Full_Report_20_South
west_LowRes.pdf?download=1.
4 San Francisco Sea Level Action Plan, at 2-7 & 2-9 (March 2016), available at
http://default. sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/sea-level-
rise/160309_SLRAP_Final_ED.pdf.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBIC NUISANCE - 1 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 269 of 518
• •
this Complaint, showing flood events' projected intrusion into San Francisco as a result of global
warming, demonstrate just how stark the threat is.
2. This egregious state of affairs is no accident. Rather, it is an unlawful public
nuisance of the first order. Defendants are the five largest investor-owned fossil fuel corporations
in the world as measured by their historic production of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels — oil,
natural gas and coal — is the primary source of the greenhouse gas pollution that causes global
warming, a point that scientists settled years ago.5 Defendants have produced massive amounts of
fossil fuels for many years. And recent disclosures of internal industry documents demonstrate that
they have done so despite knowing — since at least the late 1970s and early 1980s if not earlier —
that massive fossil fuel usage would cause dangerous global warming. It was at that time that
scientists on their staffs or with whom they consulted through their trade association, the American
Petroleum Institute ("API"), investigated the science and warned them in stark terms that fossil fuel
usage would cause global warming at a rate unprecedented in the history of human civilization and
present risks of "catastrophic" harm in coming decades.
3. Defendants took these stark warnings and proceeded to double-down on fossil fuels.
Most of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of Defendants' fossil
fuels is likely attributable to their recent production — i.e., to fossil fuels produced by Defendants
since 1980. Even today, with the global warming danger level at a critical phase, Defendants
continue to engage in massive fossil fuel production and execute long-term business plans to
continue and even expand their fossil fuel production for decades into the future.
4. The global warming-induced sea level rise from past fossil fuel usage is an
irreversible condition on any relevant time scale: it will last hundreds or even thousands of years.
Defendants' planned production of fossil fuels into the future will exacerbate global warming,
5 See, e.g., Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, Report of an Ad Hoc Study
Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate to the Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical
and Physical Sciences, National Research Council (1979), at vii, 4-6, available at
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientific-assessment.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 2 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 270 of 518
• •
accelerate sea level rise even further, and require greater and more costly abatement actions to
protect San Francisco.
5. Defendants, notably, did not simply produce fossil fuels. They engaged in large-
scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaigns to promote pervasive fossil fuel
usage and to portray fossil fuels as environmentally responsible and essential to human well-being
— even as they knew that their fossil fuels would contribute, and subsequently were contributing, to
dangerous global warming and associated accelerated sea level rise. These promotional efforts
continue through today even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil fuels are
altering the climate and global warming has become an existential threat to modern life.
6. Defendants' promotion of fossil fuels has also entailed denying mainstream climate
science or downplaying the risks of global warming. During the 1990s and early 2000s,
Defendants stole a page from the Big Tobacco playbook and sponsored public relations campaigns,
either directly or through the API or other groups, to deny and discredit the mainstream scientific
consensus on global warming, downplay the risks of global warming, and even to launch
unfounded attacks on the integrity of leading climate scientists. "Uncertainty" of the science
became the constantly repeated mantra of this Big Oil PR campaign just as "Doubt is our product"
was the Big Tobacco PR theme. Emphasizing "uncertainty" in climate science, directly or through
the API, is still a focus of Defendants' efforts to promote their products even though Defendants
are well aware that the fundamental scientific facts of global warming are not in dispute and are a
cause of grave danger through sea level rise.
7. The purpose of all this promotion of fossil fuels and efforts to undermine
mainstream climate science was, like all marketing, to increase sales and protect market share. It
succeeded.
8. And now it will cost billions of dollars to build sea walls and other infrastructure to
protect human safety and public and private property in San Francisco from global warming-
induced sea level rise. A recent report by the California government has rung the alarm bell as
loudly as possible: "Previously underappreciated glaciological processes, examined in the research
of the last five years, have the potential to greatly increase the probability of extreme global sea-
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 3 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 271 of 518
• •
level rise (6 feet or more) within this century" under business-as usual fossil fuel production and
usage.6 Translation: the planet's enormous ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are beginning to
melt, like their much smaller but more numerous cousins, the mountain glaciers, have been doing
for many years, and slide into the ocean. This new dynamic is fundamentally increasing the risk of
catastrophic sea level rise. The report projects a risk of as much as ten feet of additional sea level
rise along San Francisco's coastline by 2100, which would be catastrophic.? Nearer-term risks
include 0.3 to as much as 0.8 feet of additional sea level rise by 2030,8 which itself will require the
building of sea walls and other costly infrastructure given the dynamics of storm surge and regular
high tide flooding.
9. This new information shows that the costs of dealing with global warming-induced
sea level—already immense—will be staggering for the public entities that must protect their
people and their coastlines. Even before the latest projections of accelerating sea-level rise, San
Francisco has already taken action to adapt. In 2016, San Francisco adopted an action plan
establishing a framework for assessing San Francisco's exposure to sea level rise and identifying
actions the City must take to prevent sea level rise damage. The plan's vision is to make San
Francisco a "more resilient city in the face of immediate and long-term threats of sea level rise, by
taking measures to protect and enhance public and private assets, natural resources, and quality of
life for all." The plan recommends that San Francisco conduct assessments to identify properties
and infrastructure vulnerable to sea level rise, and develop and implement adaptation plans to
protect them by raising infrastructure, building flood barriers and other infrastructure, and taking
other measures. San Francisco is in the process of doing so for identified vulnerable areas such as
Ocean Beach and the San Francisco Port. As set forth in the action plan, continuing Bayside sea
level rise from global warming places at risk at least $10 billion dollars of public property within
San Francisco and as much as $39 billion of private property. The magnitude of the actions needed
6 Rising Seas in California at 16.
7 Id. at 26.
8 Id.
010694-11 986485 VI COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 4 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 272 of 518
to abate harms from sea level rise, and the amount of property at risk, will increase in light of the
rapidly accelerating sea level rise and the increased scientific understanding of sea level rise
processes as set forth in the 2017 report.
10. Defendants are substantial contributors to the public nuisance of global warming
that is causing injury to the People and thus are jointly and severally liable. Defendants'
cumulative production of fossil fuels over many years places each of them among the top sources
of global warming pollution in the world. Upon information and belief, Defendants are,
respectively, the first (Chevron), second (Exxon), fourth (BP), sixth (Shell) and ninth
(ConocoPhillips) largest cumulative producers of fossil fuels worldwide from the mid Nineteenth
Century to present; most of Defendants' global warming pollution from the usage of their fuels has
accumulated in the atmosphere since 1980. Defendants, moreover, are qualitatively different from
other contributors to the harm given their in-house scientific resources, early knowledge of global
warming, commercial promotions of fossil fuels as beneficent even in light of their knowledge to
the contrary, and efforts to protect their fossil fuel market by downplaying the risks of global
warming.
11. The People seek an order requiring Defendants to abate the global warming-induced
sea level rise nuisance to which they have contributed by funding an abatement program to build
sea walls and other infrastructure that is urgently needed to protect human safety and public and
private property in San Francisco. The People do not seek to impose liability on Defendants for
their direct emissions of greenhouse gases and do not seek to restrain Defendants from engaging in
their business operations. This case is, fundamentally, about shifting the costs of abating sea level
rise harm — one of global warming's gravest harms — back onto the companies. After all, it is
Defendants who have profited and will continue to profit by knowingly contributing to global
warming, thereby doing all they can to help create and maintain a profound public nuisance.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because Defendants have contributed to the
creation of a public nuisance in San Francisco, and the San Francisco City Attorney has the right
and authority to seek abatement of that nuisance on behalf of the People of the State of California.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 5 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 273 of 518
• •
13. Venue is proper in this county in accordance with section 392(a)(1) of the Code of
Civil Procedure because the People allege injuries to real property located in this county.
III. PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
14. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by and through the San Francisco
City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, brings this suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731,
and Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494, to abate the public nuisance caused by
Defendants.
B. Defendants
15. Defendant BP is a public limited company registered in England and Wales with its
headquarters in London, England, doing business in California. BP was created in 1998 as a result
of a merger between the Amoco Corporation ("Amoco"), a former U.S. corporation, and the British
Petroleum Company p.l.c. BP is a multinational, integrated oil and gas company that explores for,
produces, refines, markets, and sells oil, natural gas and fossil fuel products.
16. BP controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production.9 BP,
through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or controls operations relating
to its subsidiaries' participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude oil, are
produced, transported, refined, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers. BP also
exercises control over company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel reserves
considering climate change impacts. BP's management, direction, conduct and/or control is
exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees' and/or agents'
implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to
production of fossil fuels specifically.
/ / /
/ / /
9 BP Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon Disclosure Project
at 1, available at https://www.cdp.net/en/companies.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 6 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 274 of 518
• •
17. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant BP is
responsible for its subsidiaries' past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products.
18. Defendant Chevron is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
located in San Ramon, California. Chevron and its predecessors had their headquarters in San
Francisco from 1879 to 2001. Chevron is a multinational, integrated oil and gas company that
explores for, produces, refines, markets, and sells oil, natural gas and fossil fuel products.
19. Chevron controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel
production.1° Chevron, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or
controls operations relating to its subsidiaries' participation in the process by which fossil fuels,
including raw crude oil, are produced, transported, refined, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or
sold to consumers. Chevron also exercises control over company-wide decisions on production
and use of fossil fuel reserves considering climate change impacts. Chevron's management,
direction, conduct and/or control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its
employees' and/or agents' implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to
climate change generally and to production of fossil fuels specifically.
20. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Chevron is
responsible for its subsidiaries' past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products.
21. Defendant ConocoPhillips is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business located in Houston, Texas, doing business in California. ConocoPhillips is a
multinational oil and gas company that produces, markets, and sells oil and natural gas and for
many years also refined and sold finished oil products.
/ / /
/ / /
'° Chevron Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon Disclosure
Project at 2, available at https://www.cdp.net/en/companies.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 7 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 275 of 518
• •
22. ConocoPhillips controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel
production." ConocoPhillips, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts
and/or controls operations relating to its subsidiaries' participation in the process by which fossil
fuels, including raw crude oil, are produced, transported, refined, stored, distributed, marketed,
and/or sold to consumers. ConocoPhillips also exercises control over company-wide decisions on
production and use of fossil fuel reserves considering climate change impacts. ConocoPhillips's
management, direction, conduct and/or control is exercised through a variety of means, including
through its employees' and/or agents' implementation of policies, procedures, and programs
relating to climate change generally and to production of fossil fuels specifically.
23. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant
ConocoPhillips is responsible for its subsidiaries' past and current production and promotion of
fossil fuel products.
24. Defendant Exxon is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business
located in Irving, Texas, doing business in the State of California. Exxon is a multinational,
integrated oil and gas company that explores for, produces, refines, markets, and sells oil, natural
gas and fossil fuel products and, as recently as 2009 produced, marketed and sold coal.
25. Exxon controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production.12
Exxon, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or controls operations
relating to its subsidiaries' participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude
oil, are produced, transported, refined, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers.
Exxon also exercises control over company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel
reserves considering climate change impacts. Exxon's management, direction, conduct and/or
control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees and/or agents'
11 ConocoPhillips Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon
Disclosure Project at 2, available at https://www.cdp.net/en/companies.
12 Exxon Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon Disclosure
Project at 1, available at https://www.cdp.net/en/companies.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE -8- 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 276 of 518
• •
implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to
production of fossil fuels specifically.
26. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Exxon is
responsible for its subsidiaries' past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products.
27. Defendant Shell is a public limited company registered in England and Wales with
its headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, doing business in California. Shell is a multinational,
integrated oil and gas company that explores for, produces, refines, markets, and sells oil, natural
gas and fossil fuel products.
28. Shell controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production.'3
Shell, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or controls operations
relating to its subsidiaries' participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude
oil, are produced, transported, refined, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers.
Shell also exercises control over company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel
reserves considering climate change impacts. Shell's management, direction, conduct and/or
control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees' and/or agents'
implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to
production of fossil fuels specifically.
29. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Shell is
responsible for its subsidiaries' past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products.
30. Defendants DOES ONE through TEN are sued herein under fictitious names.
Plaintiff does not at this time know the true names or capacities of said defendants, but prays that
the same may be alleged when ascertained.
/ / /
13 Shell Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon Disclosure
Project at 2, available at https://www.cdp.net/en/companies.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE -9- 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 277 of 518
• •
C. Defendants' Connections To California.
31. Defendants have contributed to the creation of a public nuisance — global warming-
induced sea level rise — causing severe harms and threatening catastrophic harms in San Francisco.
32. Each Defendant, directly and through its subsidiaries, substantially participates in
the process by which raw crude oil is extracted from the ground, refined into fossil fuel products
and delivered, marketed, and sold to California residents for use.
33. BP, through its subsidiaries, owns and/or operates port facilities in California for
receipt of crude oil. BP, through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and upon information
and belief, BP, through its subsidiaries, transports some of this crude oil to California. In addition,
BP operates 275 ARCO-licensed and-branded gasoline stations in California, including stations
located in San Francisco. BP offers credit cards to consumers on its interactive website to promote
sales of gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. BP's web site maintains a
page of "BP Amoco Stations Near Me" for California listing virtually every municipality in
California and hundreds of such gas stations. BP promotes gasoline sales by offering, consumers,
through its interactive web site, twenty-five cents off every gallon of BP-branded gasoline for
every $100 spent on a BP Visa® Credit Card or BP Credit Card for the first ninety days a
consumer's account is open.
34. Chevron, through its subsidiaries, produces oil in California, owns and/or operates
port facilities in California for receipt of crude oil, owns and operates two refineries where crude
oil is refined into finished fossil fuel products including gasoline, and owns and operates
approximately nine gasoline terminals in California. A gasoline terminal consists of enormous
aboveground storage tanks that hold gasoline for distribution to retail gasoline stations and
consumers. Chevron owns and operates the Richmond gasoline refinery and related terminals in
the San Francisco Bay Area. Chevron, through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and
upon information and belief, some of this crude oil is supplied to California. There also are
numerous Chevron-branded gasoline stations in California, including in San Francisco. Chevron
offers credit cards to consumers through its interactive website, to promote sales of gasoline and
other products at its branded gasoline stations. Chevron promotes gasoline sales by offering
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 10 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 278 of 518
• •
consumers three cents per gallon in fuel credits "every fill-up, every time at Chevron and Texaco
stations."
35. ConocoPhillips, through its subsidiaries, owns and/or operates port facilities in
California for receipt of crude oil, and previously owned and operated a refinery based in both
Rodeo and Arroyo Grande, California, from 2001 to 2012, where crude oil was refined into
finished fossil fuel products including gasoline. ConocoPhillips, through its subsidiaries, also
produces oil in Alaska, and transports some of this crude oil to California, including San Francisco.
36. Exxon, through its subsidiaries, produces oil in California, owns and/or operates
port facilities in California for receipt of crude oil, and previously owned and operated a refinery in
California until July 1, 2016, where crude oil was refined into finished fossil fuel products
including gasoline. Exxon owned the Benicia gasoline refinery for 30 years until 2000. Exxon,
through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and upon information and belief, Exxon,
through its subsidiaries, transports some of this crude oil to California. There also are numerous
Exxon-branded gasoline stations in California, including in San Francisco and the greater Bay
Area. Exxon offers credit cards to consumers, through its interactive website, to promote sales of
gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. Exxon promotes gasolines sales by
offering consumers twenty-five cents off every gallon of SynergyTM gasoline at ExxonTM or
MobilTM stations for the first two months and then six cents off every gallon of Synergy gasoline at
Exxon- and Mobil-branded stations.
37. Shell, through its subsidiaries, owns and/or operates port facilities in California for
receipt of crude oil, owns and operates a refinery in California where crude oil is refined into
finished fossil fuel products including gasoline, transports crude oil through a pipeline within
California, and owns and operates approximately six gasoline terminals in California. Since 1915,
Shell has owned a gasoline refinery in Martinez, California, thirty miles northeast of San
Francisco. There are numerous Shell-branded gasoline stations in California, including in San
Francisco. Shell offers credit cards to consumers on its interactive website to promote sales of
gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. Shell promotes gasolines sales by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 11 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 279 of 518
• •
offering consumers, through its interactive web site, twenty-five cents off every gallon of Shell
Fuel for the first two months after they open an account.
IV. FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.
38. Production of fossil fuels for combustion causes global warming. When used as
intended, fossil fuels release greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane,
which trap atmospheric heat and increase global temperatures. Carbon dioxide is by far the most
important greenhouse gas because of the combustion of massive amounts of fossil fuels.
39. Scientists have known for many years that the use of fossil fuels emits carbon
dioxide and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius, a Nobel-prize
winning scientist, published calculations projecting temperature increases that would be caused by
increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels.14
40. By 1957, scientists at the Scripps Institute published a warning in the peer-reviewed
literature that global warming "may become significant during future decades if industrial fuel
combustion continues to rise exponentially" and that "[h]uman beings are now carrying out a large
scale geophysical experiment" on the entire planet.15
41. In 1960, scientist Charles D. Keeling published results establishing that atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations were in fact rising.'6
42. By 1979, the National Academy of Sciences, which is charged with providing
independent, objective scientific advice to the United States government, concluded that there was
"incontrovertible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels were increasing in the atmosphere as a result
of fossil fuel use, and predicted that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an
'4 Arrhenius, Svante (1896). "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the
Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 41: 237-76, available
at http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf.
15 Revelle, Roger, and Hans E. Suess (1957). "Carbon Dioxide Exchange between Atmosphere
and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades." Tellus
9: 18-27, available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-
3490.1957 .tb01849.x/epdf.
16 Keeling, Charles D. (1960). "The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide
in the Atmosphere." Tellus 12: 200-203, available at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1960.tb01300.x/epdf.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 12 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 280 of 518
• •
increase in global surface temperatures of between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C [2.7 °F and 8.1 °F], with a
probable increase of 3 °C [5.4 °F].17
43. In 1988, NASA scientist Dr. James E. Hansen testified to the U.S. Senate's Energy
and Natural Resources Committee that "[t]he greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is
changing our climate now."18
44. More recent research has confirmed and expanded on these earlier findings. In
1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") to
assess the scientific and technical information relevant to global warming, and to provide advice to
all parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the United States.
The IPCC issues periodic assessment reports, which have become the standard scientific references
on global warming. As Defendant Exxon has put it, the IPCC is "the leading international
scientific authority on climate change."
45. In 1990, the IPCC issued its First Assessment Report ("FAR"). It stated that "we
are certain" that "emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the
atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases," including carbon dioxide and methane, and
that "these increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional
warming of the Earth's surface."19 The IPCC's FAR also predicted that a "Business-as-Usual"
scenario (i.e., a future in which fossil fuel production and associated emissions continue to
increase) would cause global mean temperature during the next century to increase at a rate
"greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years," and "will result in a likely increase in global
mean temperature of about 1 °C [1.8 °F] above the present value by 2025 and 3 °C [5.4 °F] before
17 See Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, Report of an Ad Hoc Study
Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate to the Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical
and Physical Sciences, National Research Council (1979), at vii, 16, available at
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientific-assessment.
18 https://www.scribd.com/doc/260149292/Transcript-of-pivotal-climate-change-hearing-1988.
19 https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_Lspm.pdf, at Executive Summary xi.
-13- COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 281 of 518
• •
the end of the next century" — higher than temperatures have been in the last 150,000 years. 20 The
FAR also predicted that business-as-usual would result in substantial sea level rise by 2100.21
46. The FAR further stated "with confidence" that continued emissions of carbon
dioxide "at present rates would commit us to increased concentrations for centuries ahead," and
that immediate reductions were required to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations.
47. In 1995, in its Second Assessment Report ("SAR"), the IPCC concluded that the
"balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This causal
finding was profoundly important as confirmation that human-caused global warming had now
been detected. By 2001, the IPCC strengthened its causal conclusion, stating that it was "likely"
(an IPCC term of art meaning a 66% to 90% chance of being true) that temperature increases
already observed were attributable to human activity.22 The U.S. National Academy of Sciences
reviewed this finding and concluded that it was accurate.23
48. The IPCC issued its most recent report, the Fifth Assessment, in 2013-14. It states
that it is "extremely likely" (95 to 100 percent likely) that "human influence has been the dominant
cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."24
49. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by the combustion of fossil fuels
has been clearly documented — and measured. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a chemical
fingerprint and is the culprit; natural sources of carbon dioxide were in balance prior to the use of
fossil fuels and are not a cause of the global warming problem. Today, due primarily to the
combustion of fossil fuels produced by Defendants and others, the atmospheric level of carbon
dioxide is 410 ppm, higher than at any time during human civilization and likely higher than any
20 Id. at Executive Summary xi and xxviii.
21 Id. at Executive Summary xi.
22 IPCC, Third Assessment Report, Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers at 10,
available at haps ://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg 1 /pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF.
23 National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, summary at 1 (2001), available at
https://download.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?record_id=10139.
24 IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 17,
available at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/VVG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 14 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 282 of 518
• •
level in millions of years.25 The result has been dramatic planetary warming: sixteen of earth's
seventeen warmest years in the 136-year period of global temperature measurements have occurred
since 2001, and 2016 was the warmest year on record.26 As of July 2017, there were 391 months in
a row that were warmer than the 20th century average.27 The years 2014, 2015, and 2016 were the
three hottest years ever recorded in California since modern temperature records were first taken in
1895.28 California has warmed over 2 °F since 1895.29
50. Scientists typically use "double CO2," or twice the pre-industrial level of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, as a standard reference for considering the warming
impact of increased greenhouse gases. Double CO2 is 550 ppm. According to the IPCC, double
CO2 will cause the global average surface air temperature to increase by 1.5 to 4.5 °C [2.7 to 8.1
°F] over the pre-industrial level, a rate of warming that is unprecedented in the history of human
civilization. By comparison, at the depths of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, the global average
temperature of the Earth was only seven to eleven degrees Fahrenheit cooler than today. Globally,
approximately 1 °C [1.8 °F] of the temperature rise already has occurred, due primarily to carbon
dioxide and methane emissions from the combustion and use of fossil fuels.
51. Ongoing and future warming caused by past and ongoing use of massive quantities
of fossil fuels will cause increasingly severe harm to San Francisco through accelerating sea level
rise. In 2013, the IPCC projected that between 2081 and 2100, the global average surface
temperature will have increased by 4.7 °F to 8.6 °F under business-as-usual, i.e., with continued
25 Brian Kahn, We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2, Scientific American (Apr.
21, 2017), available at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-just-breached-the-410-ppm-
threshold-for-co2/.
26 Rising Seas in California at 14.
27 NOAA, Global Climate Report, July 2017, available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
sotc/globa1/201707.
28 NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information, available at
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/climatological-rankings/index.php?periods
%5B%5D=12¶meter=tavg&state=4&div=0&month=12&year=2016#ranks-form.
29 NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-
precip/state-temps/; see also https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-
intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html?mcubz=0.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 15 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 283 of 518
• •
massive levels of fossil fuel production. Global warming causes sea level rise by melting glaciers
and sea ice, and by causing seawater to expand. 30 This acceleration of sea level rise is
unprecedented in the history of human civilization. Since 1990, the rate of sea level rise has more
than doubled and it continues to accelerate. The rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic
Ice Sheets is increasing, and these ice sheets soon will become the primary contributor to global
sea level rise. With production of fossil fuels continuing on its business-as-usual trajectory, the
resulting warming presents a risk of "rapidly accelerating and effectively irreversible ice loss."
The melting of even a portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the "most vulnerable major ice sheet
in a warming global climate," will cause especially severe impacts in California. Rapid ice sheet
loss on Antarctica due to global warming risks a sea level rise in California of ten feet by 2100.31
This would be catastrophic for San Francisco.
52. The Earth's climate can undergo an abrupt and dramatic change when a radiative
forcing agent, such as carbon dioxide, causes the climate system to reach a tipping point.
Defendants' massive production of fossil fuels increases the risk of reaching that tipping point,
triggering a sudden and potentially catastrophic change in climate. The rapidity of an abrupt
climate shift would magnify all the adverse effects of global warming. Crossing a tipping point
threshold also could lead to rapid disintegration of ice sheets on Greenland and/or Antarctica,
resulting in large and rapid increases in sea level rise.
V. DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF FOSSIL FUELS
AND HAVE CONTINUED TO DO SO EVEN AS GLOBAL WARMING HAS
BECOME GRAVELY DANGEROUS.
53. For many years, Defendants have produced massive quantities of fossil fuels that,
when combusted, emit carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas. Additionally, one of
Defendants' primary fossil fuel products, natural gas, is composed of methane, which is the second
most important greenhouse gas and which, as Defendants know, routinely escapes into the
atmosphere from facilities operated by Defendants' customers and also consumers. The
IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 11,
available at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf.
31 Rising Seas in California at 3-4, 13.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 16 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 284 of 518
• •
greenhouse gases from the usage of defendants' fossil fuels remain in the atmosphere for long
periods of time: a substantial portion of carbon dioxide emissions remains in the atmosphere for
over 1,000 years after they are emitted.32 As noted above, Defendants have produced such vast
quantities of fossil fuels that they are five of the ten largest producers in all of history, with most of
the carbon dioxide that has built up in the atmosphere from the use of their products dating from
1980 or later. The cumulative greenhouse gases in the atmosphere attributable to each Defendant
has increased the global temperature and contributed to sea level rise, including in San Francisco.
54. Once Defendants produce fossil fuels by, for example, extracting oil from the
ground, those fossil fuels are used exactly as intended and emit carbon dioxide.
55. Despite their internal warnings, an overwhelming scientific consensus on the
unfolding imminent catastrophe, and actual gravely dangerous impacts from global warming,
Defendants to this day maintain high levels of fossil fuel production. This production will intensify
future warming and San Francisco's injuries from sea level rise.
56. Defendants' conduct will continue to cause ongoing and increasingly severe sea
level rise harms to San Francisco because Defendants are committed to a business model of
massive fossil fuel production that they know causes a gravely dangerous rate of global warming.
The following graph from a 2015 study published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
demonstrates the grave indifference Defendants BP, Shell, and Exxon have for human safety and
welfare.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
32 IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 28,
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FlNAL.pdf.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 17 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 285 of 518
fit
LEA-Convot
Sliell-04eass
SI*11-111sos.
....... ... . ...... ..... EmmahuballEA-24ew
Cio) ............ .........
loric Emission
8
14
12
10
• •
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
The graph compares BP, Exxon and Shell's projections of worldwide total future emissions33 —
projections upon which they make long-term business plans — to the lEA ("International Energy
Agency") 450 emissions trajectory necessary to prevent global warming from exceeding a 2 °C
increase over the pre-industrial temperature.34 The 2 °C level of global warming is widely
considered to be a red line of highly dangerous global warming. Upon information and belief, all
Defendants base their long-term business plans upon similar projections.
VI. DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOSSIL FUELS
DESPITE HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE FROM THEIR IN-HOUSE SCIENTIFIC
STAFF, OR FROM THE API, THAT FOSSIL FUELS WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL
WARMING.
57. For decades, Defendants have known that their fossil fuel products pose risks of
"severe" and even "catastrophic" impacts on the global climate through the work and warnings of
their own scientists or through their trade association. Yet each Defendant decided to continue its
conduct and commit itself to massive fossil fuel production. This was a deliberate decision to
33 In gigatons of carbon per year.
34 Frumhoff, et al., The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers, Climatic
Change, at 167 (2015), available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1472-5,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 18 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 286 of 518
• •
place company profits ahead of human safety and well-being and property, and to foist onto the
public the costs of abating and adapting to the public nuisance of global warming.
58. The American Petroleum Institute ("API") is a national trade association that
represents the interests of America's oil and natural gas industry. At all relevant times,
Defendants, their corporate predecessors and/or their operating subsidiaries over which they
exercise substantial control, have been members of the API. On information and belief, the API
has acted as Defendants' agent with respect to global warming, received funding from Defendants
for the API's global warming initiatives, and shared with Defendants the information on global
warming described herein.
59. Beginning in the 1950s, the API repeatedly warned its members that fossil fuels
posed a grave threat to the global climate. These warnings have included, for example, an
admission in 1968 in an API report predicting that carbon dioxide emissions were "almost certain"
to produce "significant" temperature increases by 2000, and that these emissions were almost
certainly attributable to fossil fuels. The report warned of "major changes in the earth's
environment" and a "rise in sea levels," and concluded: "there seems to be no doubt that the
potential damage to our environment could be severe."35 Similar warnings followed in the ensuing
decades, including reports commissioned by the API in the 1980s that there was "scientific
consensus" that catastrophic climate change would ensue unless API members changed their
business models, and predictions that sea levels would rise considerably, with grave consequences,
if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 continued to increase.
60. The API's warnings to Defendants included:
a) In 1951, the API launched a project to research air pollution from petroleum
products, and attributed atmospheric carbon to fossil fuel sources.36 By 1968, the API's scientific
35 E. Robinson & R.C. Robbins, Final Report, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous
Atmospheric Pollutants, SRI Project PR-6755, prepared for American Petroleum Institute, at 109-
110, available at https://www.smokeandfumes.org/#/documents/document16.
36 Charles A. Jones (1958) A Review of the Air Pollution Research Program of the Smoke and
Fumes Committee of the American Petroleum Institute, Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 8:3, 268-272, DOI: 10.1080/00966665.1958.10467854, available at
https ://www.smokeandfumes.org/#/documents/document9.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 19 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 287 of 518
consultant reported to the API that carbon dioxide emissions were "almost certain" to produce
"significant" temperature increases by 2000, and that these emissions were almost certainly
attributable to fossil fuels. The report warned of "major changes in the earth's environment" and a
"rise in sea levels," and concluded: "there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our
environment could be severe."37
b) In 1980, an API task force on climate change invited Dr. J.A. Laurman, a
"recognized expert in the field of CO2 and climate," to make a presentation to the API CO2 and
Climate Task Force. Attendees to the presentation included scientists and executives from Texaco
(a predecessor to Chevron), Exxon, and SOHIO (a predecessor to BP). Dr. Laurman informed the
API task force that there was a "Scientific Consensus on the Potential for Large Future Climatic
Response to Increased CO2 Levels." He further informed the API task force in his presentation
that, though the exact temperature increases were difficult to predict, the "physical facts agree on
the probability of large effects 50 years away." His own temperature forecast was of a 2.5 °C [4.5
°F] rise by 2038, which would likely have "MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES," and a 5 °C
[9 °F] rise by 2067, which would likely produce "GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS." He
also suggested that, despite uncertainty, "THERE IS NO LEEWAY" in the time for acting. API
minutes show that the task force discussed topics including "the technical implications of energy
source changeover," "ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate
to CO2 creation," and researching "the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New
Energy Source into World Wide Use."38
(c) In March 1982, an API-commissioned report showed the average increase in
global temperature from a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and projected, based
upon computer modeling, global warming of between 2 °C and 3.5 °C [3.6 °F to 6.3 °F]. The report
37 E. Robinson & R.C. Robbins, Final Report, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous
Atmospheric Pollutants, SRI Project PR-6755, prepared for American Petroleum Institute, at 109-
110, available at https://www.smokeandfumes.org/#/documents/document16.
38 CO2 and Climate Task Force, Minutes of Meeting, at 1-2 & Attachment B, available at
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-
9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 20 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 288 of 518
• •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
projected potentially "serious consequences for man's comfort and survival," and noted that "the
height of the sea level can increase considerably."39
61. In addition to the API information, some of the Defendants produced their own
internal analyses of global warming. For example, newly disclosed documents demonstrate that
Exxon internally acknowledged in the late 1970s and early 1980s that its products posed a
"catastrophic" threat to the global climate, and that fossil fuel use would have to be strictly limited
to avoid severe harm.
a) Exxon management was informed by its scientists in 1977 that there was an
"overwhelming[]" consensus that fossil fuels were responsible for atmospheric carbon dioxide
increases. The presentation summarized a warning from a recent international scientific conference
that "IT IS PREMATURE TO LIMIT USE OF FOSSIL FUELS BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE
ENCOURAGED." The scientist warned management in a summary of his talk: "Present thinking
holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding
changes in energy strategies might become critical."40
b) In a 1979 Exxon internal memo, an Exxon scientist calculated that 80% of
fossil fuel reserves would need to remain in the ground and unburned to avoid greater than a
doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.41
c) In a 1981 internal Exxon memo, a scientist and director at the Exxon
Research and Engineering Company warned that "it is distinctly possible" that CO2 emissions "will
later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the
earth's population)."42
39 http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/API%201982%20Climate%20
models%20and%20CO2%20warming.pdf at 5.
40 https://insideclimatenews.org/system/files_force/documents/James%20Black%201977%20
Presentation.pdf?download=1 at 2.
41 http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/CO2%20and%20Fuel%20Use%20
Projections.pdf at 5.
42 http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Catastrophic%2522%20
Effects%20Letter%20%281981%29.pdf.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 21 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 289 of 518
• •
d) A year later, the same scientist wrote another memo to Exxon headquarters,
which reported on a "clear scientific consensus" that "a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-
industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5) °C [2.7
°F to 8.1 °F]."43 The clear scientific consensus was based upon computer modeling, which Exxon
would later attack as unreliable and uncertain in an effort to undermine public confidence in
climate science." The memo continued: "There is unanimous agreement in the scientific
community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in
the earth's climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere."
e) In November 1982, an Exxon internal report to management warned that
"substantial climatic changes" could occur if the average global temperature rose "at least 1 °C [1.8
°F] above [1982] levels," and that "[m]itigation of the 'greenhouse effect' would require major
reductions in fossil fuel combustion." The report then warns Exxon management that "there are
some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered," including the risk that "if the
Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, then this could cause a rise in sea level
on the order of 5 meters." The report includes a graph demonstrating the expected future global
warming from the "CO2 effect" demonstrating a sharp departure from the "[flange of natural
fluctuations." This graph is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.45
f) By 1983, Exxon had created its own climate models, which confirmed the
main conclusions from the earlier memos. Starting by at least the mid-1980s, Exxon used its own
climate models and governmental ones to gauge the impact that climate change would have on its
own business operations and subsequently took actions to protect its own business assets based
upon these modeling results.46
43 Cohen memo to Natkin at 1 (Sept. 2, 1982), available at http://insideclimatenews.org/
documents/consensus-co2-impacts-1982.
44 See infra 1176.
45 M. B. Glaser, Memo to R.W. Cohen et al. on "CO2 Greenhouse Effect," Nov. 12, 1982, at 2,
12-13, 28, available at http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20
Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf.
46 http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 22 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 290 of 518
• . 62. Exxon's early research and understanding of the global warming impacts of its
business was not unique among Defendants. For example, at least as far back as 1970, Defendants
Shell and BP began funding scientific research in England to examine the possible future climate
changes from greenhouse gas emissions.47 Shell produced a film on global warming in 1991, in
which it admitted that there had been a "marked increase [in global temperatures] in the 1980s" and
that the increase "does accord with computer models based on the known atmospheric processes
and predicted buildup of greenhouse gases."48 It acknowledged a "serious warning" that had been
"endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists" in 1990. In the film, Shell further admits
that by 2050 continued emissions of greenhouse gases at high levels would cause a global average
temperature increase of 1.5 to 4 °C [2.7 to 7.2 °F]; that one meter of sea level rise was likely in the
next century; that "this could be disastrous;" and that there is a "possibility of change faster than at
any time since the end of the ice age, change too fast, perhaps, for life to adapt without severe
dislocation."
VII. DESPITE THEIR EARLY KNOWLEDGE THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS
REAL AND POSED GRAVE THREATS, DEFENDANTS PROMOTED FOSSIL
FUELS FOR PERVASIVE USE WHILE DOWNPLAYING THE REALITY AND
RISKS OF GLOBAL WARMING.
63. Defendants have extensively promoted fossil fuel use in massive quantities through
affirmative advertising for fossil fuels and downplaying global warming risks. First, Defendants
promoted massive use of fossil fuels by misleading the public about global warming by
emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science and through the use of paid denialist groups and
individuals — a striking resemblance to Big Tobacco's propaganda campaign to deceive the public
about the adverse health effects of smoking. Defendants' campaign inevitably encouraged fossil
fuel consumption at levels that were (as Defendants knew) certain to severely harm the public.
Second, Defendants' fossil fuel promotions through frequent advertising for their fossil fuel
products, including promotions claiming that consumption at current and even expanded levels is
47 Sir Solly Zuckerman, Chief Scientist, Letter to Vice Chancellor, University of Bath, 9th May
1970, PRO ref CAB 163/272 #122885, "Long-term climate changes and their effects."
48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V0Wi8oVXmo.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 23 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 291 of 518
"responsible" or even "respectful" of the environment, have encouraged continued fossil fuel
consumption at massive levels that Defendants knew would harm the public.49
A. Defendants Borrowed The Big Tobacco Playbook In Order To Promote Their
Products.
64. Notwithstanding Defendants' early knowledge of climate change, Defendants have
engaged in advertising and public relations campaigns intended to promote their fossil fuel
products by downplaying the harms and risks of global warming. Initially, the campaign tried to
show that global warming was not occurring. More recently, the campaign has sought to minimize
the risks and harms from global warming. The campaign's purpose and effect has been to help
Defendants continue to produce fossil fuels and sell their products on a massive scale. This
campaign was executed in large part by front groups funded by Defendants, either directly or
through the API, and through statements made by Defendants directly.
65. One front group was the Global Climate Coalition ("GCC"). The GCC operated
between 1989 and 2002. Its members included the API, and predecessors or subsidiaries of
Defendants. William O'Keefe, former president of the GCC, was also a former executive of the
API.5°
66. The GCC spent millions of dollars on campaigns to discredit climate science,
including $13 million on one ad campaign alone. The GCC distributed a video to hundreds of
journalists, which claimed that carbon dioxide emissions would increase crop production and feed
the hungry people of the world.51
67. However, internal GCC documents admitted that their "contrarian" climate theories
were unfounded. In December 1995, the GCC's Science and Technology Advisory Committee
49 ConocoPhillips, the changing energy landscape, available at http://www.conocophillips.com/
who-we-are/our-company/spirit-values/responsibility/Pages/the-changing-energy-landsc ape. aspx;
Chevron TV ad (2009), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KyjTGMVTkA,
5° Jeff Nesmith, Industry Promotes Skeptical View of Global Warming, Cox News Service, May
28, 2003, available at http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm
?1D=4450&Method=Full.
51 http ://www. sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Climate_Coalition.
010694-11 986485 VI COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 24 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 292 of 518
• •
("GCC-STAC"), whose members included employees of Mobil Oil Corporation (an Exxon
predecessor) and the API, drafted a primer on the science of global warming for GCC members.
The primer concluded that the GCC's contrarian theories "do not offer convincing arguments
against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change." Due to this
inconvenient conclusion, at its next meeting, in January 1996, the GCC-STAC decided simply to
drop this seven-page section of the report. Nonetheless, for years afterward, the GCC and its
members continued to tout their contrarian theories about global warming, even though the GCC
had admitted internally these arguments were invalid.
68. In February 1996, an internal GCC presentation stated that a doubling of carbon
dioxide levels over pre-industrial concentrations would occur by 2100 and cause "an average rate
of warming [that] would probably be greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years." The
presentation noted "potentially irreversible" impacts that could include "significant loss of life."
69. Certain Defendants also funded another front group in the 1990s, the Global
Climate Science Communications Team ("GCSCT"). GCSCT members included Exxon, Chevron,
and the API.52 A 1998 GCSCT task force memo outlined an explicit strategy to invest millions of
dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming, directly emulating a similar
disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry. The memo stated: "Victory Will Be Achieved
When," among other things, "Average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate
science," public "recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.' and the
"Media 'understands' (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science."53 The plan stated that
progress would be measured by the percentage of new articles that raise questions about climate
change.
70. Over at least the last nineteen years, Exxon in particular has paid researchers and
front groups to create uncertainties about basic climate change science and used denialist groups to
52 https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-
communications-plan.pdf.
53 Global Climate Science Communications: Action Plan, Apr. 3, 1998, available at
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communications-
plan.pdf.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 25 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 293 of 518
• •
attack well-respected scientists. These were calculated business decisions by Exxon to undermine
climate change science and bolster production of fossil fuels.54
71. Between 1998 and 2014, Exxon paid millions of dollars to organizations to promote
disinformation on global warming. During the early- to mid-1990s, Exxon directed some of this
funding to Dr. Fred Seitz, Dr. Fred Singer, and/or Seitz and Singer's Science and Environmental
Policy Project ("SEPP") in order to launch repeated attacks on mainstream climate science and
IPCC conclusions, even as Exxon scientists participated in the IPCC.55 Seitz, Singer, and SEPP had
previously been paid by the tobacco industry to create doubt in the public mind about the hazards
of smoking.56 Seitz and Singer were not climate scientists.
72. Exxon's promotion of fossil fuels also entailed the funding of denialist groups that
attacked well-respected scientists Dr. Benjamin Santer and Dr. Michael Mann, maligning their
characters and seeking to discredit their scientific conclusions with media attacks and bogus studies
in order to undermine the IPCC's 1995 and 2001 conclusion that human-driven global warming is
now occurring.
73. One of Defendants' most frequently used denialists has been an aerospace engineer
named Wei Hock Soon. Between 2001 and 2012, various fossil fuel interests, including Exxon and
the API, paid Soon over $1.2 million.57 Soon was the lead author of a 2003 article, which argued
that the climate had not changed significantly. The article was widely promoted by other denial
54 http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-
role-in-global-warming; Jeffrey Ball, Exxon Chief Makes A Cold Calculation on Global Warming,
The Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2005, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB111870440192558569.
55 Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big
Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science, Jan. 2007, available at
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf; http://www.
exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65.
56 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S._Fred_Singer; http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index.php/Frederick_Seitz.
57 Justin Gillis & John Schwartz, Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate
Researcher, New York Times (Feb. 21, 2015), available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-
Wei-Hock-Soon.html?mcubz=1.
010694-11 986485 VI COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 26 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 294 of 518
•
groups funded by Exxon, including via "Tech Central Station," a website supported by Exxon.58
Soon published other bogus "research" in 2009, attributing global warming to solar activity, for
which Exxon paid him $76,106.59 This 2009 grant was made several years after Exxon had
publicly committed not to fund global warming deniers.6°
74. Until recently, the API's website referred to global warming as "possible man-made
warming" and claimed that the human contribution is "uncertain." The API removed this
statement from its web site in 2016 when journalistic investigations called attention to the API's
misleading statements on global warming and its 1970s/1980s task force on global warming.
75. In 2000, Exxon took out an advertisement on the Op-Ed page of the New York
Times entitled "Unsettled Science." The advertisement claimed that "scientists remain unable to
confirm" the proposition that "humans are causing global warming."61 This was six years after the
IPCC had confirmed the causal link between planetary warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions — a historic moment in climate science — and some 18 years after Exxon itself had
admitted in a 1982 internal memoranda to corporate headquarters that there was "a clear scientific
consensus" that greenhouse gas emissions would cause temperatures to rise.
76. On May 27, 2015, at Exxon's annual shareholder meeting, then-CEO Rex Tillerson
misleadingly downplayed global warming's risks by stating that climate models used to predict
future impacts were unreliable: "What if everything we do it turns out our models were really lousy
and we achieved all of our objectives and it turned out the planet behaved differently because the
models just weren't good enough to predict it?" But as noted above, in 1982 Exxon's scientific
staff stated, based upon the climate models, that there was a "clear scientific consensus" with
respect to the level of projected future global warming and starting shortly thereafter Exxon relied
58 Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air at 13-14.
59 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/682765-willie-soon-foia-grants-chart-02-08-
2011.html.
60 http://www.socialfunds.com/shared/reports/1211896380_ExxonMobil_2007_
Corporate_Citizenship_Report.pdf.
61 https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/705605/xom-nyt-2000-3-23-
unsettledscience.pdf.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 27 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 295 of 518
• •
upon the projections of climate models, including its own climate models, in order to protect its
own business assets.
77. Until recently, Exxon's website continued to emphasize the "uncertainty" of global
warming science and impacts: "current scientific understanding provides limited guidance on the
likelihood, magnitude, or time frame" of events like temperature extremes and sea level rise.62
Exxon's insistence on crystal-ball certainty was clear misdirection, since Exxon knew that the
fundamentals of climate science were well settled and showed global warming to present a clear
and present danger.63
B. Defendants' Direct Promotion Of Fossil Fuels.
78. Defendants continue to promote massive fossil fuel use by the public
notwithstanding that global warming is happening, that global warming is primarily caused by their
fossil fuels, and that global warming is causing severe injuries. Defendants promote the massive
use of fossil fuels through advertisements lauding fossil fuels as "responsible" and "respectful" to
the environment, identifying fossil fuels as the only way to sustain modern standards of living, and
promoting sales of their fossil fuels without qualification. Defendants and/or their U.S.
subsidiaries are members of the API. The API also promotes the benefits of fossil fuel products on
behalf of Defendants and its other members.64 Defendants' message to consumers is that fossil
fuels may continue to be burned in massive quantities without risking significant injuries.
79. Defendants bombard the public and consumers with the following advertisements,
although these are a mere sliver of Defendants' extensive campaigns. Defendants' advertisements
must be understood in their proper context — as following Defendants' substantial early knowledge
62 Formerly found at http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-
policy/meeting-global-needs/managing-climate-change-bu sines s-ri sks .
63 See IPCC, Climate Change 2014, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary for
Policymakers, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf.
64 API, Consumer Information, available at http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/consumer-
information.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 28 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 296 of 518
• •
on global warming risks and impacts, and following a decades-long campaign of misleading
statements on global warming that primed the pump for massive use of their fossil fuel products.
a) Exxon's "Lights Across America" website advertisement states that natural
gas is "helping dramatically reduce America's emissions"65 even though natural gas is a fossil fuel
causing widespread planetary warming and harm to coastal cities like San Francisco and the use of
natural gas competes with wind and solar, which have no greenhouse gas emissions.
b) In 2017, Shell's CEO promoted massive fossil fuel use by stating that the
fossil fuel industry could play a "crucial role" in lifting people out of poverty.66 A Shell website
promotion states: "We are helping to meet the world's growing energy demand while limiting
CO2 emissions, by delivering more cleaner-burning natural gas."67
c) BP touts natural gas on its website as "a vital lower carbon energy source"
and as playing a "crucial role" in a transition to a lower carbon future.68 BP promotes continued
massive fossil fuel use as enabling two billion people to be lifted out of poverty.69
d) Chevron's website implores the public that "we produce safe, reliable energy
products for people around the world."70 Chevron also promotes massive use of fossil fuels as the
key to lifting people out of poverty: "Reliable and affordable energy is necessary for improving
standards of living, expanding the middle class and lifting people out of poverty. Oil and natural
gas will continue to fulfill a significant portion of global energy demand for decades to come —
65 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMulCBjXfq4&list=PLIrX1Hj7zayYGaExfTp_
B4t6gqTtkGf9A&index=61at 0:46).
66 Shell CEO speech, Mar. 9, 2017, available at http://www.shell.com/media/speeches-and-
articles/20 17/deliver-today-prepare-for-tomorrow .html.
67 Shell United States, Transforming Natural Gas, available at http://www.shell.us/energy-and-
innovation/transforming-natural-gas.html.
68 https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/enkorporate/pdf/sustainability-report/group-reports/bp-
sustainability-report-2016.pdf; http://www.bp.com/energytransition/shifting-towards-gas.html.
69 BP energy outlook, available at http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-
economics/energy-outlook.html.
