07.21.22 City Council Agenda
M ayor
Aaron Brockett
Council M e mbe rs
Matt Benjamin
Lauren Folkerts
Rachel Friend
Junie Joseph
Nicole Speer
Mark Wallach
Tara Winer
Bob Yates
Council Chambers
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
July 21, 2022
6:00 PM
City M anage r
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde
City Attorne y
Teresa Taylor Tate
City Cle rk
Elesha Johnson
AGENDA FOR T HE RE GULAR MEE T ING OF T HE
BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL
1.Call to Order and Roll Call
A.D eclaration honoring the life of C lela Rorex to be presented by
C ouncil M ember Yates
10 min
B .B oulder C ounty’s Transportation F unding B allot Initiative 60 min
- 30
min
Presentation
/ 30
min
Council
Discussion
C .RT D D irector Lynn Guissinger - Annual Update 45 min,
15 min
Presentation
/ 30
min
Council
Discussion
2.Open Comment
3.Consent Agenda
A.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only Ordinance 8534 submitting to the registered
electors of the City of B oulder at the Special M unicipal Coordinated
E lection to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to repeal Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of C U
S outh; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
B.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order
Packet Page 1 of 305
published by title only Ordinance 8539 submitting to the registered
electors of the City of B oulder at the Special M unicipal Coordinated
E lection to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to amend S ections 65, 102 and 130 and repeal S ections 69,
132, 133, and 134 from the Boulder Home Rule C harter if the initiative
to create a library district on the B oulder C ounty Ballot is approved
at this election; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
C.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only Ordinance 8540 submitting to the registered
electors of the City of B oulder at the Special M unicipal Coordinated
E lection to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to amend S ections 5 and 9 of the Boulder Home Rule
Charter to prohibit running for more than one office at an election,
allow a council member whose term does not expire at the election to
run for mayor in the election, fill a vacancy for the expired term, and
change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials; specifying the
form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth
related details
D.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only Ordinance 8541 submitting to the registered
electors of the City of B oulder at the Special M unicipal Coordinated
E lection to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to amend S ections 5, 14 and 22 of the B oulder Home Rule
Charter to change the regular municipal election of 2023 for
elections of candidates to 2024 and every even-numbered year
thereafter, move commencement of direct election of the mayor to
2026, implement the transition by extending the terms of all nine
existing council members for one year and specifying how the mayor
will be selected prior to 2026; specifying the form of the ballot and
other election procedures; and setting forth related details
AND/OR
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only Ordinance 8546 submitting to the registered
electors of the City of B oulder at the Special M unicipal Coordinated
E lection to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to amend S ections 5, 14 and 22 of the B oulder Home Rule
Charter to change the regular municipal elections of candidates to
even-numbered years beginning in 2026; implement the transition by
reducing the terms of the council members elected in 2023 and 2025
to three years and increasing the term of the mayor elected in 2023
to three years; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
E.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only Ordinance 8542 submitting to the registered
electors of the City of B oulder at the Special M unicipal Coordinated
E lection to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the questions of
authorizing the C ity Council to replace the existing utility occupation
tax and climate action plan excise tax with a new climate tax
beginning J anuary 1, 2023, and expiring D ecember 31, 2040, and
Packet Page 2 of 305
authorizing debt to be repaid from such tax up to a principal amount
of $52,900,000 to meet the city’s climate goals; specifying the form of
the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related
details
F.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to publish
by title only Ordinance 8543 amending S ection 2-11-6, “P olice
Oversight P anel – Qualifications and Appointments,” B .R.C. 1981,
increasing the number of panel members to eleven and alternates to
four; and setting forth related details
G.Consideration of motion to adopt Resolution 1312 declaring the C ity
of Boulder ’s support for the Regional T ransportation D istrict’s (RT D )
Zero Fare for B etter Air transit initiative that waives passenger fares
for all RT D and City of Boulder HO P transit and paratransit services
during the month of August 2022 to encourage local and regional
ridership and reduce ground level ozone and greenhouse gas
emissions
H.Consideration of a proposed annexation agreement amendment for
the property at 1422 55th S treet to modify the affordable housing
requirements and facilitate the development of the site with for-sale
homes. C ase # L UR2021-00045
4.Call-Up Check-In
A.Community and E nvironmental Assessment P rocess for the
Downtown Boulder S tation improvements project
B.Use Review application for a 3,716 square foot restaurant (Raising
Cane’s) at 3033 28th S treet with a double drive-thru and 615 square
foot outdoor patio and a 23% parking reduction that has been
requested pursuant to administrative review #AD R2022-00062. T he
project site is zoned Business-Community 1 (B C-1). Case No.
L UR2020-00061. T he application was denied by P lanning B oard on
J une 23, 2022.
C.L andmark Alteration Certificate to install cementitious siding at 456
M apleton Ave., C ity of Boulder, Colorado, a contributing property in
the M apleton Hill Historic District., under C hapter 9-11, “Historic
P reservation,” B.R.C. 1981
5.Public Hearings
6.M atters from the City M anager
A.C ore Arterial Network (C AN) Update 60 min -
15 min
Presentation
/ 45 min
Council
Discussion
7.M atters from the City Attorney
Packet Page 3 of 305
8.M atters from the M ayor and M embers of Council
9.Discussion Items
10.Debrief
11.Adjournment
4:40 hrs
Additional M aterials
Presentations
Item Updates
Information Items
A.Update on city participation at the P ublic Utilities Commission
Boards and Commissions
A.05.09.22 F INAL TAB M eeting M inutes
B.M ay 18, 2022 Boulder Arts Commission M eeting M inutes
Declarations
A.Honoring 400 Years of African American History Declaration
Heads Up! E mail
This meeting can be viewe d at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live
on Municipal Channel 8 and the city's website and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m.
Fridays in the two we eks following a regular co uncil meeting.
Boulder 8 TV (Comc ast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed c aptioning for all live
meetings that are aired on the channels. The c losed captioning service operates in the same
manner as similar servic es offered by broadc ast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed
captioning on or off with the television remote c ontrol. Closed captioning also is available on
the live HD stream on Boulder Channel8.com. To activate the c aptioning servic e for the live
stream, the "C C" button (which is loc ated at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated
and available whenever the channel is providing c aptioning servic es.
The council c hambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted
listening devic es. I ndividuals with hearing or speec h loss may contact us using Relay
Colorado at 711 or 1-800-659-3656.
Anyone requiring spec ial packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded
versions may contac t the City Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday. Please request special packet preparation no later than 48 hours prior to the
meeting.
I f you need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting,
please call (303) 441-1905 at least three business day s prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita
Packet Page 4 of 305
interpretacion o c ualquier otra ay uda con relac ion al idioma para esta junta, por favor
comuniquese al (303) 441-1905 por lo menos 3 negoc ios dias antes de la junta.
Send electronic presentations to email address: CityClerkStaff@bouldercolor ado.gov no
later than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Packet Page 5 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Declaration honoring the life of Clela Rorex to be presented by C ouncil Member Yates
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Taylor Reimann, C ity Council Administrator
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 1A - Declaration honoring the life of Clela Rorex to be presented by Council
Member Yates
Packet Page 6 of 305
Packet Page 7 of 305
Please join us in remembering Clela Rorex and honoring her courage.
Packet Page 8 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Boulder County’s Transportation Funding Ballot Initiative
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
J ean Sanson, Transportation Principal Planner
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
I S T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T O N T HE C O U N C I L WORK P L AN?
N/A
H AS T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T B E E N B U D GE T E D?
N/A
WHAT P RI MARY SU STAI N AB I L I T Y F RAME W O RK OU T C OME I S B E I N G
SU P P O RT E D?
Economically Vital Community
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
No Attachments Available
Packet Page 9 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
RT D Director Lynn Guissinger - Annual Update
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Danny O'Connor, Principal Transportation Planner/Transit Program Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
No Attachments Available
Packet Page 10 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8534 submitting to the registered electors of the C ity of Boulder at the Special
Municipal C oordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to repeal Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of C U South; specifying the form
of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel, 303.441.3020
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8540 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of whether to repeal Ordinance 8534
regarding the annexation of C U South; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 3A - 1st Rdg Ord 8534 Referendum C U South P age
Packet Page 11 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8534 submitting to the registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special
Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question
of whether to repeal Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South; specifying
the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
PRESENTERS
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Teresa Tate, City Attorney
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel
Elesha Johnson, City Clerk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The city received a referendum petition that was deemed sufficient on November 1, 2021.
The petition asked whether Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South should
be repealed. Ordinance 8483 annexing and zoning the CU South property was adopted
by emergency on September 21, 2021, and the annexation was recorded in the records of
Boulder County on September 22, 2021, as required by the Municipal Annexation Act
and Sec. 50 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter. Because the Charter provides that the
ordinance will be in effect rather than suspended pending the referendum election, both
the city and the property owner have been implementing the annexation agreement since
approval on September 21, 2021.
Item 3A - 1st Rdg Ord 8534
Referendum CU South
Page 1
Packet Page 12 of 305
Pursuant to Article V of the Colorado Constitution and the City Charter, the referendum
is to be on the ballot at the next municipal election. Proposed Ordinance 8534
(Attachment A) submits to the voters at the November 8, 2022, election the question
contained in the referendum petition and as provided to council at the May 10, 2022,
study session.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8540 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of whether to repeal Ordinance 8534
regarding the annexation of CU South; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
NEXT STEPS
Second reading and public hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2022.
ATTACHMENT
A – Proposed Ordinance 8534
Item 3A - 1st Rdg Ord 8534
Referendum CU South
Page 2
Packet Page 13 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8534 1st Rdg-3406.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 8534
AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL COORDINATED ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 8483 REGARDING THE
ANNEXATION OF CU SOUTH; SPECIFYING THE FORM OF
THE BALLOT AND OTHER ELECTION PROCEDURES; AND
SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. On October 21, 2021, a petition committee presented a referendum petition
with sufficient signatures of registered electors for a vote on the repeal of Ordinance 8483,
annexation of CU South. The referendum petition was deemed sufficient by the city clerk on
November 1, 2021.
Section 2. A special municipal coordinated election is called to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 2022.
Section 3. The charter requires that the ballot title be a clear, concise statement,
without argument or prejudice, descriptive of the substance of the measure and phrased so the
voters determine if they are “for the measure” or “against the measure.”
Section 4. The official ballot shall contain the following ballot title, which shall also
be the designation and submission clause for the measure:
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8534
Item 3A - 1st Rdg Ord 8534
Referendum CU South
Page 3
Packet Page 14 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8534 1st Rdg-3406.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
Ballot Question No. ____
Repeal of Ordinance 8483, regarding the annexation of CU South
Should Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South, be
repealed?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
Section 5. 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 6. 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 21st day of July 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8534
Item 3A - 1st Rdg Ord 8534
Referendum CU South
Page 4
Packet Page 15 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8534 1st Rdg-3406.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 AND ADOPTED, this 4th day of August
2022.
___________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8534
Item 3A - 1st Rdg Ord 8534
Referendum CU South
Page 5
Packet Page 16 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8539 submitting to the registered electors of the C ity of Boulder at the Special
Municipal C oordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to amend Sections 65, 102 and 130 and repeal Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 from
the Boulder Home Rule C harter if the initiative to create a library district on the Boulder
C ounty Ballot is approved at this election; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel, 303.441.3020
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8539 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of whether to amend Sections 65, 102 and
130 and repeal Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 from the Boulder Home Rule Charter if the
initiative to create a library district on the Boulder C ounty Ballot is approved at this election;
specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539 L ibrary District ballot item
Packet Page 17 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8539 submitting to the registered electors of the City of Boulder at the
Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the
question of whether to amend Sections 65, 102 and 130 and repeal Sections 69, 132,
133, and 134 from the Boulder Home Rule Charter if the initiative to create a library
district on the Boulder County Ballot is approved at this election; specifying the form
of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
PRESENTERS
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager
Teresa Tate, City Attorney
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel
Kara Skinner, Chief Financial Officer
Elesha Johnson, City Clerk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At its study session regarding ballot issues on May 10, 2022, council directed that staff
bring an ordinance to council that deletes the Charter references to the library to go into
effect only if the voters approve a library district. The question of whether a library
district should be formed is through an initiative to Boulder County. The initiative
petition has been submitted and the county is holding a hearing on it this summer.
Proposed Ordinance 8539 (Attachment A) repeals Sections 69, 132, 133 and 134 from
the Charter. Sections 69, 102 and 130 are only amended to the extent they address the
Item 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539
Library District ballot item
Page 1
Packet Page 18 of 305
library, dedicated library funds, and the library commission. The amendments to Section
102 are necessary to prevent appropriated funds from being “stuck” in the Library Fund
with no authority to spend the funds.
If the library district is approved by the voters, city staff will work with the new library
district to transition the city library assets to the new district over the next few years. The
result of those discussions will be brought to council for its consideration for approval in
the form of an IGA. Eliminating the library provisions from the Charter does not prevent
the council from appropriating funds for the library during the interim transition period or
keeping the Library Commission in place during the transition; it simply removes from
the Charter the limitations on council of how to do so. Part of the transition plan will
also include changes to the code provisions regarding the library.
The ballot language is written so that the Charter changes will not go into effect unless
the voters approve funding for the library district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
The conversation about forming and funding a library district has occurred several times
over the past few decades. It was most recently resumed during the 2018 Boulder Public
Library Master Plan process. From July 2018 through April 2022, City Council
examined several options for sustainable funding for the library and has deliberated about
continuing with municipal governance of library services or transferring library services
to a library district to pursue voter approval for funding.
State law provides for two processes to form a library district. The first is a cooperative
process where the governmental entities within the proposed district’s service area pass
resolutions to form a district. The second process is upon a petition of 100 electors
residing in the proposed district’s service area and submitting the question to a vote of the
electorate.
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8539 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated
Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of whether to amend
Sections 65, 102 and 130 and repeal Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 from the Boulder
Home Rule Charter if the initiative to create a library district on the Boulder County
Ballot is approved at this election; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
Item 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539
Library District ballot item
Page 2
Packet Page 19 of 305
On April 5, 2022, City Council held a public hearing jointly with Boulder County Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC) about its consideration to adopt a resolution to form a
library district. Council adopted Resolution 1305. On April 21, 2022, the BOCC
rejected a resolution to form a library district. The BOCC’s rejection of the resolution
ended the process of forming a library district by resolution.
The Boulder Library Champions submitted a petition to the BOCC to create a ballot item
to form and fund the Boulder Public Library District. The Boulder County Clerk and
Recorder’s Office certified the petition “Library District serving the City of Boulder and
surrounding unincorporated Boulder County areas” on May 31, 2022.
If this ballot item is successful to form and fund the Boulder Public Library District, the
city will enter into negotiations to form an intergovernmental agreement to guide the
transition. It is the city’s intent that the previous draft of the intergovernmental
agreement that was included with the resolutions in April 2022 would be the foundation
for a future agreement.
NEXT STEPS
Second reading and public hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2022.
ATTACHMENT
A – Proposed Ordinance 8539
Item 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539
Library District ballot item
Page 3
Packet Page 20 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8539 1st Rdg-3406.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 8539
AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL COORDINATED ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER TO AMEND SECTIONS 65, 102 AND 130 AND
REPEAL SECTIONS 69, 132, 133, AND 134 FROM THE
BOULDER HOME RULE CHARTER IF THE INITIATIVE TO
CREATE A LIBRARY DISTRICT ON THE BOULDER
COUNTY BALLOT IS APPROVED AT THIS ELECTION;
SPECIFYING THE FORM OF THE BALLOT AND OTHER
ELECTION PROCEDURES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED
DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. A special municipal coordinated election is called to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 2022.
Section 2. At the election, an initiative will be set forth for voters to consider forming
a boulder public library district, and if funding for the district should be approved, the city will
enter into negotiations to define the process of transferring the city’s library services to the district.
This is anticipated to include any unspent funds in the library fund on the date of transfer.
Section 3. At the election, a question shall be submitted to the electors of the City of
Boulder entitled by law to vote, that will allow voters to determine whether Sections 65, 102, and
130 should be amended and Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 should be repealed from the Boulder
Home Rule Charter if the voters approve the initiative that is on the Boulder County ballot to create
a library district. The material proposed to be removed is shown stricken through with solid lines.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8539
Item 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539
Library District ballot item
Page 4
Packet Page 21 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8539 1st Rdg-3406.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
Sec. 65. – Administrative departments.
The following administrative departments are hereby created:
. . .
(f) Department of library and arts.
Sec. 69. – General powers and duties. REPEAL
There is hereby created a department of library and arts, the director of which will be
subject to the supervision and control of the city manager in all matters, shall be the technical
advisor of the library commission and shall have the administrative direction of the department of
library and arts, and perform such duties pertaining to the department of library and arts as are in
this charter, or may be required by ordinance or assigned by the city manager. The director may
be designated as the secretary of the library commission and authorized to perform other necessary
functions.
Sec. 102. – Transfer of balances.
At any time after the passage of the annual appropriation ordinance and after at least one
week’s public notice, the council may transfer unused balances, appropriated for one purpose to
another purpose and may by ordinance appropriate available revenues not included in the annual
budget. This provision shall not apply to the water, and park, and library funds.
Sec. 130. – General provisions concerning advisory commissions.
At any time after the organization of the council elected under the provision of this charter,
The council by ordinance may create and provide for such advisory commissions as it may deem
advisable; provided that a library commission is hereby created, and the council shall, within
ninety days from its organization, appoint the members thereof.
Except as otherwise specified in this charter, each of the existing advisory commissions,
including the library commission, shall be composed of five city residents. For any advisory
commissions appointed after January 1, 2019, the council shall specify i n the ordinance forming
the advisory commission whether the commission shall have five or seven members, for any
advisory commission created by ordinance adopted in March 2018, the council may, by
subsequent ordinance, specify that the commission shall hav e seven members. All members of
a commission shall be appointed by the council, not all of one gender identity, who are well
known for their ability, probity, public spirit, and particular fitness to serve on such respective
commissions and who are at leas t eighteen years old and who have resided in the city of Boulder
for at least one year immediately prior to their appointment to serve on the commission. When
first constituted, the council shall designate the terms for which each member is appointed so
that the term of one commissioner shall expire on December 31 of each year; and thereafter the
council shall by March of each year appoint one member to serve for a term of five years. The
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8539
Item 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539
Library District ballot item
Page 5
Packet Page 22 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8539 1st Rdg-3406.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
council shall have the power to remove any commissioner for non -attendance to duties or for
cause. All vacancies shall be filled by the council. When first appointed and annually thereafter
following the council's appointment of the commissioner, each commission shall organize by
appointing a chair, a vice -chair, and a secretary; all commissioners shall serve without
compensation, but the secretary of any commission, if not a member, may receive a salary to be
fixed by the council; any commission shall have power to make rules for the conduct of its
business. All commissioners shall serve until their successors are appointed.
. . .
Library Commission
Sec. 132. – Library commission established. REPEAL
There shall be and is hereby established a library commission which shall have the
primary responsibility as an advisory commission with regard to the provision of library services
to the Boulder community. The members of the commission shall be qualified to serve on an
advisory commission pursuant to Section 130 shall not hold any other office in the city, and shal l
serve without pay.
Sec. 133. – Powers and duties of library commission. REPEAL
The library commission shall not perform any administrative functions unless expressly
provided in this charter. The commission shall provide recommendations to the city council in
matters concerning the library, and the commission shall have the following duties:
(a) Adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations for its guidance and governance;
(b) Provide advice to assist in preparation and revision of a master plan for the
development and maintenance of a modern library system within the city;
(c) Review annually the library budget prepared by the library director prior to its
submittal to the city manager and make recommendations regarding approval or
modification of the same;
(d) Review periodically the director ’s operational service plans and make comments
and recommendations;
(e) Make recommendations to the director and the city council on library facilities,
including capital improvements, maintenance of existing facilit ies, and need for
new facilities;
(f) Review the library director ’s annual report and make comments and
recommendations;
(g) Represent the library to the community and the community to the library with the
goal of building awareness, understanding, and sup port; and
(h) Take steps as the library commission may deem feasible to encourage grants or gifts
in support of the library.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8539
Item 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539
Library District ballot item
Page 6
Packet Page 23 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8539 1st Rdg-3406.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
Sec. 134. - Library fund. REPEAL
The city council shall make an annual appropriation, which shall amount to not less than
the return of one-third of a mill tax levied upon each dollar of assessed valuation of all taxable
property in the City of Boulder. All revenue from such tax shall be paid into the city treasury
and be designated the "Library Fund." Said fund shall be used onl y for the benefit of the library.
Revenues from the following sources shall be deposited in the Library Fund referenced
above. Expenditures of revenues from the following sources shall be made only upon the
favorable recommendation of the library commissio n.
(a) Gifts, bequests, and donations to the fund.
(b) Proceeds of the sale of any library property, or the pro rata portion of such property,
purchased with funds from the property tax appropriated pursuant to this section
134 or the predecessor section 135 or gifts, bequests, and donations.
Any portion of the fund remaining unexpended at the end of any fiscal year shall not in
any event be converted into the general fund nor be subject to appropriation for general purposes.
Money appropriated from the fund which is not expended in whole or in part shall be returned
to the fund and shall not be subject to appropriation for general purposes.
Section 4. The official ballot shall contain the following ballot title, which shall also
be the designation and submission clause for the measure:
Ballot Question No. ____
Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created
If the voters approve the initiative to create a library district that is
on the ballot of Boulder County at the November 8, 2022 election,
shall Sections 65, 102 and 130 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter
be amended and Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 be repealed from
the Boulder Home Rule Charter and any remaining funds in the
Library Fund used all as set forth in Ordinance 8539?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
Section 5. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8539
Item 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539
Library District ballot item
Page 7
Packet Page 24 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8539 1st Rdg-3406.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
Section 6. 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 21st day of July 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 4th day of August
2022.
___________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8539
Item 3B - 1st Rdg Ord 8539
Library District ballot item
Page 8
Packet Page 25 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8540 submitting to the registered electors of the C ity of Boulder at the Special
Municipal C oordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to amend Sections 5 and 9 of the Boulder Home Rule C harter to prohibit running for
more than one office at an election, allow a council member whose term does not expire at the
election to run for mayor in the election, fill a vacancy for the expired term, and change the
swearing-in date of newly elected officials; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel, 303.441.3020
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8540 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of whether to amend Sections 5 and 9 of
the Boulder Home Rule C harter to prohibit running for more than one office at an election,
allow a council member whose term does not expire at the election to run for mayor in the
election, fill a vacancy for the expired term, and change the
swearing-in date of newly elected officials; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 3C - 1st Rdg Ord 8540 Secs 5 and 9 ballot item
Packet Page 26 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8540 submitting to the registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special
Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question
of whether to amend Sections 5 and 9 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter to prohibit
running for more than one office at an election, allow a council member whose term
does not expire at the election to run for mayor in the election, fill a vacancy for the
expired term, and change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials; specifying the
form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
PRESENTERS
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Teresa Tate, City Attorney
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel
Elesha Johnson, City Clerk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the special meeting on June 14, 2022, council requested that a clarifying ballot
measure be placed on the ballot to make it clear that a person can be a candidate for only
one office at an election but that a council member whose term does not end at the
election may run for mayor without resigning their seat unless they win the election for
mayor. At the meeting on June 21, 2022, council requested that all of the charter changes
necessary to clarify issues be included in one ballot question. Previously the changes had
been in two separate ordinances and the language about swearing-in newly elected
Item 3C - 1st Rdg Ord 8540
Secs 5 and 9 ballot item
Page 1
Packet Page 27 of 305
officials also appeared in the ballot language about even year election. As directed, all of
these Charter clarification issues about candidates are in one ballot question.
Proposed Ordinance 8540 (Attachment A) amends Sections 5 and 9 of the Charter to:
A.Allow a person to be a candidate for only one office at an election;
B.Allow a council member whose term does not expire at the election to run for
mayor without resigning their seat unless elected mayor;
C.Fill the vacancy of any council seat for the expired term (the 2020 amendments
provided that vacancies would be filled for two years which could have realigned
the rotation of council seats); and
D.Change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials from the third Tuesday in
November to the day of the first business meeting in December.
Section 5 already provided that if the council member wins the mayoral seat, the
candidate with the fifth highest number of votes for council would fill the remainder of
the term of the council member who was elected mayor. It is underlined in the ballot
language because it is relocated within Section 5 to be with the other provisions about
council members. The language struck from Section 9 about the mayoral term being two
years appears in Section 14 about the mayor and does not also need to be repeated in
Section 9 about council members.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8540 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of whether to amend Sections 5 and 9 of
the Boulder Home Rule Charter to prohibit running for more than one office at an election,
allow a council member whose term does not expire at the election to run for mayor in the
election, fill a vacancy for the expired term, and change the swearing-in date of newly elected
officials; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth
related details
NEXT STEPS
Second reading and public hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2022.
Item 3C - 1st Rdg Ord 8540
Secs 5 and 9 ballot item
Page 2
Packet Page 28 of 305
ATTACHMENT
A – Proposed Ordinance 8540
Item 3C - 1st Rdg Ord 8540
Secs 5 and 9 ballot item
Page 3
Packet Page 29 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8540 1st Rdg-3406.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 8540
AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL COORDINATED ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER TO AMEND SECTIONS 5 AND 9 OF THE
BOULDER HOME RULE CHARTER TO PROHBIIT RUNNING
FOR MORE THAN ONE OFFICE AT AN ELECTION, ALLOW
A COUNCIL MEMBER WHOSE TERM DOES NOT EXPIRE AT
THE ELECTION TO RUN FOR MAYOR IN THE ELECTION,
FILL A VACANCY FOR THE EXPIRED TERM, AND CHANGE
THE SWEARING-IN DATE OF NEWLY ELECTED
OFFICIALS; SPECIFYING THE FORM OF THE BALLOT AND
OTHER ELECTION PROCEDURES; AND SETTING FORTH
RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. A special municipal coordinated election is called to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 2022.
Section 2. At that election, a question shall be submitted to the electors of the City of
Boulder entitled by law to vote, that will allow voters to determine whether to amend the Boulder
Home Rule Charter to prevent candidates from running for more than one office at the same
election, allowing council members whose terms have not expired to run for mayor without
resigning their seat unless elected mayor, filling vacancies for the vacated term, and changing the
swearing-in date of newly elected officials to December. The material to be removed is shown
stricken through with solid line and the material to be added is shown as underlined. The last
sentence of the first paragraph of Section 5 shows as added but is relocated language from another
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8540
Item 3C - 1st Rdg Ord 8540
Secs 5 and 9 ballot item
Page 4
Packet Page 30 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8540 1st Rdg-3406.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
portion of Section 5.
Sec. 5. - Terms of office-election-recall.
. . .
A person may be a candidate for only one office at any election. A council member whose
term is not ending the November of the election may run for mayor without resigning their council
seat. Such council member shall not be required to resign as a council member unless they win
the election to the office of mayor. If a council member whose term is not ending the November
of the election wins election to the office of mayor, then the council candidate receiving the fifth
highest number of votes in that same election shall complete that council member’s term.
The term of office for the mayor shall be two years.
If there shall be vacancies to be filled at a general municipal election, other than those
occurring due to the expiration of a regular term, the vacancy term shall be for the duration of the
vacated termtwo years, and additional council members or a mayor shall be elected until there
shall be a council of eight council members and a mayor.
In the event that a council member whose term is not ending the November of the
election wins election to the office of mayor in the regular municipal election, then the council
candidate receiving the fifth highest number of votes in that same election shall complete that
council member’s term.
The terms of all council members and the mayor shall begin at 10:00 a.m. on the third
Tuesday in November 5:00 p.m. on the day of the first business meeting of the council in
December following their respective elections. In the event that one or more of the prevailing
candidates is not determined by such time because the vote count is incomplete or inconclusive,
or a recount is required, the terms for such council member(s) shall not begin until the business
day following the final determination of the election results for that candidate. All council
members and the mayor shall be subject to recall as provided by this charter.
Sec. 9. – Meetings of council.
At 10:00 a.m. on the third Tuesday in November 5:00 p.m. on the day of the first business
meeting of the council in December following each general municipal election, the council shall
meet at the usual place of holding meetings, at which time the newly elected council members
shall take office. Thereafter the council shall meet at such times as may be prescribed by ordinance
or resolution and shall meet in regular session at least once in each calendar month. The mayor,
acting mayor, or any five council members may call special meetings upon at least twelve hours'
written notice to each council member, served personally on each, or left at each member's place
of residence.
. . .
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8540
Item 3C - 1st Rdg Ord 8540
Secs 5 and 9 ballot item
Page 5
Packet Page 31 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8540 1st Rdg-3406.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
Section 3. The official ballot shall contain the following ballot title, which shall also
be the designation and submission clause for the measure:
Ballot Question No. ____
Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues
Shall Sections 5 and 9 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be
amended to allow candidates to run for only one office at an election,
allow a council member whose term does not end at the election to
run for mayor without resigning their seat unless they win the office
of mayor, fill vacancies for the remainder of the vacated term, and
change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials as provided
in Ordinance 8540?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by
title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk
for public inspection and acquisition.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8540
Item 3C - 1st Rdg Ord 8540
Secs 5 and 9 ballot item
Page 6
Packet Page 32 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8540 1st Rdg-3406.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
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 21st day of July 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 4th day of August
2022.
___________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8540
Item 3C - 1st Rdg Ord 8540
Secs 5 and 9 ballot item
Page 7
Packet Page 33 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8541 submitting to the registered electors of the C ity of Boulder at the Special
Municipal C oordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to amend Sections 5, 14 and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule C harter to change the
regular municipal election of 2023 for elections of candidates to 2024 and every even-
numbered year thereafter, move commencement of direct election of the mayor to 2026,
implement the transition by extending the terms of all nine existing council members for one
year and specifying how the mayor will be selected prior to 2026; specifying the form of the
ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
A N D/O R
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8546 submitting to the registered electors of the C ity of Boulder at the Special
Municipal C oordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of
whether to amend Sections 5, 14 and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule C harter to change the
regular municipal elections of candidates to even-numbered years beginning in 2026;
implement the transition by reducing the terms of the council members elected in 2023 and
2025 to three years and increasing the term of the mayor elected in 2023 to three years;
specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel, 303.441.3020
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8541 submitting to the registered electors
of the C ity of Boulder at the Special Municipal C oordinated Election to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 2022, the question of whether to amend Sections 5, 14 and 22 of the Boulder
Home Rule Charter to change the regular municipal election of 2023 for elections of
candidates to 2024 and every even-numbered year thereafter, move commencement of direct
election of the mayor to 2026, implement the transition by extending the terms of all nine
existing council members for one year and specifying how the mayor will be selected prior to
2026; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related
details
A N D/O R
Packet Page 34 of 305
Motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8546 submitting to the registered electors
of the C ity of Boulder at the Special Municipal C oordinated Election to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 2022, the question of whether to amend Sections 5, 14 and 22 of the Boulder
Home Rule Charter to change the regular municipal elections of candidates to even-numbered
years beginning in 2026; implement the transition by reducing the terms of the council
members elected in 2023 and 2025 to three years and increasing the term of the mayor elected
in 2023 to three years; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and
setting forth related details
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 3D - 1st Rdg Ord 8541 Ev en-numbered year elections ballot item
Packet Page 35 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8541 submitting to the registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special
Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question
of whether to amend Sections 5, 14 and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter to change
the regular municipal election of 2023 for elections of candidates to 2024 and every
even-numbered year thereafter, move commencement of direct election of the mayor to
2026, implement the transition by extending the terms of all nine existing council
members for one year and specifying how the mayor will be selected prior to 2026;
specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related
details
AND/OR
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8546 submitting to the registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special
Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question
of whether to amend Sections 5, 14 and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter to change
the regular municipal elections of candidates to even-numbered years beginning in
2026; implement the transition by reducing the terms of the council members elected in
2023 and 2025 to three years and increasing the term of the mayor elected in 2023 to
three years; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting
forth related details
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 1
Packet Page 36 of 305
PRESENTERS
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Teresa Tate, City Attorney
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel
Elesha Johnson, City Clerk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the special meeting on June 14, 2022, council requested that staff present an ordinance
with proposed ballot language to change the regular municipal election of 2023 for
election of candidates to 2024 and every even-numbered years thereafter rather than odd-
numbered years, start the direct election of the mayor in 2026, and the procedures for the
transition including how the mayor will be selected prior to the 2026 election. At the
council meeting on June 21, 2022, council requested some revisions to the language and
that the proposed ordinance include only amendments to the Charter about changing
regular elections to even-numbered years. Proposed Ordinance 8541 (Attachment A) is
to implement this change.
After publication of the packet for July 21, Mayor Brockett and Mayor Pro Tem Friend
asked for an alternative ordinance to implement the change by not extending the terms of
existing council members or changing the date for commencement of direct election of
the mayor but reducing the terms of the council members elected in 2023 and 2025 to
three years and increasing the term of the mayor elected in 2023 to three years so that the
even year elections could commence in 2026. Proposed Ordinance 8546 (Attachment
B) is to implement this change. They also asked about the application of Charter Section
4 regarding term limits and Charter Section 38A regarding the number of signatures
required on petitions for initiative, referendum or recall if either of these measures were
to pass.
Proposed Ordinance 8541 (Attachment A) includes the following changes to the
Charter:
The amendments to Section 5 include:
A. Extend the terms of all nine existing council members for one year. This
would occur only one time to effect the change to even numbered years;
B. Specify that for the candidates elected to fill the five seats that will end in
2024:
i. the four candidates receiving the highest number of votes will receive
four-year terms to 2028; and
ii. the candidate receiving the fifth highest number of votes will receive a
two-year term to 2026.