70 Chevron, Products and Services, available at https://www.chevron.com/operations/products-
services.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 29 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 297 of 518
• •
even in a carbon-constrained scenario."71 A prior Chevron advertisement still available on the web
promotes Chevron fossil fuels on a massive scale by stating that "our lives demand oil."72
e) ConocoPhillips promotes its fossil fuel products by stating that it
"responsibly suppl[ies] the energy that powers modern life."73 Similarly, ConocoPhillips has the
following advertising slogan on its website: "Providing energy to improve quality of life."74
80. Contrary to Defendants' claims that the use of massive amounts of fossil fuels is
required to lift people out of poverty, the IPCC has concluded: "Climate change will exacerbate
multidimensional poverty in most developing countries . . . . [and] will also create new poverty
pockets in countries with increasing inequality, in both developed and developing countries."75
81. Defendants BP and Exxon have also used long-term energy forecasts and similar
reports to promote their products under the guise of expert, objective analysis. These forecasts
have repeatedly sought to justify heavy reliance on fossil fuels by overstating the cost of renewable
energy.
82. Defendants' energy forecasts are aimed in substantial part at consumers and are
promoted to the public through their respective websites and other direct media. Exxon continues
to promote its annual "Outlook for Energy" reports in videos currently available on the internet.
But Exxon's energy "analyses" are self-serving means of promoting fossil fuels and undercutting
non-dangerous renewable energy and clean technologies. For example, Exxon has claimed in a
recent forecast that natural gas is a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than wind or
solar power while BP has claimed that solar and wind power will be more expensive in 2050 than
71 Chevron, managing climate change risks, available at https://www.chevron.com/corporate-
responsibility/climate-change/managing-climate-risk.
72 Chevron TV ad (2009), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KyjTGMVTkA.
73 ConocoPhillips, the changing energy landscape, available at
hap ://www .conocophillips .com/who-we-are/our-company/spirit-value s/responsibility/Pages/the-
changing-energy-landscape.aspx.
74 ConocoPhillips, Producing energy, available at http://www.conocophillips.com/what-we-
do/producing-energy/Pages/default.aspx.
75 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, at 797, available at
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap13_FINAL.pdf.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 30 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 298 of 518
• •
natural gas or coal even though wind and solar are already cheaper than natural gas or coal in some
circumstances.76 Exxon and BP also have understated in recent "forecasts" the expected market
share of electric vehicles even as electric vehicle technology has taken off, prices have dropped and
GM announced (in 2015) that it was investing billions in electric cars because the "future is
electric."77
83. Defendants' reports also promote their fossil fuel products by warning consumers of
supposed downsides to reducing fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions. For example,
Exxon's most recent report claims that the costs of carbon dioxide reductions are "ultimately borne
by consumers and taxpayers."
84. These reports by BP and Exxon, and a similar one by Shell, predict massive
increases in fossil fuel use over roughly the next 15 years.78 This is part of a larger strategy of
"mak[ing] the case for the necessary role of fossil fuels," as BP's chief executive stated in a
moment of candor in 2015.79
VIII. SAN FRANCISCO WILL INCUR SERIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE INJURIES
THAT WILL REQUIRE BILLIONS IN EXPENDITURES TO ABATE THE
GLOBAL WARMING NUISANCE.
85. According to a 2012 California governmental report, by 2050, California is
projected to warm by approximately 2.7° F above the average temperature in 2000, regardless of
76 http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/-/media/global/files/outlook-for-energy/2017/2017-outlook-for-
energy.pdf, at 31; http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/technology/bp-technology-outlook.pdf,
at 18.
77 http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/-/media/global/files/outlook-for-energy/2017/2017-outlook-for-
energy.pdf, at 18; haps://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/energy-outlook-
2017/bp-energy-outlook-2017.pdf, at 47; General Motors, Press Release, GM Employees on
Mission to Transform Transportation (May 7, 2015), available at http://media.gm.com/media/us/
en/gm/company_info/facilities/assembly/orion.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/may/050
7-sustainability-report.html.
78 http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/new-lenses-on-the
future/ jcr_content/parkelatedtopics.stream/1448477051486/08032d761ef7d81a4d3b1b6df8620c1
e9a64e564a9548e1f2db02e575b00b765/scenarios-newdoc-english.pdf.
79 http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/media/speeches/2015-annual-general-meeting-
group-chief-executive.html.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 31 - 010694-11 986485 VI
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 299 of 518
• •
the level of future emissions, a rate of warming three times greater than over the last century.8° By
2100, California's average temperatures could increase by 8.6 °F, if not more.81 San Francisco's
average annual temperatures are currently projected to increase by up to 5.5 °F by 2100.82 San
Francisco's average summertime high temperature (based upon 1986-2005 data) is projected to
increase from 68.61 °F to 76.17 °F by 2100, making San Francisco's summers similar to those now
experienced in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, approximately 400 miles south of San
Francisco.83 Continued production of massive amounts of fossil fuels will exacerbate global
warming, increase sea level rise and result in grave harm to San Francisco.
86. Global warming has caused and continues to cause accelerated sea level rise in San
Francisco Bay and the adjacent ocean with severe, and potentially catastrophic, consequences for
San Francisco. Scientists recently concluded that coastal California is already experiencing
impacts from accelerated sea level rise, including "more extensive coastal flooding during storms,
periodic tidal flooding, and increased coastal erosion."84 In the last 100 years, the California coast
has experienced sea level rise of 6.7 to 7.9 inches.85
87. Storms with their attendant surges and flooding occur on top of and superimposed
on sea level rise, causing storm surges to be greater, extend farther inland, and cause more
extensive damage — including greater inundation and flooding of public and private property in San
80 Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from
Climate Change in California, at 2, available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-
500-2012-007/CEC-500-2012-007.pdf.
81 Id.
82 S.F. Dept. of Public Health, San Francisco's Climate and Health Adaptation Framework at 8
(2017), available at https://extxfer.sfdph.org/gis/ClimateHealth/Reports%20and%20
Research/SFDPH_ClimateHealthAdaptFramework2017a.pdf.
83 Climate Central, available at http://www.climatecentral.org/news/surnmer-temperatures-co2-
emissions-1001-cities-16583 (Aug. 1, 2014).
84 Rising Seas in California at 3.
85 Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment,
southwest chapter at 469 (2014), available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/system/files_force/
downloads/low/NCA3_Full_Report_20_Southwest_LowRes.pdf?download=1.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 32 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 300 of 518
• •
Francisco.86 By 2050, for example, a "100-year flood" in San Francisco is expected to occur on
average once every year and by 2100 to occur 92 times per year — or almost twice per week.87 A
100-year flood event normally — that is, without global warming — has a 1% chance of happening
every year. Under this same scenario, the 500-year storm surge flood would occur, by 2050, once
every four years and, by 2100, 42 times per year — or almost once per week.88 Even with lower
levels of future fossil fuel production, there will be substantial increases in flood frequencies in San
Francisco due to past and ongoing fossil fuel combustion.89
88. Accelerated sea level rise in California is causing and will continue to cause
inundation of both public and private property located within San Francisco. San Francisco is
extremely vulnerable to accelerated sea level rise, storm surges, and inundation because it is
surrounded by water on three sides — the Pacific Ocean to the west and San Francisco Bay to the
north and east.90 Rising bay and coastal water levels are already affecting San Francisco through
coastal flooding of low-lying shorelines, increased shoreline erosion, and salt water impacts on its
wastewater treatment systems.91 Sea levels in and around San Francisco rose approximately eight
inches during the past century and accelerated due to global warming.92 But with accelerated sea
level rise, they are currently projected to increase by up to 24 inches by 2050 and 66 inches by
2100, if not higher.93 Storm surge added on top of these greatly elevated sea levels could produce a
86 San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan, Executive Summary at 4 (2016) ("SLR Plan
Executive Summary"), available at http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/planning-for-
the-city/sea-level-rise/160309_SLRAP_Executive_Summary_EDreduced.pdf.
87 Buchanan, et al., Amplification of flood frequencies with local sea level rise and emerging
flood regimes, Environmental Research Letters (2017), supplementary material table 6.
88 Id.
89 Id. at supplementary material table 5.
90 See S.F. Dept. of Public Health, San Francisco's Climate and Health Adaptation Framework
at 8 (2017), available at https://extxfer.sfdph.org/gis/ClimateHealth/Reports%20and%20
Research/SFDPH_ClimateHealthAdaptFramework2017a.pdf.
91 SLR Plan Executive Summary at 9.
92 S.F. Dept. of Public Health, San Francisco's Climate and Health Adaptation Framework at 8
(2017), available at https://extxfer.sfdph.org/gis/ClimateHealth/Reports%20and%20Research
/SFDPH_ClimateHealthAdaptFramework2017a.pdf.
93 Id. at 9.
010694-11 986485 VI COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 33 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 301 of 518
• •
combined rise of up to 66 inches by 2050 and 108 inches by 2100.94 As sea level rises, average
daily high tides will extend further inland and cause more extensive flooding.95 Without adaptation
measures, daily tides could permanently inundate six percent of San Francisco's land by 2100.96
And all of these projections are an understatement in light of a new, 2017 report that sea level is
likely to rise faster than projected and could reach as much as a catastrophic ten feet by the end of
the century.97
89. San Francisco must adapt now to ongoing sea level rise to abate ongoing damage to
property, facilities, and equipment, with risks of increasingly severe damage in the future. In
particular, San Francisco must improve, protect, move, and build infrastructure to adapt now to
past and ongoing sea level rise. For example:
a) San Francisco is planning to fortify its Seawall to protect itself from sea
level rise. The Seawall is the foundation of over three miles of San Francisco waterfront stretching
from Fisherman's Wharf to Mission Creek. In 2016, San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee
announced an initial investment of $8 million over the next two years to initiate City efforts to
fortify the Seawal1.98 Short-term seawall upgrades are expected to cost more than $500 million.
Long-term upgrades to the seawall are projected to cost $5 billion.99
b) A significant portion of the combined sewer and storm water infrastructure
on the west side of San Francisco is at severe risk of shoreline erosion caused by sea level rise.
This infrastructure, including the Westside Transport Box, Westside Pump Station, Lake Merced
Tunnel, and the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant, is located along Ocean Beach on San
Francisco's western shore. Most of this infrastructure, including much of the Oceanside plant, is
94 Id.
95 San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan, at 2-3 (2016), http://defaultsfplanning.org/plans-
and-programs/planning-for-the-city/sea-level-rise/160309_SLRAP_Final_ED.pdf.
96 Id.
97 Rising Seas in California.
98 http://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-lee-invests-seawall-protect-city.
99 https://sfseawall.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/seawall-fact-sheet.pdf;
http://onesanfrancisco.org/sites/default/files/2017-06/Agenda%20Item%206%20-
%20Seawall%20Presentation.pdf.
010694-11 986485 VI COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 34 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 302 of 518
• •
located underground. Because San Francisco has a city-wide combined sewer system — designed
to handle both storm water and sewer water — this infrastructure is large in size and scale. Sea level
rise and corresponding shoreline erosion threatens to damage this infrastructure. As a result, San
Francisco has helped to develop plans to protect this infrastructure at an estimated cost of
approximately $350 million.100 The costs and logistics of relocating this infrastructure would be
far greater.
c) Shoreline erosion along Ocean Beach also threatens roads, pathways, private
properties, and buildings along the shore — all of which San Francisco's citizens have long used
and enjoyed. Protecting these properties through construction of a seawall and/or other shoreline
armoring infrastructure will be extremely expensive. San Francisco's plan for protecting its
combined sewer infrastructure along Ocean Beach calls for closing a portion of the Great Highway
south of Sloat Boulevard.101
d) Sea level rise also interferes with San Francisco's stormwater infrastructure
through inundation of the City's stormwater outfalls along the ocean and San Francisco Bay.102 As
a result of sea level rise, 27 of San Francisco's 29 stormwater discharge locations between the
Golden Gate Bridge and the City's southern border on San Francisco Bay will be underwater daily
by 2050 or before.1°3 As those outfalls are more frequently submerged by sea water, they cannot
be used to discharge stormwater as intended, causing backups in the system and flooding elsewhere
in San Francisco. Saltwater intrusion into San Francisco's water treatment facilities also interferes
with effective treatment function at those facilities, reducing their capacity and causing further
backups. Stormwater system outfalls cannot simply be elevated because that would interfere with
the hydraulic gradient of the entire system. As a result, San Francisco is developing costly plans to
protect its stormwater outfalls and water treatment facilities with backflow preventers and pumping
100 Office of the Mayor (2012), Mayor Lee Celebrates SPUR Ocean Beach Master Plan,
available at http://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-lee-celebrates-spur-ocean-beach-master-plan,
101 See Ocean Beach Master Plan, at 111-19 and executive summary at 6.
102 SLR Plan at 2-5.
103 CSD Backflow Prevention and Monitoring, 263.
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 35 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 303 of 518
• •
equipment. To address current and short-term impacts of sea level rise on its Bayside stormwater
system outfalls, for example, San Francisco has developed an interim backflow prevention plan
projected to cost a minimum of $10 million. Long-term backflow prevention at these outfalls, and
at others, will cost more.
90. San Francisco faces other ongoing and likely injuries as a result of sea level rise,
including threats to Port infrastructure and operations, a risk of saltwater intrusion into the City's
groundwater wells used for drinking water, and both direct and indirect impacts to public health,
housing and city services.104 Sea level rise, storm surges, and flood inundation induced by global
warming will disproportionately impact some of San Francisco's most vulnerable residents,
including those in the Bayview/Hunters Point neighborhood.1°5 The same sea level rise also
threatens some of San Francisco's most iconic and valuable buildings. For example, the Ferry
Building would be temporarily flooded during a 100-year extreme tide today, but could be flooded
every day after 36 inches of sea level rise.106 Each of these ongoing and likely injuries, and others,
requires San Francisco to plan for and implement costly protections.
91. San Francisco is already experiencing, and working to abate, current harms caused
by sea level rise. But while harms to San Francisco and its residents have commenced, additional
far more severe injuries will occur in the future if prompt action is not taken to protect San
Francisco and its residents from rising sea levels. Indeed, the sea level rise harms inflicted on San
Francisco by global warming are insidious partly because they are projected to continue, and to
worsen, far into the future. Pervasive fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions to date
will cause ongoing and future harms regardless of future fossil fuel combustion or future
greenhouse gas emissions. Future production and use of fossil fuels will exacerbate sea level rise
and require even greater expenditures to abate the injuries. San Francisco must plan for and adapt
1°4 S.F. Dept. of Public Health, San Francisco's Climate and Health Adaptation Framework at
12 (2017), available at https://extxfer.sfdph.org/gis/ClimateHealth/Reports%20and%20Research/
SFDPH_ClimateHealthAdaptFramework2017a.pdf.
1°5 Id. at 14.
106 SLR Plan Executive Summary at 2-5.
010694-11 986485 VI COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 36 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 304 of 518
•
to sea level rise future harms now to ensure that abatement of ongoing and future sea level rise
harms is done most efficiently and effectively and in order to protect human well-being and public
and private property before it is too late. Additionally, the significant infrastructure needed to
abate global warming requires long lead times for planning, financing, and implementation.
Planning to abate the known and projected adverse effects of global warming on San Francisco and
its citizens remains underway, and will continue. Sea level rise impacts in the future are imminent
in the context of planning for and carrying out large-scale, complex infrastructure projects to
protect San Francisco from sea level rise.
92. Sea level rise, storm surges, and flooding caused by global warming threaten not
only the physical infrastructure and property of San Francisco and its citizens, but also the safety,
lives, daily way of life, sense of community, and security of San Francisco residents.107 A severe
storm surge coupled with higher sea levels caused by global warming could occur at any time,
potentially resulting in the loss of life and extensive damage to public and private property. The
risk of catastrophic sea level rise harm to San Francisco and its citizens will increase, just as rising
sea levels will continue to cause regular damage, the longer concrete action is not taken to abate the
harms and effects of sea level rise.
93. Building infrastructure to protect San Francisco and its residents, will, upon
information and belief, cost billions of dollars.
IX. CAUSE OF ACTION: PUBLIC NUISANCE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE
94. The People incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs.
95. The People of the State of California, acting by and through the San Francisco City
Attorney, bring this claim seeking abatement pursuant to California public nuisance law, including
section 731 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494 of the Civil
Code.
96. Defendants' production and promotion of massive quantities of fossil fuels, and
their promotion of those fossil fuels' pervasive use, has caused, created, assisted in the creation of,
107 Rising Seas in California at 6.
010694-11 986485 VI COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 37 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 305 of 518
contributed to, and/or maintained and continues to cause, create, assist in the creation of, contribute
and/or maintain to global warming-induced sea level rise, a public nuisance in San Francisco.
Defendants, both individually and collectively, are substantial contributors to the global warming-
induced sea level rise and the People's attendant injuries and threatened injuries. The People's
injuries and threatened injuries from each Defendant's contributions to global warming are
indivisible injuries. Each Defendant's past and ongoing conduct is a direct and proximate cause of
the People' injuries and threatened injuries. Defendants each should have known that this
dangerous global warming with its attendant harms on coastal cities like San Francisco would
occur before it even did occur, and each Defendant in fact did have such knowledge. Each
Defendant has at all relevant times been aware, and continues to be aware, that the inevitable
emissions of greenhouse gases from the fossil fuels it produces combines with the greenhouse gas
emissions from fossil fuels produced by the other Defendants, among others, to result in dangerous
levels of global warming with grave harms for coastal cities like San Francisco. Defendants were
aware of this dangerous global warming, and of its attendant harms on coastal cities like San
Francisco, even before those harms began to occur. Defendants' conduct constitutes a substantial
and unreasonable interference with and obstruction of public rights and property, including, inter
alia, the public rights to health, safety and welfare of San Francisco residents and other citizens
whose safety and lives are at risk from increased storm surge flooding and whose public and
private property, is threatened with widespread damage from global warming-induced sea level
rise, greater storm surges, and flooding.
97. Defendants, individually and collectively, are substantial contributors to global
warming and to the injuries and threatened injuries suffered by the People. Defendants have
caused or contributed to accelerated sea level rise from global warming, which has and will
continue to injure public property and land located in the City of San Francisco, through increased
inundation, storm surges, and flooding, and which threatens the safety and lives of San Francisco
residents. Defendants have inflicted and continue to inflict injuries upon the People that require the
People to incur extensive costs to protect public and private property, against increased sea level
rise, inundation, storm surges, and flooding.
010694-11 986485 V1 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 38 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 306 of 518
• •
98. Defendants have promoted the use of fossil fuels at unsafe levels even though they
should have known and in fact have known for many years that global warming threatened severe
and even catastrophic harms to coastal cities like San Francisco. Defendants promoted fossil fuels
and fossil fuel products for unlimited use in massive quantities with knowledge of the hazard that
such use would create.
99. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the People for committing a public
nuisance. The People seek an order of abatement requiring Defendants to fund a climate change
adaptation program for San Francisco consisting of the building of sea walls, raising the elevation
of low-lying property and buildings and building such other infrastructure as is necessary for San
Francisco to adapt to climate change.108
X. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the People pray for judgment and an order against each Defendant, jointly
and severally, as follows:
1. Finding Defendants BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and Shell jointly and
severally liable for causing, creating, assisting in the creation, of, contributing to, and/or
maintaining a public nuisance;
2. Ordering an abatement fund remedy to be paid for by Defendants to provide for
infrastructure in San Francisco necessary for the People to adapt to global warming impacts such as
sea level rise;
3. Awarding attorneys' fees as permitted by law;
4. Awarding costs and expenses as permitted by law;
5. Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and
6. Awarding such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
108 The People also do not seek abatement with respect to any federal land.
010694-11 986485 V1 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 39 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 307 of 518
•
Dated: September 19, 2017
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
RONALD P. FLYNN
Chief Deputy City Attorney
YVONNE R. MERE
Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation
ROBB W. KAPLA
MATTHEW D. GOLDBERG
Deputy City Attorneys
By
DENNISDENNI$ J.JHERRERA
City Att ey
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney
DENNIS J. HERRERA
010694-11 986485 V1 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 40 -
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 308 of 518
• •
Of Counsel
[Counsel Listed in Alphabetical Order]
STEVE W. BERMAN (pro hac vice application to be submitted)
steve@hbsslaw.com
EMERSON HILTON (pro hac vice application to be submitted)
emersonh@hbsslaw.com
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel. (206) 623-7292
Fax (206) 623-0594
SHANA E. SCARLETT (bar no. 217895)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, California 94710
Tel. (510) 725-3000
Fax (510) 725-3001
MATTHEW F. PAWA (pro hac vice application to be submitted)
mattp@hbsslaw.com
BENJAMIN A. KRASS (pro hac vice application to be submitted)
benk@hbsslaw.com
WESLEY KELMAN (pro hac vice application to be submitted)
wesk@hbsslaw.com
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1280 Centre Street, Suite 230
Newton Centre, Massachusetts 02459
Tel.: (617) 641-9550
Fax: (617) 641-9551
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney
DENNIS J. HERRERA
COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 41 - 010694-11 986485 V1
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 309 of 518
Exhibit 1: Map showing San Francisco sea level rise vulnerability zone
Source: San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan, p. 2-7 (March 2016)
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 310 of 518
• SCIENCE OF SEA\EVEL RISE 2-%
Fisherman's
Wharf
Crissy
Field
Mission
Bay
San Francisco
Bay
Pacific
Ocean
Legend
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Zone
Hunters
Point
0 3.400 6,800
Feet C't)
North
Candlestick
Point
SAN FRANCISCO
SEA LEVEL RISE
VULNERABILITY ZONE
THROUGH END-OF-CENTURY
WITHOUT ANY ADAPTATION
MEASURES OR ACTIONS
NOTE: Zone represents upper range (unlikely, but possible), end-of-century projections for permanent SLR inundation (up to 66 inches)
plus temporary flooding due to a 100-year extreme storm (up to 42 inches) for a total of 108 inches above today's average high tide.
Map Disclaimer: The inundation maps and the associated analyses are intended as planning level tools to illustrate the potential
for inundation and coastal flooding under a variety of future sea level rise and storm surge scenarios. The maps depict possible
future inundation that could occur if nothing is done to adapt or prepare for sea level rise over the next century. The maps do
not represent the exact location of flooding. The maps relied on a 1-m digital elevation model created from LIDAR data collected
in 2010 and 2011. Although care was taken to capture all relevant topographic features and coastal structures that may impact
coastal inundation, it is possible that structures narrower than the 1-m horizontal map scale may not be fully represented. The
maps are based on model outputs and do not account for all of the complex and dynamic San Francisco Bay processes or future
conditions such as erosion, subsidence, future construction or shoreline protection upgrades, or other changes to San Francisco
Bay or Open Coast. For more context about the maps and analyses, including a description of the data and methods used, please
see the Climate Stressors and Impacts Report: Bayside Sea Level Rise Inundation Mapping Technical Memorandum, March 2014
and FEMA Open California Coast Sea Level Rise Pilot Study, San Francisco County, 2015.
Data Source: Bayside—SFPUC SSIP Inundation Mapping, 2015. Westside—FEMA Sea Level Rise Pilot Study, 2015.
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 311 of 518
• •
Exhibit 2: Map showing sea level rise vulnerability zone
— Downtown to Central Bayshore detail
Source: San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan, p. 2-7 (March 2016)
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 312 of 518
1,000 2.000
Feet O
North
Ferry
Plaza
Union
Square
Moscone
Plaza
AT&T
Park
See page 2-7 for
Map Disclaimer
San Francisco
Bay
Pacific
Ocean
San
Francisco
San
Francisco
Bay
Legend
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Zone
SCIENCE OF SEA LEVEL RISE 2-9
SLR VULNERABILITY ZONE-DOWNTOWN TO CENTRAL BAYSHORE DETAIL
THROUGH END-OF-CENTURY WITHOUT ANY ADAPTATION MEASURES OR ACTIONS
Data Source: Bayside—SFPUC SSIP Inundation Mapping, 2015. Westside—FEMA Sea Level Rise Pilot Study. 2015.
NOTE: Zone represents upper range (unlikely, but possible), end-of-century projections for permanent SLR inundation (up to 66
inches) plus temporary flooding due to a 100-year extreme storm (up to 42 inches) for a total of 108 inches above today's MHHVV.
See Appendix for complete set of San Francisco SLR Vulnerability Zone maps and public land ownership Information.
SAN FRANCISCO SEA LEVEL RISE ACTION PLAN
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 313 of 518
Exhibit 3: "Range of Global Mean Temperature From 1850 to the Present with the Projected
Instantaneous Climatic Response to Increasing CO2 Concentrations"
Source: M.B. Glaser, Memo for Exxon management (Nov. 12, 1982), pp. 1, 28
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 314 of 518
\-..."" • li
II OS(0, ESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 101, FLORHAM PARK, NEW JERSEY 07932
M. B. GLASER
Cable: ENGREXXON. N.Y.
Manager
Environmental Affairs Programs
November 12, 1982
CO2 "Greenhouse" Effect
82EAP 266
TO: See Distribution List Attached
Attached for your information and guidance is briefing
material on the CO2 "Greenhouse" Effect which is receiving increased
attention in both the scientific and popular press as an emerging
environmental issue. A brief summary is provided along with a more
detailed technical review prepared by CPPD.
The material has been given wide circulation to Exxon
management and is intended to familiarize Exxon personnel with the
subject. It may be used as a basis for discussing the issue with
outsiders as may be appropriate. However, it should be restricted
-to-Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.
Very truly yours,
M. B. GLASER
MBG:rva
H. N. WEINBERG
Attachments
NOV 1 5 1982
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 315 of 518
--, z I —
/ 1 c "1\1 ..,
Expected
/ range of /1
v
/fluctuations/
d'e including
_...,/
CO2 effec
:.0"' Observed past ..-- .... changes Z. —I\
•
Range of
.
Past
natural
-d.... fluctuations
(climatic noise) in
CO2 effect (?)
___ --__ / I.
I'
I
am,
1 Change of global mean temperature - K 2
Figure 9
Range of Global Mean Temperature From 1850 to the Present
with the Projected Instantaneous Climatic 1esponse to
- - - Increasing CO2 Concentrations.:
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
Year
Attachment B – City and County of San Francisco Complaint
City Council Meeting Page 316 of 518
C I T Y C OU N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C OVE R S H E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E :
January 4, 2018
AG E N D A T I T L E
C all-Up Item: Site review (case no. LUR2017-00011) to develop the three properties at 2180
Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., and 2145 Upland Ave. Proposal for the construction of 19
residential units in five buildings at 2180 Violet Ave. T he multi-family development would be
100 percent permanently affordable for-sale residences built by Flatirons Habitat for
Humanity. In addition, proposal to subdivide the property at 2100 Violet Ave. into 6 lots for
single-family development and 2145 Upland Ave. into 3 lots for single-family development
P RI MARY STAF F C O N TAC T
Sloane Walbert, Planner II
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I O N OR MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
C all-Up Item: Site review (case no. LUR2017-00011) to develop the three properties at 2180
Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., and 2145 Upland Ave. Proposal for the construction of 19
residential units in five buildings at 2180 Violet Ave. T he multi-family development would be
100 percent permanently affordable for-sale residences built by Flatirons Habitat for
Humanity. In addition, proposal to subdivide the property at 2100 Violet Ave. into 6 lots for
single-family development and 2145 Upland Ave. into 3 lots for single-family development
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Memo and Attachments
City Council Meeting Page 317 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2018
AGENDA TITLE: Call-Up Item: Site Review (case no. LUR2017-00011) to develop
the three properties at 2180 Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., and 2145 Upland Ave. as
follows:
a. 2180 Violet Ave. Construction of 19 residential units in five buildings. The
development would be 100 percent permanently affordable for-sale residences
built by Flatirons Habitat for Humanity. Seventeen of the units are proposed to be
two-story, three-bedroom townhouses and two units would be one-story, one-
bedroom accessible residences. Thirty parking spaces are proposed.
b. 2100 Violet Ave. Subdivision of the property into six lots for single-family
development. Design guidelines, approved through the site review, are proposed
to guide the design of the homes.
c. 2145 Upland Ave. Subdivision of the property into three lots for single-family
development. Design guidelines, approved through the site review, are proposed
to guide the design of the homes.
On Jan. 4, 2017, the City Council will also consider first reading of an ordinance
authorizing development of 2180 Violet Avenue in the RM-2 zoning district with 19
dwelling units. At time of second reading on Feb. 6, 2017, the City Council will also
consider proposed amendments to the annexation agreements for the properties at 2100
Violet Avenue, 2180 Violet Avenue, 1917 Upland Avenue, and 2145 Upland Avenue.
Applicants: Susan Lythgoe, Flatirons Habitat for Humanity, and Robert Naumann
Owners: Habitat for Humanity of Boulder Valley Inc., 2145 Upland LLC, and
Robert C. Naumann
PRESENTER/S
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Jim Robertson, Director of Planning, Housing & Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager
Sloane Walbert, Planner II
City Council Meeting Page 318 of 518
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The action requested by the City Council is to determine whether to call up the site review
application for the properties at 2180 Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., and 2145 Upland Ave.
On Dec. 7, 2017, the Planning Board held a quasi-judicial hearing to review the site review
application described above. Staff recommended approval and the Planning Board voted
7-0 to approve the application with conditions (L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman).
Attachment A contains the Planning Board Notice of Disposition with associated
conditions of approval. Attachment B contains the approved plans, Attachment C
includes the staff analysis of the site review criteria, and Attachment D contains the draft
minutes.
Figure 1: Properties Included in Larger Development Proposal
The site review request is one component of the proposal currently seeking city approval.
In all, the components include:
1. Site Review. As described above, proposal to develop the three properties at 2180
Violet Avenue, 2100 Violet Avenue, and 2145 Upland Avenue. The site review request
for the subject properties is contingent upon City Council approval of the annexation
agreement amendments and ordinance described below.
2. Ordinance to Increase Density. Proposal for an ordinance to authorize modifications
to the Boulder Revised Code and the ordinance annexing the property into the city
(Ordinance No. 5932), to allow for an increase in allowable density at 2180 Violet
Avenue. The ordinance would allow an increase in density to 19 units, where 15 units
are allowed per the intensity standards in the Residential – Medium 2 (RM-2) district.
The first reading of the proposed ordinance is described in a separate memo for
consideration on Jan. 4, 2018. A public hearing and Council discussion of the ordinance
is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2018, together with the annexation agreement amendments
described below.
2180 Violet Ave.
2145 Upland Ave.
1917 Upland Ave.
2100 Violet Ave.
City Council Meeting Page 319 of 518
3. Annexation Agreement Amendments. The proposal includes a request to amend the
three existing annexation agreements for the properties at 2100 Violet Avenue, 2180
Violet Avenue, 1917 Upland Avenue, and 2145 Upland Avenue as follows. Refer to the
vicinity map in Figure 1 for the locations of the properties. The annexation request will
be described in a separate memo for consideration at a public hearing on Feb. 6, 2018.
a. Allow all affordable housing requirements on the four properties to be provided
on the property at 2180 Violet Avenue. The goal of the proposal is to provide
housing with a deeper level of affordability that remains permanently affordable
over time, as opposed to the requirements found in the annexation agreement.
b. Amend the requirements pertaining to the dedication of right-of-way and the
construction of Vine Avenue south of the property at 2100 Violet Avenue to
allow for smaller cross-section of a modified access street, consistent with the
smaller Vine Avenue cross-section approved in the amended North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan.
c. Allow for increased density on the property at 2180 Violet Avenue for the
construction of 19 residential units, where 15 are allowed under Residential –
Medium 2 (RM-2) zoning. The goal of this request is to increase density to 19
units, where 15 units are allowed per the intensity standards, if so authorized by
the subject ordinance described above.
The staff memorandum to Planning Board, its attachments, audio from the meeting, and
other related background materials are available on the city website at this web link.
Planning Board’s decision is subject to call-up by City Council within a 30-day call-up
period by City Council which expires on Jan. 5, 2018. City Council is scheduled to
consider this application for call-up at its Jan. 4, 2017 public meeting.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
As indicated above, on Dec. 7, 2017, the Planning Board reviewed the requested site
review, as well as the associated ordinance and annexation agreement amendments
(meeting packet available here). At the public hearing, the Planning Board heard
presentations by staff and the applicant, and asked questions following each presentation.
During the public hearing, three members of the public spoke both in support of the
proposal and with specific concerns. Please refer to Attachment D for a summary of public
comment made at the hearing. As part of their deliberation, the board discussed key issues
related to consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and North
Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP), opportunities for solar energy (photovoltaic panels)
and electronic vehicle charging stations on the site, and the proposed parking reduction.
The board had a discussion regarding alternative site designs and a possible parking
deferral as alternatives to the proposed parking reduction but ultimately found the proposed
parking design consistent with the site review criteria.
The board voiced support for the proposal, and voted 7-0 to approve the Site Review
application, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached
analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (motion
City Council Meeting Page 320 of 518
by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman). To address the concerns described above, the
board added the additional conditions of approval:
1. The Applicant shall provide conduit for future photovoltaic systems (PV) to the
rooftops of each residential unit.
2. At the technical document review stage, the Applicant will provide measures to
facilitate future installation of electronic vehicle (EV) chargers in the carports on
Vine Alley.
The specific motion language is below:
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board
voted 7-0 to approve Site Review case no. LUR2017-00011, adopting the staff
memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review
criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
Friendly amendment by D. Ensign, accepted by L. Payton and H. Zuckerman,
to add a condition that conduit for future photovoltaic systems be brought to the
rooftops of the residential units.
Friendly amendment by J. Putnam, accepted by L. Payton and H. Zuckerman,
that the Applicant provide measures to facilitate the future installation of
electrical vehicle (EV) charging stations in the carports on Vine Alley at the
technical document review stage.
Please see Attachment A for the Planning Board Notice of Disposition and associated
conditions of approval and Attachment D for the draft meeting minutes from the hearing.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
The required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all
property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property
for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of section 9-4-3, B.R.C. 1981 have been met.
The notice described the larger development proposal, with the three application types.
Public comments received regarding the project can be found in Attachment J of the
Planning Board memorandum. At the public hearing on Dec. 7, 2017 three members of the
public addressed the Board. Refer to Attachment D for a summary of public comment
made at the hearing.
BACKGROUND
Existing Site/Area Context
The subject properties are located in the Crestview East neighborhood, on the large block
bounded by Violet Avenue to the north, Upland Avenue to the south, 19th Street to the
west, and 22nd Street to the east (refer to Figure 2). Crestview East includes a variety of
single-family homes in a more rural setting than other parts of Boulder. Medium density
land use and zoning exists along Violet Avenue. The Boulder Meadows mobile home park
is on the north side of Violet Avenue, across from the site.
City Council Meeting Page 321 of 518
Figure 2: Birds Eye View of the Existing Context
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designations/Zoning Designations
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designations are as follows:
• 2180 Violet Ave. – Medium Density Residential.
• 2100 Violet Ave. and 2145 Upland Ave. – Low Density Residential.
The land use designations were changed in the late 1990s to be consistent with the North
Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP), which established a cascading density from Violet
Avenue to Tamarack Avenue to the south. The properties were annexed into the city in 1997.
As part of annexation, the subject properties were zoned as follows:
• 2180 Violet Ave. – Residential - Medium 2 (RM-2).
• 2100 Violet Ave. – Residential - Low 1 (RL-1).
• Northern portion of 2145 Upland Ave. – Residential - Low 1 (RL-1).
• Southern portion of 2145 Upland Ave. – Residential – Estate (RE).
Residential - Mixed 2 (RMX-2) zoning is described as “medium density residential areas
which have a mix of densities from low density to high density and where complementary uses
may be permitted” (section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. 1981). Residential – Estate (RE) and Residential -
Low 1 (RL-1) zoning is described as “single-family detached residential dwelling units at low
to very low residential densities” (section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. 1981). Refer to Figure 3 on the
following page.
Crest View
Elementary
School
Violet Ave.
Upland Ave.
28t
h
S
t
.
19th St. City Council Meeting Page 322 of 518
Figure 3: Zoning Districts
Previous Reviews:
On Dec. 1, 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 8095) to amend
subsection 9-12-2(b), B.R.C. 1981, which prohibits the sale of any parcel of land that has
not been subdivided in accordance with the city’s subdivision regulations. The ordinance
allowed the property owner at the time (2145 Upland LLC) to sell a portion of the 2180
Violet Avenue property to Habitat for Humanity of Boulder Valley, Inc. before
Jan. 1, 2016. Habitat for Humanity needed to own the property by that time to be eligible
for Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grants for the
planned low-income housing development on the property. At the time, the then property
owner and Habitat for Humanity stated that the ultimate goal was to amend the annexation
agreements that affect the subject properties to transfer all of the affordable housing
provisions required by the respective annexation agreements. Staff supported the ordinance
because facilitating a proposal that would allow the exploration of a development plan that
would result in a minimum of 15 permanently affordable units would represent a much
greater permanent housing benefit than what was required in 1997 agreements. The
assumption was that community benefit would be fully explored in the context of
subsequent review processes.
Subsequently, the Planning Board considered a Concept Plan Review in September 2016
for the development of a multi-family development at 2180 Violet Avenue. The Concept
Plan Review was not called up by the Council for review and comment. The staff memo,
minutes, and audio from the Sep. 1, 2016 meeting can be found here.
Site Review Process
Concept Plan and Site Review are required for the subject properties at 2100 Violet
Avenue, 2180 Violet Avenue, and 2145 Upland Avenue per Ordinance No. 8095, described
above that permitted the subdivision and sale of the property to Flatirons Habitat for
MH
RM-2
RL-1
RE
City Council Meeting Page 323 of 518
Humanity. Any site review approval would be contingent upon obtaining the necessary
City Council approvals for the annexation agreement amendments and ordinance.
Refer to Attachment E for detailed background information on the proposal and subject
properties. Further background information can also be found in the Planning Board memo.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Land Uses. The proposal includes the following uses:
• 2180 Violet Avenue: 19 permanently affordable multi-family residential units. The
units would be ownership units built by Flatirons Habitat for Humanity. The total unit
mix is proposed to be 17 two-story three-bedroom units and two one-story one-
bedroom accessible units.
• 2100 Violet Avenue: Six lots suitable for single-family development and one outlot
for shared detention and water quality for the single-family development.
• 2145 Upland Avenue: Three lots suitable for single-family development and one
outlot for shared detention and water quality for the single-family development.
Affordable Housing.
Habitat for Humanity
intends to construct a
one hundred percent
permanently affordable
residential development
on the property at 2180
Violet Avenue, with
each unit meeting or
exceeding the current
permanently affordable
housing standards of
Chapter 9-13,
“Inclusionary Housing,”
B.R.C. 1981. All units
would be for-sale units.
The proposal includes
amendments to the
annexation agreements
for the subject
properties to allow the
affordable housing
requirements of all the
properties to be met at
2180 Violet Ave. and to
allow an increase in
density at 2180 Violet
Ave. for a total of 19
.
Figure 4: Site Plan
City Council Meeting Page 324 of 518
dwelling units. Permanently affordable deed restricting covenants would be secured for the
property to ensure the affordability of the units. The intensity of development in RM-2
zoning in determined by a minimum of 3,500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit and a
maximum of 12.4 dwelling units per acre. Following the dedication of right-of-way for the
alley, the property will be 1.23 acres (53,758 square feet) and can have 15 units by-right.
Site Plan. The site design for both developments is focused on addressing the street
frontages, as described below.
Habitat Development – 2180 Violet Ave.
Four of the five buildings within the Habitat multi-family development are located along
and facing Violet Avenue. Refer to Figure 5 below. The fifth building is located along a
planned alley. A side yard setback variance has been requested from Violet Avenue to
allow the buildings to be located closer to the street. The buildings are oriented east-west to
provide for solar access and maximize views to the west, southwest, and northwest. The
site is accessed from 22nd Street via an alley, which is required as a part of the existing
annexation agreement and the NBSP. Head in parking is provided on the alley within
carports. At the front of each covered parking space is a storage space reserved for the
respective residential unit. Additional over-flow parking is located in a small surface
parking lot accessed from the alley. Common open space is located at the center of the site,
as a play lawn and meadow. A detention pond is located on the southeast corner of the site,
adjacent to 22nd Street. A 6-foot path is proposed along the western property line within an
existing public access easement that was dedicated as part of annexation.
Figure 5: Habitat Development Site Plan
City Council Meeting Page 325 of 518
Single-Family Development:
The six single-family lots proposed at
2180 Violet Avenue range from 7,689
to 8,670 square feet in area. The lots
would be accessed via the alley
described above, allowing the homes to
front on planned Vine Avenue. As part
of this proposal, Vine Avenue would
be constructed to the west property
line. A 6-foot path is proposed on the
far western lot within an existing
public access easement to connect to
the path described above. Reduced
front yard setbacks have been
requested, to allow for a 15-foot build-
to line along Vine Avenue. Parking
and open space would be provided on
the individual lots. Shared detention is
proposed in an outlot at the corner of
22nd Street and Vine Avenue. Refer to
the Site and Building Envelope Plan in
Figure 6.
Two of the three single-family
residential lots proposed at 2145
Upland Avenue will be access from Vine Street. Both lots are 8,306 square feet in area.
Reduced front yard setbacks and a 15-foot build-to-line are proposed for these lots. A
larger lot (16,546 square feet) within RE zoning is proposed with access from Upland
Avenue. The existing family home and garage are proposed to remain on this lot. Parking
and open space would be provided on the individual lots. Shared detention for these lots in
proposed in an outlot on Upland Avenue. Refer to Figure 6.
Access and Circulation. The project site is located adjacent to Violet Avenue, which is
classified as a minor arterial road. The development will also be accessed from 22nd Street
and Vine Avenue, which will be local residential streets, and Upland Avenue, which is
currently a local street. As required per the annexation agreements for the properties, Vine
Street and a mid-block alley will be constructed to the west property lines and 22nd Street
will be extended to the south to connect to Vine Street as part of Phase I of the
development. As described above, the multi-family development and single-family
development at 2100 and 2180 Violet Avenue will be accessed via the alley from 22nd
Street. The single-family homes at 2145 Upland Avenue will be accessed from Vine
Avenue and Upland Avenue.
Twenty feet of right-of-way will be dedicated on the south property line of 2180 Violet
Avenue to allow for the construction of the alley. The alley and Vine Street are planned to
extend to the west to 19th Street and construction of such is a condition of annexation for
Figure 6: Single-Family Site and Building Envelope Plan
City Council Meeting Page 326 of 518
properties that annexed as part of the larger Crestview East annexation in 2009. Refer to
Attachment E for planned connections in the NBSP.
As part of annexation the property owner dedicated 30 feet of right of way for the
construction of Vine Street. At the time, Vine Street was anticipated to be designed and
constructed as a typical residential street. Subsequent to the annexation and dedication of
right-of-way for Vine Street, the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan was amended
changing Vine Street from a typical residential street to a smaller modified access street.
Properties located along Vine Street to the west of the 2180 Violet Avenue property that
annexed as part of the Crestview East group annexation in 2009 or thereafter have
dedicated right-of-way for Vine Street of a width consistent with the smaller cross-section
of a modified access street, accommodating a 22-foot-wide pavement section plus a five-
foot-wide detached sidewalk on the north side of Vine Street. The applicant proposes an
annexation agreement amendment to reduce the amount of right-of-way necessary for Vine
Street and authorize the property owners to request vacation of a portion of the dedicated
right-of-way that may not be needed for a design of Vine Street.
Regarding multi-modal connections, the
design includes the construction of a
north-south 6-foot path to connect Vine
Avenue to Violet Avenue. An existing
north-south multi-use path is located
adjacent to the property at 2145 Upland
Avenue to connect Vine Avenue to
Upland Avenue. A six-foot wide
detached sidewalk with an eight-foot
wide landscape strip is proposed adjacent
to the property on Violet Avenue. A five-
foot bike lane is proposed along Violet
Avenue. A five-foot wide detached
sidewalk with an eight-foot tree lawn is
proposed adjacent to the property on 22nd Street. This sidewalk will connect to the five-foot
detached sidewalk planned along the north side of Vine Avenue. The detached sidewalks
will provide a physical separation between the streets and the pedestrian. Due to the
proximity to Crestview Elementary School, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle
connections are key to providing safe routes to the school.
A network of internal sidewalks connects the multi-family residential buildings to proposed
open space areas and to the surrounding bicycle and pedestrian network. An enhanced
pedestrian entrance is proposed on Violet Avenue with enhanced landscaping with a north-
south sidewalk connection to welcome residents and visitors to the central open space and
gazebo.
Parking. Parking will be provided on the individual single-family lots. Per Table 9-1 of
the land use code, one off-street parking space is required for each detached dwelling unit.
For the multi-family development, 36 off-street parking spaces are required based on the
Figure 7: Multi-Use Path Adjacent to 2145 Upland Ave.
City Council Meeting Page 327 of 518
number of bedrooms proposed, per section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981.
Thirty spaces are proposed, 20 head-in spaces in carports off the alley and 10 spaces in the
surface parking lot. A 16.7 percent parking reduction is proposed. The 19 parking spaces
located in the carports will be bundled with the units, one parking space per unit. The
remaining 11 spaces will be unbundled to accommodate additional resident or visitor
parking. On-street parking is will be available along 22nd Street and Vine Avenue.
The proposal meets bicycle parking requirements with 48 spaces, 79 percent of which are
long-term bike parking. Per the parking standards of the land use code, 9 short-term and 29
long-term bike parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 10 short-term and
38 long-term spaces. Short-term bike parking is proposed on u-racks strategically located
near the entrances to each building and dispersed throughout the site. Long-term spaces are
proposed in within the storage lockers for each unit. Parking will be provided on the
individual single-family lots, presumably within garages.
Trip Generation Report/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The
applicant has submitted a Trip Generation Report and TDM Plan for the proposed
development, including both the multi-family and the single-family portions. The estimated
trip generation is 157 vehicle-trips on the average weekday. The proposed TDM plan
includes the creation of separate “Alternative Transportation Subsidy Funds” for the multi-
family and single-family developments. The developer will contribute to the fund equal to
the cost of a 3-year participation in the Eco Pass program. For the Habitat for Humanity
development, this fund will be managed by the HOA, and can be used for expenses such as
B-cycle and car-share memberships, additional bicycle parking racks for the project, transit
(RTD) passes, and other HOA approved items. For the single-family development, the
developer will work with city staff to timing and participation in the program. If there is an
HOA, the HOA will manage the fund.
Open Space Areas. Proposed open space for the Habitat development consists of a play
lawn for active recreation, a shallow stormwater detention area with amenities like a
boardwalk/stage and amphitheater with boulder seating, a central gathering place with a
gazebo and seating, landscaped area throughout the site, front porches and landscaped front
lawns, and private courtyards for each townhome. The majority of the semi-public open
space is located central to the site, to ensure that the open space is functional and safe. The
submitted landscape plans contain five courtyard designs, with the homeowner to choose
the preferred courtyard design. Open space would constitute approximately 49 percent of
site (26,192 square feet). The project contains several pathways into the common open
space at Habitat site, making it easily accessible for both residents and neighbors. Refer to
Figure 8.
For the single-family residential development, the majority of the open space is private on
each lot. Per the design guidelines, the homes will be required to provide at least one
"entry" element including, but not limited to, covered and uncovered porches, on facades
abutting a public street. This will help to enhance the pedestrian experience. Reduced front
yard setbacks will allow for larger, more functional, back yards.
City Council Meeting Page 328 of 518
Figure 8: Habitat Development Open Space
Architecture and Building Design.
Habitat Development – 2180 Violet Ave.
The two-story townhomes are neo-traditional in design with articulated front porches and
pitched roofs. The proposed 19 units have been broken out into five smaller buildings with
a recognizable residential visual pattern. Two of the buildings contain a one-bedroom, one-
story residential unit that provides for a variety of massing. The design represents four-
sided architecture, with the buildings addressing both the public rights-of-way and interior
open space areas. The buildings on Violet Avenue will have entrances addressing the street
with front porches, front yards, and additional glazing to provide transparency along the
street and activate the pedestrian experience. Additional entrances and patios are located on
the rear of the buildings to interact with the common green space. Refer to Figures 9 and
10. The carports and storage space structures will be one story in height. The roof forms of
the carports will support the installation of photovoltaics on the roof.
The proposed building materials
include engineered horizontal
wood lap and shingle siding with
trim, vinyl windows, and asphalt
shingle roofing. The applicant has
submitted details on the materials
to demonstrate that the materials
are durable and authentic.
Exposed foundations will be
screened with enhanced
landscaping.
Figure 9: Perspective Looking Southeast on Violet Ave.
City Council Meeting Page 329 of 518
Figure 10: Site Elevation Facing Violet Avenue
Single-Family Development:
The proposal includes comprehensive design guidelines for the single-family development
that address a variety of design elements to ensure that the project is compatible with the
neighborhood. See Attachment B for the design guidelines. The guidelines allow for a
variety of forms and styles but promote cohesiveness within the development with a 15-
foot build-to line to achieve an identifiable character for the development. The guidelines
will break up large building masses through materiality, detail, and fenestration and will be
ensure continuity and standards of quality. The guidelines address form and massing,
window and door fenestrations, roof forms and placement, porches and entries, treatment of
exposed foundations, wall cladding and trim materials, and landscaping. If the site review
is approved, these guidelines will become a regulatory document to guide the development
of the single-family lots. Additionally, the form and mass of the single-family homes will
be controlled by the compatible development standards in the land use code, including
building coverage, side yard wall articulation, and side yard bulk plane. There is no
maximum floor area per the annexation agreements.
Refer to Attachment B for the approved plans.
ANALYSIS
Refer to staff’s memorandum to Planning Board for staff’s analysis of key issues,
Attachment C includes the staff analysis of the site review criteria, and Attachment D for
key issues discussed by the board at the hearing on Dec. 7, 2017.
MATRIX OF OPTIONS
The site review request for the subject properties is contingent upon City Council approval
of the annexation agreement amendments and ordinance. In addition, the portion of the
annexation agreement amendment relating to increased density at 2180 Violet Avenue is
contingent upon City Council approval of the ordinance. If City Council denies the request
for an ordinance, the covenant of the annexation amendment related to increased density
would be revised.
The Planning Board decision is subject to City Council call-up within 30-days. City
Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its Jan. 4, 2018 meeting. On
any application that it calls up, the council will hold a public hearing under the procedures
prescribed by Chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. If the application is not
called-up the Planning Board decision will stand.
City Council Meeting Page 330 of 518
ATTACHMENTS
A.Planning Board Notice of Disposition dated Dec. 7, 2017
B.Site Review Plan Set
C.Site Review Criteria Analysis
D.Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
E.Detailed Background Information
City Council Meeting Page 331 of 518
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition dated Dec. 7, 2017
City Council Meeting Page 332 of 518
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition dated Dec. 7, 2017
City Council Meeting Page 333 of 518
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition dated Dec. 7, 2017
City Council Meeting Page 334 of 518
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition dated Dec. 7, 2017
City Council Meeting Page 335 of 518
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7&29(56+((765$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:65$ &29(56+((765$ 6,7((/(9$7,21665$ &2/256,7((/(9$7,21665$$ %8,/',1*$)/2253/$1665$$ %8,/',1*$(/(9$7,21665$$ %8,/',1*$&2/25(/(9$7,21665$' %8,/',1*')/2253/$1665$' %8,/',1*'(/(9$7,21665$' %8,/',1*'&2/25(/(9$7,21665$( %8,/',1*()/2253/$1665$( %8,/',1*((/(9$7,21665$( %8,/',1*(&2/25(/(9$7,216352-(&76,7(352-(&7'(6&5,37,216+((7,1'(;9,&,1,7<0$3$&5(6,7($79,2/(7$9(18(72,1&/8'( 3(50$1(17/<$))25'$%/(72:1+20(81,762):+,&+$5(7<3($$&&(66,%/($1'3$5.,1*63$&(6,%&11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 336 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 337 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 338 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 339 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 340 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 341 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 342 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 343 of 518
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(76,7('(9(/230(173/$165/)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:WK6WUHHW%RXOGHU&2ZZZMEILHOGZRUNVFRP
1%LNH3DUNLQJ 7UDVK(QFORVXUH*D]HER3OD\/DZQ3OD\/DZQ'HWHQWLRQ'HWHQWLRQ:RRGHQ%RDUGZDON6WDJH%LNH3DUNLQJ $PSKLWKHDWHU%RXOGHU6HDW W\S 3LFNHW)HQFH W\S %LNH3DUNLQJ /DNHVLGH%DFNHG%HQFK W\S 6WRUDJH6KHG W\S 9,2/(7$9(18(1'675((73DUNLQJ6XPPDU\&KDUW$XWRPRELOH3DUNLQJ%LF\FOH3DUNLQJ
6LWH'DWD%XLOGLQJ%5HVLGHQWLDO 8QLWV VI%XLOGLQJ$5HVLGHQWLDO 8QLWV VI%XLOGLQJ&5HVLGHQWLDO 8QLWV VI%XLOGLQJ'5HVLGHQWLDO 8QLWV VI%XLOGLQJ(5HVLGHQWLDO 8QLWV VI%LNH3DWK0HDGRZ0HDGRZ=RQLQJ&DWHJRU\ 50 0HGLXP'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO /RW6L]H *URVV 6) $FUHV 'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV3HUPLWWHG $FUH 5HTXHVWHG'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV 5HTXLUHG)URQW<DUG6HWEDFN 9LROHW$YH
5HTXHVWHG)URQW<DUG6HWEDFN 9LROHW$YH
5HTXLUHG8VHDEOH2SHQ6SDFH 6)8VHDEOH2SHQ6SDFH3URYLGHG 6)5HTXLUHG5HDU<DUG6HWEDFN $OOH\52:
5HTXHVWHG5HDU<DUG6HWEDFN
5HTXLUHG6LGH<DUG6HWEDFN :HVW3URS/LQH
5HTXHVWHG6LGH<DUG6HWEDFN :HVW3URS/LQH
$//(<
7DOO/LJKW3ROH W\S /DQG8VH6XPPDU\)XWXUH9HKLFOH&KDUJLQJ6WDWLRQ2SHQ6SDFH6XPPDU\
5HTXLUHG)URQW<DUG6HWEDFN QG6W
5HTXHVWHG)URQW<DUG6HWEDFN QG6W
11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 344 of 518
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7/$1'6&$3(3/$165/)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:WK6WUHHW%RXOGHU&2ZZZMEILHOGZRUNVFRP
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
0,1 +RPHRZQHUWRFKRRVHSUHIHUUHG&RXUW\DUG7\SH $OOSODQWLQJVWRPHHWRUH[FHHGWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH&LW\RI%RXOGHU 3URSHUVSDFLQJIURPDOOXWLOLWLHVVKDOOEHNHSW 6HH&LYLO3ODQVIRUORFDWLRQRIDOOSURSRVHG8WLOLWLHVDQG([LVWLQJDQG3URSRVHG*UDGHV 6HH7UHH,QYHQWRU\SURYLGHGE\%RXOGHU7UHHDQG/DQGVFDSH&RQVXOWLQJIRUDOLVWRIH[LVWLQJWUHHVRQVLWH$OOH[LVWLQJWUHHVWREHUHPRYHG $OOSODQWLQJEHGWRUHFHLYHRI6KUHGGHG&HGDU0XOFK1RZHHGEDUULHULVWREHXVHGXQGHUJURXQGFRYHURUSHUHQQLDOV )HQFLQJGHWDLOLVLOOXVWUDWLYHRQO\DQGLVQRWUHJXODWHGE\WKH6LWH5HYLHZSURFHVVa
(5/
6)6)6)7D &V 7S
-V 4E 6RG5I 11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 345 of 518
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7/$1'6&$3('(7$,/665/)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:WK6WUHHW%RXOGHU&2ZZZMEILHOGZRUNVFRP6(&7,211763,&.(7)(1&('(7$,/ 127(6 3529,'( &2$76(;7(5,25(1$0(/62/,'67$,1&2/256+$//%(:+,7(6,=(3$1(/6,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+5812))(1&(6((3/$16(&85(:22':*$/9$1,=('6&5(:66,=($65(48,5('%277202))7*+2/')7*'2:1$6%277202))7*72 &203$&768%*5$'($7;'(37+&21&)7*)/$5(287 3,7&+7232))227,1*72'5$,1 5(4
')25/$1'6&$3(75($70(17;9,1</3267;9,1</3267&$3;9,1</3,&.(76;9,1</5$,/6*$36),1,6+*5$'(81',6785%('68%*5$'( 0,19$5,(66((3/$19,(:6(&7,21
25
3(53/$1'UDZLQJ /6'LPHQVLRQVDUHLQLQFKHV>PP@863DWHQW1RV ' ' ' ' ZZZODQGVFDSHIRUPVFRP
1210$55,1**/,'(
32/<6,7(6($7,1*685)$&(176/$.(6,'(%$&.('%(1&+3,&.(7)(1&(685)$&(0281711/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 346 of 518
STREETSCAPE:RREQUIREDPROVIDED/COMMENTS Vine Avenue - north side1 tree/40' - 422 LF = 11 trees11 provided - south side1 tree/40' - 133 LF = 3 trees3 provided Upland Street - north side1 tree/40' - 133 LF = 3 trees3 provided 22nd Street1 tree/40' - 129 LF = 3 trees3 provided ALLEY TREES:RREQUIREDPROVIDED/COMMENTS Vine Alley - south side1 tree/40' - 422 LF = 10 trees10 providedMIMINUM PLANT SIZES: Deciduous Trees2" cal.30 proposed Evergreen Trees6' ht.0 proposed Ornamental Trees1.5" cal.0 proposed Shrubs#5 container0 proposedLANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 08/02/17PLANT LIST: 08/02/17KEYQQTYCOMMON NAMESSCIENTIFIC NAMESIZEo.c. SSPACINGABP2 Autumn Blaze PearPyrus calleryana 'Autumn Blaze'2" clp. as shownHB5 HackberryCeltis occidentalis2" clp. as shownHO4 Heritage OakQuercus 'Heritage'2" clp. as shownKC4 Kentucky CoffeetreeGymnocladus dioicus2" clp. as shownOB3 Ohio BuckeyeAesculus glabra2" clp. as shownSHL10 Shademaster HoneylocustGleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 'Shademaster' 2" clp. as shownWC2 Northern CatalpaCatalpa speciosa2" clp. as shownTOTAL: 30SHADE TREES:11/27/17 Site ReviewAttachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 347 of 518
6&$/( 6,7(3+2720(75,&3/$165(
$//(<'(7(17,219,2/(7$9(1'67 6&$/( 6,7(3+2720(75,&3/$165(
$//(<'(7(17,219,2/(7$9(1'67 678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785( 6,7(5(9,(:AEDESIGNIntegrated Lighting and Electrical Solutions1900 Wazee Street #350 Denver, CO 80202 303.296.3034aedesign-inc.comProject #:3573.00)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&21' 9,2/(765(6,7(3+2720(75,&3/$1Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 348 of 518
6&$/( 7<3(($($($$1'($65( 1766&$/( 7<3(('65( 1766&$/( 7<3((665( 1766&$/( 7<3(($($($$1'($65( 1766&$/( 7<3(('65( 1766&$/( 7<3((665( 1766&$/( 7<3((365( 1766&$/( 7<3((:65( 1766&$/( 7<3((365( 1766&$/( 7<3((:65( 176678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785( 6,7(5(9,(:AEDESIGNIntegrated Lighting and Electrical Solutions1900 Wazee Street #350 Denver, CO 80202 303.296.3034aedesign-inc.comProject #:3573.00)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&21' 9,2/(765(/,*+7,1*63(&,),&$7,216Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 349 of 518
6&$/( (/(&75,&$/6,7(3/$165(
$//(<'(7(17,219,2/(7$9(1'67 678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785( 6,7(5(9,(:AEDESIGNIntegrated Lighting and Electrical Solutions1900 Wazee Street #350 Denver, CO 80202 303.296.3034aedesign-inc.comProject #:3573.00)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&21' 9,2/(765((/(&75,&$/6,7(3/$1Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 350 of 518
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7&2/256,7((/(9$7,21665$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:*5$3+,&6&$/(1761257+(/(9$7,211766287+(/(9$7,21 $/21*$//(< 1766287+(/(9$7,21 )52023(163$&( 11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 351 of 518
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*$&2/25(/(9$7,21665$$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:*5$3+,&6&$/(1761257+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*$1766287+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*$176:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*$176($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*$11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 352 of 518
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*'&2/25(/(9$7,21665$')/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:*5$3+,&6&$/(1761257+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'1766287+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'176:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'176($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 353 of 518
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*(&2/25(/(9$7,21665$()/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:*5$3+,&6&$/(1761257+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*(1766287+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*(176:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*(176($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*(11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 354 of 518
%8,/',1*%/2:32,17
%8,/',1*%+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*&/2:32,17
%8,/',1*&+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*'/2:32,17
%8,/',1*'+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*(/2:32,17
%8,/',1*(+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*(/(9(/
%8,/',1*(72522)
%8,/',1*'/(9(/
%8,/',1*'72522)
%8,/',1*&/(9(/
%8,/',1*&72522)
%8,/',1*%/(9(/
%8,/',1*%72522)
3523(57</,1(6(7%$&.3523(57</,1(352326('6(7%$&.
%8,/',1*$/2:32,17
%8,/',1*$+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*$/(9(/
%8,/',1*$72522)
&$53257
&$53257522)
&$53257522)
&$53257
&$53257
&$53257522)3523(57</,1(6(7%$&.3523(57</,1(352326('6(7%$&.
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*%/2:32,17
%8,/',1*%+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*&/2:32,17
%8,/',1*&+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*'/2:32,17
%8,/',1*'+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*(/2:32,17
%8,/',1*(+(,*+7/,0,7
%8,/',1*(/(9(/
%8,/',1*(72522)
%8,/',1*'/(9(/
%8,/',1*'72522)
%8,/',1*&/(9(/
%8,/',1*&72522)
%8,/',1*%/(9(/
%8,/',1*%72522)
3523(57</,1(6(7%$&.3523(57</,1(352326('6(7%$&.
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQHVW6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(76,7((/(9$7,21665$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
1257+(/(9$7,21
6287+(/(9$7,21 $/21*$//(< *5$3+,&6&$/(
6287+(/(9$7,21 )52023(163$&( 11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 355 of 518
65$$65$$65$$65$$$)%&'(
.,7&+(1%$7+.,7&+(1.,7&+(187,/,7</,9,1*',1,1*/,9,1*',1,1*/,9,1*',1,1*%('81,7$%('81,7$%('81,7$325&+6)5,6(5
&21'(16(581,767$1./(66+27:$7(5+($7(5(/(&75,&$/3$1(/325&+6)%$7+%$7+87,/,7<87,/,7<325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)65$$65$$65$$65$$$)%&'(
%('5220%('5220%$7+%('5220%('5220%('5220:'%('81,7$%('81,7$%('81,7$
6725$*(%$7+%('5220%('5220:'6725$*(%$7+%('5220%('5220:'6725$*( 65$$65$$65$$65$$$)%&'(
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*$)/2253/$1665$$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
),567)/2253/$1%8,/',1*$
6(&21')/2253/$1%8,/',1*$
522)3/$1%8,/',1*$1*5$3+,&6&$/(11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 356 of 518
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576(/(9$7,21127(6522),1*$1'6,',1*72%(,167$//('3(50$18)$&785(5
6'(7$,/6(;326('%8,/',1*)281'$7,2172%(0,1,0,=('%<1(:&,9,/*5$',1*6,',1*3/$&(0(17$1'/$1'6&$3,1*5( &,9,/'5$:,1*6)256327(/(9$7,216$5281'%8,/',1*65( /$1'6&$3('5$:,1*6)253/$176(/(&7,21$1'/2&$7,21678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*$(/(9$7,21665$$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
1257+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*$
6287+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*$
:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*$
($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*$*5$3+,&6&$/(.(<127(6.H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W 35(),1,6+('0(7$/*877(5$1''2:1632876 +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*:+,7( +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1**5$< +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*$&&(17%/8( (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1*:+,7( (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1**5$< (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1*$&&(17%/8( (1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7( $63+$/76+,1*/(522) 9,1</:,1'2: &20326,7('22511/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 357 of 518
%&'($)65$'65$'65$'65$'.,7&+(1%$7+',1,1*/,9,1*.,7&+(1%$7+',1,1*/,9,1*.,7&+(1%$7+',1,1*/,9,1*.,7&+(1%('5220%$7+/,9,1*
7<3($$&&(66,%/(81,7'%('81,7'%('81,7'%('81,7'5,6(5%&'($)&21'(16(581,767$1./(66+27:$7(5+($7(5(/(&75,&$/3$1(/',1,1*325&+6)87,/,7<(/(&75,&$/3$1(/7$1./(66+27:$7(5+($7(5&21'(16(581,7:'325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)6725$*(%&'($)65$'65$'65$'65$'%('5220%('5220%('5220%('5220%('5220%('5220%('5220%$7+:'%('5220%('5220
%('81,7'%('81,7'%('81,7' %&'($) %$7+:'%$7+:'6725$*(6725$*(6725$*(%&'($)65$'65$'65$'65$'
%&'($).(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*')/2253/$1665$')/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
),567)/2253/$1%8,/',1*'
6(&21')/2253/$1%8,/',1*'
522)3/$1%8,/',1*'1*5$3+,&6&$/(11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 358 of 518
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576(/(9$7,21127(6522),1*$1'6,',1*72%(,167$//('3(50$18)$&785(5
6'(7$,/6(;326('%8,/',1*)281'$7,2172%(0,1,0,=('%<1(:&,9,/*5$',1*6,',1*3/$&(0(17$1'/$1'6&$3,1*5( &,9,/'5$:,1*6)256327(/(9$7,216$5281'%8,/',1*65( /$1'6&$3('5$:,1*6)253/$176(/(&7,21$1'/2&$7,21678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*'(/(9$7,21665$')/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
1257+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'
6287+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'
:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'
($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'*5$3+,&6&$/(.(<127(6.H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W 35(),1,6+('0(7$/*877(5$1''2:1632876 +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*:+,7( +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1**5$< +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*$&&(17%/8( (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1*:+,7( (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1**5$< (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1*$&&(17%/8( (1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7( $63+$/76+,1*/(522) 9,1</:,1'2: &20326,7('22511/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 359 of 518
65$(65$(65$(65$(5,6(5%&'($)',1,1*',1,1*',1,1*',1,1*/,9,1*/,9,1*/,9,1*/,9,1*%$7+.,7&+(1.,7&+(1.,7&+(1.,7&+(1325&+6)
%('81,7(%('81,7(%('81,7(%('81,7(&21'(16(581,767$1./(66+27:$7(5+($7(5(/(&75,&$/3$1(/87,/,7<325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)325&+6)%$7+87,/,7<%$7+87,/,7<%$7+87,/,7<65$(65$(65$(65$(%&'($):'%$7+%('5220%('5220%('5220
%('81,7(%('81,7(%('81,7(%('81,7(
6725$*(:'%$7+%('5220%('5220%('52206725$*(:'%$7+%('5220%('5220%('52206725$*(:'%$7+%('5220%('5220%('52206725$*( 65$(65$(65$(65$(%&'($)
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*()/2253/$1665$()/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:1
),567)/2253/$1%8,/',1*(
6(&21')/2253/$1%8,/',1*(
522)3/$1%8,/',1*(*5$3+,&6&$/(11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 360 of 518
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
/(9(/
/(9(/
723/$7(
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576(/(9$7,21127(6522),1*$1'6,',1*72%(,167$//('3(50$18)$&785(5
6'(7$,/6(;326('%8,/',1*)281'$7,2172%(0,1,0,=('%<1(:&,9,/*5$',1*6,',1*3/$&(0(17$1'/$1'6&$3,1*5( &,9,/'5$:,1*6)256327(/(9$7,216$5281'%8,/',1*65( /$1'6&$3('5$:,1*6)253/$176(/(&7,21$1'/2&$7,21678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7%8,/',1*((/(9$7,21665$()/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
1257+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*(
6287+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*(
:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*(
($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*(*5$3+,&6&$/(.(<127(6.H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W 35(),1,6+('0(7$/*877(5$1''2:1632876 +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*:+,7( +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1**5$< +25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*$&&(175(' (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1*:+,7( (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1**5$< (1*,1((5(':22'6+,1*/(6,',1*$&&(175(' (1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7( $63+$/76+,1*/(522) &20326,7('225 9,1</)(1&(11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 361 of 518
&7565$65$65$/,1(2)&$53257522)$%29(65$ $%
65$65$65$65$6725$*(6725$*(7<3
/21*7(50%,&<&/(3$5.,1*63$&(67<3,&$/($&+6725$*(63$&(
7<3
&$53257
&$53257522)
&$53257522)
&$53257
&$53257
&$53257522)
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
&$53257
&$53257522)
&$53257522)
&$53257
&$53257
&$53257522)
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
&$53257/2:32,17
&$53257+(,*+7/,0,7
&$53257
&$53257522)
&$53257
&$53257522)
.(<3/$1%/'*$%/'*%
%/'*&
%/'*'%/'*(
%/'*%6,072%/'*(233+$1'
%/'*&6,072%/'*'233+$1'&$532576&$5325769,2/(7$9(1'67&$532576
&21&5(7(6/$%6/23('3(5)227&21&5(7()281'$7,215( 6758&785$/60227+)$&('$5&+,7(&785$/%/2&.3$,17('78%(67((/68332573$,17('35()$%5,&$7('67((/*$7(6&833(535(&$67&21&5(7(&$3
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7&$53257675$6+(1&/2685(65$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
)/2253/$1&$532576
6287+(/(9$7,21&$532576
1257+(/(9$7,21&$532576
($67(/(9$7,21&$5325761.(<127(6.H\9DOXH.H\QRWH7H[W35(&$67&$360227+)$&('$5&+,7(&785$/%/2&.67((/&2/8013$,17('67((/*$7(32:'(5&2$7),1,6+ (1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7(67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)+25,=217$/(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*:+,7(+2//2:0(7$/'225327(17,$/3+27292/7$,&3$1(/6
:(67(/(9$7,21&$532576*5$3+,&6&$/(
($67(/(9$7,2175$6+(1&/2685(
1257+(/(9$7,2175$6+(1&/2685(
6287+(/(9$7,2175$6+(1&/2685(
:(67(/(9$7,2175$6+(1&/2685(
75$6+(1&/2685(6(&7,2111/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 362 of 518
$//(<%/'*$%/'*%%/'*&%/'*'%/'*($'-$&(17=21( 5/3523(57</,1((;7(172)6+$'2:6)520
62/$5)(1&(
$
$
&
%
'
( $'-$&(17=21( (1273527(&7('%<62/$5$&&(665(469,2/(7$9(18(1'675((738%/,&5,*+72):$< 1273527(&7('%<62/$5$&&(665(4638%/,&5,*+72):$< 1273527(&7('%<62/$5$&&(665(46
% &$53257&$53257&$53257
&
'
( 3523(57</,1($//(<&$53257%/'*%%/'*&%/'*'%/'*(9,2/(7$9(18(1'675((7$'-$&(17=21( 5/(;7(172)6+$'2:6)520
62/$5)(1&(
(
&
% $'-$&(17=21( (1273527(&7('%<62/$5$&&(665(46&$53257&$5325738%/,&5,*+72):$< 1273527(&7('%<62/$5$&&(665(4638%/,&5,*+72):$< 1273527(&7('%<62/$5$&&(665(46
%
' %/'*$
&
'
( 678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(762/$5$1$/<6,665$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
6+$'2:$1$/<6,6 $0
6+$'2:$1$/<6,6 3011 *5$3+,&6&$/(11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 363 of 518
9,1</:,1'2:7<3:22'6+,0$61(&(66$5<&217,18286%$&.(552'$1'6($/$17:($7+(55(6,67,9(%$55,(56(/)$'+(5(':,1'2:)/$6+,1*6+($7+,1*(1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7((1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7((1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*256+,1*/(5( (/(9$7,2169,1</'2257<3&217,18286%$&.(552'$1'6($/$17:($7+(55(6,67,9(%$55,(5;:22')5$0,1*6(/)$'+(5(')/(;,%/()/$6+,1*:22'6+,0$61(&(66$5<0(7$/$1*/(6($/('%(7:((1$1*/($1')5$0((1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*256+,1*/(5( (/(9$7,2166+($7+,1*(1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7(&217,18286%$&.(552'$1'6($/$17:($7+(55(6,67,9(%$55,(5*$/9$1,=('0(7$/)/$6+,1*6(7,16($/$173529,'((1''$06 6/23('(*0,16(/)$'+(5(')/(;,%/()/$6+,1*:22'6+,0$61(&(66$5<6+($7+,1*)/$6+,1*(1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7((1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7((1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*256+,1*/(5( (/(9$7,2169<1,/:,1'2:7<3:($7+(55(6,67,9(%$55,(5&217%$&.(552'$1'6($/$1721%27+6,'(66+($7+,1*&217,182869$325%$55,(5:5$33(',172)5$0('23(1,1**<3%'(1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7(0(7$/'225$1')5$0(7<36(/)$'+(5(')/(;,%/()/$6+,1*(1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*256+,1*/(5( (/(9$7,216&217,182869$325%$55,(5:5$33(',172)5$0('23(1,1**<3%'&217,18286%$&.(552'$1'6($/$170(7$/'2257<36+($7+,1**$/9$1,=('0(7$/)/$6+,1*6(7,16($/$173529,'((1''$06 6/23('(*0,16(/)$'+(5(')/(;,%/()/$6+,1*:($7+(55(6,67,9(%$55,(5)/$6+,1*(1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7((1*,1((5(':22'75,03$,17(':+,7((1*,1((5(':22'/$36,',1*256+,1*/(5( (/(9$7,216678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(7:,1'2: '225'(7$,/665$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:
:,1'2:6,//#6,',1*
:,1'2:-$0%#6,',1*
:,1'2:+($'#6,',1*
'225-$0%
'225+($'7<311/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 364 of 518
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(73(563(&7,9(65$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 365 of 518
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(73(563(&7,9(65$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 366 of 518
678',2DUFKLWHFWXUH3LQH6W6XLWH%RXOGHU&2WKHVWXGLRDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP &23<5,*+7#678',2$5&+,7(&785(1' 9,2/(73(563(&7,9(65$)/$7,5216+$%,7$7)25+80$1,7<9,2/(7$9(18(%28/'(5&26,7(5(9,(:11/27/2017Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 367 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 368 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 369 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 370 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 371 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 372 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 373 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 374 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 375 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 376 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 377 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 378 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 379 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 380 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 381 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 382 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 383 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
:ULWWHQ6WDWHPHQWIRU9LROHW$YH6LWH5HYLHZ
&855(172:1(56+,3
7KHSURMHFWLVRZQHGE\)ODWLURQV+DELWDWIRU+XPDQLW\
352-(&72%-(&7,9(6
/$1'86(
9LROHW$YHLVD VI DFUH VLWHQHDURQWKHVRXWKZHVWFRUQHURIQG6WUHHWDQG9LROHW$YHQXHLQ
%RXOGHUFXUUHQWO\]RQHG508QGHUWKH50]RQLQJWKLVGHYHORSPHQWSURSRVHVDWRWDORI UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVLQ
ILYHEXLOGLQJV$OORIWKHXQLWVDUHSURSRVHGWREHSHUPDQHQWO\DIIRUGDEOHIRUVDOHUHVLGHQFHVRIWKHXQLWVZLOOEH
aVIWZRVWRU\WKUHHEHGURRPXQLWVDQGWKHUHPDLQLQJWZRXQLWVZLOOEHaVIRQHVWRU\RQHEHGURRP
DFFHVVLEOHUHVLGHQFHV
)RXURIWKHEXLOGLQJVDUHORFDWHGDORQJDQGIDFLQJ9LROHW$YHQXHDQGWKHRWKHUEXLOGLQJLVORFDWHGDORQJWKHDOOH\
7KLVSURSRVHGOD\RXWSURYLGHVVWUHHWIURQWDJHDORQJ9LROHWDOORZVIRUPD[LPXPVRODUDFFHVVWKURXJKRXWWKHVLWHDQG
DOORZVWKHUHVLGHQWVWRWDNHDGYDQWDJHRIWKHYLHZVWRWKHZHVWVRXWKZHVWDQGQRUWKZHVW$OORIWKHEXLOGLQJVDUH
RULHQWHGRQWKHHDVWZHVWD[LVZLWKJUDFLRXVRSHQVSDFHWRWKHVRXWKZKLFKPLQLPL]HVVKDGRZLQJIURPDGMDFHQW
EXLOGLQJVDQGDOORZVIRUPD[LPXPDFFHVVWRVRODUHQHUJ\$ODUJHRSHQVSDFHLVFHQWHUHGZLWKLQWKHVLWHDQGLV
SURJUDPPHGWRDOORZIRUDYDULHW\RIXVHV7KHVLWHLVDFFHVVHGDORQJQG6WUHHWIURPWKHSURSRVHGDOOH\WKDWUXQV
HDVWZHVWDORQJWKHVRXWKSURSHUW\OLQH7KHSURSRVHGDOOH\ZLOOFRQWLQXHWRWKHZHVWLQWKHIXWXUHDVDGMDFHQW
SURSHUWLHVGHYHORSDXWRPRELOHSDUNLQJVSDFHVDUHSURYLGHGDORQJWKHDOOH\ZLWK SDUNLQJVSDFHV RQHSHUXQLW
EHLQJFRYHUHGE\FDUSRUWV$WWKHIURQWRIHDFKFRYHUHGSDUNLQJVSDFHLVDVWRUDJHVSDFHUHVHUYHGIRUWKHUHVSHFWLYH
UHVLGHQWLDOXQLW7KHSURSRVHGFDUSRUWVZLOOSRWHQWLDOO\KDYHSKRWRYROWDLFVRQWKHURRIWRRIIVHWWKHHQHUJ\XVDJHRI
WKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWDQGWRPLQLPL]HWKHXVHRIQRQUHQHZDEOHUHVRXUFHV$¶PXOWLPRGDOSDWKLVSURSRVHG
ZLWKLQWKHH[LVWLQJ¶SXEOLFHDVHPHQWDORQJWKHZHVWSURSHUW\OLQHWRSURYLGHDQHDV\VDIHFRQQHFWLRQWKURXJKWKH
VLWHWRWKHSODQQHGIXWXUHSDWKZD\VWRWKHVRXWKDQGWRWKHSURSRVHGELNHODQHDORQJ9LROHW$YHQXHWRWKHQRUWK
$5&+,7(&785$/&+$5$&7(5
7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWLVFRPSULVHGPDLQO\RIDW\SLFDOWZRVWRU\WKUHHEHGURRPXQLWWKDWWUDQVODWHVLQWRDQ
HDVLO\UHFRJQL]DEOHYLVXDOSDWWHUQDORQJ9LROHW$YHQXHDQGWKURXJKRXWWKHSURMHFW7RSURYLGHYDULHW\RIPDVVDQGD
FRPIRUWDEOHKXPDQVFDOHWKH UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVKDYHEHHQEURNHQRXWLQWRILYHVPDOOHUEXLOGLQJVDVGHVFULEHG
DERYH7RIXUWKHUEUHDNGRZQWKHPDVVRIWKHVWUXFWXUHVWZRRIWKHEXLOGLQJVFRQWDLQDUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWWKDWLVDRQH
VWRU\RQHEHGURRPXQLWWKDWSURYLGHVDYDULHW\RIPDVVDORQJ9LROHW$YHQXH3LWFKHGURRIVDUHXVHGRQHYHU\
EXLOGLQJVRWKHSURMHFWILWVLQVHDPOHVVO\ZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJFKDUDFWHURIWKHUHVLGHQWLDOQHLJKERUKRRG)URQW
SRUFKHVDQGIURQW\DUGVDUHSURSRVHGWRSURYLGHGHSWKDQGVKDGRZWRWKHIDoDGHWRSURYLGHDSHGHVWULDQVFDOH
DORQJWKHVLGHZDONDQGWRFUHDWHDQHQYLURQPHQWWKDWZLOOHQFRXUDJHUHVLGHQWVWRDFWLYDWHWKHJURXQGOHYHO$OO
ZLQGRZDQGGRRUVL]HVDUHHDVLO\UHFRJQL]HGDVUHVLGHQWLDOLQQDWXUHDQGHIIRUWKDVEHHQSXWWRSODFHDPDMRULW\RI
WKHVHZLQGRZVIDFLQJ9LROHW$YHQXHWRSURYLGHWUDQVSDUHQF\DORQJWKHVWUHHWDQGDVPXFKOLJKWLQWRWKHXQLWDV
SRVVLEOH$WWKHFRUQHUVRIHDFKEXLOGLQJWKHIURQWSRUFKHVKDYHDGGHGGHWDLOWRSURYLGHYLVXDOLQWHUHVWDQGYDULHW\
DQGVWURQJHUFRORUVDUHXVHGDWWKHEXLOGLQJVWKDWPDUNWKHFRUQHUVRIWKHSURMHFWWRFUHDWHD³JDWHZD\´DQGVHQVHRI
DUULYDO
(QJLQHHUHGZRRGODSDQGVKLQJOHVLGLQJZLWKWULPLVSURSRVHGDQGZLOOEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJ
DUFKLWHFWXUDOFKDUDFWHU1HXWUDOJUD\DQGEOXHFRORUVZLOOEHXVHGLQPRVWDUHDVDQGDFRPIRUWDEOHEROGHUFRORUZLOO
EHXVHGLQDFFHQWDUHDVWRHQOLYHQWKHQHLJKERUKRRGDQGFUHDWHDVHQVHRISODFH
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 384 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
'(9(/230(176&+('8/(
7KHRZQHUDQWLFLSDWHVEHJLQQLQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLPPHGLDWHO\XSRQUHFHLSWRIEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVIURPWKH&LW\RI%RXOGHU
DQGFRPSOHWLQJEXLOGLQJVDVIXQGLQJDOORZVZKLFKLVDQWLFLSDWHGWREHRQHEXLOGLQJSHU\HDU
&23,(62)$1<63(&,$/$*5((0(176&219(<$1&(65(675,&7,21625&29(1$1767+$7:,//
*29(517+(86(0$,17(1$1&($1'&217,18('3527(&7,212)7+(*2$/62)7+(352-(&7$1'
$1<5(/$7('3$5.65(&5($7,21$5($63/$<*5281'6287/2762523(163$&(
$QDQQH[DWLRQDJUHHPHQWDPHQGPHQWIRUWKLVSDUFHOLVEHLQJDSSOLHGIRUFRQFXUUHQWO\ZLWKWKLV6LWH5HYLHZWKDW
ZRXOGFKDQJHWKHDOORZDEOHQXPEHURIXQLWVLQWKH50]RQHSRUWLRQWR FKDQJHWKH¶ULJKWRIZD\WR¶IRU
9LQH6WUHHWDORQJWKHVRXWKSURSHUW\OLQHDQGDOORZWKHDIIRUGDEOHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKH 8SODQGDQG
8SODQGSDUFHOVWREHVDWLVILHGRQWKLVSURSHUW\ZKHQWKHDIIRUGDEOHXQLWVUHFHLYHILQDO&HUWLILFDWHRI2FFXSDQF\
5(63216(72*(1(5$/&5,7(5,$)25$//6,7(5(9,(:$33/,&$7,216 K
,%RXOGHU9DOOH\&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ
$ +RZLVWKHSURSRVHGVLWHSODQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHODQGXVHPDSDQGWKHVHUYLFHDUHDPDSDQGRQEDODQFHWKH
SROLFLHVRIWKH%RXOGHU9DOOH\&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ"
7KHVLWHLVORFDWHGLQWKH0HGLXP'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO]RQHLQWKH%9&37KHPHGLXPGHQVLW\GHVLJQDWLRQLQWKH
%9&3DOORZVIRUDGHQVLW\RIVL[WRXQLWVSHUDFUH7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWIDOOVZLWKLQWKDWUDQJH±E\
SURSRVLQJXQLWVSHUDFUH XQLWVRQDDFUHVLWH 2WKHUNH\SROLFLHVWKDWWKHSURSRVHGVLWHSODQDGGUHVVHV
LQFOXGH
6XVWDLQDELOLW\WKURXJKWKRXJKWIXOVLWHSODQGHVLJQFRQQHFWLRQWRWKHODUJHUQHLJKERUKRRGDQGFLW\WKHSRWHQWLDOXVHRI
UHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\DQGRYHUDOOEXLOGLQJDQGVLWHGHVLJQWKDWUHGXFHVWKHXVHRIQRQUHQHZDEOHUHVRXUFHV
$ZHOFRPLQJDQGLQFOXVLYHFRPPXQLW\E\SURYLGLQJ GHVSHUDWHO\QHHGHGSHUPDQHQWO\DIIRUGDEOHIRUVDOHKRXVLQJ
XQLWVZLWKLQ%RXOGHUWKDWZLOOKHOSEDODQFHWKHGLVSDULW\EHWZHHQMREVZLWKLQWKHFLW\DQGDYDLODEOHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
ZLWKLQWKHFLW\
6WURQJFLW\DQGFRXQW\FRRSHUDWLRQE\LQYROYLQJDQGUHVSRQGLQJWRERWK&LW\VWDIIDQGVXUURXQGLQJFRPPXQLW\
PHPEHUFRPPHQWVLQWKHGHVLJQGLUHFWLRQRIWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
7KHXQLTXHFRPPXQLW\LGHQWLW\DQGVHQVHRISODFHE\UHVSHFWLQJWKHFRPPXQLW\¶VVHWWLQJDQGKLVWRU\LQWKHSURSRVHG
DUFKLWHFWXUDOFKDUDFWHUDQGVLWHSODQGHVLJQ
&RPSDFWFRQWLJXRXVGHYHORSPHQWDQGLQILOOWKDWVXSSRUWVHYROXWLRQWRDPRUHVXVWDLQDEOHXUEDQIRUPE\SURYLGLQJ
DSSURSULDWHDQGQHHGHGSHUPDQHQWO\DIIRUGDEOHIRUVDOHGHQVLW\LQDGHYHORSLQJVHFWLRQRIWKH1RUWK%RXOGHU
UHVLGHQWLDODUHD
(QYLURQPHQWDOVWHZDUGVKLSDQGFOLPDWHDFWLRQE\UHGXFLQJDQGPLQLPL]LQJWKHXVHRIQRQUHQHZDEOHUHVRXUFHV
WKURXJKRXWWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
$GLYHUVLW\RIKRXVLQJW\SHVDQGSULFHUDQJHVE\SURYLGLQJWZRGLIIHUHQWSHUPDQHQWO\DIIRUGDEOHIRUVDOHXQLWW\SHV
IDPLO\FHQWULFWKUHHEHGURRPXQLWVDQG DFFHVVLEOHRQHEHGURRPXQLWV
$QDOOPRGHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQV\VWHPWRPDNHJHWWLQJDURXQGZLWKRXWDFDUHDV\DQGDFFHVVLEOHWRHYHU\RQHE\
SURYLGLQJDUREXVW7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HPDQG0DQDJHPHQWSODQWRDOOUHVLGHQWVDQGDGGLQJPXOWLPRGDOFRQQHFWLRQVWR
H[LVWLQJDQGDQWLFLSDWHGQHLJKERUKRRGDQGFLW\V\VWHPV
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 385 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