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 2
Packet Page 37 of 305
C. All candidates for council elected at regular elections starting in 2024 will
receive four-year terms; and
D. Changes the year that direct election of the mayor will start, 2026.
The amendments to Section 14 include:
A. State how the mayor will be selected after the 2024 election from among
council members and how removal may occur. This language was in the
Charter until removed in 2020. It is only necessary until the mayor is directly
elected, then can be removed from the Charter;
B. Change the start date for direct election of the mayor to 2026; and
C. Clarify that the term of the mayor is two years (rather than is required to serve
for two years).
The amendment to Section 22 includes:
A. Changes the regular municipal election of the city from odd-numbered years
to even-numbered years starting in 2026.
Proposed Ordinance 8546 (Attachment B) includes the following changes to the
Charter:
The amendment to Section 5 includes:
A. Reduce the terms of the four council members elected in 2023 and 2025 only
to three-year terms, otherwise terms remain at four years.
The amendments to Section 14 include:
A. Increase the term of the mayor elected in 2023 only; and
B. Clarify that the term of the mayor is two years other than the mayor elected in
2023 (rather than is required to serve for two years).
The amendment to Section 22 includes:
A. Changes the regular municipal election of the city from odd-numbered years
to even-numbered years starting in 2026.
The proposed Charter amendments are written so that if they are approved by the voters,
they can be removed after 2026 when the transition is over and the language regarding
the items necessary only for the one-time transition would be obsolete.
Application to Term Limits
Section 4 of the Charter applies term limits to the number of terms a person serves
(except for some service as the mayor); it does not apply to the number of years served.
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 3
Packet Page 38 of 305
The provision does not allow someone to run for a council seat if they have “been elected
to three or more terms of office.” Therefore, any term that someone was appointed to
serve on council is not counted. It also doesn’t matter if the person was elected to only a
two-year term or a four-year term or didn’t serve a full term to which they were elected;
the fact they were elected to a term on council, regardless of the length of the term or
whether the person served the entire term, counts as one of the three term limit.
Section 4 also has term limits for the office of mayor as follows:
No personal shall be eligible for the office of mayor if such person has
previously served eight years as mayor, or if such person has previously
served three terms as a councilmember and four years as a mayor.
Number of signatures on petitions
Section 38A of the Charter requires petitions for initiative or referendum signed by “ten
percent of the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate
elections.” A recall petition requires 20 percent of the same number. That number is
substantially less than it was before the changes in 2018. In 2018 the voters changed the
requirement from signatures of five percent of the registered electors in the city. The
number of registered electors in the city was far greater than the number of voters in
recent elections because of the way voter rolls were purged.
The number of signatures required is designed to fluctuate with the number of active
voters in the jurisdiction’s election. If you believe that more voters will vote for
municipal candidates in even year elections than odd year elections, more signatures will
be required on petitions by changing to even year elections. That fluctuation in the
number of signatures required is anticipated by the design of the number of signatures
required on a petition that is in the Colorado Constitution; the number of signatures
required on a petition is set by the number of voters rather than a specific number based
on population.
However, if the percentage of required signatures was of the total number of voters at an
election and many voters did not vote “down ballot” to the municipal candidates, that
result would skew the petition requirements in a way that probably does not happen in
odd years when only local candidates are on the ballot. As an example,
IF:
Total number of ballots cast in XX election = 100,000
Total number of people voting for mayor in XX election = 75,000
THEN, the number of signatures required on an initiative or referendum petition would
be:
If of all voters including those not voting “down ballot” = 10,000
If only voters voting for mayor = 7,500
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 4
Packet Page 39 of 305
Since the number of signatures in the Charter is the average of the past two municipal
candidate elections, it will not need to be changed with the switch to even year elections
as I believe this number should be based on the total number that voted for a municipal
candidate. However, it could also be interpreted to be a percentage of the total number of
people who voted in the election, even if they did not vote for a municipal candidate. To
prevent that interpretation, Charter Section 38A could be amended to say, “ten percent of
the average number of voters who voted for mayor in the previous two municipal
candidate elections.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8541 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of whether to amend Sections 5, 14 and 22
of the Boulder Home Rule Charter to change the regular municipal election of 2023 for
elections of candidates to 2024 and every even-numbered year thereafter, move
commencement of direct election of the mayor to 2026, implement the transition by extending
the terms of all nine existing council members for one year and specifying how the mayor will
be selected prior to 2026; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and
setting forth related details
AND/OR
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8546 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the question of whether to amend Sections 5, 14 and 22
of the Boulder Home Rule Charter to change the regular municipal elections of candidates to
even-numbered years beginning in 2026; implement the transition by reducing the terms of
the council members elected in 2023 and 2025 to three years and increasing the term of the
mayor elected in 2023 to three years; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
NEXT STEPS
Second reading and public hearing is scheduled for August 11, 2022.
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 5
Packet Page 40 of 305
ATTACHMENT
A – Proposed Ordinance 854 1 Revised
B – Proposed Ordinance 8546
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 6
Packet Page 41 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8541 1st Rdg Revised-3406.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 8541
AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL COORDINATED ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER TO AMEND SECTIONS 5, 14 AND 22 OF THE
BOULDER HOME RULE CHARTER TO CHANGE THE
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF 2023 FOR ELECTIONS
OF CANDIDATES TO 2024 AND EVERY EVEN-NUMBERED
YEAR THEREAFTER, MOVE COMMENCEMENT OF DIRECT
ELECTION OF THE MAYOR TO 2026, IMPLEMENT THE
TRANSITION BY EXTENDING THE TERMS OF ALL NINE
EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR APPROXIMATELY
ONE YEAR AND SPECIFYING HOW THE MAYOR WOULD
BE SLECTED PRIOR TO 2026; SPECIFYING THE FORM OF
THE BALLOT AND OTHER ELECTION PROCEDURES; AND
SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. A special municipal coordinated election is called to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 2022.
Section 2. At that election, a question shall be submitted to the electors of the City of
Boulder entitled by law to vote, that will allow voters to determine whether to amend the Boulder
Home Rule Charter to change the regular municipal election of 2023 for election of candidates to
2024 and every even-numbered year thereafter rather than odd-numbered years according to the
process set forth below, start direct election of the mayor at the November 2026 regular election,
and implement the transition by extending the terms of all nine existing council members for
approximately one year, and specifying how the mayor will be selected prior to 2026. The material
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8541 Revised
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 7
Packet Page 42 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8541 1st Rdg Revised-3406.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
to be removed is shown stricken through with solid line and the material to be added is shown as
underlined.
Sec. 5. – Terms of office-election-recall.
To switch candidate elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years, the terms
of all nine council members currently in office shall be extended for one year. For the five council
terms that will then expire in 2024, at the 2024 election (a) the terms of the four candidates with
the highest number of votes will be four-year terms to the election in 2028, and (b) the term of the
candidate with the fifth highest number of votes shall be a two-year term to the election in 2026.
Thereafter Tthe terms of office for council members shall be four years. and two years as
hereinafter provided:
Bbeginning with the 20263 regular municipal election, when the mayor shall first be
elected pursuant to Section 14 of this charter., the four candidates receiving the highest number of
votes shall be elected for four-year terms.
. . .
Sec. 14. – Selection and term of office of mayor.
Prior to the regular municipal election in 2026, the presiding officer of the council shall be
called mayor. The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening
of the new council following each regular municipal election. The mayor may be removed from
the office of mayor (but not from the office of council member) by a two-thirds vote of all members
of the council, and thereupon, or in case of vacancy or for any other cause, the council shall choose
a successor for the unexpired term. Beginning with the regular municipal election in 2026, Iif
three or more candidates run for the office of mayor, then the election shall be conducted by ranked
choice (instant runoff) voting. The term of office for the mayor shall be two years and Tthe mayor
shall serve as mayor for a term of two years, and until a successor is duly chosen and qualified.
Sec. 22. – Municipal elections defined.
Beginning in November 2024, aA regular municipal election shall be held in the City of
Boulder on the same Tuesday in November of every even odd numbered year as the state ballot
issuegeneral elections in evenodd number years, and shall be known as the regular municipal
election. All other municipal elections shall be known as special municipal elections.
Section 3. The official ballot shall contain the following ballot title, which shall also
be the designation and submission clause for the measure:
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8541 Revised
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 8
Packet Page 43 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8541 1st Rdg Revised-3406.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
Ballot Question No. ____
Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years
Shall Sections 5, 14, and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be
amended to change the regular municipal election date to even
numbered years beginning with the November 2024 election date,
shift the 2023 regular municipal election to 2024, extend the terms
of all nine existing council members for approximately one year
until their successors are elected and qualified; start direct election
of the mayor at the November 2026 regular election, and implement
the transition as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8541?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by
title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk
for public inspection and acquisition.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8541 Revised
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 9
Packet Page 44 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8541 1st Rdg Revised-3406.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
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 21st day of July 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 11th day of August
2022.
___________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8541 Revised
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 10
Packet Page 45 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8546 1st Rdg Alternative-3406.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 8546
AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL COORDINATED ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER TO AMEND SECTIONS 5, 14 AND 22 OF THE
BOULDER HOME RULE CHARTER TO CHANGE THE
REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS OF CANDIDATES TO
EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS BEGINNING IN 2026;
IMPLEMENT THE TRANSITION BY REDUCING THE TERMS
OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED IN 2023 AND 2025
TO THREE YEARS AND INCREASING THE TERM OF THE
MAYOR ELECTED IN 2023 TO THREE YEARS; SPECIFYING
THE FORM OF THE BALLOT AND OTHER ELECTION
PROCEDURES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. A special municipal coordinated election is called to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 2022.
Section 2. At that election, a question shall be submitted to the electors of the City of
Boulder entitled by law to vote, that will allow voters to determine whether to amend the Boulder
Home Rule Charter to change regular municipal elections to even-numbered years starting in 2026,
and implement the transition by reducing the terms of the council members elected in 2023 and
2025 to three years and increasing the term of the mayor elected in 2023 to three years. Except
for those elections, the terms of council members would be four years and the term of the mayor
would be two years. The material to be removed is shown stricken through with solid line and the
material to be added is shown as underlined.
Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance 8546
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 11
Packet Page 46 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8546 1st Rdg Alternative-3406.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
Sec. 5. – Terms of office-election-recall.
To switch candidate elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years, the terms
of the council members elected in 2023 and 2025 shall be for three years. Other than for those
council members elected in 2023 and 2025, Tthe terms of office for council members shall be four
years. and two years as hereinafter provided: beginning with the 2023 regular municipal election,
when the mayor shall first be elected pursuant to Section 14 of this charter, the four candidates
receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected for four-year terms.
The term of office for the mayor shall be two years.
. . .
Sec. 14. – Selection and term of office of mayor.
If three or more candidates run for the office of mayor, then the election shall be conducted
by ranked choice (instant runoff) voting. The mayor shall serve as mayor for a term of two years,
and The term of office for the mayor elected in 2023 shall be three years. Thereafter, the term of
office for the mayor shall be for two years. The mayor shall serve until a successor is duly chosen
and qualified.
Sec. 22. – Municipal elections defined.
On the Tuesday in November of the state ballot issue election in 2023 and 2025, the City
of Boulder shall hold its regular municipal election. Beginning in November 2026, Aa regular
municipal election shall be held in the City of Boulder on the same Tuesday in November of
every odd even numbered year as the state ballot issue general elections in odd even number
years and shall be known as the regular municipal election. All other municipal elections shall be
known as special municipal elections.
Section 3. The official ballot shall contain the following ballot title, which shall also
be the designation and submission clause for the measure:
Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance 8546
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 12
Packet Page 47 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8546 1st Rdg Alternative-3406.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
Ballot Question No. ____
Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years
Shall Sections 5, 14, and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be
amended to change the regular municipal election date to even
numbered years beginning with the November 2026 election date,
and reduce the term of the council members elected in 2023 and
2025 to three years and increase the term of the mayor elected in
2023 to three years to implement the transition, all as more
specifically provided in Ordinance 8546?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by
title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk
for public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 21st day of July 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance 8546
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 13
Packet Page 48 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8546 1st Rdg Alternative-3406.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 AND ADOPTED, this 11th day of August
2022.
___________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance 8546
Item 3D - Even-numbered year elections ballot item Page 14
Packet Page 49 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8542 submitting to the registered electors of the C ity of Boulder at the Special
Municipal C oordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the questions of
authorizing the C ity Council to replace the existing utility occupation tax and climate action
plan excise tax with a new climate tax beginning J anuary 1, 2023, and expiring December 31,
2040, and authorizing debt to be repaid from such tax up to a principal amount of $52,900,000
to meet the city’s climate goals; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel, 303.441.3020
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8542 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the questions of authorizing the City C ouncil to replace
the existing utility occupation tax and climate action plan excise tax with a new climate tax
beginning J anuary 1, 2023, and expiring December 31, 2040, and authorizing debt to be repaid
from such tax up to a principal amount of $52,900,000 to meet the city’s climate goals;
specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542 Climate Tax ballot item
Packet Page 50 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only
Ordinance 8542 submitting to the registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special
Municipal Coordinated Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the questions
of authorizing the City Council to replace the existing utility occupation tax and climate
action plan excise tax with a new climate tax beginning January 1, 2023, and expiring
December 31, 2040, and authorizing debt to be repaid from such tax up to a principal
amount of $52,900,000 to meet the city’s climate goals; specifying the form of the ballot
and other election procedures; and setting forth related details
PRESENTERS
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Teresa Tate, City Attorney
Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel
Kara Skinner, Chief Financial Officer
Jonathan Koehn, Interim Climate Initiatives Director
Carolyn Elam, Sustainability Sr. Manager, CI
Yael Gichon, Climate Initiatives Principal Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At its study session regarding ballot issues on May 10, 2022, council directed that staff
bring an ordinance to council that placed two ballot issues before the electors: (1)
replacing the existing utility occupation (UOT) and climate action plan (CAP) taxes with
a climate tax, and (2) authorizing debt to be issued to be paid from that tax and other
available revenues. At the study session, staff proposed a climate tax with a
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 1
Packet Page 51 of 305
recommended rate of $5 million for the first year, adjusted annually for inflation, levied
on the provider of electricity and natural gas. The current tax revenues from the CAP and
UOT is $3.9 million annually. Since the study session, staff gathered additional feedback
from executive leadership and the community, and conducted additional analysis, and is
now recommending the tax be set at $6.5 million for the first year, adjusted annually.
This recommended increase is intended to enhance city efforts on climate resilience, with
emphasis on wildfire mitigation. These recommendations are discussed further below.
Proposed Ordinance 8542 (Attachment A) includes the ballot issues for both the new
climate tax and the debt authorization, and the changes to the code necessary to repeal the
UOT and CAP tax and impose the new climate tax. The changes to the code go into
effect only if the tax ballot measure passes. Both issues allow use of the revenues from
the tax and the proceeds of the bonds as set forth in the tax ballot issue.
The debt authorization amount is set at the staff recommendation of $52,900,000. The
financial strategy committee of council is discussing options on July 19, 2022, and may
have another recommendation. The ballot issue must include the maximum debt
authorization – principal amount and total maximum repayment amount. The full
principal amount authorized in the ballot issue is not required to be issued. The actual
amount of the debt issued, the debt structure, the terms of the debt, the use of bond
proceeds, and the budget and appropriations to repay the debt are all determined by
council up to the amount authorized in the ballot issue. The ballot issue also allows the
City Council to determine whether the debt can be paid from other legally available
revenue so the interest rate will be lower on the debt than if only the climate tax revenue
was pledged.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8542 submitting to the
registered electors of the City of Boulder at the Special Municipal Coordinated Election
to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the questions of authorizing the City Council
to replace the existing utility occupation tax and climate action plan excise tax with a
new climate tax beginning January 1, 2023, and expiring December 31, 2040, and
authorizing debt to be repaid from such tax up to a principal amount of $52,900,000 to
meet the city’s climate goals; specifying the form of the ballot and other election
procedures; and setting forth related details
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 2
Packet Page 52 of 305
BACKGROUND
In June 2021, the city outlined its new approach to climate action that aligns with the
urgency of the crisis and the scale of change required. For more detailed information, see
the June 8, 2021, council memo.
Aligned with the city’s new approach on climate action, in October 2021 council adopted
a new set of aggressive science-based climate targets:
• Reduce emissions 70% by 2030 from a 2018 baseline.
• Become a net-zero positive city by 2035.
• Become a carbon positive city by 2040.
These goals reflect the maturing of climate science and global recognition that much
more significant GHG emissions reductions are necessary, and the fact that cities must set
much more aggressive targets. In addition to the mitigation of GHG emissions, there is
an increasingly urgent need to prepare for significant climate change disruptions and to
address the inequities that climate change perpetuates.