3K\VLFDOKHDOWKDQGZHOOEHLQJE\SURYLGLQJFHQWUDOXVDEOHRSHQVSDFHZHOOLQH[FHVVRIWKH&LW\¶V]RQLQJ
UHTXLUHPHQWIRUUHVLGHQWVDQGQHLJKERUVDOLNHDQGE\LPSURYLQJFRQQHFWLRQVWR%RXOGHU¶VQHWZRUNRIWUDLOVDQGRSHQ
VSDFH
% 7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWVKDOOQRWH[FHHGWKHPD[LPXPGHQVLW\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH%RXOGHU
9DOOH\&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHGHVLJQDWLRQ$GGLWLRQDOO\LIWKHGHQVLW\RIH[LVWLQJUHVLGHQWLDO
GHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQDIRRWDUHDVXUURXQGLQJWKHVLWHLVDWRUH[FHHGVWKHGHQVLW\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH%RXOGHU9DOOH\
&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQWKHQWKHPD[LPXPGHQVLW\SHUPLWWHGRQWKHVLWHVKDOOQRWH[FHHGWKHOHVVHURI
L WKHGHQVLW\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH%RXOGHU9DOOH\&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQRU
LL WKHPD[LPXPQXPEHURIXQLWVWKDWFRXOGEHSODFHGRQWKHVLWHZLWKRXWZDLYLQJRUYDU\LQJDQ\RIWKH
UHTXLUHPHQWVRI&KDSWHU %XONDQG'HQVLW\6WDQGDUGV%5&
+RZLVWKHSURSRVHGVLWHSODQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHDERYHGHQVLW\FULWHULD"
$FFRUGLQJWRWKH%9&3WKHDOORZDEOHGHQVLW\LQWKHPHGLXPGHQVLW\GHVLJQDWLRQLQQHZO\GHYHORSLQJDUHDVLVIURP
VL[WRXQLWVSHUDFUH7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWSURSRVHV XQLWVRQDDFUHVLWHDGHQVLW\RIXQLWVSHU
DFUH1HLWKHUWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWQRUDQ\H[LVWLQJUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQDIRRWDUHDVXUURXQGLQJ
WKHVLWHLVDWRUH[FHHGVWKHGHQVLW\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH%9&3
& +RZGRHVWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW¶VVXFFHVVLQPHHWLQJWKHEURDGUDQJHRI%9&3SROLFLHVFRQVLGHUWKH
HFRQRPLFIHDVLELOLW\RILPSOHPHQWDWLRQWHFKQLTXHVUHTXLUHGWRPHHWRWKHUVLWHUHYLHZFULWHULD"
7KHSURMHFWVXSSRUWVPXFKQHHGHGRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUIRUVDOHEHORZPHGLDQLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVE\SURYLGLQJ
SHUPDQHQWO\DIIRUGDEOHIRUVDOHXQLWVLQDFRXSOHRIXQLWW\SHV DWKUHHEHGURRPXQLWWKDWLVVXLWDEOHIRUIDPLOLHVDQG
DRQHEHGURRPIXOO\DFFHVVLEOHXQLWWKDWVXSSRUWVWKHJURZLQJQHHGIRU³DJHLQSODFH´UHVLGHQFHV7KHSURSRVHG
DUFKLWHFWXUDOFKDUDFWHULVJHQHUDOO\FRQVLVWHQWZLWKDQGDQLPSURYHPHQWRQWKHPRGHVWHVWDEOLVKHGFKDUDFWHURI
VXUURXQGLQJQHLJKERUKRRGVZKLOHSURSRVLQJDFRPSDFWSDWWHUQRIGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKERWKWKH
]RQLQJDQGWKHGHQVLW\DGYRFDWHGE\WKH%9&3
,,6LWH'HVLJQ
3URMHFWVVKRXOGSUHVHUYHDQGHQKDQFHWKHFRPPXQLW\
VXQLTXHVHQVHRISODFHWKURXJKFUHDWLYHGHVLJQWKDWUHVSHFWV
KLVWRULFFKDUDFWHUUHODWLRQVKLSWRWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGLWVSK\VLFDOVHWWLQJ3URMHFWVVKRXOGXWLOL]HVLWHGHVLJQ
WHFKQLTXHVZKLFKHQKDQFHWKHTXDOLW\RIWKHSURMHFW,QGHWHUPLQLQJZKHWKHUWKLVVXEVHFWLRQLVPHWWKHDSSURYLQJ
DJHQF\ZLOOFRQVLGHUWKHIROORZLQJIDFWRUV
$ 2SHQVSDFHLQFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQSDUNVUHFUHDWLRQDUHDVDQGSOD\JURXQGV
+RZLVXVHDEOHRSHQVSDFHDUUDQJHGWREHDFFHVVLEOHDQGIXQFWLRQDODQGKRZGRHVLWLQFRUSRUDWHTXDOLW\
ODQGVFDSLQJDPL[WXUHRIVXQDQGVKDGHDQGSODFHVWRJDWKHU"
7KHXVHDEOHRSHQVSDFHKDVEHHQUHORFDWHGWREHPRUHFHQWUDOWRWKHVLWHSODQSHU6WDII¶VFRPPHQWVDWFRQFHSW
UHYLHZLQDQHIIRUWWRPDNHWKHRSHQVSDFHPRUHIXQFWLRQDODQGVDIH7KHSURSRVHGRSHQVSDFHKDVEHHQGHVLJQHG
WRDFFRPPRGDWHDQXPEHURISRVVLEOHXVHV VRPHVSDFHVDUHPRUHSXEOLFDQGDSSURSULDWHIRUJDWKHULQJVRUJURXS
SOD\DQGRWKHUVSDFHVDUHPRUHSULYDWHDQGDOORZIRUUHVWDQGFRQWHPSODWLRQ7KHUHDUHPXOWLSOHFRQQHFWLRQVWRWKH
RSHQVSDFHWKURXJKWKHVLWHPDNLQJLWHDVLO\DFFHVVLEOHIRUERWKUHVLGHQWVDQGQHLJKERUVDOLNH%HQFKHVKDYHEHHQ
SODFHGDURXQGWKHVLWHWRSURYLGHVSDFHVWRUHVW DPRVWO\IODWODZQLVSURSRVHGRQWKHZHVWHUQVLGHRIWKHVLWHWR
DOORZIRUJURXSSOD\ DSHUJRODLVSURSRVHGLQWKHFHQWHURIWKHVLWHZKHUHVPDOOJURXSVFDQJDWKHU D³PHDGRZ´ZLWK
IORZHUVDQGJUDVVHVLVSURSRVHGRQWKHHDVWHUQVLGHDVDPRUHRUJDQLFSODFHRIGLVFRYHU\ WKHGHWHQWLRQDUHDVORSH
KDVEHHQPLQLPL]HGWRDOORZLWWREHXVDEOHRSHQVSDFH DPXOWLIXQFWLRQDOERDUGZDONWKDWFURVVHVWKHGHWHQWLRQDUHD
LVSURSRVHGDVERWKDVDFRQQHFWRUWRWKHSDUNLQJDUHDDVZHOODVDSODFHRIUHVWRUDQLPSURPSWXVWDJHIRUWKH
DPSKLWKHDWHU DQGVHDWLQJIRUWKHDPSKLWKHDWHUKDVEHHQLQWHJUDWHGLQWRWKHVORSHRIWKHGHWHQWLRQDUHD
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 386 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
+RZLVSULYDWHRSHQVSDFHSURYLGHGIRUHDFKGHWDFKHGUHVLGHQWLDOXQLW"
,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHSXEOLFRSHQVSDFHSULYDWHUHDU\DUGVDUHSURSRVHGIRUHDFKUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWZKHUHWKHUHVLGHQWVFDQ
FKRRVHRQHRIILYHODQGVFDSHRSWLRQVDWWKHWLPHWKH\WDNHRYHURZQHUVKLSSURYLGLQJYDULHW\RIODQGVFDSLQJ
WKURXJKRXWWKHSURMHFWDQGDIHHOLQJRIRZQHUVKLSIRUWKHUHVLGHQWV)URQWSRUFKHVDQGODQGVFDSHGIURQWODZQVDUH
SURSRVHGIRUHDFKXQLWDGGLQJWRWKHXVHDEOHSULYDWHRSHQVSDFH
+RZGRHVWKHSURMHFWSURYLGHIRUWKHSUHVHUYDWLRQRIQDWXUDOIHDWXUHVLQFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQKHDOWK\ORQJ
OLYHGWUHHVWHUUDLQVLJQLILFDQWSODQWFRPPXQLWLHVWKUHDWHQHGDQGHQGDQJHUHGVSHFLHVDQGKDELWDWJURXQGDQG
VXUIDFHZDWHUZHWODQGVULSDULDQDUHDVDQGGUDLQDJHDUHDV"
1RQHRIWKHH[LVWLQJWUHHVDUHSURSRVHGWREHSUHVHUYHGDWWKLVWLPH7KHUHDUHPDQ\H[LVWLQJVSHFLPHQVZKLFKDUH
HLWKHUQRWGHVLUDEOHDVGHILQHGE\&LW\DSSURYHGVHOHFWLRQVRUDUHLQSRRUFRQGLWLRQJURXSHGWRRFORVHO\RUGHDGDQG
VKRXOGEHUHSODFHG7KHUHDUHQRVLJQLILFDQWSODQWFRPPXQLWLHVSUHVHQW$VWXG\RIDQ\H[LVWLQJSUDLULHGRJ
SRSXODWLRQDQGDSODQIRUWKHLUUHORFDWLRQZLOOEHFRPSOHWHGRQFHWKHSURMHFWLVDSSURYHGE\WKH&LW\RI%RXOGHU
([LVWLQJVXUIDFHZDWHULVQRWSUHVHQWLQDQ\PHDVXUDEOHTXDQWLW\DQGWKHUHIRUHWKHUHDUHQRZHWODQGVULSDULDQDUHDV
RUGUDLQDJHDUHDVRQWKLVVLWHWREHSUHVHUYHG
+RZGRHVWKHRSHQVSDFHSURYLGHDUHOLHIWRWKHGHQVLW\ERWKZLWKLQWKHSURMHFWDQGIURPVXUURXQGLQJ
GHYHORSPHQW"
7KHVXUURXQGLQJGHYHORSPHQWLVQRWRIKLJKGHQVLW\:LWKLQWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWZHKDYHSURYLGHGDQXPEHU
RIRSHQVSDFHRSWLRQVIRUUHVLGHQWVDQGYLVLWRUVDOLNHLQFOXGLQJERWKSULYDWHDQGSXEOLFVSDFHV(DFKUHVLGHQWLDOXQLW
KDVEHHQSURYLGHGZLWKDSULYDWHUHDU\DUGDQGDIURQWSRUFK)RUWKHFRPPXQLW\DVDZKROHWKHUHLVDODUJHRSHQ
VSDFHLQWKHFHQWHURIWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWWKDWLVHDVLO\DFFHVVLEOHDQGYLVLEOHWRDOOUHVLGHQWV7KHVRXWKHDVW
FRUQHURIWKHSURSHUW\LVSODQQHGWRWDNHDGYDQWDJHRIDORZVORSHGHWHQWLRQDUHDWRFUHDWHDQRWKHUSODFHWRZDON
UHVWRUSOD\$OORIWKHVHVSDFHVDUHFRQQHFWHGE\VDIHFRPIRUWDEOHVLGHZDONVZLWKLQWKHGHYHORSPHQW
+RZGRHVWKHRSHQVSDFHSURYLGHDEXIIHUWRSURWHFWVHQVLWLYHHQYLURQPHQWDOIHDWXUHVDQGQDWXUDODUHDV"
$ORQJWKHQRUWKSURSHUW\OLQHZHSURSRVHWRODQGVFDSHWKHVHWEDFNZLWKQDWLYHJUDVVHVDQGWUHHVWRSURYLGHDEXIIHU
IURP9LROHW$YHQXH
,ISRVVLEOHKRZLVRSHQVSDFHOLQNHGWRDQDUHDRUDFLW\ZLGHV\VWHP"
:HDUHSURSRVLQJWRDGGD¶PXOWLPRGDOSDWKDORQJWKHZHVWHUQSURSHUW\OLQHWKDWFRQQHFWVWKHSURSRVHGVLGHZDON
DQGELNHODQHDORQJ9LROHW$YHQXHRQWKHQRUWKRIWKHSURSHUW\WRWKHSURSRVHGQHZDOOH\RQWKHVRXWKRIWKH
SURSHUW\7KLVZLOODOORZIRUDPXOWLPRGDOFRQQHFWLRQWRIXWXUHQHLJKERUKRRGWUDLOVRQFHWKHVXUURXQGLQJSDUFHOVDUH
GHYHORSHG$OVRSURSRVHGLVDGHVLJQDWHG¶ELNHODQHDORQJ9LROHW$YHQXHZKLFKZLOOFRQQHFWWKHHQWLUHSURMHFWWR
WKHDUHDDQGFLW\ZLGHV\VWHP
% 2SHQ6SDFHLQ0L[HG8VH'HYHORSPHQWV 'HYHORSPHQWVWKDWFRQWDLQDPL[RIUHVLGHQWLDODQGQRQUHVLGHQWLDO
XVHV
+RZGRHVWKHRSHQVSDFHSURYLGHIRUDEDODQFHRISULYDWHDQGVKDUHGDUHDVIRUWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVDQGFRPPRQ
RSHQVSDFHWKDWLVDYDLODEOHIRUXVHE\ERWKWKHUHVLGHQWLDODQGQRQUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVWKDWZLOOPHHWWKHQHHGVRIWKH
DQWLFLSDWHGUHVLGHQWVRFFXSDQWVWHQDQWVDQGYLVLWRUVRIWKHSURSHUW\"
1RWDSSOLFDEOHDVWKLVLVDUHVLGHQWLDOSURMHFW
+RZGRHVWKHRSHQVSDFHSURYLGHDFWLYHDUHDVDQGSDVVLYHDUHDVWKDWZLOOPHHWWKHQHHGVRIWKHDQWLFLSDWHG
UHVLGHQWVRFFXSDQWVWHQDQWVDQGYLVLWRUVRIWKHSURSHUW\DQGKRZLVWKHRSHQVSDFHFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKH
VXUURXQGLQJDUHDRUDQDGRSWHGSODQIRUWKHDUHD"
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 387 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
1RWDSSOLFDEOHDVWKLVLVDUHVLGHQWLDOSURMHFW
& /DQGVFDSLQJ
+RZGRHVWKHSURMHFWSURYLGHIRUDHVWKHWLFHQKDQFHPHQWDQGDYDULHW\RISODQWDQGKDUGVXUIDFHPDWHULDOVDQG
KRZGRHVWKHVHOHFWLRQRIPDWHULDOVSURYLGHIRUDYDULHW\RIFRORUVDQGFRQWUDVWDQGKRZGRHVLWLQFRUSRUDWHWKH
SUHVHUYDWLRQRUXVHRIORFDOQDWLYHYHJHWDWLRQZKHUHDSSURSULDWH"
/DQGVFDSLQJZLWKLQWKHVLWHZLOOVHUYHWKHXVHUVDQGWKHFRPPXQLW\ERWKDHVWKHWLFDOO\DQGIXQFWLRQDOO\7KHVSHFLILF
ODQGVFDSHPDWHULDOVFKRVHQIRUWKHGHYHORSPHQWZLOOEHRIQDWLYHVSHFLHVWRPLQLPL]HZDWHUFRQVXPSWLRQDQGZLOO
HPSKDVL]HDYDULHW\RIFRORUVWH[WXUHVDQGIRUPVLQRUGHUWRSURYLGH\HDUURXQGLQWHUHVW$PRQJWKHPDMRU
ODQGVFDSHREMHFWLYHVDUHWKHIROORZLQJ
L3URYLGHDQDWWUDFWLYHVWUHHWVFDSHDORQJQGDQG9LROHW$YHQXH
LL9LVXDOO\HQKDQFHWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOIHDWXUHVRQWKHFRUQHUVDQGHQWULHVLQWRWKHSURMHFW
LLL3URYLGHFRPIRUWDEOHVDIHVLGHZDONVZLWKLQWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWE\FUHDWLQJEXIIHUVEHWZHHQWKH
VLGHZDONVDQGWKHSDUNLQJDUHDV
LY3URYLGHVKDGHDQGYLVXDOLQWHUHVWWKURXJKRXWWKHSURMHFWE\SURYLGLQJDYDULHW\RIWUHHW\SHVDQGVL]HV
Y6FUHHQDQGEUHDNXSWKHSDUNLQJDORQJWKHDOOH\ZLWKODQGVFDSHDUHDVDQG
YL3URYLGHHQFORVHGDUHDVIRUWUDVKDQGUHF\FOLQJ
+RZGRHVWKHODQGVFDSHDQGGHVLJQDWWHPSWWRDYRLGPLQLPL]HRUPLWLJDWHLPSDFWVWRLPSRUWDQWQDWLYHVSHFLHV
SODQWFRPPXQLWLHVRIVSHFLDOFRQFHUQWKUHDWHQHGDQGHQGDQJHUHGVSHFLHVDQGKDELWDWE\LQWHJUDWLQJWKHH[LVWLQJ
QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWLQWRWKHSURMHFW"
7KHUHDUHQRLPSRUWDQWQDWLYHVSHFLHVRUSODQWFRPPXQLWLHVRIVSHFLDOFRQFHUQ$VWXG\ZLOOEHFRPSOHWHGGXULQJVLWH
UHYLHZWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKUHDWHQHGDQGHQGDQJHUHGVSHFLHVDQGKDELWDWDUHSUHVHQWRQWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\LIGHHPHG
QHFHVVDU\E\WKH&LW\RI%RXOGHUVWDII7KHSURSRVHGODQGVFDSHSDOHWWHZLOOEHDFRPELQDWLRQRI[HULVFDSLQJDQG
DGDSWLYHDQGQDWLYHSODQWVWKDWDUHNQRZQWRWKULYHLQWKHPLFURFOLPDWHRI1RUWK%RXOGHU
+RZGRHVWKHSURMHFWSURYLGHVLJQLILFDQWDPRXQWVRISODQWPDWHULDOVL]HGLQH[FHVVRIWKHODQGVFDSLQJ
UHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQV DQG /DQGVFDSLQJDQG6FUHHQLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWVDQG6WUHHWVFDSH'HVLJQ
6WDQGDUGV%5&
2XUSODQH[FHHGVWKH*HQHUDO/DQGVFDSLQJDQG6FUHHQLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWVLQWKHIROORZLQJZD\V
2SHQ6SDFH 2YHUDQDFUHRIXVDEOHRSHQVSDFHLVSURYLGHGZKHUHQRQHLVUHTXLUHG
3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVV $OWKRXJKQRZDONVDUHUHTXLUHGLQWKH50]RQHSDYHGSHGHVWULDQZDONZD\VWR
DOOXQLWVSDUNLQJDUHDVDQGFRPPRQRSHQVSDFHDUHSURYLGHG
0LQLPXP2YHUDOO6LWH/DQGVFDSLQJ $OWKRXJKQRODQGVFDSLQJLVUHTXLUHGLQWKH50]RQHWUHHV
DQGVKUXEVDUHSURYLGHG
0LQLPXP3ODQW6L]HV 'HFLGXRXVWUHHVVKDOOEHWZRDQGDKDOILQFKHV'%+ZKHUHRQO\WZRLQFK
FDOLSHULVUHTXLUHG(YHUJUHHQVVKDOOEHIHHWWDOOZKHUHRQO\ILYHIHHWWDOOLVUHTXLUHG
7UHH3URWHFWLRQ $OOH[LVWLQJWUHHVDUHQR[LRXVZHHGV:HZLOOUHPRYHDOORIWKLVLQYDVLYHDQG
RWKHUZLVHXQGHVLUDEOHSODQWPDWHULDODQGUHSODFHZLWKODQGVFDSLQJWKDWZLOOLPSURYHWKHKHDOWKRI
WKHVLWH
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 388 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
+RZDUHWKHVHWEDFNV\DUGVDQGXVHDEOHRSHQVSDFHDORQJSXEOLFULJKWVRIZD\ODQGVFDSHGWRSURYLGHDWWUDFWLYH
VWUHHWVFDSHVWRHQKDQFHDUFKLWHFWXUDOIHDWXUHVDQGWRFRQWULEXWHWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDQDWWUDFWLYHVLWHSODQ"
$VVKRZQLQWKHSODQDQGDOOXGHGWRDERYHWKHVWUHHWVFDSHDORQJ9LROHW$YHQXHLVYHU\ULFKZLWKWKHDGGLWLRQRI
VWUHHWWUHHVD¶VLGHZDONDQGODQGVFDSHGIURQW\DUGVWKDWHQKDQFHWKHUHVLGHQWLDOFKDUDFWHUDQGIURQWSRUFKHV
/DUJHGHFLGXRXVWUHHVKDYHEHHQSODFHGDWWKHPDLQSHGHVWULDQHQWU\DORQJ9LROHWDQGHYHUJUHHQWUHHVKDYHEHHQ
SODFHGRQWKHHQGVRIWKHSURSHUW\DORQJ9LROHW$YHQXHWRYLVXDOO\IRUWLI\WKHFRUQHUVRIWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
6WUHHWWUHHVKDYHEHHQORFDWHGDORQJQG6WUHHWLQDSURSRVHGQHZ¶ODQGVFDSLQJVWULSZLWKD¶GHWDFKHGVLGHZDON
LQDQHIIRUWWRERWKEHDXWLI\DQGPDNHVDIHUWKHSHGHVWULDQH[SHULHQFHDORQJQG6WUHHW,QDGGLWLRQWUHHVKDYH
EHHQDGGHGDORQJWKHSURSRVHGQHZDOOH\WRPDNHLWPRUHDWWUDFWLYH
' &LUFXODWLRQLQFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQWKHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQV\VWHPWKDWVHUYHVWKHSURSHUW\ZKHWKHUSXEOLFRU
SULYDWHDQGZKHWKHUFRQVWUXFWHGE\WKHGHYHORSHURUQRW
+RZDUHKLJKVSHHGVGLVFRXUDJHGRUDSK\VLFDOVHSDUDWLRQEHWZHHQVWUHHWVDQGWKHSURMHFWSURYLGHG"
$QHZ¶ODQGVFDSLQJVWULSZLWKVWUHHWWUHHVDQGDGHWDFKHGVLGHZDONLVSURSRVHGIRUERWK9LROHWDQGQG6WUHHWWKDW
ZLOOSURYLGHDSK\VLFDOVHSDUDWLRQEHWZHHQWKHVWUHHWVDQGWKHSURMHFW$ORQJWKHSURSRVHGQHZDOOH\ODQGVFDSLQJ
DUHDVSDUNLQJVSDFHVVWRUDJHXQLWVDQGVLGHZDONVSURYLGHWKHSK\VLFDOVHSDUDWLRQIURPWKHDGMDFHQWRSHQVSDFH
+RZDUHSRWHQWLDOFRQIOLFWVZLWKYHKLFOHVPLQLPL]HG"
3RWHQWLDOFRQIOLFWVZLWKYHKLFOHVDUHPLQLPL]HGWKURXJKWKHSK\VLFDOVHSDUDWLRQVRXWOLQHGDERYHDVZHOODVWKH
GHFLVLRQWRSURYLGHRQO\DVLQJOHFXUEFXWWRDFFHVVWKHVLWHZKHUHWKHSURSRVHGQHZDOOH\FRQQHFWVWRQG6WUHHW
+RZDUHVDIHDQGFRQYHQLHQWFRQQHFWLRQVDFFHVVLEOHWRWKHSXEOLFZLWKLQWKHSURMHFWDQGEHWZHHQWKHSURMHFWDQG
H[LVWLQJDQGSURSRVHGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQV\VWHPVSURYLGHGLQFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQVWUHHWVELNHZD\VSHGHVWULDQ
ZD\VDQGWUDLOV"
:LWKLQWKHSURMHFWVDIHDQGDFFHVVLEOHVLGHZDONVFRQQHFWDOOWKHXQLWVWRWKHSURSRVHGRSHQVSDFHSDUNLQJDUHDV¶
PXOWLPRGDOSDWKDORQJWKHZHVWSURSHUW\OLQHDQGWKHSURSRVHGGHWDFKHGVLGHZDONVDORQJERWK9LROHWDQGQG
6WUHHW7KHZHOOSODFHGVLGHZDONFRQQHFWLRQVPDNHWKHSURMHFWSHUPHDEOHZLWKJUHDWDFFHVVWR9LROHW$YHQXH:H
DUHSURSRVLQJD¶ELNHODQHDORQJ9LROHW$YHQXHWRDOLJQZLWKWKH%9&3¶VYLVLRQRIFUHDWLQJDIXWXUHELNHODQHDORQJ
WKHHQWLUHW\RI9LROHW$YHQXHZKLFKZLOOFRQQHFWWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWWRFLW\ZLGHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQV\VWHPVSDWKV
DQGWUDLOV
+RZDUHDOWHUQDWLYHVWRWKHDXWRPRELOHSURPRWHGE\LQFRUSRUDWLQJVLWHGHVLJQWHFKQLTXHVODQGXVHSDWWHUQVDQG
VXSSRUWLQJLQIUDVWUXFWXUHWKDWVXSSRUWVDQGHQFRXUDJHVZDONLQJELNLQJDQGRWKHUDOWHUQDWLYHVWRWKHVLQJOHRFFXSDQW
YHKLFOH"
•$UREXVW7'0SODQLVSURSRVHGWKDWZRXOGVXSSRUWDQGSURPRWHWKHXVHRIDOWHUQDWLYHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLQD
YDULHW\RIZD\V
•:HSURSRVHWRH[FHHGWKHORQJWHUPELF\FOHSDUNLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGPHHWWKHVKRUWWHUPELF\FOHSDUNLQJ
UHTXLUHPHQWVVHWIRUWKE\WKH&LW\
•7KHVDIHDQGFRQYHQLHQWO\ORFDWHGVLGHZDONVDQGSDWKVDUHGHVLJQHGWRHQFRXUDJHFRQQHFWLRQVE\ZDONLQJ
UDWKHUWKDQGULYLQJHVSHFLDOO\LQWKHIXWXUHDVWKHVXUURXQGLQJQHLJKERUKRRGGHYHORSV
:KHUHSUDFWLFDODQGEHQHILFLDOKRZLVDVLJQLILFDQWVKLIWDZD\IURPVLQJOHRFFXSDQWYHKLFOHXVHWRDOWHUQDWH
PRGHVSURPRWHGWKURXJKWKHXVHRIWUDYHOGHPDQGPDQDJHPHQWWHFKQLTXHV"
3OHDVHUHIHUWRWKH7'0SODQVXEPLWWHGZLWKWKH6LWH5HYLHZ$SSOLFDWLRQ
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 389 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
:KDWRQVLWHIDFLOLWLHVIRUH[WHUQDOOLQNDJHZLWKRWKHUPRGHVRIWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDUHSURYLGHGZKHUHDSSOLFDEOH"
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
+RZLVWKHDPRXQWRIODQGGHYRWHGWRWKHVWUHHWV\VWHPPLQLPL]HG"
$¶SXEOLF52:KDVEHHQGHGLFDWHGRQWKHVRXWKSURSHUW\OLQHWRDOORZIRUDQDOOH\WRFRQQHFWWKURXJKWKHVLWHWR
IXWXUHGHYHORSPHQWWRWKHZHVW$XWRPRELOHSDUNLQJLVDFFHVVHGIURPWKHDOOH\LQDQHIIRUWWRPLQLPL]HSDYHPHQW
WKURXJKRXWWKHVLWHZKLFKZDVDSRVLWLYHVLWHSODQOD\RXWFKDQJHWKDWZDVVXJJHVWHGE\&LW\6WDIIPHPEHUVDWWKH
WLPHRI&RQFHSW5HYLHZ$OVRDSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQLVEHLQJSURSRVHGWRPLQLPL]HWKHDPRXQWRISDYHPHQWUHTXLUHG
RQVLWHWRSURPRWHDOWHUQDWLYHPRGHVRIWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDQGWRLQFUHDVHWKHXVHDEOHRSHQVSDFHDYDLODEOHWR
UHVLGHQWVDQGWKHQHLJKERUKRRGDVDZKROH
+RZLVWKHSURMHFWGHVLJQHGIRUWKHW\SHVRIWUDIILFH[SHFWHGLQFOXGLQJZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQDXWRPRELOHVELF\FOHV
DQGSHGHVWULDQVDQGKRZGRHVLWSURYLGHVDIHW\VHSDUDWLRQIURPOLYLQJDUHDVDQGFRQWURORIQRLVHDQGH[KDXVW" DQG
7UDIILFHQWHULQJDQGOHDYLQJWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWZLOOGRVRWKURXJKRQHDFFHVVSRLQWDORQJQG6WUHHWZKLFK
LVORFDWHGIXUWKHVWDZD\IURPWKHPDMRULW\RIWKHXQLWVDVSRVVLEOHWRFRQWURODXWRPRELOHQRLVHDQGH[KDXVW7KLV
PLQLPDODPRXQWRILQWHUUXSWLRQRIWKHVLGHZDONDOVRPD[LPL]HVSHGHVWULDQVDIHW\'HWDFKHGVLGHZDONVZLWK¶
ODQGVFDSLQJVWULSVSURSRVHGDORQJ9LROHWDQGQG6WUHHWLQFUHDVHSHGHVWULDQVDIHW\E\PD[LPL]LQJVHSDUDWLRQIURP
DXWRPRELOHFLUFXODWLRQ7KH¶PXOWLPRGDOSDWKZLOOSURYLGHDGHTXDWHVSDFHIRUUXQQHUVF\FOLVWVDQGWKHOLNHWR
VDIHO\WUDYHOWKURXJKWKHVLWH
+RZZLOOFLW\FRQVWUXFWLRQVWDQGDUGVEHPHWDQGKRZZLOOHPHUJHQF\YHKLFOHXVHEHIDFLOLWDWHG"
&LW\FRQVWUXFWLRQVWDQGDUGVZLOOEHPHWE\IROORZLQJWKH'HVLJQDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ6WDQGDUGVZKHUHDSSOLFDEOH
(PHUJHQF\YHKLFOHVZLOOKDYHDFFHVVWRWKHSURMHFW¶VEXLOGLQJVIURP9LROHW$YHQXHQG6WUHHWDQGWKHDOOH\LI
QHHGHG$OORIWKHEXLOGLQJVLQFOXGLQJ%XLOGLQJ$RQWKHVRXWKZHVWFRUQHURIWKHVLWHDUHZLWKLQ¶RI9LROHW$YHQXH
IRUILUHHPHUJHQF\DFFHVV
(3DUNLQJ
+RZGRHVWKHSURMHFWLQFRUSRUDWHLQWRWKHGHVLJQRISDUNLQJDUHDVPHDVXUHVWRSURYLGHVDIHW\FRQYHQLHQFHDQG
VHSDUDWLRQRISHGHVWULDQPRYHPHQWVIURPYHKLFXODUPRYHPHQWV"
$OORIWKHSDUNLQJLVDFFHVVHGIURPWKHDOOH\DWWKHIDUVRXWKRIWKHSURSHUW\NHHSLQJSHGHVWULDQDQGYHKLFXODU
FLUFXODWLRQDVVHSDUDWHDVSRVVLEOH3ODQWHUVDUHSURSRVHGDWWKHQRUWKHGJHRIWKHXQEXQGOHGSDUNLQJDUHDDQG
VWRUDJHVKHGVDUHORFDWHGDWWKHHQGVRIHDFKEXQGOHGSDUNLQJVWDOOWRIXUWKHUVHSDUDWHERWKSK\VLFDOO\DQGYLVXDOO\
WKHSDUNLQJDUHDVIURPWKHSHGHVWULDQPRYHPHQWV6LGHZDONDFFHVVDQGVLWHOLJKWLQJKDVEHHQFDUHIXOO\ORFDWHGWR
SURYLGHVDIHFRQYHQLHQWDFFHVVIURPHDFKXQLWWRWKHSDUNLQJDUHDV
+RZGRHVWKHGHVLJQRISDUNLQJDUHDVPDNHHIILFLHQWXVHRIWKHODQGDQGXVHWKHPLQLPXPDPRXQWRIODQG
QHFHVVDU\WRPHHWWKHSDUNLQJQHHGVRIWKHSURMHFW"
7KHSDUNLQJDUHDOD\RXWUHIOHFWV6WDII¶VUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDW&RQFHSW5HYLHZZKHUHDOORIWKHSDUNLQJVSDFHVDUH
DFFHVVHGIURPWKHDOOH\PLQLPL]LQJWKHQHHGIRUDGGLWLRQDOSDYHPHQW$SDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQLVSURSRVHGWKDWIXUWKHU
UHGXFHVWKHDPRXQWRIODQGGHGLFDWHGWRWKHSDUNLQJQHHGVRIWKHSURMHFW
+RZDUHWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVDQGOLJKWLQJGHVLJQHGWRUHGXFHWKHYLVXDOLPSDFWRQWKHSURMHFWDGMDFHQWSURSHUWLHV
DQGDGMDFHQWVWUHHWV"
7KHSDUNLQJLVORFDWHGLQWHUQDOWRWKHSURMHFWDQGDORQJWKHDOOH\RQWKHVRXWKSURSHUW\OLQHUHGXFLQJWKHYLVXDOLPSDFW
RIWKHSDUNLQJIURP9LROHW$YHQXHDQGQG6WUHHW,QDGGLWLRQWKHEXLOGLQJVDQGODQGVFDSLQJKDYHEHHQORFDWHGWR
VFUHHQPRVWRIWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVLQWKHSURMHFW/LJKWLQJKDVEHHQGHVLJQHGZLWKOXPLQDLUHVWKDWSURYLGHIRU
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 390 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
DGHTXDWHVDIHW\DQGVHFXULW\ZKLOHUHGXFLQJOLJKWSROOXWLRQWKDWDOORZVIRUDQHQYLURQPHQWDOO\VHQVLWLYHQLJKWWLPH
DWPRVSKHUHIRUERWKWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWDQGDGMDFHQWSURSHUWLHV
+RZGRWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVXWLOL]HODQGVFDSLQJPDWHULDOVWRSURYLGHVKDGHLQH[FHVVRIWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVLQ
6XEVHFWLRQ G DQG6HFWLRQ ³3DUNLQJ/RW/DQGVFDSLQJ6WDQGDUGV´%5& "
6KDGH $VRODUFDUSRUWZLOOVKDGHPXFKRIWKHSDUNLQJORWDQGUHGXFHXUEDQKHDWLVODQGHIIHFWZKLOH
JHQHUDWLQJSRZHU
6FUHHQLQJ3DUNLQJ/RWVIURP7KH6WUHHW $ODQGVFDSHVWULSSODQWHGZLWKZLOGIORZHUVDQGJUDVVHVRIRYHU¶
LVSURYLGHGZKHUHDPLQLPXPZLGWKRIRQO\IHHWLVUHTXLUHG
,QWHULRU3DUNLQJ/RW/DQGVFDSLQJ 2XULQWHULRUSDUNLQJORWODQGVFDSHGDUHDVH[FHHGWKHPLQLPXP
GLPHQVLRQDOUHTXLUHPHQWV
) %XLOGLQJ'HVLJQ/LYDELOLW\DQG5HODWLRQVKLSWRWKH([LVWLQJRU3URSRVHG6XUURXQGLQJ$UHD
+RZLVWKHEXLOGLQJKHLJKWPDVVVFDOHRULHQWDWLRQDUFKLWHFWXUHDQGFRQILJXUDWLRQFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHH[LVWLQJ
FKDUDFWHURIWKHDUHDRUWKHFKDUDFWHUHVWDEOLVKHGE\DGRSWHGGHVLJQJXLGHOLQHVRUSODQVIRUWKHDUHD"
7KHSURSRVHGEXLOGLQJFKDUDFWHUXWLOL]HVSLWFKHGURRIVFRYHUHGSRUFKHVUHVLGHQWLDOVFDOHZLQGRZVDQGRSHQLQJV
ODQGVFDSHGIURQW\DUGVDQGIHQFHGUHDU\DUGVWRFUHDWHDFRPSDWLEOHFKDUDFWHUZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJH[LVWLQJVLQJOH
IDPLO\KRPHV7KHSURSRVHGRULHQWDWLRQRIWKHEXLOGLQJVPLPLFWKHKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQWVWRWKHHDVWZKHUHWKH
EXLOGLQJVIDFH9LROHW$YHQXHZKLOHWKHPDLQDFFHVVLVIURPWKHEDFN2QHDQGWZRVWRU\EXLOGLQJVDUHSURSRVHG
ZKLFKLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJFRQWH[W
+RZDUHWKHKHLJKWRIEXLOGLQJVLQJHQHUDOSURSRUWLRQWRWKHKHLJKWRIH[LVWLQJEXLOGLQJVDQGWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWHG
KHLJKWVRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVRUDSSURYHGSODQVRUGHVLJQJXLGHOLQHVIRUWKHLPPHGLDWHDUHD
7KHGHYHORSPHQWSURSRVHVRQHDQGWZRVWRU\EXLOGLQJVZLWKSLWFKHGURRIVZKLFKDUHLQSURSRUWLRQWRWKHKHLJKWRI
H[LVWLQJVXUURXQGLQJRQHDQGWZRVWRU\VLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHV
+RZGRHVWKHRULHQWDWLRQRIEXLOGLQJVPLQLPL]HVKDGRZVRQDQGEORFNLQJRIYLHZVIURPDGMDFHQWSURSHUWLHV"
7KHPDMRULW\RIWKHEXLOGLQJVDUHORFDWHGDORQJWKHQRUWKSURSHUW\OLQH 9LROHW$YHQXH ZKLFKPLQLPL]HVDQ\VKDGRZV
RQWKHDGMDFHQWSURSHUW\WRWKHVRXWK7KHEXLOGLQJVDUHSRVLWLRQHGVRWKDWJDSVEHWZHHQWKHEXLOGLQJVDOORZYLHZVWR
SHUPHDWHWKURXJKWKHVLWHIURPDGMDFHQWSURSHUWLHV
,IWKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHDUHDLVLGHQWLILDEOHKRZLVWKHSURMHFWPDGHFRPSDWLEOHE\WKHDSSURSULDWHXVHRIFRORU
PDWHULDOVODQGVFDSLQJVLJQVDQGOLJKWLQJ"
7KHSURSRVHGEXLOGLQJVXVHDVLPSOHSDOHWWHRIPDWHULDOVZKLFKFRQVLVWRIKRUL]RQWDOODSVLGLQJVKLQJOHVLGLQJ
DVSKDOWURRIVGHFRUDWLYHWULPDWFRUQHUVVRIILWVDQGIDVFLDERDUGVDOORIZKLFKLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJ
QHLJKERUKRRG7KHYRFDEXODU\RIWKHDUFKLWHFWXUHLVDWUDGLWLRQDODQGXQGHUVWDWHGUHVLGHQWLDOVW\OHZKLFKLV
FRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHQHLJKERUKRRGVWRWKHHDVWDQGDQLPSURYHPHQWRQWKHPRELOHKRPHSDUNWRWKHQRUWK
/DQGVFDSLQJDQGOLJKWLQJLVGHVLJQHGWRPHHWDQGH[FHHGWKHVWDQGDUGVRIWKH&LW\RI%RXOGHUDQGDVVXFKZLOOQRW
RQO\³ILWLQ´EXWLWZLOOHQKDQFHWKHVXUURXQGLQJDUHD
+RZGREXLOGLQJVSUHVHQWDQDWWUDFWLYHVWUHHWVFDSHLQFRUSRUDWHDUFKLWHFWXUDODQGVLWHGHVLJQHOHPHQWVDSSURSULDWH
WRDSHGHVWULDQVFDOHDQGSURYLGHIRUWKHVDIHW\DQGFRQYHQLHQFHRISHGHVWULDQV"
7KHSURSRVHGEXLOGLQJVDUHEDVHGRQDVXEXUEDQW\SRORJ\XVLQJVXEVWDQWLDODQGWUDGLWLRQDOPDWHULDOVVXFKDV
KRUL]RQWDODQGVKLQJOHVLGLQJZLWKGHFRUDWLYHWULPDFFHQWHGE\KXPDQVFDOHHOHPHQWVVXFKDVUHVLGHQWLDOUDLOLQJV
IURQWSRUFKHVVORSLQJURRIVDQGZLQGRZVDQGGRRUVZKLFKDUHHDVLO\UHFRJQL]DEOHDVUHVLGHQWLDOLQFKDUDFWHU7KH
SDWWHUQPDVVLQJPDWHULDOVDQGYROXPHVIRUPHGE\WKHGHVLJQDUHDOVRHDVLO\XQGHUVWRRGDVUHVLGHQWLDO'HHS
ZHOFRPLQJIURQWSRUFKHVIDFHWKHVLGHZDONVLQYLWLQJLQWHUDFWLRQEHWZHHQUHVLGHQWVDQGSDVVHUVE\6DIHW\RIWKHDUHD
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 391 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
LVLQFUHDVHGGXHWRWKHH[WHULRUOLJKWLQJZKLFKZLOODOVREHSURYLGHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHPLQLPXPVWDQGDUGVRIWKH
&LW\RI%RXOGHU
7RWKHH[WHQWSUDFWLFDOKRZGRHVWKHSURMHFWSURYLGHSXEOLFDPHQLWLHVDQGSODQQHGSXEOLFIDFLOLWLHV"
(YHQWKRXJKWKHUHLVQRRSHQVSDFHUHTXLUHPHQWLQWKH50]RQHWKLVSURMHFWSURSRVHVSXEOLFDPHQLWLHVWKDWDUHIDU
DERYHDQGEH\RQGPDQ\QHLJKERUKRRGVRILWVW\SH7KHSHUPHDELOLW\WKURXJKWKHEXLOGLQJVWRWKHFHQWUDORSHQVSDFH
LVZHOFRPLQJWRQHLJKERUVDQGUHVLGHQWVDQGWKHPXFKLPSURYHGSXEOLFVLGHZDONVDQGPXOWLPRGDOSDWKVZLOOEHQHILW
WKHQHLJKERUKRRGQRZDQGLQWKHIXWXUHDVGHYHORSPHQWRIWKLVDUHDFRQWLQXHV7KHSURSRVHGRSHQVSDFHLV
GHVLJQHGWREHVDIHG\QDPLFDQGPXOWLIXQFWLRQDOZLWKDUHDVIRUUHVWSOD\GLVFRYHU\H[HUFLVHDQGJDWKHULQJIRU
LQGLYLGXDOVVPDOOJURXSVDQGODUJHJURXSV
)RUUHVLGHQWLDOSURMHFWVKRZGRHVWKHSURMHFWDVVLVWWKHFRPPXQLW\LQSURGXFLQJDYDULHW\RIKRXVLQJW\SHVVXFK
DVPXOWLIDPLO\WRZQKRXVHVDQGGHWDFKHGVLQJOHIDPLO\XQLWVDVZHOODVPL[HGORWVL]HVQXPEHURIEHGURRPVDQG
VL]HVRIXQLWV"
7KHSURMHFWLVSURSRVLQJWRSURYLGHGHVSHUDWHO\QHHGHGSHUPDQHQWO\DIIRUGDEOHIRUVDOHKRXVLQJLQ%RXOGHU XQLWV
DUHSURSRVHGZLWKRIWKRVHXQLWVEHLQJWZRVWRU\aVIWKUHHEHGURRPXQLWVWKDWDUHSHUIHFWIRUIDPLOLHV7KH
UHPDLQLQJWZRXQLWVZLOOVXSSRUWWKHJURZLQJQHHGWRKRXVH³DJHLQSODFH´LQGLYLGXDOVZLWKIXOO\DFFHVVLEOHRQHVWRU\
VIRQHEHGURRPXQLWV
)RUUHVLGHQWLDOSURMHFWVKRZLVQRLVHPLQLPL]HGEHWZHHQXQLWVEHWZHHQEXLOGLQJVDQGIURPHLWKHURQVLWHRURII
VLWHH[WHUQDOVRXUFHVWKURXJKVSDFLQJODQGVFDSLQJDQGEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOV"
(DFKRIWKHXQLWVZLOOEHFRQVWUXFWHGXVLQJVWDJJHUHGVWXGGHPLVLQJZDOOVDQGIORRUVZLWKDFRXVWLFDOO\LQVXODWLQJ
FRPSRQHQWVZKLFKSURYLGH67&UDWLQJVRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\EHWZHHQXQLWV(DFKRIWKHXQLWVZLOOXVHLQVXODWHGJODVV
LQWKHZLQGRZVDQGVROLGFRUHIURQWGRRUVWRUHGXFHVRXQGLPSDFWVIURPWKHVWUHHW
,IDOLJKWLQJSODQLVSURYLGHGKRZGRHVLWDXJPHQWVHFXULW\HQHUJ\FRQVHUYDWLRQVDIHW\DQGDHVWKHWLFV"
7KHOLJKWLQJSODQDLPVWRSURYLGHVDIHDQGFRPIRUWDEOHOLJKWLQJOHYHOVLQWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVDQGDORQJWKHSHGHVWULDQ
SDWKVE\SURYLGLQJIXOOFXWRIIGRZQOLJKWLQJDWXQLWHQWULHVDQGODPSSRVWOLJKWLQJDORQJWKHPDLQVLGHZDONV0RWLRQ
DFWLYDWHGOLJKWLQJIL[WXUHVDUHSURSRVHGXQGHUWKHFDUSRUWVWRFRQVHUYHHQHUJ\DQGSURYLGHVDIHW\LQWKDWDUHD
+RZGRHVWKHSURMHFWLQFRUSRUDWHWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWLQWRWKHGHVLJQDQGDYRLGPLQLPL]HRUPLWLJDWH
LPSDFWVWRQDWXUDOV\VWHPV"
%\RULHQWLQJDOORIWKHEXLOGLQJVRQDQHDVW±ZHVWD[LVDQGGHVLJQLQJWKHRSHQVSDFHVWRWKHVRXWKRIWKHPDMRULW\RI
WKHEXLOGLQJVWKHUHLVJUHDWDFFHVVWRVRODUHQHUJ\7KHJHQHURXVRSHQVSDFHFHQWUDORSHQVSDFHDQGZDWHUTXDOLW\
SRQGLQWKHVRXWKHDVWRIWKHVLWHDFWVDVVWRUPZDWHUILOWHUGHYLFHXWLOL]LQJGHVLJQVEDVHGRQSUHYLRXVZRUNZLWKWKH
(3$RQPLFURPDQDJHPHQWWHFKQLTXHV
+RZDUHFXWDQGILOOPLQLPL]HGRQWKHVLWHDQGKRZGRHVWKHGHVLJQRIEXLOGLQJVFRQIRUPWRWKHQDWXUDOFRQWRXUV
RIWKHODQGDQGKRZGRHVWKHVLWHGHVLJQPLQLPL]HHURVLRQVORSHLQVWDELOLW\ODQGVOLGHPXGIORZRUVXEVLGHQFHDQG
PLQLPL]HWKHSRWHQWLDOWKUHDWWRSURSHUW\FDXVHGE\JHRORJLFDOKD]DUGV"
&XWDQGILOODUHPLQLPL]HGE\PDLQWDLQLQJWKHH[LVWLQJGUDLQDJHSDWWHUQVRIWKHVLWH7KHVLWHJHQHUDOO\GUDLQVIURP
QRUWKZHVWWRVRXWKHDVWFXUUHQWO\DQGZLOOFRQWLQXHWKHVDPHJHQHUDOSDWWHUQDIWHUGHYHORSPHQW7KHVLWHZLOOXWLOL]H
WKHFXUUHQWVWDQGDUGVDQG%03VXVHGWRFRQWUROHURVLRQDQGVHGLPHQW6RPHRIWKH%03VWKDWZLOOEHXVHGRQWKLV
SURMHFWPD\LQFOXGHVHGLPHQWSRQGVVLOWIHQFLQJHURVLRQFRQWUROORJVLQOHWRXWOHWSURWHFWLRQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQDFFHVV
WUDFNLQJFRQWUROGHYLFHVFRQFUHWHZDVKRXWVDQGGXVWFRQWURO
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 392 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
* 6RODU6LWLQJDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ )RUWKHSXUSRVHRILQVXULQJWKHPD[LPXPSRWHQWLDOIRUXWLOL]DWLRQRIVRODUHQHUJ\
LQWKHFLW\DOODSSOLFDQWVIRUUHVLGHQWLDOVLWHUHYLHZVVKDOOSODFHVWUHHWVORWVRSHQVSDFHVDQGEXLOGLQJVVRDVWR
PD[LPL]HWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUWKHXVHRIVRODUHQHUJ\LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHIROORZLQJVRODUVLWLQJFULWHULD
3ODFHPHQWRI2SHQ6SDFHDQG6WUHHWV2SHQVSDFHDUHDVDUHORFDWHGZKHUHYHUSUDFWLFDOWRSURWHFWEXLOGLQJVIURP
VKDGLQJE\RWKHUEXLOGLQJVZLWKLQWKHGHYHORSPHQWRUIURPEXLOGLQJVRQDGMDFHQWSURSHUWLHV7RSRJUDSK\DQGRWKHU
QDWXUDOIHDWXUHVDQGFRQVWUDLQWVPD\MXVWLI\GHYLDWLRQVIURPWKLVFULWHULRQ+RZLVWKLVFULWHULRQPHW"
$VGHPRQVWUDWHGLQWKH6RODU$QDO\VLVVXEPLWWHGZLWKWKH6LWH5HYLHZDSSOLFDWLRQDOOEXLOGLQJVZLOOKDYHDFFHVVWR
VRODUHQHUJ\7KHRSHQVSDFHLVFHQWUDOL]HGRQWKHVLWHZLWKWKHPDMRULW\RIEXLOGLQJVEHLQJORFDWHGDORQJWKHQRUWK
SURSHUW\OLQH7KLVPLQLPL]HVDQ\VKDGLQJRQWKHSURSRVHGEXLOGLQJVE\DGMDFHQWGHYHORSPHQWWRWKHVRXWKERWKQRZ
DQGLQWKHIXWXUHQG6WUHHWLVORFDWHGDGMDFHQWWRWKHSURSHUW\WRWKH(DVWZKLFKZRQ¶WFDVWDQ\VKDGRZVRQWKH
SURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW
/RW/D\RXWDQG%XLOGLQJ6LWLQJ/RWVDUHRULHQWHGDQGEXLOGLQJVDUHVLWHGLQDZD\ZKLFKPD[LPL]HVWKHVRODU
SRWHQWLDORIHDFKSULQFLSDOEXLOGLQJ/RWVDUHGHVLJQHGWRIDFLOLWDWHVLWLQJDVWUXFWXUHZKLFKLVXQVKDGHGE\RWKHU
QHDUE\VWUXFWXUHV:KHUHYHUSUDFWLFDOEXLOGLQJVDUHVLWHGFORVHWRWKHQRUWKORWOLQHWRLQFUHDVH\DUGVSDFHWRWKH
VRXWKIRUEHWWHURZQHUFRQWURORIVKDGLQJ+RZLVWKLVFULWHULRQPHW"
7KHSURSRVHGVLWHSODQORFDWHVIRXURIWKHILYHEXLOGLQJVDORQJWKHQRUWKORWOLQHWRPD[LPL]HRSHQVSDFHDQGFRQWURO
RIVRODUVKDGLQJ7KLVOD\RXWDOVRPLQLPL]HVWKHVKDGLQJHIIHFWRQWKHSURSRVHGEXLOGLQJVE\DGMDFHQWSURSHUWLHVDQG
PD[LPL]HVWKHVRODUDFFHVVRIWKHEXLOGLQJVRQWKHVLWH
%XLOGLQJ)RUP7KHVKDSHVRIEXLOGLQJVDUHGHVLJQHGWRPD[LPL]HXWLOL]DWLRQRIVRODUHQHUJ\%XLOGLQJVVKDOOPHHW
WKHVRODUDFFHVVSURWHFWLRQDQGVRODUVLWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVRI&KDSWHU 6RODU$FFHVV%5& +RZLV
WKLVFULWHULRQPHW"
7KHSURMHFWPHHWVWKHFULWHULRQRIWKH%5&DVGHPRQVWUDWHGLQWKHVRODUVKDGRZGLDJUDPVXEPLWWHGZLWKWKH6LWH
5HYLHZDSSOLFDWLRQ$VGHVFULEHGDERYHWKHRULHQWDWLRQRIWKHEXLOGLQJVRQWKHHDVWZHVWD[LVDQGWKHLUORFDWLRQ
DORQJWKHQRUWKORWOLQHZLWKJHQHURXVRSHQVSDFHWRWKHVRXWKRIWKHEXLOGLQJVPD[LPL]HVWKHUHVLGHQWV¶DFFHVVWR
VRODUHQHUJ\
/DQGVFDSLQJ7KHVKDGLQJHIIHFWVRISURSRVHGODQGVFDSLQJRQDGMDFHQWEXLOGLQJVDUHPLQLPL]HG+RZLVWKLV
FULWHULRQPHW"
'HFLGXRXVWUHHVDUHXVHGWKURXJKRXWWKHSURMHFWWRSURYLGHVKDGLQJLQWKHVXPPHUDQGDOORZDFFHVVWRWKHVXQLQWKH
ZLQWHU
+ $GGLWLRQDO&ULWHULDIRU3ROHVDERYHWKH3HUPLWWHG+HLJKW1RVLWHUHYLHZDSSOLFDWLRQIRUDSROHDERYHWKH
SHUPLWWHGKHLJKWZLOOEHDSSURYHGXQOHVVWKHDSSURYLQJDJHQF\ILQGVDOORIWKHIROORZLQJ
7KHOLJKWSROHLVUHTXLUHGIRUQLJKWWLPHUHFUHDWLRQDFWLYLWLHVZKLFKDUHFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJ
QHLJKERUKRRGRUWKHOLJKWRUWUDIILFVLJQDOSROHLVUHTXLUHGIRUVDIHW\RUWKHHOHFWULFDOXWLOLW\SROHLVUHTXLUHGWRVHUYH
WKHQHHGVRIWKHFLW\" DQG
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
7KHSROHLVDWWKHPLQLPXPKHLJKWDSSURSULDWHWRDFFRPSOLVKWKHSXUSRVHVIRUZKLFKWKHSROHZDVHUHFWHGDQGLV
GHVLJQHGDQGFRQVWUXFWHGVRDVWRPLQLPL]HOLJKWDQGHOHFWURPDJQHWLFSROOXWLRQ,IDSSOLFDEOHKRZDUHWKHVHFULWHULD
PHW"
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
, /DQG8VHLQWHQVLW\0RGLILFDWLRQV
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 393 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
3RWHQWLDO/DQG8VH,QWHQVLW\0RGLILFDWLRQV
D7KHGHQVLW\RIDSURMHFWPD\EHLQFUHDVHGLQWKH%5GLVWULFWWKURXJKDUHGXFWLRQRIWKHORWDUHD
UHTXLUHPHQWRULQWKH'RZQWRZQ '7 %5RU08GLVWULFWVWKURXJKDUHGXFWLRQLQWKHRSHQVSDFH
UHTXLUHPHQWV
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
E7KHRSHQVSDFHUHTXLUHPHQWVLQDOO'RZQWRZQ '7 GLVWULFWVPD\EHUHGXFHGE\XSWRRQHKXQGUHGSHUFHQW
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
F7KHRSHQVSDFHSHUORWUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHWRWDODPRXQWRIRSHQVSDFHUHTXLUHGRQWKHORWLQWKH%5
GLVWULFWPD\EHUHGXFHGE\XSWRILIW\SHUFHQW
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
G/DQGXVHLQWHQVLW\PD\EHLQFUHDVHGXSWRWZHQW\ILYHSHUFHQWLQWKH%5GLVWULFWWKURXJKDUHGXFWLRQRIWKH
ORWDUHDUHTXLUHPHQW
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
$ODQGXVHLQWHQVLW\LQFUHDVHZLOOEHSHUPLWWHGXSWRWKHPD[LPXPDPRXQWVHWIRUWKEHORZLIWKHDSSURYLQJDJHQF\
ILQGVWKDWWKHFULWHULDLQSDUDJUDSK K WKURXJK6XESDUDJUDSK K + RIWKLVVHFWLRQDQGIROORZLQJFULWHULDKDYH
EHHQPHW
D2SHQ6SDFH1HHGV0HW +RZKDYHWKHSURMHFW¶VRFFXSDQWVDQGYLVLWRUVQHHGVIRUKLJKTXDOLW\DQG
IXQFWLRQDOXVHDEOHRSHQVSDFHEHHQPHW"
$VRXWOLQHGDERYHKLJKTXDOLW\DQGIXQFWLRQDOXVHDEOHRSHQVSDFHKDVEHHQSURYLGHGLQWKHSURSRVHGVLWH
SODQYLD
3ULYDWHUHDU\DUGVZLWKGLIIHUHQWODQGVFDSLQJRSWLRQVIRUHDFKUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWWKDWDOORZVWKHRZQHU
WRSHUVRQDOL]HWKHLUVSDFHZKLFKZLOOLQWXUQFUHDWHVDYDULHW\RIYLVXDOO\DWWUDFWLYHRXWGRRUVSDFHV
IRUWKHQHLJKERUKRRGWRHQMR\DVDZKROH
$SHUJRODORFDWHGFHQWUDOO\LQWKHRSHQVSDFHWKDWDOORZVIRUERWKVPDOOJURXSJDWKHULQJVDQG
LPSURPSWXPHHWLQJVEHWZHHQQHLJKERUV
%HQFKHVFRQYHQLHQWO\SODFHGDORQJWKHLQWHUQDOVLGHZDONVWRSURYLGHUHVLGHQWVDQGYLVLWRUVDPRUH
SULYDWHSODFHIRUUHVWDQGFRQWHPSODWLRQ
$QRSHQODZQRQWKHZHVWVLGHRIWKHSHUJRODWKDWSURYLGHVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\IRUH[HUFLVHODUJH
JURXSJDWKHULQJVDQGJDPHSOD\
$PRUHRUJDQLFDOO\SODQWHGDQGOHVVVWUXFWXUHG³PHDGRZ´RQWKHHDVWVLGHRIWKHSHUJRODZKHUHWKH
WRSRJUDSK\JHQWO\ULVHVDQGIDOOVWKDWDOORZVIRUGLVFRYHU\VORZHUSDFHGSOD\QRQSDYHGZDONLQJ
SDWKVVOHGGLQJLQWKHZLQWHUDQGPRUHLPDJLQDWLYHSOD\
$ERDUGZDONWKDWFURVVHVWKHGHWHQWLRQDUHDWKDWKDVEHHQHQODUJHGWRSURYLGHDSODFHRIUHVW
FRQWHPSODWLRQDQGSRVVLEO\DVWDJHIRUSOD\V
)ODWURFNVHDWLQJDUHDVORFDWHGLQWKHVORSHRIWKHGHWHQWLRQSRQGWKDWFRXOGDFWDVVPDOO
DPSKLWKHDWHUVHDWLQJIRUWKH³VWDJH´RXWOLQHGDERYH
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 394 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
E&KDUDFWHURIWKH3URMHFWDQG$UHD 7KHRSHQVSDFHUHGXFWLRQGRHVQRWDGYHUVHO\DIIHFWWKHFKDUDFWHURIWKH
GHYHORSPHQWRUWKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHVXUURXQGLQJDUHD
7KHUHLVQRRSHQVSDFHUHTXLUHPHQWLQWKH50]RQHWKHUHIRUHDQRSHQVSDFHUHGXFWLRQLVQRWEHLQJ
UHTXHVWHG&RQYHUVHO\RSHQVSDFHDVRXWOLQHGDERYHLVEHLQJSURYLGHGIDULQH[FHVVRIZKDWLVUHTXLUHG
LQWKH50]RQH
F2SHQ6SDFHDQG/RW$UHD5HGXFWLRQV 7KHVSHFLILFSHUFHQWDJHUHGXFWLRQLQRSHQVSDFHRUORWDUHD
UHTXHVWHGE\WKHDSSOLFDQWLVMXVWLILHGE\DQ\RQHRUFRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJVLWHGHVLJQIHDWXUHVQRWWR
H[FHHGWKHPD[LPXPUHGXFWLRQVHWIRUWKDERYH
&ORVHSUR[LPLW\WRDSXEOLFPDOORUSDUNIRUZKLFKWKHGHYHORSPHQWLVVSHFLDOO\DVVHVVHGRUWRZKLFK
WKHSURMHFWFRQWULEXWHVIXQGLQJRIFDSLWDOLPSURYHPHQWVEH\RQGWKDWUHTXLUHGE\WKHSDUNVDQG
UHFUHDWLRQFRPSRQHQWRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWH[FLVHGWD[VHWIRUWKLQFKDSWHU³'HYHORSPHQW
([FLVH7D[´%5& PD[LPXPRQHKXQGUHGSHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQLQDOO'RZQWRZQ '7 GLVWULFWV
DQGWHQSHUFHQWLQWKH%5GLVWULFW
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
$UFKLWHFWXUDOWUHDWPHQWWKDWUHVXOWVLQUHGXFLQJWKHDSSDUHQWEXONDQGPDVVRIWKHVWUXFWXUHRU
VWUXFWXUHDQGVLWHSODQQLQJZKLFKLQFUHDVHVWKHRSHQQHVVRIWKHVLWH PD[LPXPILYHSHUFHQW
UHGXFWLRQ
7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWLVDFRPELQDWLRQRIPRVWO\WZRVWRU\UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVZLWKDIHZRQH
VWRU\UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVLQDQHIIRUWWRILWLQZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJFRQWH[WWRSURYLGHDYDULHW\RI
PDVVLQJDQGWRSURYLGHDKXPDQVFDOHWRWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKHSURMHFW)URQWSRUFKHVVORSHGURRIV
DQGUHVLGHQWLDOZLQGRZVZHUHLPSOHPHQWHGWRIXUWKHUUHGXFHWKHDSSDUHQWPDVVRIWKHEXLOGLQJV
,QDGGLWLRQWKH XQLWVKDYHEHHQEURNHQXSLQWRILYHVHSDUDWHEXLOGLQJVWRDOORZYLVXDODQG
SK\VLFDOSHUPHDELOLW\WKURXJKWKHVLWHUHGXFLQJWKHPDVVRIWKHVWUXFWXUHV
$FRPPRQSDUNUHFUHDWLRQRUSOD\JURXQGDUHDIXQFWLRQDOO\XVHDEOHDQGDFFHVVLEOHE\WKH
GHYHORSPHQW¶VRFFXSDQWVIRUDFWLYHUHFUHDWLRQDOSXUSRVHVDQGVL]HGIRUWKHQXPEHURILQKDELWDQWV
RIWKHGHYHORSPHQWPD[LPXPILYHSHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQ RUGHYHORSHGIDFLOLWLHVZLWKLQWKHSURMHFW
GHVLJQHGWRPHHWWKHDFWLYHUHFUHDWLRQDOQHHGVRIWKHRFFXSDQWV PD[LPXPILYHSHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQ
$FRPPRQRSHQVSDFHKDVEHHQSURYLGHGWKDWDOORZVIRUDQXPEHURIUHFUHDWLRQDODFWLYLWLHVERWK
IRUODUJHJURXSVDQGVPDOOJURXSVDFWLYHDQGVHGHQWDU\SOD\7KHSURSRVHGRSHQVSDFHKDVEHHQ
GHVLJQHGWREHDFFHVVLEOHWRERWKWKHRFFXSDQWVDQGYLVLWRUVRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
3HUPDQHQWGHGLFDWLRQRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWWRXVHE\DXQLTXHUHVLGHQWLDOSRSXODWLRQZKRVHQHHGV
IRUFRQYHQWLRQDORSHQVSDFHDUHUHGXFHG PD[LPXPILYHSHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQ
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
7KHUHGXFWLRQLQRSHQVSDFHLQSDUWRIDGHYHORSPHQWZLWKDPL[RIUHVLGHQWLDODQGQRQUHVLGHQWLDO
XVHVZLWKLQD%5]RQLQJGLVWULFWWKDWGXHWRWKHUDWLRRIUHVLGHQWLDOWRQRQUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVDQG
EHFDXVHRIWKHVL]HW\SHDQGPL[RIGZHOOLQJXQLWVWKHQHHGIRURSHQVSDFHLVUHGXFHG PD[LPXP
ILIWHHQSHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQ DQG
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
7KHUHGXFWLRQLQRSHQVSDFHLVSDUWRIDGHYHORSPHQWZLWKDPL[RIUHVLGHQWLDODQGQRQUHVLGHQWLDO
XVHVZLWKLQD%5]RQLQJGLVWULFWWKDWSURYLGHVKLJKTXDOLW\XUEDQGHVLJQHOHPHQWVWKDWZLOOPHHW
WKHQHHGVRIDQWLFLSDWHGUHVLGHQWVRFFXSDQWVWHQDQWVDQGYLVLWRUVRIWKHSURSHUW\RUZLOO
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 395 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
DFFRPPRGDWHSXEOLFJDWKHULQJVLPSRUWDQWDFWLYLWLHVRUHYHQWVLQWKHOLIHRIWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGLWV
SHRSOHWKDWPD\LQFOXGHZLWKRXWOLPLWDWLRQUHFUHDWLRQDORUFXOWXUDODPHQLWLHVLQWLPDWHVSDFHVWKDW
IRVWHUVRFLDOLQWHUDFWLRQVWUHHWIXUQLWXUHODQGVFDSLQJDQGKDUGVXUIDFHWUHDWPHQWVRIWKHRSHQ
VSDFH PD[LPXPWZHQW\ILYHSHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQ
$OWKRXJKWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWGRHVQRWFRQWDLQQRQUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVWKHRSHQVSDFHZLOOVWLOO
PHHWWKHQHHGVRIWKHDQWLFLSDWHGUHVLGHQWVDQGYLVLWRUVRIWKHSURSHUW\DVZHOODVDFFRPPRGDWH
SXEOLFJDWKHULQJVDQGLPSRUWDQWDFWLYLWLHVRUHYHQWVLQWKHOLIHRIWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGLWVSHRSOHDV
RXWOLQHGDERYH
- $GGLWLRQDO&ULWHULDIRU)ORRU$UHD5DWLR,QFUHDVHIRU%XLOGLQJVLQWKH%5GLVWULFW
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
. $GGLWLRQDO&ULWHULDIRU3DUNLQJ5HGXFWLRQV 7KHRIIVWUHHWSDUNLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQ ³3DUNLQJ
6WDQGDUGV´%5& PD\EHPRGLILHGDVIROORZV
L3URFHVV 7KHFLW\PDQDJHUPD\JUDQWDSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQQRWWRH[FHHGILIW\SHUFHQWRIWKHUHTXLUHGSDUNLQJ
7KHSODQQLQJERDUGRUFLW\FRXQFLOPD\JUDQWDUHGXFWLRQH[FHHGLQJILIW\SHUFHQW
LL&ULWHULD 8SRQVXEPLVVLRQRIGRFXPHQWDWLRQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWRIKRZWKHSURMHFWPHHWVWKHIROORZLQJFULWHULD
WKHDSSURYLQJDJHQF\PD\DSSURYHSURSRVHGPRGLILFDWLRQVWRWKHSDUNLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQ
³3DUNLQJ6WDQGDUGV´%5& VHHWDEOHV DQG LILWILQGVWKDW
D)RUUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVWKHSUREDEO\QXPEHURIPRWRUYHKLFOHVWREHRZQHGE\RFFXSDQWVRIDQGYLVLWRUVWR
GZHOOLQJVLQWKHSURMHFWZLOOEHDGHTXDWHO\DFFRPPRGDWHG
%HLQJDSHUPDQHQWO\DIIRUGDEOHSURMHFWSURYLGLQJORZWRPRGHUDWHLQFRPHKRXVLQJWKHSDUNLQJ
GHPDQGLVDQWLFLSDWHGWREHVKRUWRIWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVVHWIRUWKLQ6HFWLRQ ³3DUNLQJ6WDQGDUGV´%5&
7KHSURSRVHGRIIVWUHHWSDUNLQJLVSURSRVHGWREHSDUWLDOO\XQEXQGOHGZKHUH RIWKHVSDFHVZLOO
EHEXQGOHGDWRQHSDUNLQJVSDFHSHUXQLWDQGWKHUHPDLQLQJQLQHVSDFHVZLOOEHXQEXQGOHGWR
DFFRPPRGDWHDQ\DGGLWLRQDOUHVLGHQWRUYLVLWRUSDUNLQJ7KHSURSRVHGSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQZLOODOVR
HQFRXUDJHWKHXVHRIDOWHUQDWLYHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQPHWKRGVWKDWZLOOEHVXSSRUWHGE\WKHSURSRVHGUREXVW
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ
E7KHSDUNLQJQHHGVRIDQ\QRQUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVZLOOEHDGHTXDWHO\DFFRPPRGDWHGWKURXJKRQVWUHHWSDUNLQJ
RURIIVWUHHWSDUNLQJ
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
F$PL[RIUHVLGHQWLDOZLWKHLWKHURIILFHRUUHWDLOXVHVLVSURSRVHGDQGWKHSDUNLQJQHHGVRIDOOXVHVZLOOEH
DFFRPPRGDWHGWKURXJKVKDUHGSDUNLQJ
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
G,IMRLQWXVHRIFRPPRQSDUNLQJDUHDVLVSURSRVHGYDU\LQJWLPHSHULRGVRIXVHZLOODFFRPPRGDWHSURSRVHG
SDUNLQJQHHGV DQG
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
H,IWKHQXPEHURIRIIVWUHHWSDUNLQJVSDFHVLVUHGXFHGEHFDXVHRIWKHQDWXUHRIWKHRFFXSDQF\WKHDSSOLFDQW
SURYLGHVDVVXUDQFHVWKDWWKHQDWXUHRIWKHRFFXSDQF\ZLOOQRWFKDQJH
7KHDSSOLFDQWLVSURSRVLQJDSHUPDQHQWO\DIIRUGDEOHGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKZLOOQRWFKDQJHLQWKHIXWXUH
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 396 of 518
ZZZWKH678',2DUFKLWHFWXUHFRP3LQH6WUHHW_6XLWH_%RXOGHU_&2__ _
/ $GGLWLRQDO&ULWHULDIRU2II6LWH3DUNLQJ 7KHSDUNLQJUHTXLUHGXQGHU6HFWLRQ ³3DUNLQJ6WDQGDUGV´%5&
PD\EHORFDWHGRQDVHSDUDWHORWLIWKHIROORZLQJFRQGLWLRQVDUHPHW
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
+(,*+702',),&$7,21
1RW$SSOLFDEOH
(QGRI:ULWWHQ6WDWHPHQW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 397 of 518
1
Project nos.
LUR 2017-00011 site review
LUR 2017-00025 preliminary plat
TEC 2017-00015 final plat
Site Review for 2180 Violet Ave
Written Statement for
2100 Violet Ave and 2145 Upland Ave
Boulder, CO 80304
Prepared By:
Robert C. Naumann P.E.
Manager: 2145 Upland Ave LLC
Boulder, CO 80302
303-931-8300
Rnaumann626@comcast.net
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 398 of 518
2
November 27, 2017
Written Statement
The design guidelines for the properties located at 2100 Violet Ave and 2145 Upland Ave
are meant to represent the architectural style and detailing as if the applicant, Robert
Naumann, were to build the single family houses on the lots that are platted as per the
enclosed drawings prepared by Scott, Cox & Assoc. However, the platted lots could be
sold to separate parties with different housing needs and design ideas. The enclosed
design guidelines may be used at the time of building development for other prospective
building developers.
The property at 2100 Violet is 48,815 sq. ft. and will be platted into 6 lots of 8,140 +/-,
as shown on the enclosed Improvement Survey Plat and the Final Plat drawings. If the
10- ft. vacancy on the north side of Vine Ave is granted, as per the annexation
amendment application for the 3 parcels at 2180 Violet Ave, 2145 Upland Ave, and 1917
Upland Ave, the lot areas of the site would be 8,819 +/- sq. ft. each. The area of each lot
exceeds the minimum for lots zoned RL 1 by 26% and would allow for many different
home designs.
The property located at 2145 Upland Ave is 36,209 +/- sq. ft. If the zoning line is drawn
at the midpoint of the property, it will be divided into two 9,000 +/- sq. ft. lots zoned RL
I on the north half of the parcel and one 18,000 sq. ft. lot zoned ERE on the south
portion of the parcel. The exact division line at the midpoint will be determined by the
position of the electric power utility easement that will travel through the entire block
and where the city determines the zoning line actually is in relation to the utility
easement. The two 9,000 sq. ft. lots and one 18,000 sq. ft. lot are more than ample to
accommodate many different home sizes and styles that fall into the design guidelines
generally accepted in the North Boulder Sub-Community Plan.
Sincerely yours,
Robert C. Naumann P.E.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 399 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC. consulting engineers • surveyors
1530 55th Street • Boulder, Colorado 80303 • (303) 444-3051 • Fax: (303) 444-3387
October 23, 2017
Ms. Sloane Walbert
City of Boulder
1739 Broadway, Third Floor
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
Reference: Phasing Plan
LUR2017-00011, LUR2017-00010, LUR2017-00025
2180 Violet Avenue, 2100 Violet Avenue and 2145 Upland Avenue
Scott, Cox & Associates Project Number 16268C
Dear Ms. Walbert:
This Phasing Plan has been prepared for the single and multi-family subdivision
located at 2180 Violet Avenue, 2100 Violet Avenue and 2145 Upland Avenue, in
Boulder, Colorado. This plan has been prepared in conjunction with the proposed
Flatirons Habitat for Humanity (FHFH) project, located at 2180 Violet Avenue,
prepared by STUDIO Architecture.
Pursuant to subsection 9-2-12(a), “Three Year Rule,” B.R.C. 1981, the following
phasing plan is approved:
a) Phase I, to construct the public infrastructure for the development of the
Property, including but not limited to the Vine Street, Vine Alley, and water,
sewer, and storm water improvements, and to construct Building A shall
commence on the date of building permit approval for Building A or
Technical Document Review approval for the site infrastructure, whichever
is approved later, and shall be substantially completed within three years.
b) Phase II, to construct Building B and the improvements approved for two of
the single-family lots south of Vine Alley may commence at any time during
Phase I, but no later than three years after substantial completion of Phase I.
Phase II shall be substantially completed within three years of the start of its
construction.
c) Phase III, to construct Building C and the improvements approved for two
of the single-family lots south of Vine Alley may commence at any time
during Phase I or II, but no later than three years after substantial
completion of Phase II. Phase III shall be substantially completed within
three years of the start of its construction.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 400 of 518
Ms. Sloane Walbert
City of Boulder
October 23, 2017
Page 3 of 3
d) Phase IV, the construction of Building D may commence at any time during
Phase I, II, or III, but no later than three years after substantial completion
of Phase III. Phase IV shall be substantially completed within three years of
the start of its construction.
e) Phase V, to construct Building E and the improvements for two of the single-
family lots south of Vine Alley may commence at any time during Phase I,
II, III, or IV, but no later than three years after substantial completion of
Phase IV. Phase V shall be substantially completed within three years of the
start of its construction.
f) Phase VI, to construct the improvements for two of the single-family lots at
2145 Upland Avenue may commence at any time during Phase I, II, III, IV
or V, but no later than three years after substantial completion of Phase V.
Phase VI shall be substantially completed within three years of the start of
its construction.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this plan, kindly give us a
call.
Sincerely,
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Donald P. Ash, P.E.
Chief Civil Engineer
Page 2 of 2
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 401 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC. consulting engineers • surveyors
1530 55th Street • Boulder, Colorado 80303 • (303) 444-3051 • Fax: (303) 444-3387
November 27, 2017
Ms. Sloane Walbert
City of Boulder
1739 Broadway, Third Floor
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
Reference: Travel Demand Management Plan
LUR2017-00011, LUR2017-00010, LUR2017-00025
2180 Violet Avenue, 2100 Violet Avenue and 2145 Upland Avenue
Scott, Cox & Associates Project Number 16268C
Dear Ms. Walbert:
This TDM Plan has been prepared for the single and multi-family subdivision
located at 2180 Violet Avenue, 2100 Violet Avenue and 2145 Upland Avenue, in
Boulder, Colorado. This plan has been prepared in conjunction with the proposed
Flatirons Habitat for Humanity (FHFH) project, located at 2180 Violet Avenue,
prepared by STUDIO Architecture.
Project Information – 2180 Violet Avenue:
The proposed project is located on the Southwest corner of 22nd Street and Violet
Avenue in Boulder, Colorado. It is a 1.4 Acre parcel without any structures
currently on site. The proposed development is a 100% permanently affordable,
for-sale residential project with 19 total residential units in 5 buildings. Vehicular
access to the site is proposed to be from a new alley that runs East-West along the
south property line, with a full movement access to 22nd Street and a possible
future connection to the west. Existing opportunities for alternative transit services
are limited near the site.
Strategies for reducing the need for the automobile:
• Package Elements: An “Alternative Transportation Subsidy Fund” will
be created by the developer. The developer will contribute to the Fund
equal to the cost of a 3-year participation in the Eco Pass program. This
amount will equal $360 per unit ($120 per unit, per year, for 3 years), for
a total of $6,840. This Fund will be managed by the HOA, and can be
used for expenses such as B-cycle and car-share memberships, additional
bicycle parking racks for the project, transit (RTD) passes, and other
HOA approved items. In addition, the HOA will prepare and submit an
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 402 of 518
Ms. Sloane Walbert
City of Boulder
November 27, 2017
Page 2 of 4
annual report to Staff on the TDM related expenditures per dwelling
unit.
• Orientation Packets: An “Orientation Packet” will be provided to each
new resident that includes brochures, maps, and other resources to
inform residents of their transportation options. This packet will include
RTD bus information, the City of Boulder bicycle and pedestrian map (or
similar), and information on special events. This packet will be provided
initially by the developer at the time of sale.
• Evaluation: Through the sales agreement, the site’s residents will agree
to participate in annual on-line or paper surveys regarding their use and
satisfaction with transportation demand management programs. The
evaluation will be administered by the City of Boulder using on-line
tools.
• Pedestrian Enhancements: A 6’ detached sidewalk with 8’ landscape
buffer is proposed along Violet Avenue where there is currently no
sidewalk. The existing attached sidewalk along 22nd Street is proposed
to become a 5’ detached walk with 8’ landscape buffer.
• Bike Enhancements: A 5’ bike lane is proposed along Violet Avenue
where nothing currently exists, and a 6’ multi-modal path is proposed
within the existing 7’ access easement along the West property line to
connect Violet Avenue on the North with the proposed alley on the
South property line and to future neighborhood multi-modal paths.
• Transit Enhancement: Information about transit services will be
provided in the Orientation Packets.
• Exceed Long-Term Bicycle Parking: 28 long-term bicycle parking spaces
are required by code. Each proposed residential unit in the project (19
total units) will be provided with a safe, secure, enclosed storage area
large enough to accommodate 2 bicycles for a total of 38 long-term
bicycle parking spaces.
• Meet Short-Term Bicycle Parking: 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces
are required by code and 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces are
proposed, distributed throughout the site and located to be easily
accessible. Most of these proposed parking spaces will allow for bicycles
with attached trailers.
• Managed On-Street Parking: The proposed project will have a total of 30
parking spaces (a 17% parking reduction). 19 of these spaces will be
reserved for the residential units (one per unit), with the balance being
unbundled. The 11 unbundled spaces will be first-come, first-serve.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 403 of 518
Ms. Sloane Walbert
City of Boulder
November 27, 2017
Page 3 of 4
Project Information – 2100 Violet Avenue and 2145 Upland Avenue:
The 2100 Violet Avenue site is bounded by 22nd Street to the east and the proposed
Vine Avenue to the south. The 2145 Upland Avenue site is bounded by the
proposed Vine Avenue to the north and Upland Avenue to the south. The
proposed development will include six (6) single family residential lots at 2100
Violet Avenue, and three (3) single family residential lots at 2145 Upland Avenue,
for a total of nine (9) single family lots.
Vehicular access to 2100 Violet Avenue site is proposed to be from a new alley that
runs East-West along the north property line, with a full movement access to 22nd
Street and a possible future connection to the west. Vehicular access to the 2145
Upland Avenue site is proposed to be from the new Vine Avenue via separate
driveways for Lots 1 and 2,Block 3. Access for Lot 3,Block 3 would be from Upland
Avenue. Existing opportunities for alternative transit services are limited near the
site.
Below are the City of Boulder’s Residential Development Toolkit Package for the
proposed single-family subdivision, for more than 11 lots:
• Package Elements: An “Alternative Transportation Subsidy Fund” will
be created by the developer. The developer will contribute the cost of a
3-year participation in the Eco Pass program. This amount will equal
$360 per unit ($120 per unit, per year, for 3 years), for a total of $3,240.
Details on timing and participation into this program will be worked out
with Staff. If there is an HOA, the HOA will prepare and submit an
annual report to staff on the TDM related expenditures per dwelling
unit.
• Orientation Packets: An “Orientation Packet” will be provided to each
new resident that includes brochures, maps, and other resources to
inform residents of their transportation options. This packet will include
RTD bus information, the City of Boulder bicycle and pedestrian map (or
similar), and information on special events. This packet will be provided
initially by the developer at the time of sale.
• Evaluation: Through the sales agreement, the site’s residents will agree
to participate in annual on-line or paper surveys regarding their use and
satisfaction with transportation demand management programs. The
evaluation will be administered by the City of Boulder using on-line
tools.
• Pedestrian Enhancements: A 6’ detached sidewalk with 8’ landscape
buffer is proposed along Violet Avenue where there is currently no
sidewalk. The existing attached sidewalk along 22nd Street is proposed
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 404 of 518
Ms. Sloane Walbert
City of Boulder
November 27, 2017
Page 4 of 4
to become a 5’ detached walk with 8’ landscape buffer. A 6’ concrete
sidewalk is proposed for the west side of the site, connecting Violet
Avenue with Vine Avenue. A new 5’ concrete sidewalk is proposed for
the section of Vine Avenue.
• Bike Enhancements: A 5’ bike lane is proposed along Violet Avenue
where nothing currently exists, and a 6’ multi-modal path is proposed
within the existing 7.5’ access easement along the West property line to
connect Violet Avenue on the North with Vine Avenue to the south. And
the existing 10’ multi-use path will continue from the Vine Avenue
connection south to Upland Avenue.
• Transit Enhancement: Information about transit services will be
provided in the Orientation Packets.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this plan, kindly give us a
call.
Sincerely,
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Donald P. Ash, P.E.
Chief Civil Engineer
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 405 of 518
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
22nd and Violet
2100 and 2180 Violet Avenue
2145 Upland Avenue
Boulder, Colorado
January 16, 2017
(Revised April 3, 2017)
(Revised June 5, 2017)
(Revised August 7, 2017)
Prepared for:
Studio Architecture
1350 Pine Street, Suite 1
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Prepared by:
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.
consulting engineers - surveyors
1530 55th Street - Boulder, CO 80303
303-444-3051
Project No. 16252D
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 406 of 518
ENGINEER’S STATEMENT
I hereby certify that this report for the preliminary drainage design for the Site Review at
2100 Violet Avenue, 2180 Violet Avenue and 2145 Upland Avenue was prepared under
my direct supervision in accordance with the provisions of the City of Boulder Design
and Construction Standards for the owners thereof.
____________________________
Donald P. Ash
Registered Professional Engineer
State of Colorado No. 36045
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 407 of 518
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
INTRODUCTION 1
EXISTING ON-SITE DRAINAGE 1
EXISTING OFF-SITE DRAINAGE 2
EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 2
PROPOSED ON-SITE DRAINAGE 2
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 3
DETENTION STORAGE 4
STORM WATER QUALITY AND EROSION CONTROL 4
FLOOD STATEMENT 5
CONCLUSIONS 5
FIGURES:
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
APPENDIX A:
RUNOFF CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX B:
WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION CALCULATIONS
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 408 of 518
1
INTRODUCTION
This report is submitted as the Preliminary Drainage Report of the existing and proposed
conditions for the Habitat for Humanity Residential Development, located at 2180 Violet
Avenue in Boulder County, Colorado. The project also includes a new single family
residential development located at 2100 Violet Avenue and 2145 Upland Avenue. The
site is located in the Southwest ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 18, Township 1 North,
Range 70 West of the 6th Prime Meridian, in the City of Boulder, Boulder County, State of
Colorado. The site is bounded by Violet Avenue to the north, 22
nd Street to the east,
residential property to the west, and Upland Avenue to the south.
This report is being prepared to accompany theSite Review submittal for the project. The
purpose of this Preliminary Drainage Report and Plan is to address specific drainage
issues related to the proposed site changes. This study meets the requirements set forth
in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS).
EXISTING ON-SITE DRAINAGE
The existing 3.37-acre site is currently undeveloped. The site generally slopes from the
northwest to southeast at an average slope of 2%. The majority of storm runoff drains
via overland flow to the east side of the site, where it is directed via gutter flow into City
storm sewer. Existing drainage patterns are shown on the Existing Drainage Plan that is
included with this report. For the purposes of this report, the existing site has been
broken into three (3) historic drainage basins.
Basin H1 makes up the entirety of the 2180 Violet Avenue site. Runoff from within this
basin drains via overland flow, ultimately draining onto 22nd Street where it is directed
into City storm sewer.
Basin H2 includes the 2100 Violet Avenue site. Runoff from within this basin drains via
overland flow, ultimately draining onto the Vine Avenue right-of-way, where it is
directed into City storm sewer in Upland Avenue.
Basin H3 includes the 2145 Upland Avenue site. Runoff from within this basin drains via
overland flow to the east, ultimately draining to the properties to the east.
Existing runoff calculations for the existing basins have been included in Appendix A.
The runoff from the existing site is summarized in Table 1.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 409 of 518
2
EXISTING OFF-SITE DRAINAGE
Currently, a proposal exists to develop the area to the west of the site. The proposed
storm sewer in the alley will ultimately be designed to convey this off-site flow through
the site and into the storm sewer in 22nd Street.
EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Currently, no subsurface report has been completed. However, the proposed buildings
will be constructed upon spread footings, and groundwater is not anticipated to be an
issue. If groundwater is encountered, the contractor is aware of the need to obtain the
State required discharge permits.
PROPOSED ON-SITE DRAINAGE
The Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan shows the proposed Site
Plan, on-site grading and overland flow directions. Under the proposed conditions, the
site will be divided into five (5) sub-basins.
Basin A1 runs along the north edge of the site and is primarily made up of landscaped
areas in front of the units. Runoff from within basin A1 drains via overland flow through
the landscape strip along Violet and off the site.
Basin A2 is located along the eastern edge of the site and is composed primarily of the
public sidewalk and landscape strip along 22nd Street. Runoff from within this basin flows
via overland flow into 22
nd Street.
Basin A3 makes up the majority of the 2180 Violet Avenue site, including all roof
drainage. Runoff from within Basin A3 is directed via overland, sheet, and gutter flow
to the storm sewer system and into Detention Pond A located at the southeast corner of
the site. This basin will ultimately drain to the City storm sewer in 22nd Street.
Basin B consists of the entire 2100 Violet Avenue site, including the developed runoff
from the proposed single family development. Runoff from within this basin is directed
via overland, sheet, and gutter flow into Detention Pond B located at the southeast corner
of the site. This basin will ultimately drain to the City storm sewer in Vine Avenue.
Basin C consists of the entire 2145 Upland Avenue site, including the developed runoff
from the proposed single family development. Runoff from within this basin is directed
via overland, sheet, and gutter flow into Detention Pond C located at the southeast corner
of the site. This basin will ultimately drain to the City storm sewer in Upland Avenue.
Proposed drainage patterns are shown on the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control Plan. Proposed runoff from the site is shown in Table 1.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 410 of 518
3
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
As required in City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for Drainage
Improvements for all sites using detention, hydrologic information was developed for an
initial storm return period of 5-years and major storm return period of 100-years. The
criteria and methodology used in determining the storm runoff peaks and volumes were
those outlined in the DCS.
The design rainfall data used in this study was taken from the time-intensity-frequency
curve for the City of Boulder(Figure 7-1DCS) as developed by Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District (UD&FCD). Runoff calculations were obtained using the Rational
Method as outlined in the DCS for basins having less than 160 acres.
The Rational Formula is: Q = CIA
Where: Q = Peak Discharge (cfs)
C = Runoff Coefficient (Table 7-2 DCS)
I = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) (Figure 7-1 DCS)
A = Drainage Basin Tributary Area (acres)
The existing and proposed conditions for the entire site were analyzed for the 10 and 100-
year storm events. The results are shown in the following Table 1 and the relevant
calculation sheets are provided in Appendix A.
TABLE 1
Drainage Basin Area
5-Year Peak
Runoff
10-Year Peak
Runoff
100-Year Peak
Runoff
(acres) (cfs)(cfs)(cfs)
Basin H1 1.23 0.49 1.18 3.90
Basin H2 1.22 0.41 1.07 3.73
Basin H3 0.83 0.29 0.76 2.64
Basin A 1.23 2.25 3.33 5.69
Basin A1 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.52
Basin A2 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.19
Basin A3 1.12 2.46 3.79 6.64
Basin B 1.22 2.32 3.34 5.82
Basin C 0.83 1.29 1.89 3.69
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 411 of 518
4
DETENTION STORAGE
Three (3) detention ponds have been designed to mitigate the increase in runoff from the
design basins. Water quality facilities will be provided for this site in the form of a
Bioretention (or Porous Landscape Detention) Water Quality Facility. The calculations
for the detention pond and the limited release structure are enclosed in Appendix B.
The required storage volume for the 10-year and 100-year storm events has also been
accommodated for. Release rates are based on the historic, undeveloped runoff from the
site. The detention pond has been designed to accommodate the 100-year detention
volume plus 50% of the Water Quality Capture Volume. This is in conformance with the
City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards.
A limited release orifice will provide the required 12-hour drain time for the water quality
capture volume. The orifice plate meets the requirements for a Porous Landscape
Detention and the 12-hour drain time as specified in the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District (UDFCD) Drainage Criteria Manual.
The berm around the pond provides approximately 1.0 foot of freeboard above the 100-
year water surface elevation. In the event the individual ponds were to overflow, the
flow will be directed to the emergency spillways and spill directly to the right-of-way as
shown. The spillways have been sized to convey two times (2X) the runoff from the
developed conditions during the 100-year storm.
By maintaining this 10-year and 100-year detention volume, it is our conclusion that the
runoff for the initial and major storm events from the tributary basin can be conveyed
directly to the major drainage system without adversely impacting upstream,
surrounding, or downstream properties and facilities, per Section 7.12 of the City of
Boulder Design and Construction Standards.
STORM WATER QUALITY AND EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures should be implemented prior to demolition or construction,
and shall be maintained during all phases of construction project. Erosion Control
Measures will consist of silt fence along the property being developed, hay bales at grass
swales and re-vegetating all disturbed areas with appropriate plant species.
The principal form of storm water quality runoff enhancement is the use of a Bioretention
(or Porous Landscape Detention) Water Quality Facilities. Where possible, grass buffers
will be used in drainage routes to help slow runoff, minimize directly connected
impervious areas and promote infiltration, thus reducing peak volumes.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 412 of 518
5
The Bioretention Water Quality Facilities have been designed to provide the required
water quality capture volume (WQCV) for the developed areas of the site. The
calculations for the facility sizing and orifice release are enclosed in Appendix C.
The Bioretention Facility designed for this site utilizes partial infiltration of the WQCV
within the designated 12-hour drain time. Underdrains will be provided within the sub-
soils of the water quality facility with an orifice plate installed where the under drains tie
into the proposed release structure. This partial infiltration option meets the
requirements for Bioretention and the 12-hour drain time as specified in the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Drainage Criteria Manual.
The application of the Rain Garden/Bioretention Water Quality facility, providing water
quality capture volume in the pond, and the use of grass buffers as structural BMPs are
consistent with the requirements for redeveloping urban areas outlined in the UD&FCD,
Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3, Best Management Practices.
FLOOD STATEMENT
Based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)-Map Number 08013C0392Jdated
December 18, 2012, the entire site is located in Zone X and is outside any mapped 100-
year floodplain.
CONCLUSIONS
The primary consideration for this project was to design a drainage plan for the site to
accommodate the proposed development plan without having adverse impact on the
surrounding properties. The drainage plan handles runoff from 5-year and 100-year
storm events. All analyses were performed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design
and Construction Standards.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 413 of 518
APPENDIX A
RUNOFF CALCULATIONS
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 414 of 518
7-18 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: November 16, 2000
Table 7-2: Runoff Coefficients for the Rational Method
STORM FREQUENCYLAND USE OR SURFACE
CHARACTERISTICS
PERCENT
IMPERVIOUS 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 100-Yr
Business:
Commercial Areas
Neighborhood Areas
95
65
0.87
0.60
0.88
0.65
0.90
0.70
0.93
0.80
Residential:
Single-Family
Multi-Unit (detached)
Multi-Unit (attached)
½ Acre Lot
Apartments
40
50
70
30
70
0.40
0.50
0.65
0.30
0.65
0.45
0.55
0.70
0.40
0.70
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.45
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.65
0.80
Industrial:
Light Areas
Heavy Areas
80
90
0.75
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.85
0.85
0.90
Parks, Cemeteries:7 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.60
Playgrounds:13 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.70
Schools:50 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.75
Railroad Yard Areas:40 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.70
Undeveloped Areas:
Historic Flow Analysis
Greenbelts, Agricultural
Offsite Flow Analysis (when offsite
land use is not defined)
2
-
45
0.10
-
0.45
0.20
-
0.50
0.30
-
0.55
0.60
-
0.72
Streets:
Paved
Gravel
100
7
0.87
0.15
0.88
0.25
0.90
0.35
0.93
0.65
Drives and Walks:96 0.85 .087 0.90 0.92
Roofs:90 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90
Lawns:
Sandy Soil
Clayey Soil
0
0
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.50
0.60
NOTE:These rational formula coefficients do not apply for larger basins where the time-of-concentration exceeds 60
minutes.