A Study Session was held with City Council on Feb. 22, 2022, with the goal of providing
council and the community an overview of the city’s current and proposed sources of
funding for climate work, given the pending expiration of the CAP tax in March 2023.
Staff proposed options to fund future climate work beyond the expiration of the CAP tax
and the UOT. The UOT funds projects, pilots, initiatives, and research that supports the
city’s clean energy goals, including efforts conducted in partnership with Xcel Energy,
and is set to expire 2025.
Council indicated support for staff’s recommendation to pursue a ballot measure to create
a new climate tax to replace the existing CAP tax and UOT. Staff’s February 2022
recommendation included strategies to address inequities in current funding mechanisms
and avoid undue financial burden to the community moving forward.
Council also expressed support for the identified strategies that prioritize systems change,
recognize the important role of local government, leverage regional actions to reach the
goals, and prepare our community for inevitable stressors. Attachment D of the February
staff memorandum, Achieving Systems-scale impact for Climate Actions—Potential
“Big Moves,” details the types of programs that the Climate Initiatives department would
prioritize going forward if Boulder voters support the new climate tax proposal.
Council requested that staff initiate polling to gauge the level of community support for a
climate tax. The results of the polling and other community feedback are included in the
Analysis section below.
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 3
Packet Page 53 of 305
ANALYSIS
Public Feedback
In May and June 2022, at the direction of council, the city conducted a statistically valid
survey to collect feedback on the tax proposal. Broadly, the results confirm that the
community is deeply concerned about the climate crisis and is largely supportive of the
city’s tax proposal.
Key findings include:
• More than three-in-four respondents (78%) say they would vote yes on the city’s
proposed climate tax if it were levied at $5 million annually; 54% would
“definitely” vote yes.
• City Council also asked staff to study community support for an annual tax of $8
million. At the $8 million amount, 71% of respondents said they would vote yes,
with 43% reporting that they would “definitely” vote yes.
• Respondents are concerned about climate change and global warming. More than
half of voters (58%) are “extremely worried,” while another 20% say they are
“very worried.”
• A plurality of respondents (36%) ranked “addressing the impacts of climate
change” as the most important issue facing the city.
Reviewing the crosstabs of the results also reveal interesting insights into who is most
concerned about climate in our community. When asked how worried they are about the
impacts of climate change and global warming in Boulder, respondents with the lowest
incomes reported the highest level of concern (Figure 1).
65%63%57%58%
17%19%23%22%
8%12%14%10%
10%6%6%10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than $50k $50k - $100K $100k - $150k More than $150K
Figure 1: Concern About Climate Change Impacts,
By Household Income
Extremely Worried Very Worried Somewhat Worried Not Worried At All
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 4
Packet Page 54 of 305
When asked whether they would vote to approve the climate tax at a rate of $8 million
annually, Asian, White, and Hispanic/Latino voters showed the most support, while
Black and people identifying as other were more likely to reject the tax (Figure 2).
Renters were also more likely than homeowners to support the tax (Figure 3). Those with
the lowest reported incomes were most supportive of the tax (Figure 4).
75.2%72.2%
94.8%
40.2%30.7%
20.3%23.9%
5.2%
59.8%
57.7%
4.5%3.8%11.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
White Hispanic/ Latino Asian Black Other
Figure 2: Support for Climate Tax, By Race
($8 millon amount)
Yes, Approve No, Reject Undecided
82.1%
65.4%
14.6%
28.5%
3.3%6.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rent Own
Figure 3: Support for Climate Tax, Renters vs Homeowners
($8 millon amount)
Yes, Approve No, Reject Undecided
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 5
Packet Page 55 of 305
A summary of the results is available online.
Verbatim Responses Highlight Fire Preparedness Concerns
The poll introduced respondents to the areas of focus the climate tax is proposed to
address – climate equity, climate resilience, energy systems, circular materials economy,
natural climate solutions, land use and financial systems. Respondents were also
afforded the opportunity to provide verbatim responses, so that in their own words they
could articulate their concerns and recommended priorities. The verbatim responses
illustrate a high propensity among respondents to increase efforts related to wildfire
preparedness (Figure 5).
79.0%74.8%71.5%73.8%
17.8%19.8%22.9%23.5%
3.2%5.4%5.5%2.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than $50k $50k - $100K $100k - $150k More than $150K
Figure 4: Support for Climate Tax, By Household Income
($8 million amount)
Yes, Approve No, Reject Undecided
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 6
Packet Page 56 of 305
Figure 5: Selected Responses to City of Boulder Poll Question: Among the following
issues the city is facing, please rank them in order of importance to you and your family."
~ OTHER RESPONSES
Poll Methodology
There were 1,180 responses to the survey from City of Boulder residents ages 18 and
older. The survey was conducted online and via telephone May 19, 2022 through June 2,
2022 by polling firm Magellan Strategies. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.83%.
A statistically valid and representative survey provides respondents with multiple ways to
participate in the survey through different data collection methods. This survey utilized
four data collection methods to interview respondents. The first method sent three MMS
text messages over a two-week period to 30,000 registered voters inviting them to
participate in the survey. The second data collection method interviewed a random
sample of registered voters on their cellphone. The third data collection method invited
Boulder residents to participate in the survey via email. Finally, the fourth data collection
method invited residents to participate in the survey through a link on the City of
Boulder’s website.
“Fire safety measures for
the city”
“Wildfire preparedness
and mitigation (likely falls
under climate change)”
“Fire detection and
mitigation efforts.”
“Fire mitigation efforts
should all be part of the
overall plan to improve
the environmental health
of our community.”
“Wildfire”
“Fire is particularly top of
mind after the last few
months in Boulder.”
“Fire prevention”
“Change building code
and do other actions to
decrease wildfire risk esp
during high winds”
“Addressing fire risk and
helping people electrify
their homes”
“Wildfire mitigation and
education”
“Maintaining wildlife
safety and protections”
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 7
Packet Page 57 of 305
Other Feedback
Business Poll
A separate survey for local businesses was released on July 12, 2022 and the feedback
from that survey will be shared with council as it becomes available.
Focus Groups and Climate Conversations
Climate Initiatives staff are hosting three Climate Conversations this summer to share
information on the city’s climate work. The first session focused on energy and took
place on June 29, 2022. During the Q&A, participants were particularly interested in the
city’s efforts to pair renewable energy with a resilient energy system. A summary of the
session is available online.
The city is also conducting several focus groups designed to gather input on how to
invest climate funds from community groups, target communities and businesses
throughout the summer, including:
- Ponderosa Mobile Home Community.
- Foundations for Leaders Organizing Water and Sustainability (FLOWS)
technicians.
- CU student groups.
- Boulder Age Well Center participants.
- Community Connectors in Residence.
- Boulder Chamber of Commerce.
Staff also participated in a community webinar hosted by Empower our Future.
Summaries of the feedback received at these sessions will be provided to council in a
subsequent memorandum and a Heads Up. Initial feedback, including that gathered
through the initial webinars, direct feedback to staff, and conversations with business
leadership, is consistent with the survey results, indicating strong support for the tax and
proposed measure to be funded.
Be Heard Boulder
Community members have also shared ideas, questions and feedback online using the
city’s Be Heard Boulder Platform. Participants have used the tool to clarify how the city
plans to invest a renewed climate tax, shared ideas on how the city can support
accelerated electrification of buildings and transit and asked about progress of the city’s
partnership with Xcel and policy efforts.
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 8
Packet Page 58 of 305
Boulder County Poll
While not related to the city’s climate tax proposal, it is also useful to examine the results
of Boulder County’s statistically valid public opinion poll. The survey, conducted in
April and May 2022, sought to better understand community reaction towards major
issues facing county government, as well as reaction to nine possible tax ballot proposals,
covering such areas as transportation infrastructure, affordable housing, behavioral and
mental health services, wildfire mitigation, and mountain rescue services.
According to the results, the most important issues Boulder County faces today are “lack
of affordable housing” (27%), “need more wildfire mitigation” (17%), “homeless issues”
(10%) and “do more on climate” (7%). These results are similar to the findings from the
city poll and indicate that climate and wildfire preparedness are top-of-mind for the
region.
From a $5 Million to $6.5 Million Tax Recommendation
The original target for the new climate tax of $5 million was developed in late 2021/early
2022 during a period of time when staff, community, and council were just starting to
face the stark reality of wildfire risk after the Marshall Fire. After participating in the
initial response efforts in support of our neighboring communities and assessing and
recovering damage from the associated wind event in Boulder, city departments began in
earnest to develop ways the city could meet challenge of wildfire risk mitigation and
preparedness.
On April 26, 2022, council held a study session focused on wildfire threat. During the
Adjustment-to-Base 2022 Budget amendment process in May, council approved
investments in additional wildfire equipment, expansion of wildfire risk assessments, and
accelerated investments in climate resilience work in Climate Initiatives and Open Space
& Mountain Parks. Departments continues to develop proposals to combat the extreme
risk from the climate emergency for the 2023 Budget during May and June 2022.
During the initial evaluation of budget priorities, especially in evaluating wildfire
preparedness and resilience proposals across all departments, it became clear that in
addition to continuing to prioritize efforts to stabilize climate through aggressive
emissions reductions, the issue of climate-related resilience, especially in the context of
wildfire, has become an urgent citywide need and priority. It is also clear that the
General Fund will not have the capacity to support the types of investments required to
meet the immediacy of the moment. Departments submitted a total of $4.5 million in
proposals related to resilience, disaster preparedness and emergency response. While
some of these proposals may be supported by the General Fund or other sources in the
2023 Budget, the new and expanded climate tax affords an appropriate opportunity to
enhance city investment in resilience efforts specific to the climate emergency.
In Boulder, no one city department holds sole responsibility for addressing the climate
emergency. The city is most effective in serving the community when it draws on
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 9
Packet Page 59 of 305
expertise across the entire organization. With this in mind, city leadership formed a
cross-departmental team to prioritize the initial areas of focus that could be supported
through the $1.5 million incremental increase in the proposed tax amount.
The best practice in preventing and responding to wildland fire risk is to apply a multi-
pronged approach, which includes:
• Response
• Mitigation/Land and Property Management
• Community Outreach and Education
• Partnerships
• Coordination
• Grant Funding
• Evacuation Planning
• City Codes and Compliance
• Equipment and Technology
The following provides more specific examples of how funding could be invested:
• Funding for OSMP, Fire-Rescue, and Parks & Recreation to accelerate wildfire
mitigation and ecosystem restoration efforts on city-owned lands, with an
emphasis on a defined wildland/urban interface region.
• Funding for Fire-Rescue for a dedicated team to focus on wildfire risk assessment
and mitigation; there is currently significant demand and a sizeable waiting list for
this service.
• Funds going toward grant programs (ideally, the city would have bonding
capacity against these dollars to accelerate these programs over a five-year
period). For all grant programs, a tiered approach would be used so that those
with the lowest financial capacity would have access to the highest amount of
dollars. This is consistent with the city’s commitment to racial equity.
o Strategic undergrounding of power lines: In combination with private
investment and special improvement district financing, these funds would be
used to accelerate undergrounding in wildland/urban interface areas and other
areas of defined wildfire risk.
o Wildfire risk mitigation program: Financing and grant tools to assist
homeowners and businesses in the wildland/urban interface zones in risk
reduction efforts to include vegetation removal/replacement, roofing and
siding replacement, and fence reconstruction.
Staff would also explore coupling these programs with any ordinances that would
require wildfire mitigation for all existing structures within the highest risk areas.
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 10
Packet Page 60 of 305
Customer Bill Impact
The proposed climate tax would be levied on the provider of natural gas and electricity.
As is true with the UOT, currently the only provider is Xcel Energy, and it passes the tax
on to customers. Table 1 outlines the range of annual cost at different tax rates.
Table 1: Current and Projected Average Annual Cost of City of Boulder Climate Taxes
Customer
Type
Current
Annual Cost
(CAP +
UOT)
Proposed
Annual Cost
(Climate Tax
at $5 million)
Proposed
Annual Cost
(Climate Tax
at $6.5 million)
Proposed
Annual Cost
(Climate Tax
at $8 million)
Residential $42.95 $38.20 $49.66 $61.12
Commercial $292.42 $374.90 $487.37 $599.84
Industrial $1,084.11 $1389.89 $1,806.85 $2,223.82
Total Revenue
for Climate
Efforts
$3.9 million $5 million $6.5 million $8 million
Equity Considerations
Staff recognizes that this tax could be a hardship to energy burdened members of our
community. The tax is levied on the incumbent energy utility by ordinance. The utility
in turn passes the cost of the tax onto its customers through the utility bill and the city
cannot dictate how that occurs. However, staff can work with the current provider and
the uses of the tax allow for rebates or grants to offset impact on qualifying low-income
customers. For example, staff will request that the utility exempt customers that are
enrolled in the LEAP (Low-Income Energy Assistance Program). Also, staff could
develop a rebate mechanism for other qualifying low-income customers or customers that
are identified for exemptions.
Options for Debt Amount
Table 2: Summary of Debt Authorization Amounts
Annual Debt Service
($ millions)
Bond Par Amount
($millions)
Total Maximum
Repayment Costs
($millions)
Term of Debt
(years)
$4 $42.3 $60.0 15
$4 $50.8 $79.9 20
$5 $52.9 $75.0 15
$5 $63.5 $100.0 20
$6.5 $68.8 $97.5 15
$6.5 $82.6 $130.0 20
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 11
Packet Page 61 of 305
The ballot issue must include the maximum debt authorization – principal amount and
maximum repayment amount. In the proposed ordinance, the debt authorization amount
is left blank for council to give more direction. The amount in the ballot issue is a
maximum and does not require that debt be issued in that amount. The actual amount of
the debt issued, the debt structure, the terms of the debt, the use of bond proceeds, and the
budget and appropriations to repay the debt are all determined by council at the time the
actual debt is issued, but the debt totals (par and repayment costs) cannot exceed the
amounts included in the ballot issue.
Staff has been working with the city’s financial advisor and bond counsel to evaluate
using various debt authorization amounts and the respective annual tax revenue that
would be required for debt service. A summary of this analysis is shown in Table 2
above.
The staff recommendation is for the ballot issue to set the tax at $6.5 million for the first
year, adjusted annually by inflation, and set to expire in 2040. This recommendation is
based on the staff proposal of the 15-year tax with a maximum $5.0 million annual debt
service, leaving at least $1.5 million for on-going operating expenses. This would ask
voters for total debt authorization of $52.9 million with a maximum total repayment cost
of $75.0 million. Again, including this debt service level on the ballot does not obligate
the city to issue that amount of debt, but sets the maximum that could be issued. If
council chooses a debt authorization level that requires repayment over a 20-year term,
the duration of the tax in the tax ballot issue would need to be extended from 2040 to
2045. Also, if council chooses a debt authorization level that would require annual debt
service of up to $6.5 million, staff recommends increasing the amount of the tax above
$6.5 million to provide capacity for annual ongoing operating costs.
NEXT STEPS
Second reading and public hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2022.
ATTACHMENT
A – Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 12
Packet Page 62 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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 8542
AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL COORDINATED ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, THE QUESTIONS OF
AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL TO REPLACE THE
EXISTING UTILIZING OCCUPATION TAX AND CLIMATE
ACTION PLAN EXCISE TAX WITH A NEW CLIMATE TAX
BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2023, AND EXPIRING DECEMBER
31, 2040, AND AUTHORIZING DEBT TO BE REPAID FROM
SUCH TAX UP TO A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $52,900,000 TO
MEET THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS; SPECIFYING THE
FORM OF THE BALLOT AND OTHER ELECTION
PROCEDURES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. A special municipal coordinated election is called to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 2022.