(Source: Urban Drainage and Flood Control District)
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 415 of 518
7-20 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Effective: November 16, 2000
50
30
20
10
.5
1
2
3
5
.5
1
2
3
5
10
20
30
50
FIGURE 7-3: TIME OF TRAVEL
.1 .2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20
.2.1 .5.3 1 2 3 5 10 20
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECONDWFOREST WITH HEAVY GROUND LITTER & MEADOWFALLOW OR MINIMUM TILLAGE CULTIVATIONSHORT GRASS PASTURE & LAWNSNEARLY BARE GROUNDGRASSED WATERWAYPAVED AREA (SHEET FLOW) & SHALLOW GUTTER FLOWESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE
WITH THE RATIONAL METHOD
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 416 of 518
Effective: November 16, 2000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 7-17
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70TC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FIGURE 7-1
RAINFALL
INTENSITY-DURATION-FREQUENCY
FOR
CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
INT100 Yr
50 Yr
25 Yr
10 Yr
5 Yr
2 Yr
(TIME OF CONCENTRATION)
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 417 of 518
1.23 0.02 0.12 0.22 0.51 2.26 428.0 0.021 29.0 0 0.0240 7 1.08 0.0 29.0 42812.4 12.4 2.4 3.4 4.4 6.2 0.06 0.49 1.18 3.901.22 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00 300.0 0.030 22.0 176 0.0240 7 1.08 2.7 24.7 47612.6 12.6 2.4 3.3 4.4 6.1 0.00 0.41 1.07 3.730.83 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00 300.0 0.030 22.0 0 0.0240 7 1.08 0.0 22.0 30011.7 11.7 2.4 3.5 4.5 6.4 0.00 0.29 0.76 2.641.23 0.47 0.53 0.60 0.73 53.22 124.0 0.020 9.1 239 0.0100 7 0.70 5.7 14.8 36312.0 12.0 2.4 3.4 4.5 6.3 1.40 2.25 3.33 5.690.09 0.10 0.19 0.28 0.55 10.99 15.0 0.050 3.8 0 0.0100 7 0.70 0.0 3.8 1510.1 5.0 4.0 5.5 7.3 10.8 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.520.02 0.53 0.58 0.640.76 59.96 14.0 0.020 2.8 0 0.0100 20 2.00 0.0 2.8 1410.1 5.0 4.0 5.5 7.3 10.8 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.191.12 0.50 0.56 0.62 0.75 56.39 125.0 0.020 8.8 255 0.0200 20 2.83 1.5 10.3 38012.1 10.3 2.7 3.9 5.4 7.9 1.52 2.46 3.79 6.641.22 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.75 50.00 275.0 0.020 13.3 0 0.0200 20 2.83 0.0 13.3 27511.5 11.5 2.5 3.5 4.6 6.4 1.49 2.32 3.34 5.820.83 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.70 40.00 300.0 0.010 20.6 0 0.0200 20 2.83 0.0 20.6 30011.7 11.7 2.4 3.5 4.5 6.4 0.81 1.29 1.89 3.69I2Basin BI5I10Overland Flow (Lo)(ft)Slope (ft/ft)Length (ft) CvSlope (ft/ft)Basin A3Total Length (ft)Basin A2Basin ABasin A1Basin H2Basin H3Q100Parcel NameBasin H1Q5Q10ti (min)Parcel SizeC2C5C10C100% ImperviousMunicipality:BoulderI100Q2Velocity (ft/s)tt (min)Time of Conc ti+ tt= tcBasin CRainfall Intensities (in/hr)Flow Rates(cfs)16252D8/7/2017DPAProject #:Date:By:Flatirons Habitat for HumanityInitial Overland Time (ti)ti=1.8(1.1-C5)L1/2S-1/3 Travel Time (tt)tt=Length/(Velocity*60)Runoff Coefficientstc Finaltc Computedtc Urbanized Checktc=(L/180)+10 (min)Minimum tc=5 min2180 Violet AvenueBoulder, ColoradoAttachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 418 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
ROOFS 0.00 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
DRIVES AND WALKS 0.03 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.92 96.00
LAWNS - SANDY 1.21 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
TOTAL AREA 1.23 0.02 0.12 0.22 0.51 2.26
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
ROOFS 0.00 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
DRIVES AND WALKS 0.00 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.92 96.00
LAWNS - SANDY 1.22 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
TOTAL AREA 1.22 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
ROOFS 0.00 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
DRIVES AND WALKS 0.00 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.92 96.00
LAWNS - SANDY 0.83 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
TOTAL AREA 0.83 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
LAWNS - SANDY 0.53 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
ROOFS 0.35 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
DRIVES AND WALKS 0.35 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.92 96.00
TOTAL AREA 1.23 0.47 0.53 0.60 0.73 53.22
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
LAWNS - SANDY 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
ROOFS 0.00 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
DRIVES AND WALKS 0.01 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.92 96.00
TOTAL AREA 0.09 0.10 0.19 0.28 0.55 10.99
Historic
Basin H1
Proposed
Basin A
Proposed
Basin A1
North Side of Lot
Historic
Basin H2
Historic
Basin H3
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 419 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
LAWNS - SANDY 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
ROOFS 0.00 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
DRIVES AND WALKS 0.01 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.92 96.00
TOTAL AREA 0.02 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.76 59.96
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
LAWNS - SANDY 0.44 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
ROOFS 0.35 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
DRIVES AND WALKS 0.33 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.92 96.00
TOTAL AREA 1.12 0.50 0.56 0.62 0.75 56.39
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
LAWNS - SANDY 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
ROOFS 0.00 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
MFR 1.22 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.75 50.00
TOTAL AREA 1.22 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.75 50.00
SURFACE AREA
C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMP
LAWNS - SANDY 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.00
ROOFS 0.00 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.90 90.00
SFR 0.83 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.70 40.00
TOTAL AREA 0.83 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.70 40.00
Proposed
Basin A2
East side of Lot
Proposed
Basin C
Block 3
Proposed
Basin B
Proposed
Basin A3
Pond Tributary
Area
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 420 of 518
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION CALCULATIONS
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 421 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Based on FAA Method, per Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. 2, Storage - Section 4
Allowable Release Rate =0.90 cfs
(10 year historic runoff)(Allowable 10-year rate less undetained runoff)
Composite "C" Factor =0.60 (Based on 10 year Developed conditions)
Basin Designation =A
Basin Size =1.23 acres
TIME TIME C A CXA I INFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE
min sec acres in/hr cf cf cf
5.0 300 0.60 1.23 0.74 7.40 1645 269 1377
10.0 600 0.60 1.23 0.74 5.70 2535 537 1997
15.0 900 0.60 1.23 0.74 4.55 3035 806 2229
20.0 1200 0.60 1.23 0.74 3.80 3380 1075 2305
25.0 1500 0.60 1.23 0.74 3.35 3724 1343 2381
30.0 1800 0.60 1.23 0.74 2.90 3869 1612 2256
35.0 2100 0.60 1.23 0.74 2.65 4124 1881 2243
40.0 2400 0.60 1.23 0.74 2.40 4269 2150 2119
45.0 2700 0.60 1.23 0.74 2.20 4402 2418 1984
50.0 3000 0.60 1.23 0.74 2.05 4558 2687 1871
55.0 3300 0.60 1.23 0.74 1.90 4647 2956 1691
60.0 3600 0.60 1.23 0.74 1.80 4802 3224 1578
Maximum Volume: 2,381
110% 2,619
10 Year Pond Volume - 2180 Violet - Pond A
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 422 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Based on FAA Method, per Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. 2, Storage - Section 4
Allowable Release Rate =3.18 cfs
(100 year historic runoff)(Allowable 100-year rate less undetained runoff)
Composite "C" Factor =0.73 (Based on 100 year Developed conditions)
Basin Designation =A
Basin Size =1.23 acres
TIME TIME C A CXA I INFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE
min sec acres in/hr cf cf cf
5.0 300 0.73 1.23 0.91 10.40 2829 955 1874
10.0 600 0.73 1.23 0.91 8.30 4515 1909 2605
15.0 900 0.73 1.23 0.91 6.60 5385 2864 2521
20.0 1200 0.73 1.23 0.91 5.50 5984 3819 2165
25.0 1500 0.73 1.23 0.91 4.70 6392 4774 1618
30.0 1800 0.73 1.23 0.91 4.15 6772 5728 1044
35.0 2100 0.73 1.23 0.91 3.75 7139 6683 456
40.0 2400 0.73 1.23 0.91 3.45 7507 7638 -131
45.0 2700 0.73 1.23 0.91 3.15 7711 8593 -882
50.0 3000 0.73 1.23 0.91 2.90 7887 9547 -1660
55.0 3300 0.73 1.23 0.91 2.70 8078 10502 -2424
60.0 3600 0.73 1.23 0.91 2.50 8159 11457 -3297
Maximum Volume: 2,605
110% 2,866
100 Year Pond Volume - 2180 Violet - Pond A
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 423 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Based on FAA Method, per Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. 2, Storage - Section 4
Allowable Release Rate =1.07 cfs (Basin H2)
(10 year historic runoff)(Allowable 10-year rate less undetained runoff)
Composite "C" Factor =0.60 (Based on 10 year Developed conditions)
Basin Designation =A
Basin Size =1.22 acres
TIME TIME C A CXA I INFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE
min sec acres in/hr cf cf cf
5.0 300 0.60 1.22 0.73 7.40 1620 321 1300
10.0 600 0.60 1.22 0.73 5.70 2496 641 1855
15.0 900 0.60 1.22 0.73 4.55 2989 962 2027
20.0 1200 0.60 1.22 0.73 3.80 3329 1282 2046
25.0 1500 0.60 1.22 0.73 3.35 3668 1603 2065
30.0 1800 0.60 1.22 0.73 2.90 3810 1924 1887
35.0 2100 0.60 1.22 0.73 2.65 4062 2244 1818
40.0 2400 0.60 1.22 0.73 2.40 4204 2565 1640
45.0 2700 0.60 1.22 0.73 2.20 4336 2886 1450
50.0 3000 0.60 1.22 0.73 2.05 4489 3206 1283
55.0 3300 0.60 1.22 0.73 1.90 4577 3527 1050
60.0 3600 0.60 1.22 0.73 1.80 4730 3847 883
Maximum Volume: 2,065
110% 2,271
10 Year Pond Volume - 2100 Violet - Pond B
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 424 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Based on FAA Method, per Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. 2, Storage - Section 4
Allowable Release Rate =3.73 cfs (Basin H2)
(100 year historic runoff)(Allowable 100-year rate less undetained runoff)
Composite "C" Factor =0.75 (Based on 100 year Developed conditions)
Basin Designation =A
Basin Size =1.22 acres
TIME TIME C A CXA I INFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE
min sec acres in/hr cf cf cf
5.0 300 0.75 1.22 0.91 10.40 2847 1119 1727
10.0 600 0.75 1.22 0.91 8.30 4544 2239 2305
15.0 900 0.75 1.22 0.91 6.60 5420 3358 2061
20.0 1200 0.75 1.22 0.91 5.50 6022 4478 1544
25.0 1500 0.75 1.22 0.91 4.70 6433 5597 835
30.0 1800 0.75 1.22 0.91 4.15 6816 6717 99
35.0 2100 0.75 1.22 0.91 3.75 7185 7836 -651
40.0 2400 0.75 1.22 0.91 3.45 7555 8956 -1401
45.0 2700 0.75 1.22 0.91 3.15 7760 10075 -2315
50.0 3000 0.75 1.22 0.91 2.90 7938 11195 -3257
55.0 3300 0.75 1.22 0.91 2.70 8130 12314 -4184
60.0 3600 0.75 1.22 0.91 2.50 8212 13434 -5222
Maximum Volume: 2,305
110% 2,535
100 Year Pond Volume - 2100 Violet - Pond B
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 425 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Based on FAA Method, per Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. 2, Storage - Section 4
Allowable Release Rate =0.76 cfs (Basin H3)
(10 year historic runoff)(Allowable 10-year rate less undetained runoff)
Composite "C" Factor =0.50 (Based on 10 year Developed conditions)
Basin Designation =A
Basin Size =0.83 acres
TIME TIME C A CXA I INFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE
min sec acres in/hr cf cf cf
5.0 300 0.50 0.83 0.42 7.40 922 227 695
10.0 600 0.50 0.83 0.42 5.70 1420 453 967
15.0 900 0.50 0.83 0.42 4.55 1700 680 1020
20.0 1200 0.50 0.83 0.42 3.80 1893 906 987
25.0 1500 0.50 0.83 0.42 3.35 2086 1133 953
30.0 1800 0.50 0.83 0.42 2.90 2167 1359 808
35.0 2100 0.50 0.83 0.42 2.65 2310 1586 725
40.0 2400 0.50 0.83 0.42 2.40 2391 1812 579
45.0 2700 0.50 0.83 0.42 2.20 2466 2039 427
50.0 3000 0.50 0.83 0.42 2.05 2553 2265 288
55.0 3300 0.50 0.83 0.42 1.90 2603 2492 111
60.0 3600 0.50 0.83 0.42 1.80 2690 2719 -28
Maximum Volume: 1,020
110% 1,122
10 Year Pond Volume - 2145 Upland - Pond C
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 426 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Based on FAA Method, per Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. 2, Storage - Section 4
Allowable Release Rate =2.64 cfs (Basin H3)
(100 year historic runoff)(Allowable 100-year rate less undetained runoff)
Composite "C" Factor =0.70 (Based on 100 year Developed conditions)
Basin Designation =A
Basin Size =0.83 acres
TIME TIME C A CXA I INFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE
min sec acres in/hr cf cf cf
5.0 300 0.70 0.83 0.58 10.40 1813 791 1022
10.0 600 0.70 0.83 0.58 8.30 2895 1582 1312
15.0 900 0.70 0.83 0.58 6.60 3452 2373 1079
20.0 1200 0.70 0.83 0.58 5.50 3836 3164 672
25.0 1500 0.70 0.83 0.58 4.70 4098 3955 143
30.0 1800 0.70 0.83 0.58 4.15 4342 4746 -404
35.0 2100 0.70 0.83 0.58 3.75 4577 5537 -960
40.0 2400 0.70 0.83 0.58 3.45 4813 6328 -1516
45.0 2700 0.70 0.83 0.58 3.15 4943 7119 -2176
50.0 3000 0.70 0.83 0.58 2.90 5057 7910 -2854
55.0 3300 0.70 0.83 0.58 2.70 5179 8701 -3523
60.0 3600 0.70 0.83 0.58 2.50 5231 9492 -4261
Maximum Volume: 1,312
110% 1,444
100 Year Pond Volume - 2145 Upland - Pond C
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 427 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Calculate Water Quality Capture Volume - 2180 Violet Avenue - Pond A
Reference UDFCD Manual - Volume 3
1. Basin Storage Volume
A. Imperviousness Ratio (I = Ia / 100)IA = 53.22%
i = 0.532
B. Contributing Watershed A = 1.23 Acres
C. Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV)
WQCV = 0.8 x (0.91 * i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i)
WQCV = 0.172 in / acre
D. Design Volume
Volume = (WQCV / 12) * Area Volume = 0.0177 acre - feet
For Bioretention Facility 771 cubic feet
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) = 771 cubic feet
Required Pond Volume for both Water Quality and Detention
10-year Storm Water Detention Volume FAA 2,619 cubic feet
100% of required Water Quality Volume 771 cubic feet
Required Total Volume 3,390 cubic feet
100-year Storm Water Detention Volume FAA 2,866 cubic feet
50% of required Water Quality Volume 386 cubic feet
Required Total Volume 3,252 cubic feet
Larger of the two required Volumes 3,390 cubic feet
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 428 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Calculate Water Quality Capture Volume - 2100 Violet Avenue - Pond B
Reference UDFCD Manual - Volume 3
1. Basin Storage Volume
A. Imperviousness Ratio (I = Ia / 100)IA = 50.00%
i = 0.500
B. Contributing Watershed A = 1.22 Acres
C. Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV)
WQCV = 0.8 x (0.91 * i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i)
WQCV = 0.165 in / acre
D. Design Volume
Volume = (WQCV / 12) * Area Volume = 0.0167 acre - feet
For Bioretention Facility 729 cubic feet
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) = 729 cubic feet
Required Pond Volume for both Water Quality and Detention
10-year Storm Water Detention Volume FAA 2,271 cubic feet
100% of required Water Quality Volume 729 cubic feet
Required Total Volume 3,000 cubic feet
100-year Storm Water Detention Volume FAA 2,535 cubic feet
50% of required Water Quality Volume 364 cubic feet
Required Total Volume 2,900 cubic feet
Larger of the two required Volumes 3,000 cubic feet
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 429 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
Calculate Water Quality Capture Volume - 2145 Upland Avenue - Pond B
Reference UDFCD Manual - Volume 3
1. Basin Storage Volume
A. Imperviousness Ratio (I = Ia / 100)IA = 40.00%
i = 0.400
B. Contributing Watershed A = 0.83 Acres
C. Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV)
WQCV = 0.8 x (0.91 * i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i)
WQCV = 0.144 in / acre
D. Design Volume
Volume = (WQCV / 12) * Area Volume = 0.0100 acre - feet
For Bioretention Facility 434 cubic feet
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) = 434 cubic feet
Required Pond Volume for both Water Quality and Detention
10-year Storm Water Detention Volume FAA 1,122 cubic feet
100% of required Water Quality Volume 434 cubic feet
Required Total Volume 1,556 cubic feet
100-year Storm Water Detention Volume FAA 1,444 cubic feet
50% of required Water Quality Volume 217 cubic feet
Required Total Volume 1,661 cubic feet
Larger of the two required Volumes 1,661 cubic feet
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 430 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
PROPOSED 10-YR W.S.E.:40.95
PROPOSED 100-YR W.S.E.:41.20
Pond Volume Calculation - 2180 Violet Avenue - Pond A
WEIGHTED INCREMENTAL CUMMULATIVE
AREA AVG AREA VOLUME VOLUME
ELEVATION DEPTH S.F. S.F. C.F. C.F.
39.0 0
1.0 687 687 687
40.0 1,373
1.0 2,128 2,128 2,814
41.0 2,882
1.0 3,615 3,615 6,429
42.0 4,347
TOTAL (CUBIC FEET)6,429
STAGE(SF CUM VOL(CF)
39.00 0
40.00 687
40.15 1,006
40.95 2,708
41.00 2,814
41.20 3,537
42.00 6,429
STAGE/STORAGE
39.0
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000WATER SURFACE ELEVATION(FEET ABOVE MSL) POND VOLUME (CF)
PROPOSED STAGE VS. STORAGE
2180 VIOLET AVENUE, BOULDER, COLORADO
100-YEAR W.S.E.=41.20
VOL=3,537 CFAttachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 431 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
PROPOSED 10-YR W.S.E.:38.50
PROPOSED 100-YR W.S.E.:39.00
Pond Volume Calculation - 2100 Violet Avenue - Pond B
WEIGHTED INCREMENTAL CUMMULATIVE
AREA AVG AREA VOLUME VOLUME
ELEVATION DEPTH S.F. S.F. C.F. C.F.
36.0 0
1.0 267 267 267
37.0 533
1.0 1,301 1,301 1,567
38.0 2,068
1.0 2,594 2,594 4,161
39.0 3,119
TOTAL (CUBIC FEET)4,161
STAGE(SF CUM VOL(CF)
36.00 0
37.00 267
37.30 657
37.60 1,047 WQCV
38.00 1,567
38.30 2,345 10-year
39.00 4,161 100-year
STAGE/STORAGE
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500WATER SURFACE ELEVATION(FEET ABOVE MSL) POND VOLUME (CF)
PROPOSED STAGE VS. STORAGE
2100 VIOLET AVENUE, BOULDER, COLORADO
100-YEAR W.S.E.=39.00
VOL=4,162 CFAttachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 432 of 518
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.PROJECT #:16252D
consulting engineers - surveyors DATE:8/7/2017
BY:DPA
PROPOSED 10-YR W.S.E.:34.80
PROPOSED 100-YR W.S.E.:35.00
Pond Volume Calculation - 2145 Upland Avenue - Pond C
WEIGHTED INCREMENTAL CUMMULATIVE
AREA AVG AREA VOLUME VOLUME
ELEVATION DEPTH S.F. S.F. C.F. C.F.
32.5 0
0.5 295 148 148
33.0 590
1.0 875 875 1,023
34.0 1,160
1.0 1,530 1,530 2,553
35.0 1,899
TOTAL (CUBIC FEET)2,553
STAGE(SF CUM VOL(CF)
32.50 0
33.00 148
33.60 673
34.00 1,023
34.00 1,023
34.20 1,329
35.00 2,553
STAGE/STORAGE
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000WATER SURFACE ELEVATION(FEET ABOVE MSL) POND VOLUME (CF)
PROPOSED STAGE VS. STORAGE
2145 UPLAND AVENUE, BOULDER, COLORADO
100-YEAR W.S.E.=35.00
VOL=2,553 CFAttachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 433 of 518
&KDQQHO5HSRUW
+\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\-XO
9LROHW$YHQXH%DVLQ$)ORZXQGHUEULGJH4LVWZLFHGHYHORSHG\HDUIORZ
8VHUGHILQHG
,QYHUW(OHY IW
6ORSH
19DOXH
&DOFXODWLRQV
&RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4
.QRZQ4 FIV
6WD(OQ 6WD(OQ
+LJKOLJKWHG
'HSWK IW
4 FIV
$UHD VTIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
:HWWHG3HULP IW
&ULW'HSWK<F IW
7RS:LGWK IW
(*/ IW
(OHY IW 'HSWK IW 6HFWLRQ
6WD IW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 434 of 518
&KDQQHO5HSRUW
+\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\-XO
9LROHW$YHQXH%DVLQ%\HDUIORZ3RQG%
7ULDQJXODU
6LGH6ORSHV ]
7RWDO'HSWK IW
,QYHUW(OHY IW
6ORSH
19DOXH
&DOFXODWLRQV
&RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4
.QRZQ4 FIV
+LJKOLJKWHG
'HSWK IW
4 FIV
$UHD VTIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
:HWWHG3HULP IW
&ULW'HSWK<F IW
7RS:LGWK IW
(*/ IW
(OHY IW 'HSWK IW 6HFWLRQ
5HDFK IW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 435 of 518
&KDQQHO5HSRUW
+\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\-XO
9LROHW$YHQXH%DVLQ%\HDUIORZ3RQG%
7ULDQJXODU
6LGH6ORSHV ]
7RWDO'HSWK IW
,QYHUW(OHY IW
6ORSH
19DOXH
&DOFXODWLRQV
&RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4
.QRZQ4 FIV
+LJKOLJKWHG
'HSWK IW
4 FIV
$UHD VTIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
:HWWHG3HULP IW
&ULW'HSWK<F IW
7RS:LGWK IW
(*/ IW
(OHY IW 'HSWK IW 6HFWLRQ
5HDFK IW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 436 of 518
&KDQQHO5HSRUW
+\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\-XO
8SODQG$YHQXH%DVLQ&\HDUIORZ3RQG&
7ULDQJXODU
6LGH6ORSHV ]
7RWDO'HSWK IW
,QYHUW(OHY IW
6ORSH
19DOXH
&DOFXODWLRQV
&RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4
.QRZQ4 FIV
+LJKOLJKWHG
'HSWK IW
4 FIV
$UHD VTIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
:HWWHG3HULP IW
&ULW'HSWK<F IW
7RS:LGWK IW
(*/ IW
(OHY IW 'HSWK IW 6HFWLRQ
5HDFK IW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 437 of 518
&KDQQHO5HSRUW
+\GUDIORZ([SUHVV([WHQVLRQIRU$XWRGHVN$XWR&$'&LYLO'E\$XWRGHVN,QF 0RQGD\-XO
8SODQG$YHQXH%DVLQ&\HDUIORZ3RQG&
7ULDQJXODU
6LGH6ORSHV ]
7RWDO'HSWK IW
,QYHUW(OHY IW
6ORSH
19DOXH
&DOFXODWLRQV
&RPSXWHE\ .QRZQ4
.QRZQ4 FIV
+LJKOLJKWHG
'HSWK IW
4 FIV
$UHD VTIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
:HWWHG3HULP IW
&ULW'HSWK<F IW
7RS:LGWK IW
(*/ IW
(OHY IW 'HSWK IW 6HFWLRQ
5HDFK IW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 438 of 518
8QLWHG6WDWHV
'HSDUWPHQWRI
$JULFXOWXUH
$SURGXFWRIWKH1DWLRQDO
&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
DMRLQWHIIRUWRIWKH8QLWHG
6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI
$JULFXOWXUHDQGRWKHU
)HGHUDODJHQFLHV6WDWH
DJHQFLHVLQFOXGLQJWKH
$JULFXOWXUDO([SHULPHQW
6WDWLRQVDQGORFDO
SDUWLFLSDQWV
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH
5HSRUWIRU
%RXOGHU&RXQW\
$UHD&RORUDGR1DWXUDO
5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ
6HUYLFH
-XQH
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 439 of 518
3UHIDFH
6RLOVXUYH\VFRQWDLQLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWDIIHFWVODQGXVHSODQQLQJLQVXUYH\DUHDV
7KH\KLJKOLJKWVRLOOLPLWDWLRQVWKDWDIIHFWYDULRXVODQGXVHVDQGSURYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQ
DERXWWKHSURSHUWLHVRIWKHVRLOVLQWKHVXUYH\DUHDV6RLOVXUYH\VDUHGHVLJQHGIRU
PDQ\GLIIHUHQWXVHUVLQFOXGLQJIDUPHUVUDQFKHUVIRUHVWHUVDJURQRPLVWVXUEDQ
SODQQHUVFRPPXQLW\RIILFLDOVHQJLQHHUVGHYHORSHUVEXLOGHUVDQGKRPHEX\HUV
$OVRFRQVHUYDWLRQLVWVWHDFKHUVVWXGHQWVDQGVSHFLDOLVWVLQUHFUHDWLRQZDVWH
GLVSRVDODQGSROOXWLRQFRQWUROFDQXVHWKHVXUYH\VWRKHOSWKHPXQGHUVWDQG
SURWHFWRUHQKDQFHWKHHQYLURQPHQW
9DULRXVODQGXVHUHJXODWLRQVRI)HGHUDO6WDWHDQGORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVPD\LPSRVH
VSHFLDOUHVWULFWLRQVRQODQGXVHRUODQGWUHDWPHQW6RLOVXUYH\VLGHQWLI\VRLO
SURSHUWLHVWKDWDUHXVHGLQPDNLQJYDULRXVODQGXVHRUODQGWUHDWPHQWGHFLVLRQV
7KHLQIRUPDWLRQLVLQWHQGHGWRKHOSWKHODQGXVHUVLGHQWLI\DQGUHGXFHWKHHIIHFWVRI
VRLOOLPLWDWLRQVRQYDULRXVODQGXVHV7KHODQGRZQHURUXVHULVUHVSRQVLEOHIRU
LGHQWLI\LQJDQGFRPSO\LQJZLWKH[LVWLQJODZVDQGUHJXODWLRQV
$OWKRXJKVRLOVXUYH\LQIRUPDWLRQFDQEHXVHGIRUJHQHUDOIDUPORFDODQGZLGHUDUHD
SODQQLQJRQVLWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQLVQHHGHGWRVXSSOHPHQWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLQVRPH
FDVHV([DPSOHVLQFOXGHVRLOTXDOLW\DVVHVVPHQWV KWWS ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSV
SRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVKHDOWK DQGFHUWDLQFRQVHUYDWLRQDQGHQJLQHHULQJ
DSSOLFDWLRQV)RUPRUHGHWDLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDFW\RXUORFDO86'$6HUYLFH&HQWHU
KWWSV RIILFHVVFHJRYXVGDJRYORFDWRUDSS"DJHQF\ QUFV RU\RXU15&66WDWH6RLO
6FLHQWLVW KWWS ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOVRLOVFRQWDFWXV"
FLG QUFVSB
*UHDWGLIIHUHQFHVLQVRLOSURSHUWLHVFDQRFFXUZLWKLQVKRUWGLVWDQFHV6RPHVRLOVDUH
VHDVRQDOO\ZHWRUVXEMHFWWRIORRGLQJ6RPHDUHWRRXQVWDEOHWREHXVHGDVD
IRXQGDWLRQIRUEXLOGLQJVRUURDGV&OD\H\RUZHWVRLOVDUHSRRUO\VXLWHGWRXVHDV
VHSWLFWDQNDEVRUSWLRQILHOGV$KLJKZDWHUWDEOHPDNHVDVRLOSRRUO\VXLWHGWR
EDVHPHQWVRUXQGHUJURXQGLQVWDOODWLRQV
7KH1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\LVDMRLQWHIIRUWRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUHDQGRWKHU)HGHUDODJHQFLHV6WDWHDJHQFLHVLQFOXGLQJWKH
$JULFXOWXUDO([SHULPHQW6WDWLRQVDQGORFDODJHQFLHV7KH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH 15&6 KDVOHDGHUVKLSIRUWKH)HGHUDOSDUWRIWKH1DWLRQDO
&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
,QIRUPDWLRQDERXWVRLOVLVXSGDWHGSHULRGLFDOO\8SGDWHGLQIRUPDWLRQLVDYDLODEOH
WKURXJKWKH15&6:HE6RLO6XUYH\WKHVLWHIRURIILFLDOVRLOVXUYH\LQIRUPDWLRQ
7KH86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH 86'$ SURKLELWVGLVFULPLQDWLRQLQDOOLWV
SURJUDPVDQGDFWLYLWLHVRQWKHEDVLVRIUDFHFRORUQDWLRQDORULJLQDJHGLVDELOLW\
DQGZKHUHDSSOLFDEOHVH[PDULWDOVWDWXVIDPLOLDOVWDWXVSDUHQWDOVWDWXVUHOLJLRQ
VH[XDORULHQWDWLRQJHQHWLFLQIRUPDWLRQSROLWLFDOEHOLHIVUHSULVDORUEHFDXVHDOORUD
SDUWRIDQLQGLYLGXDO
VLQFRPHLVGHULYHGIURPDQ\SXEOLFDVVLVWDQFHSURJUDP 1RW
DOOSURKLELWHGEDVHVDSSO\WRDOOSURJUDPV 3HUVRQVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHVZKRUHTXLUH
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 440 of 518
DOWHUQDWLYHPHDQVIRUFRPPXQLFDWLRQRISURJUDPLQIRUPDWLRQ %UDLOOHODUJHSULQW
DXGLRWDSHHWF VKRXOGFRQWDFW86'$
V7$5*(7&HQWHUDW YRLFH
DQG7'' 7RILOHDFRPSODLQWRIGLVFULPLQDWLRQZULWHWR86'$'LUHFWRU2IILFHRI
&LYLO5LJKWV,QGHSHQGHQFH$YHQXH6::DVKLQJWRQ'& RU
FDOO YRLFH RU 7'' 86'$LVDQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\
SURYLGHUDQGHPSOR\HU
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 441 of 518
&RQWHQWV
3UHIDFH
+RZ6RLO6XUYH\V$UH0DGH
6RLO0DS
6RLO0DS
/HJHQG
0DS8QLW/HJHQG
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQV
%RXOGHU&RXQW\$UHD&RORUDGR
1G'²1HGHUODQGYHU\FREEO\VDQG\ORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHV
5HIHUHQFHV
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 442 of 518
+RZ6RLO6XUYH\V$UH0DGH
6RLOVXUYH\VDUHPDGHWRSURYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHVRLOVDQGPLVFHOODQHRXV
DUHDVLQDVSHFLILFDUHD7KH\LQFOXGHDGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHVRLOVDQGPLVFHOODQHRXV
DUHDVDQGWKHLUORFDWLRQRQWKHODQGVFDSHDQGWDEOHVWKDWVKRZVRLOSURSHUWLHVDQG
OLPLWDWLRQVDIIHFWLQJYDULRXVXVHV6RLOVFLHQWLVWVREVHUYHGWKHVWHHSQHVVOHQJWK
DQGVKDSHRIWKHVORSHV WKHJHQHUDOSDWWHUQRIGUDLQDJH WKHNLQGVRIFURSVDQG
QDWLYHSODQWV DQGWKHNLQGVRIEHGURFN7KH\REVHUYHGDQGGHVFULEHGPDQ\VRLO
SURILOHV$VRLOSURILOHLVWKHVHTXHQFHRIQDWXUDOOD\HUVRUKRUL]RQVLQDVRLO7KH
SURILOHH[WHQGVIURPWKHVXUIDFHGRZQLQWRWKHXQFRQVROLGDWHGPDWHULDOLQZKLFKWKH
VRLOIRUPHGRUIURPWKHVXUIDFHGRZQWREHGURFN7KHXQFRQVROLGDWHGPDWHULDOLV
GHYRLGRIURRWVDQGRWKHUOLYLQJRUJDQLVPVDQGKDVQRWEHHQFKDQJHGE\RWKHU
ELRORJLFDODFWLYLW\
&XUUHQWO\VRLOVDUHPDSSHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHERXQGDULHVRIPDMRUODQGUHVRXUFH
DUHDV 0/5$V 0/5$VDUHJHRJUDSKLFDOO\DVVRFLDWHGODQGUHVRXUFHXQLWVWKDW
VKDUHFRPPRQFKDUDFWHULVWLFVUHODWHGWRSK\VLRJUDSK\JHRORJ\FOLPDWHZDWHU
UHVRXUFHVVRLOVELRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVDQGODQGXVHV 86'$ 6RLOVXUYH\
DUHDVW\SLFDOO\FRQVLVWRISDUWVRIRQHRUPRUH0/5$
7KHVRLOVDQGPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVLQDVXUYH\DUHDRFFXULQDQRUGHUO\SDWWHUQWKDW
LVUHODWHGWRWKHJHRORJ\ODQGIRUPVUHOLHIFOLPDWHDQGQDWXUDOYHJHWDWLRQRIWKH
DUHD(DFKNLQGRIVRLODQGPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDLVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDSDUWLFXODUNLQG
RIODQGIRUPRUZLWKDVHJPHQWRIWKHODQGIRUP%\REVHUYLQJWKHVRLOVDQG
PLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVLQWKHVXUYH\DUHDDQGUHODWLQJWKHLUSRVLWLRQWRVSHFLILF
VHJPHQWVRIWKHODQGIRUPDVRLOVFLHQWLVWGHYHORSVDFRQFHSWRUPRGHORIKRZWKH\
ZHUHIRUPHG7KXVGXULQJPDSSLQJWKLVPRGHOHQDEOHVWKHVRLOVFLHQWLVWWRSUHGLFW
ZLWKDFRQVLGHUDEOHGHJUHHRIDFFXUDF\WKHNLQGRIVRLORUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDDWD
VSHFLILFORFDWLRQRQWKHODQGVFDSH
&RPPRQO\LQGLYLGXDOVRLOVRQWKHODQGVFDSHPHUJHLQWRRQHDQRWKHUDVWKHLU
FKDUDFWHULVWLFVJUDGXDOO\FKDQJH7RFRQVWUXFWDQDFFXUDWHVRLOPDSKRZHYHUVRLO
VFLHQWLVWVPXVWGHWHUPLQHWKHERXQGDULHVEHWZHHQWKHVRLOV7KH\FDQREVHUYHRQO\
DOLPLWHGQXPEHURIVRLOSURILOHV1HYHUWKHOHVVWKHVHREVHUYDWLRQVVXSSOHPHQWHG
E\DQXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHVRLOYHJHWDWLRQODQGVFDSHUHODWLRQVKLSDUHVXIILFLHQWWR
YHULI\SUHGLFWLRQVRIWKHNLQGVRIVRLOLQDQDUHDDQGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHERXQGDULHV
6RLOVFLHQWLVWVUHFRUGHGWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIWKHVRLOSURILOHVWKDWWKH\VWXGLHG7KH\
QRWHGVRLOFRORUWH[WXUHVL]HDQGVKDSHRIVRLODJJUHJDWHVNLQGDQGDPRXQWRIURFN
IUDJPHQWVGLVWULEXWLRQRISODQWURRWVUHDFWLRQDQGRWKHUIHDWXUHVWKDWHQDEOHWKHP
WRLGHQWLI\VRLOV$IWHUGHVFULELQJWKHVRLOVLQWKHVXUYH\DUHDDQGGHWHUPLQLQJWKHLU
SURSHUWLHVWKHVRLOVFLHQWLVWVDVVLJQHGWKHVRLOVWRWD[RQRPLFFODVVHV XQLWV
7D[RQRPLFFODVVHVDUHFRQFHSWV(DFKWD[RQRPLFFODVVKDVDVHWRIVRLO
FKDUDFWHULVWLFVZLWKSUHFLVHO\GHILQHGOLPLWV7KHFODVVHVDUHXVHGDVDEDVLVIRU
FRPSDULVRQWRFODVVLI\VRLOVV\VWHPDWLFDOO\6RLOWD[RQRP\WKHV\VWHPRIWD[RQRPLF
FODVVLILFDWLRQXVHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLVEDVHGPDLQO\RQWKHNLQGDQGFKDUDFWHU
RIVRLOSURSHUWLHVDQGWKHDUUDQJHPHQWRIKRUL]RQVZLWKLQWKHSURILOH$IWHUWKHVRLO
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 443 of 518
VFLHQWLVWVFODVVLILHGDQGQDPHGWKHVRLOVLQWKHVXUYH\DUHDWKH\FRPSDUHGWKH
LQGLYLGXDOVRLOVZLWKVLPLODUVRLOVLQWKHVDPHWD[RQRPLFFODVVLQRWKHUDUHDVVRWKDW
WKH\FRXOGFRQILUPGDWDDQGDVVHPEOHDGGLWLRQDOGDWDEDVHGRQH[SHULHQFHDQG
UHVHDUFK
7KHREMHFWLYHRIVRLOPDSSLQJLVQRWWRGHOLQHDWHSXUHPDSXQLWFRPSRQHQWV WKH
REMHFWLYHLVWRVHSDUDWHWKHODQGVFDSHLQWRODQGIRUPVRUODQGIRUPVHJPHQWVWKDW
KDYHVLPLODUXVHDQGPDQDJHPHQWUHTXLUHPHQWV(DFKPDSXQLWLVGHILQHGE\D
XQLTXHFRPELQDWLRQRIVRLOFRPSRQHQWVDQGRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVLQSUHGLFWDEOH
SURSRUWLRQV6RPHFRPSRQHQWVPD\EHKLJKO\FRQWUDVWLQJWRWKHRWKHUFRPSRQHQWV
RIWKHPDSXQLW7KHSUHVHQFHRIPLQRUFRPSRQHQWVLQDPDSXQLWLQQRZD\
GLPLQLVKHVWKHXVHIXOQHVVRUDFFXUDF\RIWKHGDWD7KHGHOLQHDWLRQRIVXFK
ODQGIRUPVDQGODQGIRUPVHJPHQWVRQWKHPDSSURYLGHVVXIILFLHQWLQIRUPDWLRQIRUWKH
GHYHORSPHQWRIUHVRXUFHSODQV,ILQWHQVLYHXVHRIVPDOODUHDVLVSODQQHGRQVLWH
LQYHVWLJDWLRQLVQHHGHGWRGHILQHDQGORFDWHWKHVRLOVDQGPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDV
6RLOVFLHQWLVWVPDNHPDQ\ILHOGREVHUYDWLRQVLQWKHSURFHVVRISURGXFLQJDVRLOPDS
7KHIUHTXHQF\RIREVHUYDWLRQLVGHSHQGHQWXSRQVHYHUDOIDFWRUVLQFOXGLQJVFDOHRI
PDSSLQJLQWHQVLW\RIPDSSLQJGHVLJQRIPDSXQLWVFRPSOH[LW\RIWKHODQGVFDSH
DQGH[SHULHQFHRIWKHVRLOVFLHQWLVW2EVHUYDWLRQVDUHPDGHWRWHVWDQGUHILQHWKH
VRLOODQGVFDSHPRGHODQGSUHGLFWLRQVDQGWRYHULI\WKHFODVVLILFDWLRQRIWKHVRLOVDW
VSHFLILFORFDWLRQV2QFHWKHVRLOODQGVFDSHPRGHOLVUHILQHGDVLJQLILFDQWO\VPDOOHU
QXPEHURIPHDVXUHPHQWVRILQGLYLGXDOVRLOSURSHUWLHVDUHPDGHDQGUHFRUGHG
7KHVHPHDVXUHPHQWVPD\LQFOXGHILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVVXFKDVWKRVHIRUFRORU
GHSWKWREHGURFNDQGWH[WXUHDQGODERUDWRU\PHDVXUHPHQWVVXFKDVWKRVHIRU
FRQWHQWRIVDQGVLOWFOD\VDOWDQGRWKHUFRPSRQHQWV3URSHUWLHVRIHDFKVRLO
W\SLFDOO\YDU\IURPRQHSRLQWWRDQRWKHUDFURVVWKHODQGVFDSH
2EVHUYDWLRQVIRUPDSXQLWFRPSRQHQWVDUHDJJUHJDWHGWRGHYHORSUDQJHVRI
FKDUDFWHULVWLFVIRUWKHFRPSRQHQWV7KHDJJUHJDWHGYDOXHVDUHSUHVHQWHG'LUHFW
PHDVXUHPHQWVGRQRWH[LVWIRUHYHU\SURSHUW\SUHVHQWHGIRUHYHU\PDSXQLW
FRPSRQHQW9DOXHVIRUVRPHSURSHUWLHVDUHHVWLPDWHGIURPFRPELQDWLRQVRIRWKHU
SURSHUWLHV
:KLOHDVRLOVXUYH\LVLQSURJUHVVVDPSOHVRIVRPHRIWKHVRLOVLQWKHDUHDJHQHUDOO\
DUHFROOHFWHGIRUODERUDWRU\DQDO\VHVDQGIRUHQJLQHHULQJWHVWV6RLOVFLHQWLVWV
LQWHUSUHWWKHGDWDIURPWKHVHDQDO\VHVDQGWHVWVDVZHOODVWKHILHOGREVHUYHG
FKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWKHVRLOSURSHUWLHVWRGHWHUPLQHWKHH[SHFWHGEHKDYLRURIWKH
VRLOVXQGHUGLIIHUHQWXVHV,QWHUSUHWDWLRQVIRUDOORIWKHVRLOVDUHILHOGWHVWHGWKURXJK
REVHUYDWLRQRIWKHVRLOVLQGLIIHUHQWXVHVDQGXQGHUGLIIHUHQWOHYHOVRIPDQDJHPHQW
6RPHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQVDUHPRGLILHGWRILWORFDOFRQGLWLRQVDQGVRPHQHZ
LQWHUSUHWDWLRQVDUHGHYHORSHGWRPHHWORFDOQHHGV'DWDDUHDVVHPEOHGIURPRWKHU
VRXUFHVVXFKDVUHVHDUFKLQIRUPDWLRQSURGXFWLRQUHFRUGVDQGILHOGH[SHULHQFHRI
VSHFLDOLVWV)RUH[DPSOHGDWDRQFURS\LHOGVXQGHUGHILQHGOHYHOVRIPDQDJHPHQW
DUHDVVHPEOHGIURPIDUPUHFRUGVDQGIURPILHOGRUSORWH[SHULPHQWVRQWKHVDPH
NLQGVRIVRLO
3UHGLFWLRQVDERXWVRLOEHKDYLRUDUHEDVHGQRWRQO\RQVRLOSURSHUWLHVEXWDOVRRQ
VXFKYDULDEOHVDVFOLPDWHDQGELRORJLFDODFWLYLW\6RLOFRQGLWLRQVDUHSUHGLFWDEOHRYHU
ORQJSHULRGVRIWLPHEXWWKH\DUHQRWSUHGLFWDEOHIURP\HDUWR\HDU)RUH[DPSOH
VRLOVFLHQWLVWVFDQSUHGLFWZLWKDIDLUO\KLJKGHJUHHRIDFFXUDF\WKDWDJLYHQVRLOZLOO
KDYHDKLJKZDWHUWDEOHZLWKLQFHUWDLQGHSWKVLQPRVW\HDUVEXWWKH\FDQQRWSUHGLFW
WKDWDKLJKZDWHUWDEOHZLOODOZD\VEHDWDVSHFLILFOHYHOLQWKHVRLORQDVSHFLILFGDWH
$IWHUVRLOVFLHQWLVWVORFDWHGDQGLGHQWLILHGWKHVLJQLILFDQWQDWXUDOERGLHVRIVRLOLQWKH
VXUYH\DUHDWKH\GUHZWKHERXQGDULHVRIWKHVHERGLHVRQDHULDOSKRWRJUDSKVDQG
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 444 of 518
LGHQWLILHGHDFKDVDVSHFLILFPDSXQLW$HULDOSKRWRJUDSKVVKRZWUHHVEXLOGLQJV
ILHOGVURDGVDQGULYHUVDOORIZKLFKKHOSLQORFDWLQJERXQGDULHVDFFXUDWHO\
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 445 of 518
6RLO0DS
7KHVRLOPDSVHFWLRQLQFOXGHVWKHVRLOPDSIRUWKHGHILQHGDUHDRILQWHUHVWDOLVWRI
VRLOPDSXQLWVRQWKHPDSDQGH[WHQWRIHDFKPDSXQLWDQGFDUWRJUDSKLFV\PEROV
GLVSOD\HGRQWKHPDS$OVRSUHVHQWHGDUHYDULRXVPHWDGDWDDERXWGDWDXVHGWR
SURGXFHWKHPDSDQGDGHVFULSWLRQRIHDFKVRLOPDSXQLW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 446 of 518
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
6RLO0DS
40° 3' 16'' N 105° 16' 10'' W40° 3' 16'' N105° 16' 4'' W40° 3' 9'' N
105° 16' 10'' W40° 3' 9'' N
105° 16' 4'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
Feet
Meters
Map Scale: 1:990 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 447 of 518
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²6HS7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUHFRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQGLPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRUVKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUWAttachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 448 of 518
0DS8QLW/HJHQG
%RXOGHU&RXQW\$UHD&RORUDGR &2
0DS8QLW6\PERO 0DS8QLW1DPH $FUHVLQ$2, 3HUFHQWRI$2,
1G' 1HGHUODQGYHU\FREEO\VDQG\
ORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHV
7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQV
7KHPDSXQLWVGHOLQHDWHGRQWKHGHWDLOHGVRLOPDSVLQDVRLOVXUYH\UHSUHVHQWWKH
VRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVLQWKHVXUYH\DUHD7KHPDSXQLWGHVFULSWLRQVDORQJ
ZLWKWKHPDSVFDQEHXVHGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHFRPSRVLWLRQDQGSURSHUWLHVRIDXQLW
$PDSXQLWGHOLQHDWLRQRQDVRLOPDSUHSUHVHQWVDQDUHDGRPLQDWHGE\RQHRUPRUH
PDMRUNLQGVRIVRLORUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDV$PDSXQLWLVLGHQWLILHGDQGQDPHG
DFFRUGLQJWRWKHWD[RQRPLFFODVVLILFDWLRQRIWKHGRPLQDQWVRLOV:LWKLQDWD[RQRPLF
FODVVWKHUHDUHSUHFLVHO\GHILQHGOLPLWVIRUWKHSURSHUWLHVRIWKHVRLOV2QWKH
ODQGVFDSHKRZHYHUWKHVRLOVDUHQDWXUDOSKHQRPHQDDQGWKH\KDYHWKH
FKDUDFWHULVWLFYDULDELOLW\RIDOOQDWXUDOSKHQRPHQD7KXVWKHUDQJHRIVRPH
REVHUYHGSURSHUWLHVPD\H[WHQGEH\RQGWKHOLPLWVGHILQHGIRUDWD[RQRPLFFODVV
$UHDVRIVRLOVRIDVLQJOHWD[RQRPLFFODVVUDUHO\LIHYHUFDQEHPDSSHGZLWKRXW
LQFOXGLQJDUHDVRIRWKHUWD[RQRPLFFODVVHV&RQVHTXHQWO\HYHU\PDSXQLWLVPDGH
XSRIWKHVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVIRUZKLFKLWLVQDPHGDQGVRPHPLQRU
FRPSRQHQWVWKDWEHORQJWRWD[RQRPLFFODVVHVRWKHUWKDQWKRVHRIWKHPDMRUVRLOV
0RVWPLQRUVRLOVKDYHSURSHUWLHVVLPLODUWRWKRVHRIWKHGRPLQDQWVRLORUVRLOVLQWKH
PDSXQLWDQGWKXVWKH\GRQRWDIIHFWXVHDQGPDQDJHPHQW7KHVHDUHFDOOHG
QRQFRQWUDVWLQJRUVLPLODUFRPSRQHQWV7KH\PD\RUPD\QRWEHPHQWLRQHGLQD
SDUWLFXODUPDSXQLWGHVFULSWLRQ2WKHUPLQRUFRPSRQHQWVKRZHYHUKDYHSURSHUWLHV
DQGEHKDYLRUDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFVGLYHUJHQWHQRXJKWRDIIHFWXVHRUWRUHTXLUHGLIIHUHQW
PDQDJHPHQW7KHVHDUHFDOOHGFRQWUDVWLQJRUGLVVLPLODUFRPSRQHQWV7KH\
JHQHUDOO\DUHLQVPDOODUHDVDQGFRXOGQRWEHPDSSHGVHSDUDWHO\EHFDXVHRIWKH
VFDOHXVHG6RPHVPDOODUHDVRIVWURQJO\FRQWUDVWLQJVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDV
DUHLGHQWLILHGE\DVSHFLDOV\PERORQWKHPDSV,ILQFOXGHGLQWKHGDWDEDVHIRUD
JLYHQDUHDWKHFRQWUDVWLQJPLQRUFRPSRQHQWVDUHLGHQWLILHGLQWKHPDSXQLW
GHVFULSWLRQVDORQJZLWKVRPHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIHDFK$IHZDUHDVRIPLQRU
FRPSRQHQWVPD\QRWKDYHEHHQREVHUYHGDQGFRQVHTXHQWO\WKH\DUHQRW
PHQWLRQHGLQWKHGHVFULSWLRQVHVSHFLDOO\ZKHUHWKHSDWWHUQZDVVRFRPSOH[WKDWLW
ZDVLPSUDFWLFDOWRPDNHHQRXJKREVHUYDWLRQVWRLGHQWLI\DOOWKHVRLOVDQG
PLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVRQWKHODQGVFDSH
7KHSUHVHQFHRIPLQRUFRPSRQHQWVLQDPDSXQLWLQQRZD\GLPLQLVKHVWKH
XVHIXOQHVVRUDFFXUDF\RIWKHGDWD7KHREMHFWLYHRIPDSSLQJLVQRWWRGHOLQHDWH
SXUHWD[RQRPLFFODVVHVEXWUDWKHUWRVHSDUDWHWKHODQGVFDSHLQWRODQGIRUPVRU
ODQGIRUPVHJPHQWVWKDWKDYHVLPLODUXVHDQGPDQDJHPHQWUHTXLUHPHQWV7KH
GHOLQHDWLRQRIVXFKVHJPHQWVRQWKHPDSSURYLGHVVXIILFLHQWLQIRUPDWLRQIRUWKH
GHYHORSPHQWRIUHVRXUFHSODQV,ILQWHQVLYHXVHRIVPDOODUHDVLVSODQQHGKRZHYHU
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 449 of 518
RQVLWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQLVQHHGHGWRGHILQHDQGORFDWHWKHVRLOVDQGPLVFHOODQHRXV
DUHDV
$QLGHQWLI\LQJV\PEROSUHFHGHVWKHPDSXQLWQDPHLQWKHPDSXQLWGHVFULSWLRQV
(DFKGHVFULSWLRQLQFOXGHVJHQHUDOIDFWVDERXWWKHXQLWDQGJLYHVLPSRUWDQWVRLO
SURSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6RLOVWKDWKDYHSURILOHVWKDWDUHDOPRVWDOLNHPDNHXSDVRLOVHULHV([FHSWIRU
GLIIHUHQFHVLQWH[WXUHRIWKHVXUIDFHOD\HUDOOWKHVRLOVRIDVHULHVKDYHPDMRU
KRUL]RQVWKDWDUHVLPLODULQFRPSRVLWLRQWKLFNQHVVDQGDUUDQJHPHQW
6RLOVRIRQHVHULHVFDQGLIIHULQWH[WXUHRIWKHVXUIDFHOD\HUVORSHVWRQLQHVV
VDOLQLW\GHJUHHRIHURVLRQDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWDIIHFWWKHLUXVH2QWKH
EDVLVRIVXFKGLIIHUHQFHVDVRLOVHULHVLVGLYLGHGLQWRVRLOSKDVHV0RVWRIWKHDUHDV
VKRZQRQWKHGHWDLOHGVRLOPDSVDUHSKDVHVRIVRLOVHULHV7KHQDPHRIDVRLOSKDVH
FRPPRQO\LQGLFDWHVDIHDWXUHWKDWDIIHFWVXVHRUPDQDJHPHQW)RUH[DPSOH$OSKD
VLOWORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVLVDSKDVHRIWKH$OSKDVHULHV
6RPHPDSXQLWVDUHPDGHXSRIWZRRUPRUHPDMRUVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDV
7KHVHPDSXQLWVDUHFRPSOH[HVDVVRFLDWLRQVRUXQGLIIHUHQWLDWHGJURXSV
$FRPSOH[FRQVLVWVRIWZRRUPRUHVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVLQVXFKDQLQWULFDWH
SDWWHUQRULQVXFKVPDOODUHDVWKDWWKH\FDQQRWEHVKRZQVHSDUDWHO\RQWKHPDSV
7KHSDWWHUQDQGSURSRUWLRQRIWKHVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVDUHVRPHZKDWVLPLODU
LQDOODUHDV$OSKD%HWDFRPSOH[WRSHUFHQWVORSHVLVDQH[DPSOH
$QDVVRFLDWLRQLVPDGHXSRIWZRRUPRUHJHRJUDSKLFDOO\DVVRFLDWHGVRLOVRU
PLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVWKDWDUHVKRZQDVRQHXQLWRQWKHPDSV%HFDXVHRISUHVHQW
RUDQWLFLSDWHGXVHVRIWKHPDSXQLWVLQWKHVXUYH\DUHDLWZDVQRWFRQVLGHUHG
SUDFWLFDORUQHFHVVDU\WRPDSWKHVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVVHSDUDWHO\7KH
SDWWHUQDQGUHODWLYHSURSRUWLRQRIWKHVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVDUHVRPHZKDW
VLPLODU$OSKD%HWDDVVRFLDWLRQWRSHUFHQWVORSHVLVDQH[DPSOH
$QXQGLIIHUHQWLDWHGJURXSLVPDGHXSRIWZRRUPRUHVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDV
WKDWFRXOGEHPDSSHGLQGLYLGXDOO\EXWDUHPDSSHGDVRQHXQLWEHFDXVHVLPLODU
LQWHUSUHWDWLRQVFDQEHPDGHIRUXVHDQGPDQDJHPHQW7KHSDWWHUQDQGSURSRUWLRQ
RIWKHVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVLQDPDSSHGDUHDDUHQRWXQLIRUP$QDUHDFDQ
EHPDGHXSRIRQO\RQHRIWKHPDMRUVRLOVRUPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDVRULWFDQEHPDGH
XSRIDOORIWKHP$OSKDDQG%HWDVRLOVWRSHUFHQWVORSHVLVDQH[DPSOH
6RPHVXUYH\VLQFOXGHPLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDV6XFKDUHDVKDYHOLWWOHRUQRVRLO
PDWHULDODQGVXSSRUWOLWWOHRUQRYHJHWDWLRQ5RFNRXWFURSLVDQH[DPSOH
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 450 of 518
%RXOGHU&RXQW\$UHD&RORUDGR
1G'²1HGHUODQGYHU\FREEO\VDQG\ORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHV
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO MSV
(OHYDWLRQ WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ 1RWSULPHIDUPODQG
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
1HGHUODQGDQGVLPLODUVRLOV SHUFHQW
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW
'HVFULSWLRQRI1HGHUODQG
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP $OOXYLDOIDQVWHUUDFHV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO %DVHVORSHWUHDG
'RZQVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
3DUHQWPDWHULDO &REEO\ORDP\DOOXYLXP
7\SLFDOSURILOH
+WRLQFKHV YHU\FREEO\VDQG\ORDP
+WRLQFKHV YHU\FREEO\VDQG\FOD\ORDP
+WRLQFKHV YHU\FREEO\VDQG\ORDP
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
1DWXUDOGUDLQDJHFODVV :HOOGUDLQHG
5XQRIIFODVV 0HGLXP
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU .VDW 0RGHUDWHO\KLJKWR
KLJK WRLQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ 1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ 1RQH
$YDLODEOHZDWHUVWRUDJHLQSURILOH /RZ DERXW LQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ LUULJDWHG 1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ QRQLUULJDWHG V
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS %
(FRORJLFDOVLWH &REEO\)RRWKLOOV 5$<&2
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
0LQRU&RPSRQHQWV
9DOPRQW
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 451 of 518
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 452 of 518
5HIHUHQFHV
$PHULFDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI6WDWH+LJKZD\DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ2IILFLDOV $$6+72
6WDQGDUGVSHFLILFDWLRQVIRUWUDQVSRUWDWLRQPDWHULDOVDQGPHWKRGVRIVDPSOLQJ
DQGWHVWLQJWKHGLWLRQ
$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\IRU7HVWLQJDQG0DWHULDOV $670 6WDQGDUGFODVVLILFDWLRQRI
VRLOVIRUHQJLQHHULQJSXUSRVHV$6706WDQGDUG'
&RZDUGLQ/09&DUWHU)&*ROHWDQG(7/D5RH &ODVVLILFDWLRQRI
ZHWODQGVDQGGHHSZDWHUKDELWDWVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV86)LVKDQG:LOGOLIH
6HUYLFH):62%6
)HGHUDO5HJLVWHU-XO\ &KDQJHVLQK\GULFVRLOVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
)HGHUDO5HJLVWHU6HSWHPEHU+\GULFVRLOVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
+XUW*:DQG/09DVLODVHGLWRUV9HUVLRQ)LHOGLQGLFDWRUVRIK\GULF
VRLOVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
1DWLRQDO5HVHDUFK&RXQFLO :HWODQGV &KDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGERXQGDULHV
6RLO6XUYH\'LYLVLRQ6WDII 6RLOVXUYH\PDQXDO6RLO&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH+DQGERRNKWWS ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDO
QUFVGHWDLOQDWLRQDOVRLOV"FLG QUFVSB
6RLO6XUYH\6WDII 6RLOWD[RQRP\ $EDVLFV\VWHPRIVRLOFODVVLILFDWLRQIRU
PDNLQJDQGLQWHUSUHWLQJVRLOVXUYH\VQGHGLWLRQ1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ
6HUYLFH86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH+DQGERRNKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOQDWLRQDOVRLOV"FLG QUFVSB
6RLO6XUYH\6WDII.H\VWRVRLOWD[RQRP\WKHGLWLRQ86'HSDUWPHQWRI
$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFHKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOQDWLRQDOVRLOV"FLG QUFVSB
7LQHU5:-U :HWODQGVRI'HODZDUH86)LVKDQG:LOGOLIH6HUYLFHDQG
'HODZDUH'HSDUWPHQWRI1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHVDQG(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQWURO:HWODQGV
6HFWLRQ
8QLWHG6WDWHV$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV(QYLURQPHQWDO/DERUDWRU\ &RUSVRI
(QJLQHHUVZHWODQGVGHOLQHDWLRQPDQXDO:DWHUZD\V([SHULPHQW6WDWLRQ7HFKQLFDO
5HSRUW<
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
1DWLRQDOIRUHVWU\PDQXDOKWWS ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOVRLOV
KRPH"FLG QUFVSB
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
1DWLRQDOUDQJHDQGSDVWXUHKDQGERRNKWWS ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFV
GHWDLOQDWLRQDOODQGXVHUDQJHSDVWXUH"FLG VWHOSUGE
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 453 of 518
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
1DWLRQDOVRLOVXUYH\KDQGERRNWLWOH9,KWWS ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDO
QUFVGHWDLOVRLOVVFLHQWLVWV"FLG QUFVSB
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
/DQGUHVRXUFHUHJLRQVDQGPDMRUODQGUHVRXUFHDUHDVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
WKH&DULEEHDQDQGWKH3DFLILF%DVLQ86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH+DQGERRN
KWWS ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOQDWLRQDOVRLOV"
FLG QUFVSB
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH6RLO&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH /DQG
FDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH+DQGERRNKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRY,QWHUQHW)6(B'2&80(176QUFVSB SGI
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 454 of 518
/6&75$163257$7,21&2168/7$176,1&
<RUN6WUHHW
'HQYHU&2
)$;
(PDLO OVF#OVFGHQYHUFRP
August 1, 2017
Mr. Don Ash
Scott, Cox & Associates, Inc.
1530 55th Street
Boulder, CO 80303
Re: 22
nd & Violet Residential
Boulder, CO
LSC #160481
Dear Mr. Ash:
In response to your request, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared this Trip
Generation and Assignment Report for the proposed residential development at 22nd Street and
Violet Avenue. As shown on Figure 1, the site is located south of Violet Avenue and west of 22nd
Street in Boulder, Colorado.
IMPACT AREA
Figure 1 shows the vicinity map.
Area Roadways
The major roadways in the site’s vicinity are shown on Figure 1 and are described below.
• Violet Avenue is an east-west, two-lane collector roadway north of the site. The inter-
sections with 22nd Street and 28th Street are stop-sign controlled. The posted speed limit in
the vicinity of the site is 35 mph.
•22nd Street is a north-south, two-lane local roadway east of the site. The intersection with
Violet Avenue is stop-sign controlled. No speed limit is posted.
•Upland Avenue is an east-west, two-lane local roadway south of the site. It provides local
access from 19th Street to the west. The intersection with 19th Street is stop-sign controlled.
•28th Street (US 36) is a north-south, two-lane street east of the site. It is classified as NR-A
(Non-Rural Principal Highway) by CDOT. The intersection with Violet Avenue is unsignali-
zed. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 45 mph.
•19th Street is a north-south, two-lane collector roadway west of the site. The intersection
with Violet Avenue is all-way stop-sign controlled. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of
the site is 25 mph.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 455 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 456 of 518
7DEOH(67,0$7('75$)),&*(1(5$7,21QG 9LROHW5HVLGHQWLDO%RXOGHU&2/6& $XJXVW9HKLFOH7ULSV*HQHUDWHG7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ5DWHV 303HDN+RXU$03HDN+RXU$YHUDJH303HDN+RXU$03HDN+RXU$YHUDJH2XW,Q2XW,Q:HHNGD\2XW,Q2XW,Q:HHNGD\4XDQWLW\7ULS*HQHUDWLQJ&DWHJRU\'8 7RZQKRPHV '8 6LQJOH)DPLO\'HWDFKHG $OWHUQDWLYH7UDYHO0RGH5HGXFWLRQ 1HW7RWDO7ULSV 1RWHV 6RXUFH Trip Generation,QVWLWXWHRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ(QJLQHHUV WK(GLWLRQ ,7(/DQG8VH1R5HVLGHQWLDO&RQGRPLQLXP7RZQKRXVH '8 'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV ,7(/DQG8VH1R6LQJOH)DPLO\'HWDFKHG+RXVLQJ :LOOEHVXSSRUWHGE\DIXWXUH7UDYHO'HPDQG0DQDJHPHQW 7'0 SODQ Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 457 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 458 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 459 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 460 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 461 of 518
Tree Inventory
at 2145 Upland Avenue
Tree Inventory
at 2145 Upland Avenue
Inventory Performed For:
Don Ash
Scott, Cox & Associates Inc.
1530 55th Street
Boulder,CO 80303
Inventory Performed By:
Stefan Ringgenberg
Boulder Tree & Landscape Consulting
7289 Petursdale Ct.
Boulder, CO 80301
303-530-0640
August 25, 2017
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 462 of 518
Tree Inventory at 2145 Upland Ave.
Boulder, Colorado
Boulder Tree & Landscape Consulting August 25, 2017
I, Stef Ringgenberg of Boulder Tree & Landscape Consulting, was asked to perform a tree inventory at 2145
Upland Avenue in Boulder, Colorado. I visited the site on August 24th and 25th, 2017
There are 218 signi¿cant trees on the property. There are more trees, mostly under one inch in diameter, crowd-
ed in with the others. The trees in the front yard have good spacing, but the trees in the backyard are often too
close together. There is a cluster of about 57 honeylocusts in the northeast corner of the property that are way
too close together. The largest tree in the cluster is dead. The rest of the north end of the property is crowded
with Siberian elms that are too close together.
These trees, especially the thickets at the north end of the property, have received no maintenance or care, and
many are in bad shape. Many of the biggest trees are dead.
Crowded honeylocusts in the northeast corner of the property
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 463 of 518
The condition of each tree was rated on a percentage basis. The factors used to rate a tree’s condition included
general tree health and vitality, structural integrity for future growth and the likelihood of failure, evidence of
disease and signi¿cant insect problems, and any defects in the trees such as decay or inMuries. Also considered
were the surrounding trees. If the tree was crowded by its neighbors and had little room to grow, the tree’s
condition factor was lowered.
The trees were measured at breast height (54 inches) unless branching or other issues prevented measuring at
that height. If not measured at breast height, trees were measured lower on the trunk below the swell of branch-
es or forking. The trees are identi¿ed on a map that will accompany this survey.
The many Siberian elms at the north end of the property are too close together
Tree # 7 in the front yard has twelve leads but was counted as one tree. The leads are too close together and some
of the leads are dead.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 464 of 518
New thicket of Narrowleaf Cottonwoods growing west
of the house
A row of young elms along the bikepath on the west
side of the property. None were large enough to be
counted.
Tree #10 - a plains cottonwood in the front yard Tree #19 - a boxelder in the backyard
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 465 of 518
Tree Inventory - 2145 Upland Ave. Boulder
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
1 Siberian Elm 2 inches 50% Crowded
2 Siberian Elm 5 80
3 Lanceleaf Cottonwood 2 50
4 Siberian Elm 4,2 65
5 Siberian Elm 2,2 50
6 Siberian Elm 2,2,1,1 30
7 Siberian Elm 12,6,6,4,7,7,5,7,6,8,6,7 60 The leads are too crowded and some are dead
8 Hackberry 2,5 70
9 Boxelder 11 60 Trunk Crack, Lots of burls
10 Cottonwood 25 50 Declining, Lots of smaller dead.
11 Siberian Elm 2.5 0 Girdled by squirrel
12 Narrowleaf Cottonwood 18 65 Crowded on its west side
13 Narrowleaf Cottonwood 6 70 Crowded by #12
14 Narrowleaf Cottonwood 3 50 Crowded
15 Narrowleaf Cottonwood 4,3 20 Diseased trunk, 2nd lead on the fence
16 Narrowleaf Cottonwood 3,2 20 Leans badly, Growing into wires
17 Siberian Elm 3 40 Leans
18 Narrowleaf Cottonwood 4,3,2,2 70 Near wires, room for only one of the leads
19 Boxelder 25 75
20 Plum 3 50
21 Locust 2 50 Crowded by neighbor’s spruce
22 Locust 5 70 Crowded by neighbor’s spruce
23 Locust 4,4 60 Codominant attachment
24 Siberian Elm 2 20 No room, under locust
25 Locust 4,3,5 30 Bent over
26 Locust 4,4,5,5,5,5,4 50 Too many leads
27 Siberian Elm 2,2,2 0 Dead
28 Siberian Elm 20 40 Codominant attachment, 1 main lead dead
29 Siberian Elm 26 50 Codominant attachment, 1 lead dead
30 Siberian Elm 5 50 Crowded
31 Siberian Elm 3 35 Bent over
32 Siberian Elm 10,9,8 45 Appears healthy but has serious bark death
33 Siberian Elm 5 30 Broken top, Bent over, Squirrel injury
34 Siberian Elm 2 60
35 Siberian Elm 3 50 Crowded
36 Siberian Elm 7 60
37 Siberian Elm 4 60
38 Siberian Elm 3 50
39 Siberian Elm 4 60
40 Siberian Elm 3 70
41 Siberian Elm 9,6 0 Dead
42 Siberian Elm 4 50
43 Siberian Elm 4 40
44 Siberian Elm 3 40
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 466 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
45 Siberian Elm 7 inches 70% Codominant Attachment
46 Siberian Elm 6 20 Codominant Attachment, Dead lead
47 Siberian Elm 8 40 Codominant Attachment, Bent Over
48 Siberian Elm 8 0 Dead
49 Siberian Elm 5 50 Broken top
50 Siberian Elm 6 50
51 Siberian Elm 4 50 Codominant Attachment
52 Siberian Elm 2 60
53 Siberian Elm 3,3,1, 40 Three leads are too crowded
54 Siberian Elm 5,4,3 40 Codominant Attachment, Crowded leads
55 Siberian Elm 5,4,3 40 Too close to fence
56 Siberian Elm 2,2,2 30 Tangled
57 Siberian Elm 2 60
58 Siberian Elm 2 60
59 Locust 2,2 40 Half dead
60 Locust 3,2 40 Leans and twists
61 Locust 2,2,2 40 Two of three leads dead
62 Locust 3 0 Dead
63 Locust 2 0 Dead
64 Locust 5 40 Partially dead
65 Locust 5 50 Crowded
66 Locust 4 0 Dead
67 Locust 4 50 Crowded
68 Locust 4 50 Crowded
69 Locust 4 40 Crowded
70 Locust 3 0 Dead
71 Locust 2 0 Dead
72 Locust 5 50 Crowded
73 Locust 2.5 30 Bent over
74 Locust 5 60
75 Locust 2 0 Dead
76 Locust 3 0 Dead
77 Locust 4 35 Bent over
78 Locust 5 60
79 Locust 4 50
80 Locust 6 60
81 Locust 6 50 Crowded
82 Locust 5 45 Crowded
83 Locust 14.5 0 Dead
84 Locust 4 45 Crowded
85 Locust 2 30 Bent over
86 Locust 4 50 Crowded
87 Locust 3 0 Dead
88 Locust 4 50 Crowded
89 Siberian Elm 1,1 60
90 Siberian Elm 4 60
91 Siberian Elm 2,1 50 Room for only one lead
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 467 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
92 Siberian Elm 2,2 inches 50% Room for only one lead
93 Siberian Elm 7 70
94 Siberian Elm 2 50 Crowded
95 Locust 2,2 40 Room for only one lead
96 Locust 2 50 Crowded
97 Siberian Elm 12 60 Codominant Attachment, Crowded by #98
98 Siberian Elm 7 70
99 Siberian Elm 4 40 Leans, Squirrel feeding injury
100 Siberian Elm 15 0 Dead
101 Siberian Elm 6 0 Dead
102 Siberian Elm 2 50
103 Siberian Elm 2 60
104 Siberian Elm 2 50
105 Siberian Elm 4.5 60
106 Siberian Elm 4.5 70
107 Siberian Elm 3 0 Dead
108 Siberian Elm 3,2 50
110 Siberian Elm 2 40
111 Siberian Elm 2 50
112 Siberian Elm 8,4,4,4 0 Dead
113 Siberian Elm 3 40
114 Siberian Elm 2 40
115 Siberian Elm 3,2 40
116 Siberian Elm 5 60
117 Siberian Elm 3 50
118 Siberian Elm 6,4,3 40 Leads twisted around each other
119 Siberian Elm 3 50
120 Siberian Elm 3 40
121 Siberian Elm 4 50
122 Siberian Elm 3 40
123 Siberian Elm 5 50
124 Siberian Elm 4 40
125 Siberian Elm 5 50
126 Siberian Elm 3 40
127 Siberian Elm 2 40
128 Siberian Elm 7 0 Dead
129 Siberian Elm 4 40
130 Siberian Elm 5 0 Dead
131 Siberian Elm 2 40
132 Siberian Elm 2 40
133 Siberian Elm 5 40
134 Siberian Elm 2 50
135 Siberian Elm 2 40
136 Siberian Elm 4,3 0 Dead
137 Siberian Elm 4 50
138 Siberian Elm 12 70 Codominant Attachment
140 Siberian Elm 3 60
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 468 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
141 Siberian Elm 4 inches 60%
142 Siberian Elm 3,2 50
143 Siberian Elm 2.5 40
144 Siberian Elm 2 40
145 Siberian Elm 6 50
146 Siberian Elm 3 40
147 Siberian Elm 2 30
148 Siberian Elm 4 50
149 Siberian Elm 2 30
150 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
151 Siberian Elm 2 30 Bent over
152 Siberian Elm 4 30 Crowded, Squirrel feeding injury
153 Siberian Elm 8 65 Codominant Attachment
154 Siberian Elm 2 50
155 Siberian Elm 10 0 Dead
156 Siberian Elm 6 50 Crowded
157 Siberian Elm 15 70 Codominant Attachment
158 Locust 2 40 Crowded
159 Siberian Elm 2.5 50
160 Locust 2 10 Trunk canker
161 Locust 2 50
162 Locust 2 40
163 Locust 4 30 Dead Lead
164 Locust 3,3 40 One lead dead
165 Locust 3 50 Crowded
166 Locust 3 0 Dead
167 Locust 2 40 Crowded
168 Locust 2 0 Dead
169 Locust 4 40 Crowded
170 Locust 5 60
171 Siberian Elm 5 50
172 Locust 4 40
173 Locust 4 50
174 Locust 2 0 Dead
175 Locust 2 0 Dead
176 Locust 4 50
177 Locust 2 40
178 Locust 5 50
179 Locust 4,3 30 Leads twisted around each other
180 Locust 4 50
181 Locust 2 30
182 Locust 5 60
183 Locust 3.5 40 Bent over
184 Locust 4 50
185 Locust 3 40 Bent over
186 Locust 2 40
187 Locust 2,1 40
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 469 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
188 Siberian Elm 4 inches 70%
189 Siberian Elm 3 50
190 Siberian Elm 4 60
191 Siberian Elm 6 70
192 Siberian Elm 4 20 Squirrel feeding injury
193 Siberian Elm 5 40 Leans
194 Siberian Elm 8 55 Codominant Attachment
195 Siberian Elm 6 60
196 Siberian Elm 3 50
197 Siberian Elm 3 40
198 Siberian Elm 2 30
199 Siberian Elm 5,8 55 Codominant Attachment, Dead lead
200 Siberian Elm 6 0 Dying
201 Siberian Elm 5 30 One lead dead
202 Siberian Elm 5 60 Crowded
203 Siberian Elm 4 50
204 Siberian Elm 2 0 Dying
205 Siberian Elm 2 60
206 Siberian Elm 2 50
207 Siberian Elm 2 50
208 Siberian Elm 2 50
209 Siberian Elm 2 0 Dead
210 Siberian Elm 2 40
211 Siberian Elm 2 40
212 Siberian Elm 3 70
213 Siberian Elm 4 30 Leans, Broken limb
214 Siberian Elm 4 30 Dead leader
215 Siberian Elm 2 0 Dead - Squirrel injury
216 Siberian Elm 3 50
217 Siberian Elm 2 30 Broken top
218 Siberian Elm 8,5 70 Codominant, leads to close, Broken limbs
The site map included with this inventory shows the trees by number in only approximate locations. No actual
survey of tree locations was taken.
Survey Performed by Stef Ringgenberg
Boulder Tree & Landscape Consulting
7289 Petursdale Ct. Boulder, CO 80301
303-530-0640
rsrtree@aol.com
www.bouldertree.com
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 470 of 518
Assumptions, Exclusions, and Limiting Conditions
R. Stefan Ringgenberg
1. The ownership of the property and the description of the events are assumed to be consistent with the de-
scription given by Don Ash to R. Stefan Ringgenberg on August 21, 2017
2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources; however, the appraiser can neither guar-
antee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
3. The appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subse-
quent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.
4. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply the right of publication or use for any purpose by
any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the expressed written or verbal consent of the author.
6. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the author, and the author’s fee is in no way
contingent upon the reporting of a speci¿ed content nor upon any ¿nding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale
and should not be construed as surveys or engineering reports. The heights of trees given in this report are esti-
mates; the tree heights have not been measured.
8. Unless expressed otherwise, information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined
and reÀect the condition of the property in question at the time of its inspection. Unless expressed otherwise, the
inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible components without disassembly, excavation, or prob-
ing. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or de¿ciencies of the property in
question may not arise in the future.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 471 of 518
R. Stefan Ringgenberg
7289 Petursdale Ct.
Boulder, CO 80301
(303) 530-0640
Education: B.A. University of Colorado - May 1972
Work History: Boulder Tree and Landscape Co.
Owner and President - 1972 to January 2003 when company assets were sold.
January to December 2003 - Davey Tree Expert Company
Technical Advisor and Consultant
January 2004 to the present - Arboricultural and Management Consulting
$I¿OLDWLRQV
American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Member #302 retired
Past Instructor, ASCA Tree Appraisal Workshops
National Arborist Association
Former Vice Chairman, Standards Committee
International Society of Arboriculture
Past Member of the Board of Directors - representing the
Rocky Mountain Chapter (six states)
Certi¿ed Arborist
Technical Services:
Tree Health Maintenance
Diagnosis and Analysis
Disease Prevention and Insect Control
Pruning
Cabling and Bracing
Nutrition and Soil Problem Mitigation
Plant Health Care Programs
Assessment of Tree Failure Risk
Tree Surveys and Inspections
Tree Care Speci¿cations
Tree and Landscape Appraisal
Prevention of Construction Damage to Trees
Pesticide Application Safety
Nursery Inspections
Tree Service Computer Systems
Training of Personnel
Publications for Tree ID and Training of Personnel
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 472 of 518
Tree Inventory
at 2180 Violet Ave
South Section
Tree Inventory
at 2180 Violet Ave
South Section
Inventory Performed For:
Don Ash
Scott, Cox & Associates Inc.
1530 55th Street
Boulder,CO 80303
Inventory Performed By:
Stefan Ringgenberg
Boulder Tree & Landscape Consulting
7289 Petursdale Ct.
Boulder, CO 80301
303-530-0640
August 22, 2017
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 473 of 518
Tree Inspection at 2180 Violet Ave.
Boulder, Colorado
Boulder Tree & Landscape Consulting August 23, 2017
I, Stef Ringgenberg of Boulder Tree & Landscape Consulting, was asked to perform a tree inventory at the
south section of 2180 Violet Avenue in Boulder, Colorado. A tree survey was performed previously at the north
section of that address. I visited the site on August 22nd and 23rd, 2017
There are 280 signi¿cant trees on the property, growing mainly in clusters. There are more trees, mostly under
one inch in diameter, crowded in with the others. All but four of the trees are Siberian elms. These trees have
received no maintenance or care, and many are in bad shape. Many of the biggest trees are dead. Most of the
trees are overly crowded in groups. There may be ten or more trees in the space where only one could grow
healthily. The groups of trees could be more accurately described as thickets. Many trees have broken limbs.
The condition of each tree was rated on a percentage basis. The factors used to rate a tree’s condition included
general tree health and vitality, structural integrity for future growth and the likelihood of failure, evidence of
disease and signi¿cant insect problems, and any defects in the trees such as decay or inMuries. Also considered
were the surrounding trees. If the tree was crowded by its neighbors and had little room to grow, the tree’s
condition factor was lowered.
Many of the larger trees are dead. Many Siberian elms were killed by the November
2014 flash freeze. Many of those that survived had bark killed on their trunks.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 474 of 518
The trees were measured at breast height
(54 inches) unless branching or other issues
prevented measuring at that height. If not
measured at breast height, trees were measured
lower on the trunk below the swell of branches
or forking. The trees are identi¿ed on a map
that will accompany this survey.
The elms grow in thickets. There are too many trees for the space they grown in. In some cases, as
many as 20 trees are growing in the space that could only support one tree.
A few large trees survived the freeze.
This is tree # 61
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 475 of 518
Tree Inventory - 2180 Violet Ave. Boulder
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
1 Siberian Elm 25 inches 25% Major limbs broken and dead. Trunk bark dead
2 Siberian Elm 17 70 Codominant crotch. Leaf Miner.
3 Siberian Elm 19 45 One lead dead
4 Siberian Elm 12 30 Codominant crotch. Dead lead and trunk bark.
5 Siberian Elm 7 0 Dead
6 Siberian Elm 14 0 Dead
7 Siberian Elm 9 0 Dead
8 Siberian Elm 5 0 Dead
9 Siberian Elm 11 50 Leads badly crowded
10 Siberian Elm 9 0 Dead
11 Siberian Elm 8 0 Dead
12 Siberian Elm 12 0 Dead
13 Siberian Elm 14 0 Dead
14 Siberian Elm 9 0 Dead
15 Siberian Elm 12 50 One lead dead
16 Siberian Elm 4 75 Crowded by #15
17 Siberian Elm 6 0 Dead
18 Siberian Elm 5 0 Dead
19 Siberian Elm 2 90 Young
20 Siberian Elm 14 0 Dead
21 Siberian Elm 9,8 0 Dead
22 Siberian Elm 12 0 Dead
23 Siberian Elm 5 75 Codominant Crotch
24 Siberian Elm 12 0 Dead
25 Siberian Elm 10 0 Mostly Dead
26 Siberian Elm 16,7 0 Dead
27 Siberian Elm 2 75 Young
28 Siberian Elm 3,5 0 Dead
29 Siberian Elm 9,5 40 Half Dead
30 Siberian Elm 2 80 Young
31 Siberian Elm 4 80 Young
32 Siberian Elm 3 70 Crowded
33 Siberian Elm 9 0 Dead
34 Siberian Elm 14 25 Main lead dead.
35 Siberian Elm 3 70 Crossing leads
36 Siberian Elm 3 90 Young
38 Siberian Elm 4 70 Codominat crotch. Broken
39 Black Locust 4 70 Poor form
40 Black Locust 3 60 Crowded
41 Siberian Elm 23 40 Codominant, Dead trunk bark, leans
42 Siberian Elm 4 65 Crowded
43 Cottonwood 18 0 Dead
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 476 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
44 Siberian Elm 34 inches 0% Dead
45 Siberian Elm 3 0 Dead
46 Siberian Elm 9 0 Dead
47 Siberian Elm 14 50 Dead lead and trunk bark
48 Siberian Elm 4,3,3 50 Only room for one of the leads
49 Siberian Elm 12,8,6 40 Dead leads
50 Siberian Elm 15 0 Dead
51 Siberian Elm 2 80 Young
52 Siberian Elm 2 80 Young
53 Siberian Elm 2 80 Young
54 Siberian Elm 2 60 Codominat crotch.
55 Siberian Elm 4,3 60 Poor form
56 Siberian Elm 10,4 55 Dead lead but lots of live growth
57 Boxelder 2 85 Young
58 Siberian Elm 4 80
59 Siberian Elm 2 60
60 Siberian Elm 9 0 Dead
61 Siberian Elm 33 70 Healthy but lots of smaller dead limbs
62 Siberian Elm 26 65 Codominant crotch. Healthy for big tree here.
63 Siberian Elm 2 60
64 Siberian Elm 33 60
65 Siberian Elm 8 0 Dead
66 Siberian Elm 3 60 Crowded
67 Siberian Elm 3 60 Crowded
68 Siberian Elm 3 60 Crowded
69 Siberian Elm 7 60 Crowded
70 Siberian Elm 6 60 Crowded
71 Siberian Elm 2 60 Crowded
72 Siberian Elm Group of 20+ trees less than one inch diameter
73 Siberian Elm 3 70 Young
74 Siberian Elm 5 70
75 Siberian Elm 3 60
76 Siberian Elm 3 65
77 Siberian Elm 6 60
78 Siberian Elm 4 65
79 Siberian Elm 3 60
80 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
81 Siberian Elm 6 70 Leans
82 Siberian Elm 3 0 Dead
83 Siberian Elm 3 50 Crowded
84 Siberian Elm 3 50
85 Siberian Elm 2 50
86 Siberian Elm 4 40 Bent Over
87 Siberian Elm 4 30 Squirrel Feeding Injury
88 Siberian Elm 3 50 Crowded
89 Siberian Elm 3 0 Leans and crowded
90 Siberian Elm 2 50 Crowded
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 477 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
91 Siberian Elm 3 inches 70%
92 Siberian Elm 2 50
93 Siberian Elm 2 0 Dead. Wraps around #92
94 Siberian Elm 3 50
95 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
96 Siberian Elm 5 30 Dead top
97 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
98 Siberian Elm 14 0 Dead
99 Siberian Elm 4 40 Bent Over
100 Siberian Elm 5 30 Broken Main Lead
101 Siberian Elm 3 40 Bent Over
102 Siberian Elm 3 60
103 Siberian Elm 3 40 Crowded
104 Siberian Elm 3 40 Crowded
105 Siberian Elm 3 40 Crowded
106 Siberian Elm 2 60
107 Siberian Elm 3 50
108 Siberian Elm 5 0 Dead
109 Siberian Elm 2 40
110 Siberian Elm 3 20 Leans
111 Siberian Elm 3 50
112 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
113 Siberian Elm 4 30 Broken main leader, Squirrel feeding inj.
114 Siberian Elm 4 30 Crowded
115 Siberian Elm 4 30 Broken leader
116 Siberian Elm 10 40 Two dead leads
117 Siberian Elm 4 60
118 Siberian Elm 6 50
119 Siberian Elm 4,4 0 Dead
120 Siberian Elm 4 50
121 Siberian Elm 5 60
122 Siberian Elm 3 40
123 Siberian Elm 9 55 Codominant crotch
124 Siberian Elm 2 20 Too close to #123
125 Siberian Elm 3 40 Bent Over
126 Siberian Elm 4,3,3 20 Two dead leads
127 Siberian Elm 6 50 Broken Limbs
128 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
129 Siberian Elm 5 50
130 Siberian Elm 3 0 Squirrel Feeding Injury
131 Siberian Elm 3 40 Broken leader
132 Siberian Elm 3,2 30 Trunk injury, leans
133 Siberian Elm 4,2 0 Dead
134 Siberian Elm 2 50 Bent Over
135 Siberian Elm 6 65
136 Siberian Elm 4,2 50 Crowded by #135
137 Siberian Elm 4 60
138 Siberian Elm 6,6,4,3 50 Two leads are dead
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 478 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
139 Siberian Elm 4 Inches 60%
140 Siberian Elm 3 60 Leans a little
141 Siberian Elm 3 70
142 Siberian Elm 3 60
143 Siberian Elm 4 70
144 Siberian Elm 5 70
145 Siberian Elm 2 20 The top is dead
146 Siberian Elm 4,4 0 Dead
147 Siberian Elm 4 50 Codominant attachment, dead limbs
148 Siberian Elm 4 70
149 Siberian Elm 5 50
150 Siberian Elm 2 10 Broken top
151 Siberian Elm 2 0 Dead
152 Siberian Elm 3 40 Half Dead
153 Siberian Elm 3 50
154 Siberian Elm 2 50
155 Siberian Elm 3 10 Broken top
156 Siberian Elm 3 50
157 Siberian Elm 4 50
158 Siberian Elm 6 0 Dead
159 Siberian Elm 5 0 Dead
160 Siberian Elm 2 50
161 Siberian Elm 2 50
162 Siberian Elm 3 50
163 Siberian Elm 4 50
164 Siberian Elm 3 60
165 Siberian Elm 4,3 60
166 Siberian Elm 5,3,3,2 20 Main leads dead
167 Siberian Elm 2 60
168 Siberian Elm 6,6,4,4,4,4 50 Leads are too crowded and some are dead
169 Siberian Elm 9,8,6,5, 65 Leads are crowded
170 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
171 Siberian Elm 6,5 0 Dead
172 Siberian Elm 4 50
173 Siberian Elm 4 60
174 Siberian Elm 7 60 Codominant attachment
175 Siberian Elm 2 40
176 Siberian Elm 9 45 Lots of broken limbs, Trunk injury, crowded
177 Siberian Elm 4 60
178 Siberian Elm 3 40 Crowded
179 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
180 Siberian Elm 3 40 Bent Over
181 Siberian Elm 3 0 Broken top
182 Siberian Elm 2 40
183 Siberian Elm 5 40 Codominant attachment
184 Siberian Elm 3 60
185 Siberian Elm 2.5 50
186 Siberian Elm 4.5 60
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 479 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
187 Siberian Elm 3 inches 50%
188 Siberian Elm 4 40 Codominat attachment, Dead limbs
189 Siberian Elm 2 50
190 Siberian Elm 4 40
191 Siberian Elm 6,5 60
192 Siberian Elm 7 65 Codominant main crotch
193 Siberian Elm 12 65 Codominant main crotch
194 Siberian Elm 4,3,3 60 Triple Codominant
195 Siberian Elm 6 75
196 Siberian Elm 2 40 Crowded by #195
197 Siberian Elm 3 60
198 Siberian Elm 4 40 Leans
199 Siberian Elm 3 60
200 Siberian Elm 2 40
201 Siberian Elm 4 60
202 Siberian Elm 5,5,4 0 Dead
203 Siberian Elm 9.5 60 Codominant attachment, dead limbs
204 Siberian Elm 9 55 Codominant attachment, Crowded
205 Siberian Elm 7 60 Leans a little
206 Siberian Elm 4 60
207 Siberian Elm 3 40 Crowded, Leans
208 Siberian Elm 5 50 Codominant attachment, Crowded
209 Siberian Elm 8 60 Codominant attachment
210 Siberian Elm 6 70
211 Siberian Elm 4 40 Crowded
212 Siberian Elm 7,5 65 Codominant attachment
213 Siberian Elm 3 40
214 Siberian Elm 5,5,3 35 Two leads are dead
215 Siberian Elm 6,4,4 50 Double Codominant
216 Siberian Elm 3 50
217 Siberian Elm 4,2 0 Dead
218 Siberian Elm 4 50
219 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
220 Siberian Elm 3 50 Leans
221 Siberian Elm 4 60
222 Siberian Elm 6 65
223 Siberian Elm 5 55
224 Siberian Elm 5 50
225 Siberian Elm 4 50
226 Siberian Elm 4,4 0 Dead
227 Siberian Elm 6 0 Dead
228 Siberian Elm 3 50
229 Siberian Elm 4 40 Broken hanging limb
230 Siberian Elm 7 50 Codominant attachment, Trunk Wound
231 Siberian Elm 3 40 Crowded
232 Siberian Elm 3 40 Crowded
233 Siberian Elm 4 40 Crowded
234 Siberian Elm 3 40
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 480 of 518
Tree # Species Diameter Condition Notes
235 Siberian Elm 7 50 Bent Over
236 Siberian Elm 4,2,1,1 30 Crowded
237 Siberian Elm 3 30 Crowded
238 Siberian Elm 6 60
239 Siberian Elm 4 40 Crowded
240 Siberian Elm 6 60
241 Siberian Elm 5,5 40 Leads cross
242 Siberian Elm 3 0 Dead
243 Siberian Elm 3,3 30 Half Dead
244 Siberian Elm 6,5 30 Half Dead
245 Siberian Elm 5 60
246 Siberian Elm 5 50
247 Siberian Elm 3 40 Crowded
248 Siberian Elm 6 0 Dead
251 Siberian Elm 3 50
252 Siberian Elm 4 40 Crowded
253 Siberian Elm 6 50 Crowded
254 Siberian Elm 11,9 55 Multiple Codominant, Bark wounds on trunk
255 Siberian Elm 7.5 55 Trunk hitting sidewalk
256 Siberian Elm 10 45 Codominat, Crowded by #255
257 Siberian Elm 4 60 Broken Limbs
258 Siberian Elm 6 30 Trunk woun, broken limbs
259 Siberian Elm 2 40 Crowded
260 Siberian Elm 3 0 Dead
261 Siberian Elm 4 35 Crowded
262 Siberian Elm 2 40 Crowded
263 Siberian Elm 5,4 50 Codominant attachment, broken limbs
264 Siberian Elm 4 50
265 Siberian Elm 4 40 Crowded
266 Siberian Elm 5 45 Crowded
267 Siberian Elm 3 50
268 Siberian Elm 4 0 Dead
269 Siberian Elm 6 50 Crowded by #270
270 Siberian Elm 14 35 East half dead
271 Siberian Elm 11 60 Freeze injury to the trunk
272 Siberian Elm 6 0 Dead
273 Siberian Elm 5,6 45 Codominant attachment, Crowded, leans
274 Siberian Elm 4 50 Codominant attachment
275 Siberian Elm 2 50
276 Siberian Elm 5 0 Dead
277 Siberian Elm 4 50
278 Siberian Elm 2 50
279 Siberian Elm 3 50
280 Siberian Elm 5 65
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 481 of 518
The site map included with this inventory shows the trees by number in only approximate locations. No
actual survey of tree locations was taken.
Survey Performed by Stef Ringgenberg
Boulder Tree & Landscape Consulting
7289 Petursdale Ct. Boulder, CO 80301
303-530-0640
rsrtree@aol.com
www.bouldertree.com
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 482 of 518
Assumptions, Exclusions, and Limiting Conditions
R. Stefan Ringgenberg
1. The ownership of the property and the description of the events are assumed to be consistent with the de-
scription given by Don Ash to R. Stefan Ringgenberg on August 21, 2017
2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources; however, the appraiser can neither guar-
antee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
3. The appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subse-
quent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.
4. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply the right of publication or use for any purpose by
any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the expressed written or verbal consent of the author.
6. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the author, and the author’s fee is in no way
contingent upon the reporting of a speci¿ed content nor upon any ¿nding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale
and should not be construed as surveys or engineering reports. The heights of trees given in this report are esti-
mates; the tree heights have not been measured.
8. Unless expressed otherwise, information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined
and reÀect the condition of the property in question at the time of its inspection. Unless expressed otherwise, the
inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible components without disassembly, excavation, or prob-
ing. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or de¿ciencies of the property in
question may not arise in the future.
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 483 of 518
R. Stefan Ringgenberg
7289 Petursdale Ct.
Boulder, CO 80301
(303) 530-0640
Education: B.A. University of Colorado - May 1972
Work History: Boulder Tree and Landscape Co.
Owner and President - 1972 to January 2003 when company assets were sold.
January to December 2003 - Davey Tree Expert Company
Technical Advisor and Consultant
January 2004 to the present - Arboricultural and Management Consulting
$I¿OLDWLRQV
American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Member #302 retired
Past Instructor, ASCA Tree Appraisal Workshops
National Arborist Association
Former Vice Chairman, Standards Committee
International Society of Arboriculture
Past Member of the Board of Directors - representing the
Rocky Mountain Chapter (six states)
Certi¿ed Arborist
Technical Services:
Tree Health Maintenance
Diagnosis and Analysis
Disease Prevention and Insect Control
Pruning
Cabling and Bracing
Nutrition and Soil Problem Mitigation
Plant Health Care Programs
Assessment of Tree Failure Risk
Tree Surveys and Inspections
Tree Care Speci¿cations
Tree and Landscape Appraisal
Prevention of Construction Damage to Trees
Pesticide Application Safety
Nursery Inspections
Tree Service Computer Systems
Training of Personnel
Publications for Tree ID and Training of Personnel
Attachment B- Site Review Plan Set
City Council Meeting Page 484 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 485 of 518
Attachment B- Site Review Plan SetCity Council Meeting Page 486 of 518
Attachment C. Site Review Criteria Analysis
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, “Site Review”
No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
(1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the land use map and the service area map and, on balance, the
policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
The site is located within the service area of the city and designated as Medium Density Residential (2180 Violet
Ave.) and Low Density Residential (2100 Violet Ave., 1917 Upland Ave., and 2145 Upland Ave.) under the BVCP
Land Use Map. On page 112 of the Comprehensive Plan, the Medium Density Residential land use is described as
follows:
Characteristics and Locations: MR is characterized by a variety of housing types. Medium- density
areas are generally situated near neighborhood and community shopping areas or along some of the
major arterials of the city.
Uses: Consists of a variety of housing types ranging from single-family detached to attached residential
units such as townhomes, multiplexes and some small lot detached units (e.g., patio homes), not
necessarily all on one site.
BVCP Density/Intensity: 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre.
And the Low Density Residential land use is described as follows:
Characteristics and Locations: LR is the most prevalent land use designation in the city, covering the
primarily single-family home neighborhoods including the historic neighborhoods and Post-WWII
neighborhoods.
Uses: Consists predominantly of single-family detached units.
BVCP Density/Intensity: 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre.
Staff finds that the current proposal for medium and low density residential development is consistent with the
goals, objectives and recommendations of the BVCP. The project supports opportunities for a variety of housing
types for low- and moderate-income households and is generally consistent with established neighborhood
character. In support of housing policies, the proposal contributes to providing a diverse mix of housing types for a
full-range of households as well as balancing the housing supply with the employment base.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 487 of 518
Specifically, the project has been found to meet the following BVCP goals and policies:
BVCP Policy Excerpt from BVCP How the Proposal is Consistent with BVCP
Policies Land Use Pattern 2.03 Compact
Development
Pattern
“… ensure that development will take place
in an orderly fashion…The city prefers
redevelopment and infill as compared to
development…to prevent urban sprawl and
create a compact community.”
The infill of housing on this property
supports a compact development pattern. Neighborhoods 2.10 Preservation
& Support for
Residential
Neighborhoods
“…protect and enhance neighborhood
character and livability…seek appropriate
building scale and compatible character in
new development or redevelopment…
encourage neighborhood schools and safe
routes to school.”
The character of the neighborhood is
eclectic with a range of low and medium
density residential buildings. The mass and
scale of the Habitat development is
appropriate given the context. The detailed
design guidelines for the single-family
development will ensure that buildings will
have compatible architecture and forms
with the surrounding context. The addition
of detached sidewalks, a north-south path
connection, and internal connections will
contribute to safe routes to Crest View
Elementary School. Housing Choices; Diversity Core Value
7.06 Mixture of
Housing Types
7.09 Housing
for a Full
Range of
Households
“A diversity of housing types and price
ranges”
“The city and county, through their land use
regulations and housing policies will
encourage the private sector to provide and
maintain a mixture of housing types with
varied prices, sizes and densities, to meet
the housing needs of the full range of the
Boulder Valley population.”
“The city and county will encourage
preservation and development of housing
attractive to current and future households,
persons at all stages of life and to a variety
of household configurations. This includes
singles, couples, families with children and
other dependents, extended families, non-
traditional households and seniors.”
The proposal helps to meet the housing
needs of the Boulder Valley population by
contributing to a diversity of housing types
and price ranges. The proposal is for 19
permanently affordable townhome style
units for sale and 8 market rate single-
family homes. (The existing single-family
home is proposed to remain). The
townhomes would be 17 three-bedroom
units and 2 one-bedroom units. The three-
bedroom units are suitable for families and
the one-bedroom units will be accessible.
There is diversity in the types of private
open space provided.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 488 of 518
BVCP Policy Excerpt from BVCP How the Proposal is Consistent with BVCP
Policies Housing Supply 1.19 Jobs:Housing
Balance
7.10 Balancing
Housing Supply
with
Employment
Base
“Boulder is a major employment center,
with more jobs than housing for people who
work here…encouraging new housing and
mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to
where people work…”
“… housing supply should reflect to the
extent possible employer workforce housing
needs, locations, and salary ranges. Key
considerations include housing type, mix and
affordability… increase housing for Boulder
workers and their families by fostering
mixed-use and multi-family development in
proximity to transit, employment or
services…”
The provision of 27 units contributes to
balancing the housing supply with the
employment base. The permanently
affordable townhomes could serve as
workforce house and are appropriate for
families. The proposal represents multi-
family development along an arterial street
and in proximity to transit and services. Urban Design Linkages 2.24
Commitment to
a Walkable and
Accessible City
2.25 Improve
Mobility Grid &
Grid
2.36 Physical
Design for People
“…promote the development of a walkable
and accessible city…provide easy and safe
access by foot to places such as
neighborhood centers, community facilities,
transit stops or centers, and shared public
spaces and amenities. (...)”
“The walkability, bikeability and transit
access should be improved in parts of the
city that need better connectivity and
mobility…will occur through both public
investment and private development.”
“…ensure that public and private
development and redevelopment be
designed in a manner that is sensitive to
social, health and psychological
needs…provision of coordinated facilities for
pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders;
provision of functional landscaping and
open space; and the appropriate scale and
massing of buildings related to
neighborhood context.
The proposed site plan gives pedestrian and
bicyclists priority over the vehicle. The site
design includes connections for use by
pedestrians and bicyclists, which connect to
the existing multi-model network. The
proposal includes the construction of a
north-south 6-foot path to connect Vine
Avenue to Violet Avenue, a 6-foot detached
sidewalk and a 5-foot bike lane along Violet
Avenue, and a 5-foot detached sidewalk
adjacent to the property on 22nd Street.
TDM strategies includes the creation of
separate “Alternative Transportation
Subsidy Funds”, which can be used for
expenses such as B-cycle and car-share
memberships, additional bicycle parking
racks for the project, and transit passes. The
design incorporated landscaping and open
space to enhance the pedestrian
experience.
The proposal represents a realization of
connections envisioned in the NBSP and the
Crestview East annexations. Vine Street and
a mid-block alley will be constructed to the
west property lines and 22nd Street will be
extended to the south to connect to Vine
Street. The alley and Vine Street are
planned to extend to the west to 19th
Street and construction of such is a
condition of annexation for properties that
annexed as part of the larger Crestview East
annexation in 2009.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 489 of 518
BVCP Policy Excerpt from BVCP How the Proposal is Consistent with BVCP
Policies Design Quality 2.41 Enhanced
Design for All
Projects
“b. The context. Projects should become a
coherent part of the neighborhood in which
they are placed…”
“c. Relationship to the public realm. Projects
should relate positively to public streets,
plazas, sidewalks, paths and natural
features. Buildings and landscaped areas—
not parking lots—should present a well-
designed face to the public realm, should
not block access to sunlight and should be
sensitive to important public view
corridors…”
“e. Transportation connections. Projects
should provide a complete network of
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
connections both internal to the project and
connecting to adjacent properties, streets
and paths, including dedication of public
rights-of-way and easements where
required.”
“f. Parking. The primary focus of any site
should be quality site design. Parking should
play a subordinate role to site and building
design and not jeopardize open space or
other opportunities on the property. Parking
should be integrated between or within
buildings and be compact and dense…”
“i. On-site open spaces. Projects should
incorporate well-designed functional open
spaces with quality landscaping, access to
sunlight and places to sit comfortably.
Where public parks or open spaces are not
within close proximity, shared open spaces
for a variety of activities should also be
provided within developments.”
“j. Buildings. Buildings should be designed
with a cohesive design that enhances the
streetscape and is comfortable to the
pedestrian. Buildings should demonstrate
approachability and a relationship to the
street, with inviting entries that are visible
from public rights of way, multiple
entrances and four-sided design. Foster
appeal of buildings through attractive, well-
designed architecture made of high-quality,
long-lasting materials and innovative
approaches to design.”
Buildings are oriented toward the street and
the requested setback modifications would
contribute to creating a building forward
design that enhances the pedestrian
experience along Violet Avenue and Vine
Avenue. Pedestrian scale architectural
features and materials are utilized at the
pedestrian level, adding to the pedestrian
interest at the street. Each building has
four-sided design, facing the street and
internal open spaces.
A complete network of multi-modal
connections will be provided, as described
above. The street system has been
minimized for the development as much as
possible, given the general site layout.
The site design allows for open space that is
visually continuous. Outdoor spaces will be
useful, attractive, and interesting and
include both sun and shade.
The development would have a compact
design with buildings with prominent
porches and entries oriented directly to
streets and open spaces. Given these
architectural and site design aspects, the
project would relate well to the streetscape
and lend strongly to pedestrian interest.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 490 of 518
(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential
development within a three-hundred-foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed
the lesser of:
(i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
Habitat Development – 2180 Violet Ave.
The site is designated for a Medium Density Residential land use and the density is not permitted
to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed multi-family development at 2180 Violet Ave. is
13.38 du/acre (gross density). Note, the densities described in the BVCP are gross densities and
include rights-of-way and outlots to be dedicated.