Section 2. At that election, two measures shall be submitted to the electors of the City
of Boulder entitled by law to vote. The first will allow electors to consider whether to replace the
existing Utility Occupation Tax set to expire on December 31, 2025 and the Climate Action Plan
Excise Tax set to expire March 31, 2023 with a Climate Tax commencing January 1, 2023 and
expiring December 31, 2040. The second measure will allow electors to consider whether to
approve new debt payable from such Climate Tax up to a maximum principal amount of
$52,900,000. This new tax and the debt will help meet the city’s climate goals, maintain existing
programs and services, and stabilize funding sources as well as leverage future opportunities to
meet the city’s climate goals.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 13
Packet Page 63 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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
Section 3. The official ballot shall contain the following ballot titles, which shall also
be the designation and submission clause for each issue:
BALLOT ISSUE NO. ____
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $6.5
MILLION (FIRST, FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE)
ANNUALLY AND INCREASING ANNUALLY BY THE
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX BY IMPOSING A CLIMATE TAX
ON THE DELIVERY OF ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE 8542; AND SHALL THE
EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EXCISE TAX SET TO
EXPIRE MARCH 31, 2023 AND THE UTILITY OCCUPATION
TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2025 BE REPEALED;
AND SHALL THE CLIMATE TAX BEGIN JANUARY 1, 2023,
AND EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2040; WITH THE REVENUE
FROM THE CLIMATE TAX AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON
TO BE USED TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND CLIMATE
FOCUSED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, FINANCE CERTAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS AND STABILIZE FUNDING FOR
INITIATIVES TO MEET THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS;
INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ITEMS SUCH AS
RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES TO REDUCE
ENERGY USE; ACCELERATE BUILDING
WEATHERIZATION AND ELECTRIFICATION; LOCAL
RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION AND STORAGE;
MICROGRIDS AND DISTRICT SYSTEMS THAT LEAD TO
INCREASED SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE;
EQUITABLE INVESTMENTS IN HIGH PERFORMING,
HEALTHY BUILDINGS; SERVICES TO SUPPORT ZERO
EMISSION; MOBILITY OPTIONS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON
SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENTLY UNDERSERVED SEGMENTS
OF THE COMMUNITY; ZERO-WASTE EFFORTS INCLUDING
REUSE, REPAIR AND RECYCLING; NATURAL CLIMATE
SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE ECOSYSTEMS, IMPROVE AIR
QUALITY AND BUFFER EXTREME HEAT EVENTS;
GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CLIMATE AND
RESILIENCE ACTIONS; WILDFIRE RESILIENCE
STRATEGIES SUCH AS WILDFIRE HOME RISK
ASSESSMENTS, WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLANNING AND
IMPLEMENTATION; OUTREACH AND EDUCATION;
RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS GRANTS/REBATES FOR THE
ACCELERATION OF UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY LINES
IN HIGH-RISK AREAS; GRANTS/REBATES FOR
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 14
Packet Page 64 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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
QUALIFYING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME
UTILITY CUSTOMERS; LEVERAGE FOR OTHER FUNDING
SOURCES SUCH AS FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
CLIMATE, AND RESILIENCE FUNDS TO MEET LOCAL
NEEDS; AND COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS FOR
EMISSIONS MITIGATION AND CLIMATE RESILIENCE?
YES/FOR ____ NO/AGAINST____
BALLOT ISSUE NO. ____
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO
$52.9 MILLION (PRINCIPAL AMOUNT) WITH A MAXIMUM
REPAYMENT COST NOT TO EXCEED $75 MILLION (SUCH
AMOUNT BEING THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
THAT COULD BE PAYABLE OVER THE MAXIMUM LIFE OF
THE DEBT) SUCH DEBT TO BE ISSUED ONLY IF THE
VOTERS APPROVE THE CLIMATE TAX IN BALLOT ISSUE
___ AND PAYABLE FROM THE CLIMATE TAX AND FROM
OTHER LEGALLLY AVAILABLE REVENUES AS
DETERMINED BY COUNCIL; WITH THE PROCEEDS OF
SUCH DEBT AND EARNINGS THEREON BEING USED FOR
THE SAME PURPOSES AS THE CLIMATE TAX IN THE
BALLOT ISSUE?
YES/FOR ____ NO/AGAINST____
Section 4. If a majority of all the votes cast at the election on the tax increase issue
submitted are for the issue, the issue shall be deemed to have passed and the Boulder Revised Code
shall be amended as follows:
Chapter 12 - Climate Action Plan Excise Tax REPEAL
3-12-1. Legislative Intent.
It is the purpose of this chapter to raise revenue to implement the City’s Climate Action
Plan, including incentives, services and other assistance to Boulder residents and businesses to
improve energy efficiency, expand the use of renewable energy, and take other necessary steps
toward reducing local greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the city council determines and
declares that the consumption of electricity within the City is the exercise of a taxable privilege.
The city council further declares that the purpose of the levy of the taxes imposed by this chapter
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 15
Packet Page 65 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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
is for the raising of funds for the payment of the expenses incurred to implement the Climate
Action Plan; and in accordance with this purpose, all of the proceeds of this excise tax should be
placed in and become a part of a separate special revenue fund of the City.
3-12-2. Imposition of Climate Action Plan Excise Tax.
(a) Any person consuming electricity shall pay a Climate Action Plan excise tax at the rate
prescribed by subsection (c) of this section, as applicable.
(b) The Climate Action Plan excise tax shall expire on March 31, 2023.
(c) The Climate Action Plan excise tax rates shall be:
Category Tax
Residential $0.0049 per
kWh
Commercial 0.0009 per
kWh
Industrial 0.0003 per
kWh
3-12-3. Exemptions.
The portion of electricity voluntarily purchased as utility provided wind power shall be
exempt.
3-12-4. Payment of Tax.
Any incumbent electricity provider operating within the City pursuant to a franchise or
otherwise (“Provider”) shall bill and collect the Climate Action Plan excise tax and shall remit
said tax to the city manager in the manner required by section 3-12-5, “Payment Schedule,
Reporting and Inspection of Records,” B.R.C. 1981. The tax may be expressly identified on any
consumer bills as the “The City of Boulder Climate Action Plan Excise Tax” or as the “Climate
Action Plan Tax.”
(a) For the Climate Action Plan excise tax amounts billed pursuant to this chapter, payment
shall be made by the Provider in monthly installments not more than thirty days following
the close of the month for which payment is to be made. Initial and final payments shall be
prorated for the portions of the months at the beginning and end of the term of this excise
tax.
(b) In addition, the Provider shall also submit monthly reports to the city supporting the amount
of the Climate Action Plan excise tax remitted for that month including energy use and
amounts remitted by sector and Windsource electricity purchases exempted by sector.
Electronic or paper reports are acceptable.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 16
Packet Page 66 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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
(c) It shall be the duty of the Provider to keep and preserve, for a period of three years, suitable
records and other such books or accounts, including, without limitation, original sales and
purchase records, as may be necessary to determine the amount of the Climate Action Plan
excise tax for the collection of which the Provider is liable under this chapter. The city
manager and agents and representatives thereof are entitled at any reasonable time, upon
adequate notice, to examine the books and records of the Provider and to make copies of the
entries or contents thereof.
3-12-6, 3-12-7. Reserved.
Chapter 13 - Climate Utility Occupation Tax
3-13-1. Legislative Purpose, Findings, and Intent.
(a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to implement the city’s climate tax as a utility
occupation tax on the delivery of electricity and natural gas passed by the voters on
November 8, 2022.
(1) Passed by the voters on November 2, 2010, as a replacement for a fee paid under
franchise agreement with a utility provider.
(2) Amended by the voters on November 1, 2011, to increase the amount of the tax and
extend the tax to December 31, 2017.
(3) Further amended by the voters on November 3, 2015, to extend that portion of the
tax that was initially approved by the voters in 2010 until December 31, 2022.
(4) Further amended by the voters on November 7, 2017, to extend that portion of the
tax that was initially approved by the voters in 2011 until December 31, 2022 and
increased the amount of this portion of the tax for 2018 and 2019.
(5) Further amended and repurposed by the voters on November 3, 2020, to extend that
portion of the tax that was initially approved by the voters in 2011 until December
31, 2025 to pay all costs associated with the formation of a municipal electric utility
and to be used to fund projects, pilots, initiatives, and research that support the city’s
clean energy goals in the context of the city’s racial equity goals and the community’s
commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and to extend that portion through
December 31, 2025.
(b) Findings. The city council finds that:
(1) The occupation of delivering electricity and natural gas within the city is the exercise
of a taxable privilege;
(2) The city has levied a utility occupation tax on the delivery of electricity and natural
gas since 2010; levy of the portion of the utility occupation tax approved by the voters
on November 2, 2010, and imposed by this chapter:
(A) The tax is to replace a franchise fee and therefore should not be ass essed
against any public utility obligated to pay a franchise fee; and
(B) The revenue collected should be limited to amounts reasonably expected to
be collected under a franchise.
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 17
Packet Page 67 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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
(3) The levy of the portion of the climate utility occupation tax approved by the voters
on November 8, 20221, 2011, and imposed by this chapter is to provide funding to
pay:
(A) All costs associated with municipalization;
(AB) Costs of projects, pilots, initiatives, and research that support the city’s clean
energy goals in the context of the city’s racial equity goals; and
(BC) Costs of programs and services that are part of the partnership with Xcel
Energy approved by the voters on November 3, 2020 as ballot issue 2D.;
and
(C) Costs authorized in the ballot issue approved by the voters.
(c) Intent. The city council intends to use the funds collected pursuant to this tax for general
fund purposes to meet the city’s climate goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 70% by
2030; become a Net Zero city by 2035 and become a Carbon-Positive city by 2040. during
the time when the city explores a clean energy future with more stable energy rates and to
implement such plans, and for the purpose of funding the costs of further exploration and
planning for the creation of a municipal utility and acquisition of an existing electric
distribution system. The city council intends to give full effect to the ballot measures
approved by the voters.
(d) Usage of Funds. Funds shall be used, including but not limited to the following purposes:
(1) Providing energy-related assistance to disadvantaged members of the community,
including support for utility bill payments and access to renewable energy;
(2) Improving system reliability and modernizing and supporting clean energy-related
businesses, including, without limitation, new approaches in electrification of
buildings and transportation and enhancement of resilience;
(3) Implementing a partnership agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado;
and
(4) Increasing access to energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions.
3-13-2. Imposition of Occupation Tax.
(a) Payment of Tax Required. No utility delivering electricity and gas to residential,
commercial, or industrial customers shall fail to pay to the city manager the utility
occupation tax imposed by this chapter.
(b) Original Tax Effective Date and Expiration Date. The utility occupation tax of $4,100,000
was effective January 1, 2011. For that portion of the tax approved by the voters in 2010 for
general fund purposes described Section 3-13-9(a), B.R.C. 1981, the tax shall expire on
December 31, 2022 or earlier if the taxpayer is obligated to pay a comparable fee under a
franchise agreement or other license or permit agreement with the city.
(c) Extension and Increase Dates. The increase in the amount of the utility occupation tax
approved by the voters in 2011, extended and temporarily increased in 2017, and extended
to December 31, 2025 and repurposed in 2020 for funding the costs of municipalization and
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 18
Packet Page 68 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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
for projects, pilots, initiatives, and research that support the city’s clean energy goals in the
context of the city’s racial equity goals.
(d) Tax Rate. The utility occupation tax shall be $6,500,000 in the following amounts, effective
January 1, 2023. The rate of tax due on January 1 of 2024 and each year thereafter until
December 31, 2040, shall be increased by the [CPI]:
Year Tax Rate without an effective
franchise with taxpayer
Tax Rate with an effective
franchise with taxpayer
2021 $6,556,362 $2,071,985
2022 $6,556,362 $2,071,985
2023 $2,071,985
2024 $2,071,985
2025 $2,071,985
The tax rate in each year shall be adjusted annually as provided in Section 3-13-3,
“Adjustments,” B.R.C. 1981.
3-13-3. Adjustments.
(a) Limitations on Tax Increases. Beginning January 1, 2012, the maximum annual tax rate
increase shall be the lesser of three percent or the average amount of rate increases made by
public utility companies delivering natural gas or electricity in the city in the previous year
as calculated pursuant to Subsections (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) Annual Utility Rate Study. The city manager shall review the rate tariffs filed by all
investor-owned public utility companies delivering gas or electricity in the city.
(1) The city manager shall list all electrical rates in the electrical tariff expressed in terms
of cents per kilowatt hour from lowest to highest and select from that list the median
electric rate. If there is more than one investor-owned electric utility company
delivering electricity in the city, the city manager shall ascertain the median electrical
rate for each such company and then produce an average median rate charge for
electricity in the city.
(2) The city manager shall ascertain the standard rate per decatherm charged by each
public utility company delivering gas in the city. If there is more than one investor-
owned gas utility company delivering gas in the city, the city manager will average
the standard rate per decatherm for each such company to produce an average
standard rate per decatherm charged for delivering gas in the city.
(c) Annually, the city manager shall calculate an average increase by comparing the rates
determined in Subsection (b) of this section with comparable rates charged in the previous
calendar year to produce a percentage average increase for each such rate. The city manager
shall then average those rate increases and compare that average to determine whether it is
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 19
Packet Page 69 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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
greater than or less than three percent. The utility occupation tax shall then be increased by
the lesser of the two percentages. The city manager will recommend any such tax increase,
subject to the limitations of this section, to the city council concurrent with the annual
budget process.
(d) Tax Increase Date. The effective amount of tax due shall be increased as of January 1 of
each year.
(e) Credit if franchise fee paid. Any franchise fee paid by the taxpayer to the city in any year
shall be credited to the portion of the utility occupation tax approved on November 2, 2010
due in that year. Such credit will not be applied to that portion of the utility occupation tax
that was approved on November 3, 2020.
3-13-4. Payment of Tax.
Utility occupation tax payments shall be remitted to the city manager in equal monthly
installments not more than thirty days following the end of each month. The first payment
following the November 8, 20223, 2020 election shall be due February 20, 20231. Initial and
final payments shall be prorated for the portions of the months at the beginning and end of the
term of this utility occupation tax.
3-13-5. Designation of Tax.
Persons taxed under the provisions of this chapter are hereby authorized to reflect this tax
under the title of “Climate Utility Occupation Tax.”
3-13-6, 3-13-7. Reserved.
3-13-8. Tax not on Interstate Commerce; not a Franchise.
The tax provided in this chapter is upon occupations and businesses in the performance of
local functions and is not a tax upon functions relating to interstate commerce. None of the terms
of this chapter mean that the city has granted any provider a franchise.
3-13-9. Dedicated Revenues.
(a) General Fund Revenue. The amount of the occupation tax revenue attributable to the ballot
measure passed by the voters in 2010 (Ord. No. 7751) and extended in time by the voters in
2011 (Ord. No. 7804) shall be used for general revenue needs of the city.
(b) Revenue for Electric Utility Exploration and Planning for Creation. The amount of the
increase in the occupation tax revenue attributable to the ballot measure passed by the
voters in 2011 shall be used for the purpose of funding the costs of further exploration of
and planning for both the creation of a municipal electric utility and acquiring an existing
electric distribution system.
(c) Revenue that Supports City’s Clean Energy Goals. The amount of the repurposing of the
climate occupation tax revenue passed by the voters in 20220 that is not necessary for the
costs of municipalization shall be used for the purpose of funding the costs of projects,
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 20
Packet Page 70 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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
pilots, initiatives, and research that support the city’s clean energy goals in the context of
the city’s racial equity goals.
Section 5. If a majority of all the votes cast at the election on the tax increase issue and
the debt authorization issue submitted are for the issues, the issue shall be deemed to have passed
and any bonds issues shall be in compliance with the charter and as determined by City Council.
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 21st day of July 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 21
Packet Page 71 of 305
K:\CCCO\o-8542 1st Rdg-3406.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 AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August 2022.
___________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance 8542
Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8542
Climate Tax ballot item
Page 22
Packet Page 72 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to publish by title only Ordinance
8543 amending Section 2-11-6, “Police Oversight Panel – Qualifications and Appointments,”
B.R.C . 1981, increasing the number of panel members to eleven and alternates to four; and
setting forth related details
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
J oey Lipari
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 3F - P olice Ov ersight Request to I ncrease P anel Members
Packet Page 73 of 305
Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 1Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 1
Packet Page 74 of 305
Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 2Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 2
Packet Page 75 of 305
Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 3Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 3
Packet Page 76 of 305
ORDINANCE 8543
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-11-6, “POLICE
OVERESIGHT PANEL – QUALIFICATIONS AND
APPOINTEMENTS,” B.R.C 1981, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
PANEL MEMBERS TO ELEVEN AND ALTERNATES TO FOUR;
AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 2-11-6, “Police Oversight Panel – Qualifications and Appointments,”
B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
(a) Qualifications.
(1) Members of the police oversight panel shall be nominated by a selection
committee. The initial selection committee shall be composed of members of the
implementation team not interested in being on the police oversight panel and
representatives from two local non -profit organizations selected by the
implementation team. Later selection committees shall be com posed of two
members of the police oversight panel and representatives from two local non -
profits selected by the police oversight panel. In no event shall the monitor be
involved in the process of selecting the selection committee or the police
oversight panel.
(2) The non-profit organizations participating in the selection process must be
organizations that serve the Boulder community, serve a population that has
significant contact or a difficult relationship with law enforcement, and serve a
historically excluded community.
(3) Prior to the selection of nominees, the monitor shall inform the public of the
commencement of the selection process and the selection committee shall
actively promote public awareness of the selection process and may solicit
interest through social media and personal networks to attract qualified
applicants.
(4) The monitor shall provide the public with both a physical address and an email
address where interested applicants can submit their indication of interest.
Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 4
Attachment A: ORDINANCE 8543
Packet Page 77 of 305
(5) Interviews conducted by the selection panel shall be open to the public for
observation. Selection panel deliberations shall be confidential.
(6) The selection committee shall select nineeleven panel members by majority
vote. Two panel positions shall be reserved for persons currently enrolled as
students in an institute of higher education, with different terms of office as set
forth in Ssubsection (b) of this section.
(7) In addition to the nineeleven members selected, the selection committee shall
select threefour alternates who will represent a pool from which new panel
members can be appointed when there is an unexpected vacancy on the panel.
Alternates will draw numbers to determine the order that they will join the panel
if needed.
(8) When a panel vacancy occu rs, if no alternates are available, the selection
committee will reconvene to fill the vacancy. Each time the selection committee
reconvenes to select new or alternate panel members, a public announcement
shall be made inviting applicants to submit their n otice of interest.
(9) Members of the police oversight panel shall be volunteers who, immediately
prior to appointment, shall demonstrate:
(A) Strong ties to the City of Boulder. This may include, but is not limited to,
residency, employment in the Ccity, or having children enrolled in
schools located in the Ccity;
(B) An absence of any real or perceived bias, prejudice or conflict of
interest;
(C) An ability to build working relationships and communicate effectively
with diverse groups; and
(D) A commitment to the purposes of this chapter.
(10) The nomination committee will strive to include people identifying as a person
of color, notably African American, Latinx, Asian and/or Indigenous, as at least
half of the members of the police oversight panel. Preference will be given to
individuals who are multilingual. In addition, the selection committee will strive
to include a person with a disability, a person experiencing homelessness or
having such lived experience, a person identifying as LGBTQ+, and a person
who has experienced incarceration.
(11) Members of the police oversight panel shall neither be a current Ccity employee
nor an immediate family member of a current Ccity employee.
Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 5
Attachment A: ORDINANCE 8543
Packet Page 78 of 305
(12) Police oversight panel members shall participate in a training p rogram to be
developed by the police monitor.
(13) It is the intent that police oversight panel members be free from personal
liability for acts taken within the course and scope of carrying out their official
duties and functions. The Ccity will therefore defend and indemnify members to
the maximum extent permitted under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
and other applicable law.
(14) Current members of the professional standards review panel and the police
oversight task force are eligible t o serve on the police oversight panel.
(15) The selection committee will provide Ccouncil with a written summary
explaining why each applicant was selected. A motion to approve the proposed
candidates shall be placed on the Ccouncil’s consent agenda. Council members
may choose to exercise the call -up option to discuss a proposed candidate's
appointment. Council will approve or reject the appointments by majority vote.
(16) All police oversight panel members shall sign a confidentiality agreement which
prohibits them from publicly discussing or releasing any information or
materials reviewed in closed session.
(b) Terms and Vacancies.
(1) When first instituted, four appointees will serve three-year terms and three
appointees will serve two-year terms. The two student members will serve one-
year terms. After all initial panel members are selected, panel members other than
the two student members will draw numbers to determine which will be a two-
year appointment and which will be a three-year appointment. In the event that an
initial appointee prefers a two-year appointment, the appointee will be assigned a
two-year term and will not participate in the drawing of numbers. Thereafter, aAll
terms shall be three years, except for the two student members who shall serve
one-year terms. Panel members may serve for a maximum of two consecutive
terms.
(2) In the event of a panel vacancy, when an alternate is not available and a
successor has not been named, that panel member may remain in office until
their successor is named.
. . .
Section 2. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city and covers matters of local concern.
Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 6
Attachment A: ORDINANCE 8543
Packet Page 79 of 305
Section 3. 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 21st day of July 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August 2022.
___________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
City Clerk
Item 3F - Police Oversight Request to Increase Panel Members Page # 7
Attachment A: ORDINANCE 8543
Packet Page 80 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
C onsideration of motion to adopt Resolution 1312 declaring the C ity of Boulder’s support for
the Regional Transportation District’s (RT D) Zero Fare for Better Air transit initiative that
waives passenger fares for all RT D and City of Boulder HO P transit and paratransit services
during the month of August 2022 to encourage local and regional ridership and reduce ground
level ozone and greenhouse gas emissions
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director, Public Works Transportation & Mobility
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
Motion to adopt Resolution 1312 declaring the City of Boulder’s support for the Regional
Transportation District’s (RT D) Zero Fare for Better Air transit initiative that waives
passenger fares for all RT D and C ity of Boulder HO P transit and paratransit services during
the month of August 2022 to encourage local and regional ridership and reduce ground level
ozone and greenhouse gas emissions
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Resolution 1312 RT D Zero F are for Better Air
Packet Page 81 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Consideration of motion to adopt Resolution 1312 declaring the City of Boulder’s
support for the Regional Transportation District’s (RTD) Zero Fare for Better Air
transit initiative that waives passenger fares for all RTD and City of Boulder HOP
transit and paratransit services during the month of August 2022 to encourage local
and regional ridership and reduce ground level ozone and greenhouse gas emissions.
PRESENTER(S)
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director of Transportation & Mobility
Valerie Watson, Transportation Planning Manager
Danny O’Connor, Principal Transportation Planner/Transit Program Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the entire month of August 2022, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) will
offer zero fares across its regional bus and rail transit system as part of its Zero Fare for
Better Air initiative. The initiative, made possible by Colorado Senate Bill 22-180 in
partnership with the Colorado Energy Office, is designed to reduce ground level ozone
and greenhouse gases by increasing use of public transit. Passenger fare revenues that
pay a portion of RTD service costs will be offset by funding provided through this state
bill. RTD customers will benefit from not needing to use or purchase fare products to
access local and regional transit services throughout August. Zero fare in August will
also apply to RTD paratransit services and city of Boulder HOP bus service, a city
service supported by RTD annual partnership funding since 1996.
Item 3G - Resolution 1312 RTD Zero Fare for Better Air Page 1Item 3G - Resolution 1312 RTD Zero Fare for Better Air Page 1
Packet Page 82 of 305
As context, the city’s 2019 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) recommends zero fare for
local and regional transit services as a strategy to enhance equity, promote access to
opportunity, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through modal shift and increased
transit ridership. RTD’s Zero Fare for Better Air initiative directly aligns with this city
priority.
Many communities across the RTD service area are also expected to publicly support
RTD’s Zero Fare for Better Air initiative, and the initiative will likely prompt future
considerations to expand zero fare availability at local and regional levels.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENT(S)
Attachment A – Resolution 1312
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to adopt Resolution 1312 declaring the City of Boulder’s support for the
Regional Transportation District’s (RTD) Zero Fare for Better Air transit initiative that
waives passenger fares for all RTD and City of Boulder HOP transit and paratransit
services during the month of August 2022 to encourage local and regional ridership
and reduce ground level ozone and greenhouse gas emissions.
Item 3G - Resolution 1312 RTD Zero Fare for Better Air Page 2Item 3G - Resolution 1312 RTD Zero Fare for Better Air Page 2
Packet Page 83 of 305
RESOLUTION 1312
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ZERO FARE FOR
BETTER AIR TRANSIT INITIATIVE IN AUGUST 2022
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, HEREBY
FINDS AND RECITES THAT:
WHEREAS, good air quality is essential to quality of life and a vibrant economy; and
WHEREAS, the Denver region is on the precipice of designation as an area of “severe”
non-attainment of health-based standards for ozone pollution with significant potential for federal
intervention; and
WHEREAS, ground-level ozone triggers asthma attacks, worsens existing respiratory
illnesses, and makes breathing difficult particularly for the very young, elderly and those
exercising outdoors; and
WHEREAS, emissions from cars, trucks, vans, and motorcycles are some of the largest
contributors to ground level ozone in the Denver Metro/North Front Range area; and
WHEREAS, using transit instead of a personal vehicle for trips is one effective way to
reduce ground level ozone; and
WHEREAS, SB22-180 made funding available for free transit statewide during the
summer ozone season; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation District “RTD”, which provided nearly 106
million passenger trips in 2019, plans to provide zero fare transit during the month of August all
day, every day, on all buses and trains across the region, as part of the Zero Fare for Better Air
initiative; and
WHEREAS, the City of Boulder is committed to supporting collaborative approaches to
reducing air pollution and expanding mobility options for residents of the City of Boulder and our
neighbors in the region regardless of their age, income, or abilities;
WHEREAS, the City of Boulder will complement RTD’s zero fare transit during the month
of August by providing zero fare transit during the month of August within the City of Boulder on
local HOP bus service to further encourage people living in, working in, and visiting the City of
Boulder to ride transit;
WHEREAS, the City of Boulder 2019 Transportation Master Plan includes a
recommended action to pursue implementation of a zero fare local and regional transit system to
enhance equity access and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through increased ridership, and
Attachment A – Resolution 1312
Item 3G - Resolution 1312 RTD Zero Fare for Better Air Page 3
Packet Page 84 of 305
the Zero Fare for Better Air Initiative supports this community priority and considerations for
expanding zero fare options in the future;
BASED ON THE FINDINGS MADE IN THIS RESOLUTION, ABOVE, BE IT
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO,
THAT:
The City Council of the City of Boulder is pleased to adopt this resolution in support of
Zero Fare Transit on RTD and local bus service in the City of Boulder in August 2022.
ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 2022
________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A – Resolution 1312
Item 3G - Resolution 1312 RTD Zero Fare for Better Air Page 4
Packet Page 85 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
C onsideration of a proposed annexation agreement amendment for the property at 1422 55th
Street to modify the affordable housing requirements and facilitate the development of the site
with for-sale homes. C ase # LUR2021-00045
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Sloane Walbert, Planning Manager
B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M
C ontinued at the 5/17 meeting
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 3H - P roposed annexation agreement amendment for the property at 1422
55th Street
Packet Page 86 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Consideration of a proposed annexation agreement amendment for the property at
1422 55th Street to modify the affordable housing requirements and facilitate the
development of the site with for-sale homes. Case # LUR2021-00045.
Applicant: Michael Bosma, Rubicon Development
Owner: Sunset Investments LLC
PRESENTERS
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Brad Mueller, Director Planning & Development Services
Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing and Human Services
Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager
Jay Sugnet, Senior Manager, Housing and Human Services
Sloane Walbert, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider an application to amend an
annexation agreement recorded Sep. 7, 1999, which applies to the property located at
1422 55th St. The request was considered on the consent agenda at the Mar. 15, 2022
meeting and at a public hearing at the May 17, 2022 meeting.
Annexation agreement amendments are reviewed consistent with the review process for
annexations and Section 9-2-17, “Annexation Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981. The proposal
would amend the annexation agreement to pay a cash -in-lieu contribution to the city’s
affordable housing fund for each new unit. The amendment would amend Section 4 of
the original annexation, which requires construction of on-site affordable housing at time
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 1
Packet Page 87 of 305
of redevelopment of the site. The existing annexation agreement allows the affordable
housing requirements to be met by either for-sale or rental units, and the requirements are
the same in either case. The requirements of the annexation agreement are no longer
financially feasible to implement if constructed as for-sale units and, for rental outcomes,
are not desirable from a community benefit perspective. Affordable rental housing at the
defined Area Median Income (AMI) levels in the agreement would be equivalent to what
we see for market rents and would require Housing and Human Services (HHS) to
implement a new set of guidelines for a handful of apartments that could not be
considered affordable, based on the current definition of “affordable”.
At the meeting on May 17th Council asked questions of city staff and the applicant and
discussed possible modifications to the agreement that would provide assurances in how
the site will be developed. Questions were generally concerning how the city defines
middle income housing, how the cash-in-lieu fee was determined, and how the
annexation agreement amendment was related to the purchase of the property at 2691
30th St. Council recommended four possible modifications to the agreement: (1) increase
in the required cash-in-lieu amount, (2) provision that ties the amendment to the sale of
the property on 30th Street, (3) limitations on the maximum dwelling unit size, and (4)
requiring a minimum number of residential units to be built or allowing for an open space
reduction to allow for additional units.
The following changes have been made to the draft annexation agreement amendment to
respond to Council’s recommendations. The applicant has agreed to these modifications
and signed the draft agreement, which can be found in Attachment B.
1. The required cash-in-lieu amount for each additional dwelling unit has been
increased to $35,000.
2. The applicant agrees to convey the property at 2691 30th St. to the city prior to
Aug. 19, 2022.
3. The site must be developed consistent with defined minimum density
requirements based on dwelling unit type. The minimum number of units in the
agreement was determined by preliminary design work done by city staff.
Staff was unable to come to an agreement with the applicant on an acceptable square
footage limitation for the units. In addition, an open space reduction was not requested
since it would require approval of a special ordinance to allow for modifications to Title
9, B.R.C. 1981. This could add significant time to the process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council approve the annexation agreement amendment as it is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP), including policies pertaining to annexation, as well as the intent of the original
annexation package with regards to community benefit.
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 2
Packet Page 88 of 305
Suggested Motion Language:
Motion to approve the annexation agreement amendment proposed per case number
LUR2021-00045 as it is 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.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic: Additional residential units would add to the tax base of the
community.
• Environmental: None identified.
• Social: Development of the site would add to the housing base of the city and
result in cash-in-lieu contributions to the city’s affordable housing fund. The
proposed amendment would ensure for-sale units serving middle income
households.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal: None identified
• Staff time: The applicant has paid the required application fee to cover the staff
review time of the proposed amendment.
BOARD FEEDBACK
Refer to City Council memo dated May 17, 2022 for a summary of the Planning Board
discussion and recommendation.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
Refer to City Council memo dated May 17, 2022 for information on public noticing of
the proposal and public comment received.
BACKGROUND
Refer to City Council memo dated May 17, 2022 for the background on the existing site,
area context, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation, and
zoning.
Annexation History
The site was annexed to the city in 1999 along with five surrounding properties on the
east side of 55th Street and along Scenic View Court (Ord. no. 6075). At time of
annexation the site was zoned Residential - Medium 1 (RM-1). The intent of the
medium density zoning designation was to provide future development potential on the
subject properties and thus, opportunities for affordable housing. Under the annexation
agreement for these properties, as part of “redevelopment” any new dwelling units on a
property are required to meet the affordability requirements. Redevelopment is defined as
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 3
Packet Page 89 of 305
subdivision of the property to create a new lot, issuance of a water utility connection
permit, issuance of a building permit for a new dwelling unit, issuance of a building
permit for additional square footage or other improvements which exceeds twenty-five
percent of the Boulder County Assessor's actual value of the existing structure, or sale of
the property. The following affordable housing requirements were included as part of
paragraph 4 of the annexation agreement:
No additional dwelling units shall be approved for the site unless the following
requirements have been met:
a. The Subject Property shall be developed at the maximum practical density
consistent with the zoning;
b. 30% of any new units permitted shall be permanently affordable for households
earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI);
c. 30% of any new units shall be permanently affordable for households earning
between 80% and 120% of the AMI for single family detached units; between
80% and 110% of the AMI for duplex or townhome style units; and between 80%
and 95% of the AMI for all attached units other than duplexes or townhomes and
shall be distributed such that the average of the single family detached units are
affordable to households earning 110% of the AMI, the average of the duplex or
townhome style units area affordable to households earning 100% of the AMI,
and the average of all other attached units are affordable to households earning
90% of the AMI; and
d. Each Applicant for any new units shall execute, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney and the City Manager, covenants and deed restrictions for
the permanently affordable units. The covenants and deed restrictions shall
include the initial sale price, the initial rent and the rate by which subsequent
sale prices or rents may increase so as to guarantee the perpetual affordability of
the units. The covenants and deed restrictions shall be recorded against the Subject
Property and run with the land.
Refer to Attachment A for the Annexation Agreement recorded in 1999.
The current property owner and applicant approached the city last year with the intent to
develop the property with 14 townhome units in two structures. In reviewing the
affordable housing requirements, it became apparent to the applicant and to staff that the
agreement was not feasible to implement for-sale affordable housing due to the relatively
small size of the site and that a rental housing development meeting the annexation
agreement requirements would provide little or no community benefit. The applicant has
since worked with the city to explore other housing outcomes and modify the annexation
agreement to allow for the development of the site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development of the subject property is subject to an annexation agreement from 1999.
The applicant is proposing to amend Section 4 of the original annexation, which requires
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 4
Packet Page 90 of 305
construction of on-site affordable housing if dwelling units are added to the property. At
the time of annexation, the property was, and is currently, developed with one detached
dwelling unit. The annexation agreement does not prohibit development or
redevelopment of the property with one detached dwelling unit. The maximum density
and affordable housing requirements are triggered by the addition of dwelling units to the
site (refer to Paragraph 4.a. of the annexation agreement).
The existing annexation agreement allows the affordable housing requirements to be met
by either for-sale or rental units, and the requirements are the same in either case. The
requirements of the annexation agreement are no longer financially feasible to implement
if constructed as for-sale units and, for rental outcomes, are not desirable from a
community benefit perspective. Specifically, the annexation agreement currently requires
approximately 60 percent of the housing developed as permanently affordable units to be
provided at a range of AMIs appropriate for housing between 80 and 120 percent AMI.
Affordable rental housing at these AMI levels would be at market rents and would
compete directly with the market.