Single-Family Development
The properties at 2100 Violet Ave., 2145 Upland Avenue are designated for a Low Density
Residential land use, with a planned density of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed single-
family development is 4.4 du/acre (gross density).
(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of
the requirements of chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
The single-family development planned for the areas within the RL-1 zone district will meet the
intensity standards (minimum of 7,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit and maximum of 6.2
du/acre). In addition, the single-family development within the RE zone district will meet the
intensity standards (minimum of 15,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit and maximum of
2.9 du/acre).
However, an ordinance is requested for the multi-family development to allow the development to
exceed the allowed intensity in the RM-2 zone district, which is the minimum of 3,500 square feet
of lot area per dwelling unit and the maximum of 12.4 du/acre. Note that this density represents net
density (not including rights-of-way, outlots, etc.). The proposal is for 19 dwelling units where 15
would be allowed per the intensity standards. This criterion will be met if and when the ordinance is
approved by City Council.
(C) The proposed development’s success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies considers the economic
feasibility of implementation techniques require to meet other site review criteria.
The development would not be rendered infeasible in meeting the BVCP policies or the site review criteria
based upon the requirements and recommendations made within these comments.
(2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative
design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, multi-modal transportation
connectivity and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which are consistent with the
purpose of site review in subsection (a) of this section and enhance the quality of the project. In determining
whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors:
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 491 of 518
(A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds:
The Habitat proposal includes the provision of a variety of usable open space, including a central common
area with play area, amphitheater with boulder seating, informal natural areas, landscaped areas, patios,
and porches. For the single-family residential development, the majority of the open space is private on
each lot. Reduced front yard setbacks will allow for larger, more functional, back yards.
(i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional and incorporates quality
landscaping, a mixture of sun and shade and places to gather;
Open space would constitute approximately 49% of the Habitat site (26,192 square feet). The
usable open space for the proposed Habitat development consists of both private open space
(front porches and patios) and public open space (formal common area with play area, gathering
spaces, landscaped areas). Areas for active and passive recreation are provided. The areas for
more active gathering include the play area and amphitheater with boulder seating. The project
provides areas for passive activities with a pergola with seating, rear patios, porches. The
common area is centrally located and is easily accessed by the residents and visitors by various
sidewalk connections. Street trees will be provided on Violet Avenue, 22nd Street and the alley.
The usable open space has a variety of landscaping types including an open lawn area, a native
grass meadow and several more formal gathering spaces including a plaza with shade structure
and quality landscaping within the backyards of the multi-family buildings and at building entrances.
The usable open space for the single-family development consists primarily of private open space,
in the form of front and rear yards. The open space will be accessible and functional for the single-
family use for both active and passive uses. The design guidelines and annexation agreement
require front porches. The requested reduced setbacks will allow for larger, more usable, back
yards. Street trees will be provided on 22nd Street, the alley, and Vine Avenue.
(ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
Each single-family residential lot contains appropriate private open space.
(iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features,
including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and
surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas and species on the federal Endangered
Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or
prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus), which is a species of local concern, and their habitat;
There are no natural features or species that are of a special concern on the property.
(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding
development;
All multi-family units have private open spaces as porches and rear patios, which will provide a
relief in density within the development. The common areas also provide internal relief to the
density. Building setbacks will provide open space within the single-family development to
provide interior relief to the density. Landscape setbacks and street tree plantings along Violet
Avenue, 22nd Street, and Vine Avenue provide relief to the site’s density from the surrounding
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 492 of 518
developments. Detention and storm water ponds on the eastern sides of each block also provide
relief to the surrounding developments.
(v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be functionally
useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve;
The common open space, including the play lawn and meadow areas, are easily accessed by the
development and the neighborhood at large. The site is designed so that all of the townhomes are
located directly adjacent to common open space. The amphitheater with stage and the play area
are sized appropriately for their purposes.
(vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas;
and
There are no sensitive environmental features or natural areas in the vicinity.
N/A (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
The property is not located in the vicinity of an open space system.
N/A (B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments that contain a mix of residential and non-
residential uses)
(C) Landscaping
(i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials,
and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors and contrasts and the preservation
or use of local native vegetation where appropriate;
The multi-family development has a significant amount of variety and detail within the planting
plan to signify public and private spaces as well as add interest for users of all ages. Different
surface treatments are utilized to create a hierarchy of usable open space and gathering areas.
Native vegetation is incorporated into the multi-family design and single-family design guidelines.
(ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on and off site to important
native species, healthy, long lived trees, plant communities of special concern, threatened and
endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project;
No important native species, plant communities or threatened and endangered species or habitat
were identified on the site. The plans and design guidelines indicate many native plant species
will be utilized or encouraged within the development.
(iii) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping
requirements of sections 9-9-12, "Landscaping and Screening Standards," and 9-9-13,
"Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and
Plant material and trees specified are above and beyond the minimum quantity, quality, and sizes.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 493 of 518
(iv) The setbacks, yards and useable open space along public rights of way are landscaped to provide
attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features and to contribute to the development of
an attractive site plan.
All rights-of-way meet or exceed the streetscape requirements. Trees and landscaping within the
setbacks and open space enhance architectural features and direct pedestrians by highlighting
entrances and screening private yard areas. The design guidelines for the single-family lots also
ensure that the setbacks will be landscaped to enhance the pedestrian experience and provide a
cohesive development expectation.
(D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property,
whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not:
(i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the project is
provided;
Vine Street and 22nd Street were designed in the NBSP to discourage high speeds. An on-street
bike land and detached sidewalk with tree lawn are proposed along Violet Ave., which will help
to calm traffic and separate the project from the street. Vine Street will be constructed consistent
with the NBSP, with a detached sidewalk and street trees on the north side of the street.
Likewise, 22nd Street will have a detached sidewalk and tree lawn. Detention areas will also
provide a buffer to 22nd Street. Tree lawns and sidewalks provide a safe physical separation
from automobile traffic. Vehicular traffic is isolated along the alley, with landscape setbacks and
open space areas to buffer the multi-family development from vehicular traffic.
(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
As described above, the site design is such that automobiles are physically separated from and
made subordinate to bicyclists and pedestrians. Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized
through strong pedestrian connections throughout the project. The Habitat development will be
accessed from the alley, with one access point on 22nd Street. In addition, the single-family
homes on the north side of Vine Street are required to access from the alley, which will limit
conflicts with vehicles.
(iii) Safe and convenient connections are provided that support multi-modal mobility through and
between properties, accessible to the public within the project and between the project and the
existing and proposed transportation systems, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways,
pedestrianways and trails;
The site design includes frequent pedestrian connections for use by pedestrians and bicyclists,
which connect to the existing multi-model network. The design includes the construction of a
north-south 6-foot path to connect Vine Avenue to Violet Avenue. An existing north-south multi-
use path is located adjacent to the property at 2145 Upland Avenue to connect Vine Avenue to
Upland Avenue. A six-foot wide detached sidewalk with an eight-foot wide landscape strip is
proposed adjacent to the property on Violet Avenue. A five-foot bike lane is proposed along
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 494 of 518
Violet Avenue. A five-foot wide detached sidewalk with an eight-foot tree lawn is proposed
adjacent to the property on 22nd Street. This sidewalk will connect to the five-foot detached
sidewalk planned along the north side of Vine Avenue. The detached sidewalks will provide a
physical separation between the streets and the pedestrian.
A network of internal sidewalks connects the multi-family residential buildings to proposed open
space areas and to the surrounding bicycle and pedestrian network. An enhanced pedestrian
entrance is proposed on Violet Avenue with enhanced landscaping with a north-south sidewalk
connection to welcome residents and visitors to the central open space and gazebo. The
planned connections, coupled with the interior connections, support multi-model mobility on the
site.
(iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use
patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other
alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle;
The project contains a number of elements that support and encourage walking and biking. The
design includes frequent and convenient connections for pedestrians and bicyclists (see above).
In addition to the multi-modal connections and traffic calming measures, this project will include
bike parking (short-term and long-term) scattered throughout the site in order to maximize
accessibility and encourage biking for residents. The proposed TDM plan includes the creation
of an Alternative Transportation Subsidy Fund to support alternative modes of transportation
(see below).
(v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to
alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques;
The applicant has submitted a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, which has
been reviewed and approved. A significant shift away from single-occupant vehicles may not be
entirely practical or realistic given that public transit opportunities are limited. The closest transit
route is located on 19th Street, which is only served by transit route. The site is well connected
for bicyclists and pedestrians. The TDM includes the provision of excess long-term bike
parking. The proposed TDM plan includes the creation of separate “Alternative Transportation
Subsidy Funds” for the multi-family and single-family developments. The developer will
contribute to the fund equal to the cost of a 3-year participation in the Eco Pass program. For
the Habitat for Humanity development, this fund will be managed by the HOA, and can be used
for expenses such as B-cycle and car-share memberships, additional bicycle parking racks for
the project, transit (RTD) passes, and other HOA approved items. For the single-family
development, the developer will work with city staff to timing and participation in the program. If
there is an HOA, the HOA will manage the fund.
(vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where
applicable;
See (iv) above.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 495 of 518
(vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and
As required per the annexation agreements for the properties, Vine Street and a mid-block alley
will be constructed to the west property lines and 22nd Street will be extended to the south to
connect to Vine Street as part of Phase I of the development. The amount of land devoted to
the street system is the minimum necessary to accommodate access to the buildings and
satisfy requirements in the annexation agreements. In fact, a vacation is requested to reduce
the amount of right-of-way for Vine Street.
(viii) The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation,
automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and
control of noise and exhaust.
The project is designed and scaled to accommodate all modes of travel. Low vehicular traffic
is expected within the development and the project will emulate a typical neighborhood feel
with front porches and units oriented to streets. Detached sidewalk with tree lawns provide
separation for the pedestrian. The design of the multi-family buildings, including the front
porches and the placement of windows and doors are such that a transparency and activity is
reinforced at the ground level of all proposed buildings, which enhances the pedestrian
experience. The design guidelines ensure that the single-family homes will address the street
as well.
(E) Parking
(i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety,
convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements;
As described above, the multi-family development and single-family development at 2100 and
2180 Violet Avenue will be accessed via the alley from 22nd Street. The single-family homes at
2145 Upland Avenue will be accessed from Vine Avenue and Upland Avenue. Parking will be
provided on the individual single-family lots. For the multi-family development, 30 parking
spaces are proposed, 20 head-in spaces in carports off the alley and 10 spaces in the surface
parking lot. The parking area is located off the alley, which separates the parking area from
pedestrian movements.
(ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of
land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project;
As described above, parking will be provided on each single-family lot. A 16.7% parking
reduction has been requested for the Habitat development in order to utilize the minimum
amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs and provide the greatest amount of open
space.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 496 of 518
(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent
properties, and adjacent streets; and
As stated above, parking has been designed to reduce visual impact by siting the parking area
away from the public realm and through the use of landscaping. No lighting is expected to
create adverse visual impacts. Any lighting installations will be subject to the Outdoor Lighting
requirements of section 9-9-16, B.R.C.
(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in
subsection 9-9-6(d), and section 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
The project provided solar canopies over most of the parking spaces for the multi-family lot,
however a balance of landscaping above the requirements was coordinated with the canopies
and within the uncovered parking area. Also, alley trees will provide shading for any of the
single-family lots that may not have garages.
(F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area
Building elevations, materials, and architectural details have been provided for the Habitat development.
The building design for the future single-family homes will be informed by detailed design guidelines meant
to ensure a cohesiveness for the development and that buildings would have compatible architecture and
forms with the surrounding context.
(i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture and configuration are compatible
with the existing character of the area or the character established by adopted design
guidelines or plans for the area;
The project would be consistent with the character established by the NBSP. The NBSP
established a cascading density gradient from Violet Avenue to the south towards Tamarack
Avenue. The buildings will be well designed with porches facing the street. The design meets
the objectives for residential areas, including compatibility with the surrounding context, fronts
of buildings and lots that face the street and one another, and a diversity of housing types,
sizes, and price ranges. In addition, the proposed development would be consistent with the
following development guidelines that apply to all neighborhoods:
•Position houses so that their front doors and front yards face the street
•Leave front yards open wherever possible. When front yard fences are provided, they
should be low and open.
•Design houses so that garage doors do not dominate the front facade. Locate garage
doors no less than 20' behind the principal plane of the front of the houses; detached
garages are preferred.
•Except in areas recommended for low density rural-type character, position buildings close
to the street to create a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Rather than a conventional
"setback", create a "build-to" line.
•Provide high quality building design with attention to detail. Avoid monotonous building
designs: include human scale features such as porches, varied building elevations, and
varied sizes and styles.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 497 of 518
• In higher density areas where parking lots are needed, design the lots so that they are
small and clustered. Locate parking in the back of buildings, not in the front.
• Use alleys wherever possible to provide a "service" side to properties. Reduce curb cuts
and sidewalk interruptions on the "public" side of lots.
The multi-family buildings are two stories in height. The single-family homes will be no taller
than 35-feet. In addition, the single-family homes must comply with the compatible
development regulations that relate to building coverage, side yard wall articulation and side
yard bulk plane.
Based on these factors, it is concluded that the building height, mass, scale, orientation, and
configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area and the character
established by the NBSP.
(ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the
proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans or design guidelines for
the immediate area;
The buildings in the Habitat development are one- or two-stories in height, which is consistent
with the existing Habitat development to the east. All buildings in the development will be
required to comply with the 35-foot height limitation per the measurement method within the
code.
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent
properties;
As indicated in the submitted Shadow Analysis, the multifamily development will shade
adjacent properties. All proposed buildings in the Habitat development are subject to, and the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with, the Solar Access standards for Solar Access
Area II, as required by section 9-9-17, B.R.C. 1981. There are no shadows projected in the
deepest part of the winter that would encroach on the rooftop, the area protected under Solar
Access Area II. New single-family buildings will be required to meet the solar access
standards for Solar Access Area I. Due to the relatively flat nature of the properties and the
limited height the blocking of view will be minimal. The construction of 22nd Street and Vine
Street will open up views to the west and the foothills.
(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate
use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting;
The context of the area is eclectic with a range of low and medium density residential
buildings, the latter being built closer to the street and on smaller lots. The proposed project
would be consistent with other medium and low density developments in North Boulder, but will
be somewhat of a change in character considering its immediate context. Nevertheless, the
attractive, human-scaled buildings will be move towards a more improved character for the
area. In addition, the character of the development is consistent with the NBSP.
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 498 of 518
(v) Projects are designed to a human scale and promote a safe and vibrant pedestrian experience
through the location of building frontages along public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths,
and through the use of building elements, design details and landscape materials that include,
without limitation, the location of entrances and windows, and the creation of transparency and
activity at the pedestrian level;
As stated above, the project will promote a safe and vibrant pedestrian experience with
detached sidewalks and a planned multi-use path. Landscaping provides a mix of small and
large trees to accent and bring down the scale of the multi-family units. The design guidelines
for the single-family lots will ensure that landscaping compliments the architecture and
provides for interest within the pedestrian experience from the street or alleys. Buildings front
directly to street with attractive front porches, entries, and rear patios making the development
inviting and attractive. A pedestrian level of detailing, such as windows, railings, porch
detailing and other architectural elements, are given prominence. Various secondary
pedestrian pathways cross through the development. Detailed design guidelines are included
in the project approval that would require high quality materials and fenestration to ensure the
single-family homes are built to a human scale.
(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities;
The project includes the construction of several planned street and path connections, as
described above.
(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing
types, such as multifamily, townhouses and detached single family units, as well as mixed lot
sizes, number of bedrooms and sizes of units;
The project will contain a mix of residential densities with a diversity of housing types. The
multi-family development will contain 19 permanently affordable townhome-style units
appropriate for families. The total unit mix would be 17 three-bedroom units and 2 one-
bedroom units. The one-bedroom units are fully accessible and will house “age-in-place”
individuals. The townhome units will be for purchase. The proposal also includes 8 single-
family homes and the preservation of one existing single-family home.
(viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either
on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials;
The applicant states that the multi-family units will be constructed using staggered stud
demising walls and floors with acoustically insulating components which provide STC ratings of
approximately 60 between units. Each of the units will use insulated glass in the windows and
solid core front doors to reduce sound impacts from the street. Setbacks and landscaping
provide sound buffers throughout the project and to adjacent properties.
(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and
aesthetics;
The submitted lighting plan for the multi-family provides safe and comfortable lighting levels in
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 499 of 518
the parking areas and along the pedestrian paths with down-lighting at unit entries and lamp
post lighting along the main sidewalks. Motion activated lighting fixtures are proposed under
the carports to conserve energy and provide safety in that area.
Final lighting will be evaluated at the Technical Documents review process. All proposed
lighting fixtures must comply with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or
mitigates impacts to natural systems;
There are no natural environments that should be incorporated, and no trees are worthy of
preservation. The proposed open space and water quality and detention ponds will minimize
impacts on the natural systems, including water quality.
(xi) Buildings minimize or mitigate energy use; support on-site renewable energy generation and/or
energy management systems; construction wastes are minimized; the project mitigates urban
heat island effects; and the project reasonably mitigates or minimizes water use and impacts
on water quality.
The proposed project will be required to meet the city’s rigorous standards for energy: the
International Energy Efficiency Code (IECC) 2012 plus 30 percent additional efficiency. (Note
the site review was submitted prior to the adoption of the Energy Conservation Code). The
applicant is exploring all opportunities to meet the rigorous energy efficiency standards of the
city. In general, buildings are oriented to take advantage of renewable energy systems and will
be required at the building permit stage to demonstrate compliance with the city’s green points
program. All buildings in the multi-family development have either significant south or east
facing roofs. The design guidelines for the single-family homes include standards for PV
panels and shade elements for south facing windows.
(xii) Exteriors or buildings present a sense of permanence through the use of authentic materials
such as stone, brick, wood, metal or similar products and building material detailing;
The proposed building materials for the Habitat development include engineered horizontal
wood lap and shingle siding with trim, vinyl windows, and asphalt shingle roofing. The applicant
has submitted details on the materials to demonstrate that the materials are durable and
authentic. Exposed foundations will be screened with enhanced landscaping. A pedestrian
level of detailing, such as railings, porch detailing, and other architectural elements is given
prominence. The proposal includes comprehensive design guidelines for the single-family
development that ensure authentic building materials and appropriate building material
detailing.
(xiii) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours
of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or
subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards;
Cut and fill are minimized by maintaining the existing drainage patterns of the site. The site
generally drains from northwest to southeast currently and will continue the same general
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 500 of 518
pattern after development. See civil plans for current and proposed contours.
N/A (xiv) In the urbanizing areas along the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan boundaries between
Area II and Area III, the building and site design provide for a well-defined urban edge; and
N/A (xv) In the urbanizing areas located on the major streets shown on the map in Appendix A of this
title near the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan boundaries between Area II and Area III, the
buildings and site design establish a sense of entry and arrival to the City by creating a defined
urban edge and a transition between rural and urban areas.
(G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar
energy in the City, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and
buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar
siting criteria:
(i) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are located wherever practical to
protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on
adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify
deviations from this criterion.
Buildings in the Habitat development are oriented to take advantage of solar energy systems
and have either south or east facing roofs to accommodate PV systems. As demonstrated in
the Solar Analysis, all buildings will have access to solar energy. The open space is centralized
on the site, with the majority of buildings being located along the north property line. This
minimizes any shading on the proposed buildings by adjacent development to the south, both
now and in the future. The single-family lots are platted so that the future homes will have solar
access.
(ii) Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes
the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure
which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to
the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading.
See above. The setbacks and positioning of buildings on the multi-family site is conducive to
solar access for all buildings on the site. The proposed site plan locates four of the five
buildings along the north lot line to maximize open space and minimize solar shading. This
layout also minimizes the shading effect on the proposed buildings by adjacent properties, and
maximizes the solar access of the buildings on the site. The single-family lots are platted so
that the future homes will have solar access.
(iii) Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy.
Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of section 9-9-
17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981.
As described above, the orientation of the multi-family buildings on the east-west axis and their
location along the north lot line with generous open space to the south of the buildings
maximizes the residents’ access to solar energy. Building forms are conducive to solar panel
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 501 of 518
installation. There are no shadows projected in the deepest part of the winter that would
encroach on the rooftop, the area protected under Solar Access Area II. Thus, solar panels
could effectively be installed on the rooftops. In addition, the design guidelines for the single-
family homes include standards for PV panels and shade elements for south facing windows.
(iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are
minimized.
There are no identified conditions where proposed plantings could negatively affect solar
access of buildings in the future. Trees within the rights-of-way will have minimal if any impact
on future rooftop solar. The alley tree requirements are balanced to reduce conflicts with the
solar canopies over parking.
N/A (H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height: No site review application for a pole above
the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following:
N/A (I) Land Use Intensity Modifications
The applicant is requesting a density bonus for the provision of 19 affordable units, where 15 units are allowed
under RM-2 zoning. However, this request is not required to meet the criteria of this section since the ordinance is
related to the annexation agreement amendment.
N/A (i) Potential Land Use Intensity Modifications:
(a)The density of a project may be increased in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot area
requirement or in the Downtown (DT), BR-2, or MU-3 districts through a reduction in the open
space requirements.
(b)The open space requirements in all Downtown (DT) districts may be reduced by up to one
hundred percent.
(c)The open space per lot requirements for the total amount of open space required on the lot in
the BR-2 district may be reduced by up to fifty percent.
(d)Land use intensity may be increased up to 25 percent in the BR-1 district through a reduction of
the lot area requirement.
N/A (ii) Additional Criteria for Land Use Intensity Modifications: A land use intensity increase will be
permitted up to the maximum amount set forth below if the approving agency finds that the criteria
in paragraph (h)(1) through subparagraph (h)(2)(H) of this section and following criteria have been
met:
N/A (J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-1 District
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 502 of 518
(K) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of section 9-9-6,,
"Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows:
(i) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking.
The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent.
The proposal is for a 16.7 percent parking reduction to provide 30 parking spaces, where 36 are
required.
(ii) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following
criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of
section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981 (see tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if it finds that:
(a)For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and
visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated;
The applicant is requesting a 16.7 percent parking reduction) for the Habitat development
based on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and multi-modal access. The
subject property is served by the 204 transit route, which provides bus service along 19th
Street. Several pedestrian and bicycle connections are proposed that connect to the larger
multi-modal network, including a north-south 6-foot path to connect Vine Avenue to Violet
Avenue and detached sidewalks along Violet and Vine Avenues and 22nd Street. Since the
property is proposed to be 100 percent permanently affordable housing for low- to moderate-
income households, the applicant states that the parking demand is anticipated to be short of
typical parking requirements.
The proposed off-street parking is proposed to be partially unbundled, where 19 of the 30
spaces will be bundled at one parking space per unit, and the remaining 11 spaces will be
unbundled to accommodate any additional resident or visitor parking. The proposed parking
reduction will also encourage the use of alternative transportation methods that will be
supported by the proposed robust Transportation Management Plan.
The submitted TDM plan for 2180 Violet Avenue includes several strategies to limit the need
for automobiles. First, an “Alternative Transportation Subsidy Fund” will be created by the
developer. The developer will contribute to the fund equal to the cost of a 3-year participation
in the Eco Pass program. This amount will equal $360 per unit ($120 per unit, per year, for 3
years), for a total of $6,840. Acknowledging that transit services are limited, the fund can be
used for expenses such as B-cycle and car-share memberships, additional bicycle parking
racks for the project, transit (RTD) passes, and other HOA approved items. An eGo car share
is located in the Holiday neighborhood on Yellow Pine Avenue. Second, orientation packets
will be provided to each new resident that includes brochures, maps, and other resources to
inform residents of their transportation options. Third, the proposal exceeds the required long-
term bicycle parking with 38 parking spaces in the private storage sheds. Lastly, 19 of the
parking spaces will be reserved for the residential units (one per unit), with the balance being
unbundled. The 11 unbundled spaces will be on a first-come, first-serve basis. The proposed
TDM strategies ensure that alternative modes of transportation will continue to reduce the
need to for on-site parking on an ongoing basis. Staff finds that the parking reduction meets
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 503 of 518
the review criteria based on TDM strategies, access to multi-modal networks, the population
served by the proposal. and the availability of on-street parking following the proposal.
(b)The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-
street parking or off-street parking;
Not applicable.
(c)A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all
uses will be accommodated through shared parking;
Not applicable.
(d)If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will
accommodate proposed parking needs; and
Not applicable.
(e)If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy,
the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change.
The development will be permanently affordable with covenants on the property. Therefore, the
nature of the occupancy will not change.
N/A (L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards,"
B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if the following conditions are met:
Attachment C - Site Review Criteria Analysis
City Council Meeting Page 504 of 518
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
December 7, 2017
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Putnam, Chair
Liz Payton, Vice Chair
Bryan Bowen
David Ensign
Crystal Gray
Peter Vitale
Harmon Zuckerman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
N/A
STAFF PRESENT:
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager
Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney
Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III
Sloane Walbert, Planner II
Beth Roberts, Planner I
Caitlin Zacharias, Planner I
Jim Robertson, Director of PH+S
Jean Gatza, Senior Planner
Lauren Holm, Associate Planner
Chris Ranglos, Associate Planner
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager, PH+S
Molly Scarbrough, Senior Project Manager, Public Works
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, J. Putnam, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by D. Ensign, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 6-0 (C.
Gray absent) to approve the October 19, 2017, November 2, 2017 and November 16, 2017
minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
a) Alan Delamere (pooling time with Sheila Delamere), spoke regarding the proposed
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 505 of 518
project at 311 Mapleton. He stated that the project appears to be more massive than
originally declared and that the public has not been informed of the three concurrent
reviews. He informed the board that the project’s information is inaccessible and
overwhelming.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS /
CONTINUATIONS
A. Call-Up Item: FINAL PLAT to subdivide the existing 44.9-acre property at 2655 63rd
Street into three lots and two outlots. A Site Review Amendment (#LUR2016-00109)
was approved earlier this year to allow for the consolidation of three lots (previously Lots
3, 4 and 5) into one lot (proposed Lot 3) for a bus transportation and maintenance facility.
Case no. TEC2016-00060. The call-up period expires on December 12, 2017.
This item was not called up.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of the following items relating to
four properties in Crestview East:
(1) Recommendation to City Council on proposed amendments to the annexation
agreements for 2180 Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., 1917 Upland Ave. and 2145
Upland Ave. to allow the affordable housing requirements of all the properties to be
met at 2180 Violet Ave. Proposal includes an amendment to allow an increase in
density at 2180 Violet Ave. for a total of 19 dwelling units and amendments to reduce
the required dedication of right-of-way for future Vine Street (LUR2017-00010);
(2) Recommendation to City Council on an ordinance amending the Boulder Revised
Code and annexation Ordinance No. 5932 to authorize development of 2180 Violet
Ave. in the RM-2 zoning district with 19 dwelling units consistent with the proposed
amendment to the annexation agreement for 2180 Violet Ave.; and
(3) Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review (case no. LUR2017-00011) to
develop the three properties at 2180 Violet Ave., 2100 Violet Ave., and 2145 Upland
Ave. as follows:
a. 2180 Violet Ave. Proposal for the construction of 19 residential units in five
buildings. The development would be 100 percent permanently affordable for-
sale residences built by Flatirons Habitat for Humanity. Seventeen of the units
are proposed to be two-story, three-bedroom townhouses and two units would
be one-story, one-bedroom accessible residences. Thirty parking spaces are
proposed.
b. 2100 Violet Ave. Proposal to subdivide the property into 6 lots for single-
family development. Design guidelines are proposed to guide the design of the
homes.
c. 2145 Upland Ave. Proposal to subdivide the property into 3 lots for single-
family development. Design guidelines would be used to guide the design of
the homes.
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 506 of 518
Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item.
• H. Zuckerman, B. Bowen, L. Payton and C. Gray all stated that they had been on
Planning Board when the Concept Review was presented in 2016. All members
mentioned they had conducted site visits except for P. Vitale and L. Payton. Both B.
Bowen and C. Gray stated they had reviewed the packet but had no other ex-parte
contacts. H. Zuckerman said that he had worked for Habitat for Humanity in the past,
but that he could remain impartial. Finally, P. Vitale stated he had sat on the Habitat of
Humanity Board prior to being on Planning Board, but that he also could remain
impartial.
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
S. Walbert presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
S. Walbert and C. Ferro answered questions from the board, primarily related to planned
connections for the area, proposed TDM measures, and accessory dwelling units.
Applicant Presentation:
Robert Naumann, Susan Lythgoe, with Flatirons Habitat for Humanity, Don Ash, with Scott,
Cox and Associates, Inc., and Jeff Dawson, with Studio Architecture, presented the item to the
board.
Board Questions:
Don Ash, Jeff Dawson and Susan Lythgoe representing the Applicant, answered questions
from the board, primarily related to wiring for solar on rooftops and utility outlets for charging
stations in the carports.
S. Walbert, C. Ferro and B. Roberts answered questions from the board, primarily related to
livability standards, the proposed design guidelines, on-street parking, compatible development
and floor area, and affordable housing.
Public Hearing:
1) Janet Meyer spoke in support of the project with two concerns regarding the
proposed parking and the planned construction schedule. The proposed parking
reduction would be inadequate for the number of proposed units. The construction
schedule is proposed to be six years, which is an unreasonable impact on the
neighborhood.
2) Nolan Rosall, speaking as the President of the Board of Directors of Flatirons Habitat
for Humanity, spoke in support of the project. It will help support the mission of
providing quality affordable homes.
3) Jan Morzel spoke in support of the project and encouraged Habitat for Humanity to
develop an ECO pass or Carshare program with the existing neighborhood. He also
encouraged Habitat to communicate TDM measures to residents before they move in
to limit car ownership. However, he is opposed the developer of 2100 Violet Ave.
and 2145 Upland Ave. reducing their affordable housing requirements due to the
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 507 of 518
advantages they have already received through the original annexation.
Board Comments:
Key Issue #1: Is the proposal consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
and North Boulder (NBSP) Subcommunity Plan?
• All board members agreed with the staff recommendation that the proposal is consistent
with the BVCP and NBSP.
• L. Payton stated the BVCP has polices regarding middle-income housing, and the goals
may not be consistent with these policies.
Key Issue #2: Are the proposed annexation agreement amendments consistent with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies of annexation and the intent of the
original annexation terms?
• B. Bowen added that it is positive to be able to adjust the annexation agreements around
affordable housing.
• L. Payton voiced concerns about the size of the proposed single-family homes, referring
to the newly constructed Trail Head development as an example. She stated that she may
propose a condition or modification to the annexation amendment to address the potential
square footage of the homes, specifically maximum floor area ratio (FAR) She asked H.
Pannewig to assist in the drafting of a condition or modification.
Key Issue #3: Is the proposed land use intensity increase consistent with the BVCP land use
map and policies?
• The board agreed with the staff recommendation that the proposal is consistent with the
BVCP.
Key Issue #4: Does the development proposal meet the Site Review criteria found in Section
9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981?
• B. Bowen said that this was a strong proposal and the applicant adjusted the design to
respond to the Planning Board’s Concept Review recommendations. He complimented
the architecture, open space and focusing on diversity in affordability and age. He
suggested a few conditions to consider, such as requiring an EVSE mount, convenience
outlets in each storage unit or carport, and conduit for future PV on the rooftops of each
home. He clarified that there is no way to solar energy from the carports to feed back into
individual homes, due to the electrical code and Xcel.
• C. Gray appreciated that the applicant listened to the Planning Board’s comments from
the Concept Plan Review. She approved of the proposed community space and placing
the detention to the side rather than incorporating it into the open space.
• D. Ensign approved of the proposed multiple colors on the buildings. He agreed with B.
Bowen’s proposed condition regarding conduits on the rooftops.
• L. Payton stated that the project meets the Site Review criteria.
• H. Zuckerman approved of the site design. He said that he would have like to have seen
the height of the porch floors to be three or four steps high, rather than just 12-18 inches.
• J. Putman agreed that carports are a benefit to the site design and long-term livability.
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 508 of 518
EV provisions are important because that will make for affordable transportation in the
future. The condition should be not be too prescriptive and allow for flexibility. If it is not
incorporated now it will be a real barrier in the future.
• B. Bowen encouraged the Applicant to take advantage of grants for EV and PV.
Key Issue #5: Is the requested 16.7 percent parking reduction for the multi-family
development consistent with the criteria for parking reductions set forth in Subsection 9-2-
14(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981?
• B. Bowen suggested an alternative parking design and granting a smaller parking
reduction of four stalls, with an associated parking deferral for parking in front of the
proposed play lawn (six spaces). This would allow the parking lot to get smaller and
play area to get larger. On-street parking may not offer much relief to the development.
In this case, the developer would not be incumbered with the cost of building the parking
now if it is not necessary. The HOA and Habitat for Humanity could come back to
request the deferred parking (six stalls) if they realize that there is increased parking
demand in the future. He proposed that the deferred parking stalls would be on-plan, but
not constructed. In this case, the city has a mechanism in the future to build it.
• Staff agreed that conceptually, it could be done.
• D. Ensign said there may be some concern by the residents regarding a future decision to
build the parking and may create the probability of conflict.
• B. Bowen disagreed stating that residents would already have one space per unit and the
decision to implement the deferred parking would be made by the entire group.
• H. Zuckerman agreed that there may be an advantage to B. Bowen’s idea because it
may be a better design and have more permeable surface in the beginning.
• P. Vitale stated that B. Bowen’s idea would be “future-proofing” the site and there is the
notion that there would be less vehicles in the future, not more.
• L. Payton said if the residents do realize that there are not enough parking spaces, they
may park in other neighborhoods rather than eliminate the play lawn.
• H. Zuckerman added that scenario would be the trigger for staff to perform a parking
analysis and enact the parking deferral.
o Jeff Dawson, representing the applicant, was asked his opinion regarding the
deferred parking concept. He stated that there was some support for the idea;
however, they would prefer head-in parking along the alley rather than designing
a partial parking lot with four spaces. He suggested using tandem parking spaces.
He asked for some flexibility within the condition.
• The board discussed the construction phasing of the project.
o Susan Lythgoe, representing the Applicant, stated that the funding for the project
is over five years, one building per year. They build 3 days a week, bet 8 am and
4 pm, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. There is some flexibility is that schedule
if the neighborhood requests it.
• The board determined that due to the timing of funding, the phasing plan was
unavoidable.
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 509 of 518
Motion #1:
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to
approve Site Review case no. LUR2017-00011, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of
fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended
conditions of approval.
Friendly amendment by D. Ensign, accepted by L. Payton and H. Zuckerman, to add a
condition that conduit for future photovoltaic systems be brought to the rooftops of the
residential units.
Friendly amendment by J. Putnam, accepted by L. Payton and H. Zuckerman, that the
Applicant provide measures to facilitate the future installation of electrical vehicle (EV)
charging stations in the carports on Vine Alley at the technical document review stage.
• The board deliberated proposing the following motion regarding parking at 2180
Violet, but after discussion, it was not made:
“The final site plans shall show that two additional parking spaces can be
accommodated on site, meeting all applicable standards of the Boulder Revised Code. If
the city manager finds that the parking needs of the Property are not adequately met on
the Property, the Applicant shall construct such additional two parking spaces and
commence construction within 90 days’ notice by mail.”
Motion #2:
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to
recommend to City Council approval of the annexation agreement amendments as they are
consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies
pertaining to annexation as well as the intent of the original annexation terms.
Friendly amendment by L. Payton, accepted by H. Zuckerman, to add to Motion #2 that the
Planning Board recommends that the annexation agreements for 2145 Upland Avenue, 1917
Upland Avenue, and 2100 Violet Avenue be further revised to state that the Parties agree to
replace Paragraphs 7(f), 6(f), and 8(h), respectively, relating to floor area ratio, with the
following:
“The compatible development standards of Sections 9-8-2, 9-7-9, 9-7-10, and 9-7-11,
B.R.C. 1981, shall be complied with as they apply to the zoning district of the Subject
Property.”
On a motion by B. Bowen, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 4-3 (C.
Gray, D. Ensign, L. Payton opposed) to amend the main Motion #2 by deleting the friendly
amendment language requiring compliance with compatible development standards.
Motion #3:
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to
recommend to City Council on an ordinance amending the Boulder Revised Code and
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 510 of 518
annexation Ordinance No. 5932 to authorize development of 2180 Violet Ave. in the RM-2
zoning district with 19 dwelling units consistent with the proposed amendment to the annexation
agreement for 2180 Violet Ave.
Motion to Continue Tonight’s Meeting:
On a motion by H. Zuckerman, seconded by D. Ensign, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to
continue the Planning Board meeting and hear the remaining items on the agenda.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A. AGENDA TITLE: Alpine-Balsam Area Plan Update
Staff Presentation:
L. Ellis introduced the item.
C. Zacharias presented the item to the board.
Board Comments:
Project Purpose Statement
• Board members agreed the statement was clear.
• L. Payton added that everything in the area plan could be achieved, yet the city could
still end up with a jobs-housing imbalance. She recommended that it may be useful to
conduct a post-mortem on Transit Village Plan and conduct a comparison to the job-
housing plan so the same mistakes are not made.
• D. Ensign suggested adding “constituents” to the phrase “create a common
understanding with the larger Boulder neighborhoods”.
• C. Gray expressed concern about the nearby areas and would we be expecting them to
change.
Feedback on the Scope and Key Considerations
• C. Gray appreciated that this area will be connected to other sites along the corridor.
• D. Ensign, regarding parking and mobility, said he would like to see reference to the
transit support along that corridor.
• L. Payton said people are calling for this area to be used to solve several city problems,
and it is important to find a way to communicate what some of these key issues are that
this project might tackle. In addition, real number targets, e.g. for commercial space,
could be shown.
• J. Putnam suggested that the plan consider what is the highest and best use for the site.
• H. Zuckerman said that one thing that should be considered is a way to soften the
impact for nearby businesses from the loss of the hospital.
Feedback on the criteria for and definition of the planning and study areas
• P. Vitale said the map should clarify what is not the hospital site and what that will mean
for those residents within the circled area.
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 511 of 518
• B. Bowen added the criteria make sense. He recommended expanding the planning area
to both sides of 9th Street, to include the northeast corner of 13th and Balsam Streets, and
to extend further south down Broadway one or two blocks.
• J. Putnam was confused by the difference between the planning vs. study areas. The
labels should reflect and convey our intent more clearly.
• L. Payton agreed.
• D. Ensign agreed. In addition, he approved of the area plan being tied into the Broadway
corridor.
• C. Gray agreed. She has concerns regarding the planning area extending north of Balsam
along 13th Street as well as the neighborhood to the south of the Alpine-Balsam site and
the affect it may have on the existing neighborhood.
Suggestions to improve the purpose and objectives for communications and engagement.
• C. Gray said it is a good start and that transparency and reflecting back what was heard
will be important.
• D. Ensign reiterated having people from the community involved in working groups will
be advantageous with continuity.
• L. Payton suggested giving people advance notice to save the date for events. In
addition, the engagement objective should be that the community helps to plan and
design the site.
• J. Putnam stated that the engagement process is strong, but he advised to use some
different, strategic tools, methods and approaches to gain additional thoughts (e.g. tech
ideas).
• H. Zuckerman said the purpose needs to show a clear path to the eventual decision. The
language should be clearer, where the public is in the process of the engagement, what
the city is soliciting from them, and where the information will go from there.
• B. Bowen agreed that the language needs to be as clear and concise as possible.
Workshops in which residents are talking to each other are very positive and create a
strong community building exercise.
• P. Vitale agreed with all previous statements. He added that before the hospital is
deconstructed, the parking lot will be sitting empty. He suggested the parking lot and the
exterior of the building could be used for entertaining events by the local community.
This may bring additional and different types of people to come and talk about this area.
B. AGENDA TITLE: Letter to Council Discussion
Board Comments:
• The board reviewed and edited their previously submitted comments and
formatted the Letter to Council to address City Council’s three questions
presented to the Boards and Commissions.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 512 of 518
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:19 p.m.
APPROVED BY
___________________
Board Chair
___________________
DATE
Attachment D- Draft 12.07.17 Planning Board Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 513 of 518
Existing Site/Area Context
The subject properties are located in the Crestview East neighborhood, on the large block
bounded by Violet Avenue to the north, Upland Avenue to the south, 19th Street to the west,
and 22nd Street to the east (refer to Figure 1). The property areas are as follows: 2100 Violet
Ave.: 49,118 square feet (1.1 acres); 2180 Violet Ave: 61,905 square feet (1.4 acres); and 2145
Upland Ave. (36,209 square feet (0.83 acres).
Figure 1: Birds Eye View of the Existing Context
The property at 2180 Violet Avenue is generally level and sparsely vegetated, with open
grassland and some sporadic trees. Refer to Figure 2. The southern property at 2100 Violet
Avenue is also generally level and contains a large number of trees in thickets, the majority of
which are invasive Siberian Elms in poor condition. The property at 2145 Upland Ave.
contains a home built circa 1961. The northern end of the site is heavily wooded with invasive
siberian elm and honeylocusts in generally poor condition. Four Mile Canyon Creek and Crest
View Elementary School is located about 1000 feet to the west from the properties under site
review.
The site is part of the Crestview East neighborhood, which is roughly defined as those
properties located north of Tamarack Avenue, south of Violet Avenue, east of 19th Street and
west of 22nd Street. Crestview East includes a variety of single-family homes in a more rural
setting than other parts of Boulder. Lot sizes vary considerably in the area with Rural Estate
lots ranging from 14,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet, RL-1 (Residential Low – 1) lots of
roughly 8,000 square feet in size and the medium density lots across the street from the site
with lots less than 4,000 square feet in size. Medium density land use and zoning exists along
Violet. The lot across 22nd Avenue to the east is another Habitat for Humanity development
with the small lot single-family development (Figure 3). There’s prevalence of developments
Crest View
Elementary
School
Violet Ave.
Upland Ave.
28t
h
S
t
.
19th St. Attachment E - Detailed Background Information
City Council Meeting Page 514 of 518
built with cul-de-sacs and the existence of Boulder County enclaves in the immediate vicinity.
An extensive mobile home park exists on the north side of Violet across from the site.
Figure 2: 2180 Violet Ave. Site Conditions Figure 3: Existing Affordable Development Across 22nd St.
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designations reflect this context and
include Medium Density Residential on 2180 Violet Avenue and Low Density Residential on
2100 Violet Avenue, and 2145 Upland Avenue. The adjacent Habitat for Humanity project is
Medium Density Residential, Manufactured Housing is to the north, and Low Density
Residential for the majority of areas south of the site is shown in Figure 4 on the following
page. The land use designations were changed in the late 1990s to be consistent with the North
Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP), which established a cascading density gradient from
Violet Avenue to the south towards Tamarack Avenue.
Figure 4: BVCP Land Use
Zoning Designation
The properties were annexed into the city in 1997. As part of annexation, the northern portion
of the property now known as 2180 and 2100 Violet Avenue was assigned a zoning
designation of Residential - Medium 2 (RM-2) (previously Medium Density Residential –
Manufactured Housing
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Public
Very Low Density Residential
Attachment E - Detailed Background Information
City Council Meeting Page 515 of 518
Established (MR-E)) and the southern portion of the property was zoned Residential - Low 1
(RL-1) (previously Low Density Residential – Established (LR-E)). The northern portions of
the properties at 1917 Upland and 2145 Upland Avenue were zoned Residential - Low 1 (RL-
1) (previously LR-E) and the southern portions were zoned Residential – Estate (RE)
(previously Estate Residential – Established (ER-E)). Refer to Figure 5 below. The zoning
designations are consistent with the NBSP.
Residential - Mixed 2 (RMX-2) zoning is described as “medium density residential areas
which have a mix of densities from low density to high density and where complementary uses
may be permitted” (section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. 1981). Residential – Estate (RE) and Residential -
Low 1 (RL-1) zoning is described as “single-family detached residential dwelling units at low
to very low residential densities” (section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. 1981).
Figure 5: Zoning Districts
North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) is the primary land use policy document for
the Crestview East area. The plan sets forth the official vision for the future of North Boulder
and provides the basis for decisions about the long-term development and preservation of
North Boulder and lists specific actions to be carried out by the City, other public agencies, and
the private sector in the coming years. Several planned connections impact the subject
properties. The current adopted North Boulder Right-of-Way Plan is shown in Figure 6 below.
MH
RM-2
RL-1
RE
P
RE
RR-1
Attachment E - Detailed Background Information
City Council Meeting Page 516 of 518
Figure 6: Planned Connections in North Boulder Right-of-Way Plan
Annexation History
The properties at 2180 Violet Ave., 2145 Upland Ave. and 1917 Upland Ave. were annexed
into the city in 1997 and are subject to the requirements of annexation agreements. Refer to
Attachments G, H, and I of the Planning Board memorandum for the agreements. The
properties were annexed prior to the larger Crestview East annexation in 2009, which was a
complex multi-year process that involved the annexation of 14 properties.
The annexation agreement for 2180 Violet Ave. contains very specific affordable housing
requirements for the property, including size-restricted units affordable only to the first
purchaser of the unit. This means that subsequent sales of each property would allow the
affordability restrictions to be terminated over time. The Restricted Unit Housing Program was
discontinued in 2002 in lieu of the city’s current Inclusionary Housing regulations. In addition
to the required restricted units, the annexation agreement requires the applicant to provide eight
permanently affordable units, affordable in perpetuity, to households earning between 60
percent and 120 percent of the area median income (AMI), with an average income of 90
percent of AMI.
The annexation agreements for 2145 Upland Ave. and 1917 Upland Ave. each have restricted
unit provisions. The 2145 Upland Ave. agreement’s affordable housing requirement is based
on the development potential of the property resulting in either one permanently affordable unit
for households earning up to 90 percent of AMI or one size restricted unit initially affordable
to households earning up 110 percent of AMI. The 1917 Upland Ave. agreement requires two
units that are permanently affordable to households earning between 60 percent to 120 percent
of the area median income (AMI), and one size-restricted unit initially affordable to
households earning up 110 percent of AMI.
Attachment E - Detailed Background Information
City Council Meeting Page 517 of 518
The following table summarizes the affordability requirements that apply to the three
properties as a consequence of the annexation agreements:
TABLE 1 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Property Applicable Affordability Requirements Total # of Affordable Units
2100 and 2180
Violet • At time of development, 8 units, permanently
affordable to households earning b/t 60% and
120% of AMI (average 90% AMI)
• If rental, affordable to households earning < 90%
AMI
• 1 unit in RL-1 area shall be size-restricted and
initially affordable to households earning 110% of
AMI
• 4 units in RM-2 portion shall be size-restricted
and initially affordable to households earning b/t
80% and 120% AMI (average 110% AMI)
13 units
(5 units as size restricted and not
permanently affordable over time)
2145 Upland • If RL-1 portion developed with 3 units, 1 unit shall
be permanently affordable to household earning
90% of AMI.
• If RL-1 portion developed with 2 units, 1 unit shall
be size-restricted and initially affordable to
households earning up to 110% AMI
1 unit
(If developed with 2 units, 1 unit
possible as size restricted and not
permanently affordable over time)
1917 Upland • At time of development, 2 units shall be
permanently affordable to households earning b/t
60% and 120% of AMI (average 90% AMI).
• 1 unit in RL-1 portion shall be size restricted and
initially affordable to households earning 110% of
AMI.
3 units
(1 unit as size restricted and not
permanently affordable over time)
Total affordable units under current agreements 17 units
Total permanently affordable units 10 units
Total units that are not considered permanent Up to 7 units
Attachment E - Detailed Background Information
City Council Meeting Page 518 of 518