In partnership with the city’s Department of Housing and Human Services, the applicant
is proposing to amend the annexation agreement to provide for the construction of
for-sale market-rate housing. The amendment would require the developer to pay a
$35,000 cash-in-lieu contribution to the city’s affordable housing fund for any new units
within five years of the recording of the amendment. After five years the developer
would be required to pay the standard cash-in-lieu fee for each additional unit. The cash-
in-lieu funds can be used to leverage state and federal funds to create additional
affordable housing elsewhere in the city. The agreement has been modified to require that
the site is developed at a minimum defined density based on dwelling unit type.
This proposed amendment is intended to address presents two challenges for development
within the current agreement:
1. Based on the high affordability (AMI) levels, the annexation agreement appears to be
written with for-sale units in mind; however, it neglected to restrict new development
to for-sale housing. The city has determined that the annexation language allows
rental development at the stated AMI levels. The amendment removes the ability
to develop rental housing on the property and instead requires much needed
for-sale housing in the community.
2. The proposed amendment removes the 60 percent affordable housing
requirement, which is difficult to meet with a for-sale housing project and is not
desirable for a rental project with such high AMI rent levels. In return for giving
up their ability to develop affordable rental units with high rents, the applicant has
agreed to provide cash-in-lieu for development of affordable housing that
leverages other funds elsewhere in the city. While a 60 percent affordable housing
requirement may be feasible on a larger project site, smaller developments
struggle to provide that level of affordable housing. Existing small-scale
annexations have proven to pose unique challenges to the applicant and the city in
order to achieve affordable housing community benefit as originally intended.
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 5
Packet Page 91 of 305
The cost of development has increased significantly in the past 20 years and the
market rate units can no longer make up for the loss of revenue required to build
up to 60 percent of the development as affordable for-sale homes. While each
annexation has unique circumstances, the city anticipates this issue in other
approved annexations that have yet to develop, as well as in new small-scale
annexations that include the development of less than 15 homes.
The amendment to the annexation agreement (Attachment B) proposes to replace the
affordable housing requirements in paragraph 4 with the following:
The Applicants agree that no building permit for any additional dwelling units shall be
approved for the Subject Property until the Applicant has demonstrated to the City
Manager that the following requirements have been met:
a. The Subject Property shall be developed consistent with Boulder Revised Code
and consistent with one of the following development options. The Applicants
may choose one of the following development options at their sole discretion.
These development options set forth the minimum density requirements for the
Subject Property but are not intended to prevent construction of additional units
provided the development meets the standards of the Boulder Revised Code:
i. Eight (8) detached dwelling units;
ii. Nine (9) dwelling units, including six (6) detached dwelling units and
three (3) attached dwelling units;
iii. Ten (10) attached dwelling units that are duplexes or other types of
attached dwelling units or a mixture of duplexes and other types of
attached dwelling units; or
iv. A different mixture of dwelling unit types than listed in i. through iii.
above, at a minimum density that is at least equivalent to the minimum
density required in i. through iii. above, as determined by the City
Manager in the City Manager’s sole discretion.
a. For each dwelling unit constructed on the Subject Property that is additional to the
existing dwelling unit, the Applicants will contribute $35,000 to the City’s
affordable housing fund. This will apply to any residential building permit for a
new additional dwelling unit(s) that is issued within five years of the time of the
recording of this Amendment and shall be paid to the City no later than building
permit issuance for such new dwelling unit. After such time, the payment due for
each additional dwelling unit will be the cash-in-lieu contribution required under
Chapter 9-13, “Inclusionary Housing,” B.R.C. 1981, for the unit size, type and
number of bedrooms constructed, as applicable at the time of building permit
application for each such additional dwelling unit and due at the time of issuance
for each such new dwelling unit;
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 6
Packet Page 92 of 305
b. All new dwelling units on the Subject Property shall be initially constructed and sold
as for-sale units; and
c. 2691 30th LLC has executed a special warranty deed conveying to the City of
Boulder and has conveyed to the City of Boulder the property located at 2691
30th Street, essentially consistent with the terms of the Contract to Buy and Sell
Real Estate executed by the City of Boulder and 2691 30th LLC, dated February
18,2022, as amended in the Agreement to Amend/Extend Contract, dated April
12, 2022, both attached to the Amendment of this Agreement as Exhibit B
(together hereafter the “Contract to Buy and Sell 2691 30th Street”). The
conveyance of the 2691 30th Street property to the City pursuant to terms
essentially consistent with the Contract to Buy and Sell 2691 30th Street shall
occur no later than Aug. 19, 2022.
PROCESS
Annexation agreement amendments are reviewed consistent with the process and
standards for annexations under Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, including
Section 9-2-17, “Annexation Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981. Per Section 9-4-2,
B.R.C. 1981, Planning Board is required to make a recommendation to City Council on
applications for annexation agreement amendments. Following the board’s
recommendation, the proposed amendment must be approved by City Council.
Annexation agreement amendments must be compliant with the above requirements and
consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies regarding annexation.
ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUE
Is the proposed annexation agreement amendment consistent with the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies on annexation and the intent of the
original annexation terms?
Staff finds the proposed annexation agreement amendment consistent with the intent of
the BVCP policies of annexation. Further, the amendment ensures an equivalent
affordable housing community benefit to what was originally intended in 1999. The
proposed amendment removes the housing requirements that are prohibitive to the
development of for-sale housing in the city and no longer desirable from a community
benefit perspective if constructed as rental housing. The revised annexation agreement
terms require only homeownership units, and the applicant has agreed to pay a specific
amount of cash-in-lieu into the city’s affordable housing fund that will used to leverage
state and federal funds to create additional affordable housing elsewhere in the city.
As described above, the existing requirements are prohibitive to the development of
for-sale housing in the city and no longer desirable from a community benefit perspective
if constructed as rental housing. Refer to Table 1 below. Rental units with high rents
provide little or no community benefit. The current housing market in the city is driving
the construction of almost entirely rental housing. If the developer were to provide
affordable rental units at the level described in the 1999 agreement, those units would
compete directly with the market and would be challenging to rent. The owner and
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 7
Packet Page 93 of 305
operator of those affordable rentals would need to income and asset qualify residents
every year. It is unlikely that a middle-income renter would be willing to submit to
annual reporting requirements when other equivalent options for rentals are available on
the open market that do not require the disclosure of bank statements and pay stubs.
TABLE 1: POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES
1999 Annex Agmt. * 2022 Affordable Rents* 2022 Proposed Amend.
As an example, a 13-unit project
would provide 8 affordable units, 4
in each category below.
Required CIL could provide
2.5 Rental Units @ 50% -
60% AMI
80% AMI 100% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI Cash-in-lieu
Rent $2,106
Rent $2,632
Rent $1,316 Rent $1,579 In the example 13 units pay
$25,000 CIL for each unit if
paid within 5 years. $325,000
Income $74,880 Income $93,600 Income $46,800 Income $56,160
* 2021-2022 Rents; 2 BR unit
The amended affordable housing requirements will enable the development of the site
and, in turn, add to the ownership housing inventory of the city. The applicant plans to
construct units that can be classified as a “missing middle” housing type (i.e.,
townhomes, small single-family homes), which are more attainable to middle-income
families in the city. In addition, the cash-in-lieu contributions will be used to leverage
state and federal funds to create additional affordable housing elsewhere in the city, with
deeper levels of affordability, well below 80 percent AMI. The development will provide,
at least, an equivalent affordable housing community benefit to the approved annexation.
Thus, the annexation will continue to meet BVCP Policy 1.17(d), and the site will
continue to provide a “special opportunity or benefit to the city” through the creation of
permanently affordable housing.
Based on this information, staff concludes that the proposed request is, on balance,
consistent with the goals and policies of the BVCP and the intent of the annexation
agreement and recommends approval of the proposed amendment found in
Attachment B.
MATRIX OF OPTIONS
The consideration of the Annexation Agreement Amendment is legislative in nature.
Council can take one of the following actions on the application:
• Approve the proposed Annexation Agreement Amendment. This would result in an
amendment of the current annexation agreement terms.
• Deny the proposed Annexation Agreement Amendment. This would keep the current
annexation agreement terms in place.
• Propose revisions to the amendment and ask for the applicant’s response. To amend the
current annexation agreement terms, both the city and applicant will have to agree to the
new terms.
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 8
Packet Page 94 of 305
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Annexation Agreement recorded Sep. 7, 1999
Attachment B: Proposed Annexation Agreement Amendment
Attachment C: Feb. 17, 2022 Planning Board Minutes
Attachment D: Additional Information on Housing Requirements
Attachment E: Staff Response to Hotline Questions
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 9
Packet Page 95 of 305
!ItJllJillllk, IIIJ II Ill I 1t8 :ff ;tl~i,aap
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made this l_ day of ~ , 1999, by and between the City
of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Calvin E. Evavold and
Barbara M. Evavold, hereinafter referred to as "Applicants:"
WITNESSETH:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Applicants are the owner of the real property generally described as 1422
55th Street and more particularly described in Exhibit A, included by reference and hereby made a
part of this Agreement, which real property shall 'i\ after be referred to as the "Subject Property;"
and,
WHEREAS, the Applicants
(\/1,
city water and sewer; an
· terested in obtaining approval from the City of a request
erty in order to provide adequate urban services, particularly
parties anticipate that annexation with an initial zoning designation of
Medium Density Residential-Developing (MR-D) will be consistent with the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City is interested in insuring that certain terms and conditions of annexation
be met by the Applicant in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and prevent the
placement of an unreasonable burden on the physical, social, economic, or environmental resources
of the City.
S:\PLAN\DAT A \C'URIAGR WORK\MD 142255.AGR
Attachment A - Annexation Agreement
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 10
Packet Page 96 of 305
~JLl!ll.. 10111 ll.
COVENANTS
1978889
P~ge, 2 of 7
99/97/1999 91 , 22P
D 9.99
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, promises and covenants herein set
forth, and other good and valuable consideration herein receipted for, the parties agree as follows:
I. For the purposes of this annexation agreement, "Redevelopment" shall be defined as the
2.
subdivision of a property to create a new lot, issuance of a water utility connection permit,
issuance of a building permit for a new dwelling unit, or issuance of a building permit for
additional square footage or other improvements which exceeds twenty-five percent (25%)
of the Boulder County Assessor's actual value of the existing structure, except where twenty-
equal to Twenty-Five Tho
(\/1,
dollars ($25,000), or sale of the property. Successive
gated in determining whether redevelopment has occurred and
Prior to mg of the annexation ordinance, the Applicants shall:
(a) File an application, and pay the applicable fees, for inclusion in the Boulder
Municipal Subdistrict and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District;
(b) Sell, or execute a "First Right of Refusal" agreement, in a form acceptable to the City
Manager, for any water rights associated with, or appurtenant to the Subject Property.
If the Applicant chooses to execute a "First Right of Refusal" the Applicant shall sell
any remaining water rights associated with or appurtenant to the Subject Property
prior to the addition of any dwelling unit or subdivision of the property.
S:\PLAN\DAT A ICURIAGRWORK\MDl 42255.AGR 2
Attachment A - Annexation Agreement
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 11
Packet Page 97 of 305
1978889
Page, 3 of 7
89/87/1999 81 ,22p
0 8.88
(c) Dedicate to the City, at no cost, fifteen and one half feet (15.5') of right-of-way for
55th Street as it abuts the subject property along its western boundary.
3. The Applicants and the City agree to defer the following fees normally due upon annexation
until redevelopment of the Subject Property. The rates imposed for these fees will be the
rates applicable at the time of redevelopment:
4.
(a) Development Excise Tax (DET);
(b) Stormwater and Flood Control Plant Investment Fee (SFCPIF);
( c) Outstanding assessment for the water main in 55th Street in the amount of $1,953.60.
The Applicants agree that no additional ling units shall be approved for any individual
a.
b.
e developed at the maximum practical density consistent
ew units permitted shall be permanently affordable for households
ess than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI);
c. 301/o of any new units shall be permanently affordable for households earning
between 80% and 120% of the AMI for single family detached units; between 80%
and 110% of the AMI for duplex or townhome style units; and between 80% and
95% of the AMI for all attached units other than duplexes or townhomes and shall
be distributed such that the average of the single family detached units are affordable
to households earning 110% of the AMI, the average of the duplex or townhome
style units are affordable to households earning I 00% of the AMI, and the average
of all other attached units are affordable to households earning 90% of the AMI; and
S:\PLAN\DATA\C'UR\AGRWORK\MD142255.AGR 3
Attachment A - Annexation Agreement
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 12
Packet Page 98 of 305
l!IJU!ll.. I U 11111 J. *1!.: ...
d. Each Applicant for any new units shall execute, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney and the City Manager, covenants and deed restrictions for the permanently
affordable units. The covenants and deed restrictions shall include the initial sale
price, the initial rent and the rate by which subsequent sale prices or rents may
increase so as to guarantee the perpetual affordability of the units. The covenants
and deed restrictions shall be recorded against the Subject Property and run with the
land.
5. The Applicants shall convey drainage from the site in a manner that does not adversely affect
6.
7.
abutting property owners.
The Applicants waive any vestedro.. ghts that may have arisen under Boulder County
-~\\ ' '~\\'%)\\\().
jurisdiction. The Applicants owledge that nothing contained herein may be construed
ce powers or the power to zone and regulate land uses for the
knowledge that the dedications and public improvements required herein
are rationally related and reasonably proportionate to the projected impact of the
development of the Subject Property as set forth in this Agreement.
8. In the event that the Applicants breache or fail to perform any required action under or fail
to pay any fee specified under the Covenants of this Agreement, the Applicants acknowledge
that the City may take all reasonable actions to cure the breach, including but not limited to
the filing of an action for specific performance of the obligations herein described. In the
event the Applicants fail to pay any monies due under this Agreement or fail to perform any
affirmative obligation hereunder, the Applicants agree that the City may collect the monies
S:\PLAN\DAT A \CURIAGRWORK\MDI 42255.AGR 4
Attachment A - Annexation Agreement
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 13
Packet Page 99 of 305
l]JU!lt IU 1111.1. 1978889
Page, 5 of?
89/87/1999 81, 22P
D 8.88
due in the manner provided for in Section 2-2-12, 8.R.C., 1981, as amended, as if the said
monies were due and owing pursuant to a duly adopted ordinance of the City or the City may
perform the obligation on behalf of the Applicants, and collect its costs in the manner herein
provided. The Applicants agree to waive any rights they may have under Section 31-20-105,
C.R.S., based on the City's lack of an enabling ordinance authorizing the collection of this
specific debt, or acknowledges that the adopting of the annexation ordinance is such enabling
ordinance.
9. This Agreement and any document executed pursuant hereto shall be null and void and of
10.
no consequence in the event that the Su roperty is not annexed to the City.
h herein shall run with the land and shall be
binding upon the Applicant eir heirs, successors, representatives and assigns, and all Wt
sixty-four days.
cquire an interest in the Subject Property, or any part thereof.
d that this Agreement creates an interest in land, that interest shall
in the lives of the undersigned plus twenty years and three hundred and
EXECUTED on the day and year first above written.
By:~~~-~~• =---<hi-""'-'~~"'----""-'<--
Calvin E. Evavold
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BOULDER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '3 day of ~j
19 #, by Calvin E. Evavold.
Witness my hand and official seal.
S:\PLAN\DA TA \CUR\AGRWORK\MDI 42255.AGR 5
Attachment A - Annexation Agreement
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 14
Packet Page 100 of 305
LtQJ.!lt iJ 11 IIJ. 1978889
Page, 6 of 7
SS/S?/1999 Sl ,22p
0 S.88
My commission expires: 9-/ · ? 0 C /
~-
ST A TE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BOULDER )
By: cGa ,nY.,-ru, -o fr:\·
Barbara M. Evavold
... -.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L day of C<1zd ,
19 ..ii, by Barbara M. Evavold.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: q -I · ·
Approved as to form:
City Attorn
Date: 4.(e .9C,
S:\PLAN\DA TA \CUR\AGRWORKIMDI 42255.AGR 6
By:
Ronald A. Secrist, City Manager
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
Attachment A - Annexation Agreement
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 15
Packet Page 101 of 305
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
1422 55th Street
Beginning at a point 25.00 feet East of the Northwest comer of Northwest quarter of the Northwest
quarter of Section 34, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M.; thence South along the
Easterly line of the road known as Valley View Road, a distance of 924.00 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Valley View Road, a distance of 132.00
feet; thence East a distance of 330.00 feet; thence North a distance of 132.00 feet; thence West a
distance of330.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning, County of Boulder, State of Colorado.
Attachment A - Annexation Agreement
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 16
Packet Page 102 of 305
1
For Administrative Use Only
Grantor: City of Boulder and 1422 55TH LLC
Grantee: 1422 55TH LLC and City of Boulder
Case No. LUR2021-00045
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (“Amendment”), is made this
_____ day of ______________, 2022, by and between the CITY OF BOULDER, a Colorado
home rule city, hereinafter referred to as "City," and 1422 55TH LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant." The City and Applicant may hereafter
collectively be referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A.The Applicant is the owner of the real property generally described as 1422 55th
Street and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein (the "Property").
B.The City of Boulder and the Applicant’s predecessors, Calvin E. and Barbara M.
Evavold, entered into an Annexation Agreement (“Agreement”) on April 8, 1999,
recorded in the records of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s Office at
Reception No. 01978889 on September 7, 1999.
C.The Parties are interested in amending the Agreement to revise the terms of the
affordable housing requirements.
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, promises and covenants herein set
forth and other good and valuable consideration herein receipted for, the Parties agree to replace
paragraph 4. with the following:
4.The Applicants agree that no building permit for any additional dwelling units
shall be approved for the Subject Property until the Applicant has demonstrated to
the City Manager that the following requirements have been met:
a.The Subject Property shall be developed consistent with Boulder Revised
Code and consistent with one of the following development options. The
Applicants may choose one of the following development options at their sole
discretion. These development options set forth the minimum density
requirements for the Subject Property but are not intended to prevent
construction of additional units provided the development meets the standards
of the Boulder Revised Code:
i.Eight (8) detached dwelling units;
ii.Nine (9) dwelling units, including six (6) detached dwelling units and
three (3) attached dwelling units;
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 17
Packet Page 103 of 305
2
iii. Ten (10) attached dwelling units that are duplexes or other types of
attached dwelling units or a mixture of duplexes and other types of
attached dwelling units; or
iv. A different mixture of dwelling unit types than listed in i. through iii.
above, at a minimum density that is at least equivalent to the
minimum density required in i. through iii. above, as determined by
the City Manager in the City Manager’s sole discretion.
b. For each dwelling unit constructed on the Subject Property that is additional to
the existing dwelling unit, the Applicants will contribute $35,000 to the City’s
affordable housing fund. This will apply to any residential building permit for
a new additional dwelling unit(s) that is issued within five years of the time of
the recording of this Amendment and shall be paid to the City no later than
building permit issuance for such new dwelling unit. After such time, the
payment due for each additional dwelling unit will be the cash-in-lieu
contribution required under Chapter 9-13, “Inclusionary Housing,” B.R.C.
1981, for the unit size, type and number of bedrooms constructed, as
applicable at the time of building permit application for each such additional
dwelling unit and due at the time of issuance for each such new dwelling unit;
c. All new dwelling units on the Subject Property shall be initially constructed
and sold as for-sale units; and
d. 2691 30th LLC has executed a special warranty deed conveying to the City of
Boulder and has conveyed to the City of Boulder the property located at 2691
30th Street, essentially consistent with the terms of the Contract to Buy and
Sell Real Estate executed by the City of Boulder and 2691 30th LLC, dated
February 18,2022, as amended in the Agreement to Amend/Extend Contract,
dated April 12, 2022, both attached to the Amendment of this Agreement as
Exhibit B (together hereafter the “Contract to Buy and Sell 2691 30th Street”).
The conveyance of the 2691 30th Street property to the City pursuant to terms
essentially consistent with the Contract to Buy and Sell 2691 30th Street shall
occur no later than
Aug. 19, 2022.
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 18
Packet Page 104 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 19
Packet Page 105 of 305
4
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(1422 55th Street)
BEGINNING AT A POINT 25.00 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., THENCE SOUTH ALONG
THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE ROAD KNOWN AS VALLEY VIEW ROAD, A DISTANCE
OF 924.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG
THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID VALLEY VIEW ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 132.00 FEET;
THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 132.00
FEET; THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING,
COUNTY OF BOULDER,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 20
Packet Page 106 of 305
EXHIBIT BAttachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 21
Packet Page 107 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 22
Packet Page 108 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 23
Packet Page 109 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 24
Packet Page 110 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 25
Packet Page 111 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 26
Packet Page 112 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 27
Packet Page 113 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 28
Packet Page 114 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 29
Packet Page 115 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 30
Packet Page 116 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 31
Packet Page 117 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 32
Packet Page 118 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 33
Packet Page 119 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 34
Packet Page 120 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 35
Packet Page 121 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 36
Packet Page 122 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 37
Packet Page 123 of 305
CBS3-5-19. CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (COMMERCIAL) Page 17 of 18
31. OTHER DOCUMENTS. 818
31.1. The following documents are a part of this Contract: 819
820
Attachment A – Additional Provisions and City Signature Page - Addendum 821
822
31.2.The following documents have been provided but are not a part of this Contract:823
824
825
826
SIGNATURES 827
828
Buyer’s Name: City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city Buyer’s Name:
See attached Addendum and City Signature Page
Buyer’s Signature Date Buyer’s Signature Date
Address: 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Co 80302 Address:
PO Box 791, Boulder, Co 80306
Phone No.: 303.441.4424 Phone No.:
Fax No.: Fax No.:
Email Address: firnhaberk@bouldercolorado.gov Email Address:
[NOTE: If this offer is being countered or rejected, do not sign this document. 829
Seller’s Name: 2691 30th LLC Seller’s Name:
Seller’s Signature Date Seller’s Signature Date
Address: Address:
Phone No.: Phone No.:
Fax No.: Fax No.:
Email Address: Email Address:
830
END OF CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE 831
32. BROKER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE.
(To be completed by Broker working with Buyer)
Broker Does Does Not acknowledge receipt of Earnest Money deposit. Broker agrees that if Brokerage Firm is the Earnest
Money Holder and, except as provided in § 24, if the Earnest Money has not already been returned following receipt of a Notice to
Terminate or other written notice of termination, Earnest Money Holder will release the Earnest Money as directed by the written
mutual instructions. Such release of Earnest Money will be made within five days of Earnest Money Holder’s receipt of the executed
written mutual instructions, provided the Earnest Money check has cleared.
Although Broker is not a party to the Contract, Broker agrees to cooperate, upon request, with any mediation requested under § 23.
Broker is working with Buyer as a Buyer’s Agent Transaction-Broker in this transaction. This is a Change of Status.
'RF,' HIHH I DIFF IDHHEH
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 38
Packet Page 124 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 39
Packet Page 125 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 40
Packet Page 126 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 41
Packet Page 127 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 42
Packet Page 128 of 305
4
SELLER
2691 30th LLC,
a Colorado limited liability company
_________________________________
By: Don Altman
Its: Manager
'RF,' HIHH I DIFF IDHHEH
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 43
Packet Page 129 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 44
Packet Page 130 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 45
Packet Page 131 of 305
Attachment B - Annexation Agreement Amendment
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 46
Packet Page 132 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
February 17, 2022
Virtual Meeting
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:
Jorge Boone
David Ensign, Chair
John Gerstle
Lisa Smith
Peter Vitale
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Sarah Silver
STAFF PRESENT:
Charles Ferro, Planning Senior Manager
Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney
Jean Gatza, Meeting Moderator
Amanda Cusworth, Administrative Supervisor
Holly Opansky, Administrative Specialist III
Sloane Walbert, Senior Planner
Kurt Firnhaber, Housing & Human Services Director
Elaine McLaughlin, City Principal Planner
Edward Stafford, Civil Engineering Senior Manager
Michael Calderazzo, Fire Chief
Adam Goldstone, Facilities Architectural Senior Project Manager
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair, D. Ensign, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
a) Lynn Segal
3.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS
There were no items on the agenda.
4.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A.AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on a
proposed annexation agreement amendment for the property at 1422 55th Street to modify the
Attachment C - Planning Board Action Minutes 02.17.2022
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 47
Packet Page 133 of 305
affordable housing requirements and facilitate the development of the site with for-sale
townhomes. Case # LUR2021-00045.
Board members were asked to reveal any conflicts of interest they may have had on this item.
• No board members had any conflicts of interest to reveal.
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
S. Walbert presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
S. Walbert and K. Firnhaber answered questions from the board.
Applicant Presentation:
Don Altman, with Altman Consulting LLC, did not have a presentation for the board.
Board Questions:
Don Altman, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
1) Lynn Segal
2) Lisa Spalding
Applicant Rebuttal:
None
Board Comments:
Key Issue #1: Is the proposed annexation agreement amendment consistent with the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies on annexation and the intent of the original
annexation terms?
• L. Smith said that when she looks at the original terms of the annexation, she would be hard
pressed to come up with a better solution than what had been presented. She would say it was
consistent with the original annexation plan and she appreciated the time limit which staff placed
on the payment of cash-in-lieu. She would rather see several small homes on this parcel versus a
large 7,000 square foot house.
• D. Ensign commented that the term “redevelopment” is defined in the annexation agreement to
include “issuance of the building permit for additional square footage or other improvements
moves to exceed twenty-five percent of the assessor’s actual value of the existing structure”. He
assumes that this requirement would not change, which is why a 7,000 square foot house would
not be placed on that parcel. H. Pannewig explained the definition. D. Ensign restated that he
was wrong and said an existing structure could be demolished and rebuilt as a large single-family
home. He questioned if the board had it within their purview to recommend that this language be
tightened up.
• L. Smith said it felt like the developer was trying to stay within the original annexation
agreement. However, we need to be honest about what is likely to occur on the parcel based on
Attachment C - Planning Board Action Minutes 02.17.2022
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 48
Packet Page 134 of 305
financial realities and what would make sense to develop if the board choose not to move
forward with the proposal.
• J. Gerstle was sympathetic to city staff with what they are trying to accomplish with the
annexation agreement amendment. He agreed with L. Smith that if this doesn’t move forward in
some way, a large single-family house will be built there. However, he felt it was premature to
move forward with the amendment as written. He stated that adding some conditions, such as a
minimum number of units to be built, would help him be more willing to move ahead. But was
not in support in the way it has been presented to the board. As written, too much is up to the
discretion of the owner.
• P. Vitale said he tracked closely with L. Smith’s comments. He appreciated the annexation
terms laid out in Paragraph 4, with the property being developed at maximum density, cash in
lieu with an expiration date, and the for-sale aspect of it. The agreement would be a net benefit
that he would be comfortable with. It would help achieve our housing goals.
• J. Boone questioned what the basis was for the proposed cash in lieu amount of $25,000 and
wanted to know the economics behind it.
• J. Gerstle questioned the number of units would be built on the parcel. He proposed adding
specific conditions that would make it clearer on what the board would be agreeing to in the
future development of the site.
• D. Ensign said he thought the applicant had been focusing on fourteen attached rental units with
their design team. He said the new agreement states the property “shall be developed at the
maximum practical maximum density”.
• P. Vitale agreed and said those words were arrived at by much consideration and so it does mean
it is to be developed at the maximum practical density. He was not sure what other words could
be added.
• J. Gerstle added that neither staff nor applicant had any numbers to work with and wondered if
this agreement was premature.
• J. Boone said this would be the point in time where there was opportunity for negotiation. He
said he was not opposed to the proposal, but as a Planning Board member, but he feels he is
being forced to make a decision on something where they have completely inadequate
information. He said he would like basic information like what the developer thinks they would
build here and what they think the units would sell for. He would like more information on
whether the affordable housing cash in lieu payment is appropriate and if $25,000 is the right
number.
• L. Smith said she also wished we had more specific information. She said she had not heard
direct opposition to this plan, but rather there is a desire for more specific information before
approving the annexation. The board has the option of asking the developer to come back and
bring forward a more detailed plan to satisfy all the board members. Alternatively, the board
could bring it to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote so that everyone has voiced where they stand.
• D. Ensign said that there are at least two board members with concerns and the board would
need a vote of four to send it on to City Council with a strong recommendation. He said the
board could add language to the motion that voices the concerns of the Planning Board.
o The applicant, Don Altman, asked the board to proceed with the proposed agreement and
add to the existing language if necessary. The applicant is in agreement that there should
be higher density. He did not want to prolong the process and wanted to move forward to
City Council.
• The board began to review the annexation agreement amendment.
Attachment C - Planning Board Action Minutes 02.17.2022
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 49
Packet Page 135 of 305
• P. Vitale said it was nice to see that the board was trying to obtain the maximum amount of
housing for the community on this site in a way that would be enforceable. He would like to see
as many units as possible for sale that would be attainable, and which would not be luxury
houses. He would like to add language asking for maximum density on the site and attainable
units.
• J. Boone said he was not advocating for maximized density without other considerations. The
developer has brought forward the idea of for-sale missing middle housing. That may not be
identical to maximum density; therefore, he would like to be cautious on how we word this
language. He did not want to use words like “maximum density”, because it may not address
missing middle housing. He would like city staff to provide the board with some analysis on the
cash-in-lieu amount to ensure it is the right amount. This would back up their decision and create
an understanding with the board and community.
• The board drafted additional conditions to the recommended motion.
Motion:
On a motion by P. Vitale seconded by J. Boone the Planning Board voted 5-0 (S. Silver absent) to
recommend to City Council approval of the annexation agreement amendment LUR2021-00045 as it is
consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan pertaining to
annexation as well as the intent that the City Council request and consider additional information on the
following prior to final approval:
• The number and type of dwelling units that would be built
• Whether the city could maximize the per-dwelling-unit cash-in-lieu amount beyond $25,000 per
new dwelling unit, since this is significantly less than would be paid under today’s inclusionary
housing program
• How this annexation could address Boulder’s missing middle goals.
B. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and Planning Board consideration of the following:
1) A Site Review application for a new City of Boulder Fire Station no. 3, located at 2751 and 2875 30th
Street. The fire station is proposed to include four apparatus bays, administration offices, exercise,
meeting, dining, and living room spaces along with bunk rooms for firefighters and administrative
offices. Site improvements include landscaping, parking with a 55 percent parking reduction along
with a planned new Bluff Street connection. Reviewed under case no. LUR2021-00017.
2) Motion to approve an amendment to the Transit Village Area Plan to change the 30th Street cross
section so as to remove on-street parking and to replace trees in grates with an eight wide streetscape
planting strip and 10-foot-wide detached sidewalk and protected bike lanes per the Transportation
Master Plan, including text amendments as provided in the staff memo.
Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item.
• J. Gerstle said that he had been by the site multiple times over the years. No board members had
any ex-parte contacts to reveal.
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board.
Attachment C - Planning Board Action Minutes 02.17.2022
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 50
Packet Page 136 of 305
Board Questions:
E. McLaughlin and E. Stafford answered questions from the board.
Applicant Presentation:
A. Goldstone, with the City of Boulder, and William Bussard, with Davis Partnership, presented the
item to the board.
Board Questions:
There were no questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
1) Kurt Nordback
2) Lynn Segal
Applicant Rebuttal:
M. Calderazzo addressed some of the questions and concerns brought up during public comments.
Board Comments:
Key Issue #1: Is the proposed project, on-balance, consistent with the Site Review Criteria of the
Land Use Code section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, including those related to the proposed 54 percent
parking reduction?
• J. Boone believed it met both criteria and looked forward to voting yes for it.
• P. Vitale agreed with J. Boone.
• J. Gerstle said he thought this project was needed and it would be a beautiful building.
• L. Smith said it was a good building, good cause, and excited it was moving forward.
• D. Ensign said he felt that a lot of the comments from Concept Review had been well addressed.
The building will be beautiful with a really nice street presence and will add a lot to the area. It
will have a nice gracious entry, meets the site review criteria, and will be looking forward to
having that additional protection.
Key Issue #2: Does the Planning Board support the proposed amendment to the Transit Village
Area Plan, to eliminate on-street parking adjacent to the site and add a planting strip in lieu of
trees in grates?
• D. Ensign said he was an avid biker and he was very excited to see that there was interest and
support from the Council on prioritizing for the arterial network. It was five years ago that he
was on the 30th and Colorado Corridor Study and he thought it was a shame that we have not
completed those studies before we got to this point. He would not want to delay this project to
wait for a study, so he supports making this change to the TVAP Area Plan. Removing the
parking would absolutely make sense. The minor things are difficult, such as the treatment along
30th Street (i.e., what would make sense having the bike path located co-located with the
sidewalk and separated from the street by the trees). However, there is no guidance to make that
happen in this case and it would probably increase the cost if we did, but we would have it done
as part of an overall 30th Street from Iris all the way down to Baseline. He acknowledged that he
had spoken to TAB members as well as Community Cycle members regarding this matter. He
said he was not being negative regarding this project or Fire Station No. 3. He said Boulder will
not be -able to complete with the likes of other cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam if we
Attachment C - Planning Board Action Minutes 02.17.2022
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 51
Packet Page 137 of 305
do not start to make ourselves serious about really good consistent treatments of our bicycle and
pedestrian corridors. Overall, he would support the change to the TVAP Area Plan.
Motion
On a motion by L. Smith seconded by P. Vitale the Planning Board voted 5-0 (S. Silver absent) to
approve Site Review case no. LUR2021-00017 incorporating the staff memorandum and the attached Site Review
Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff
memorandum.
On a motion by L. Smith seconded by J. Gerstle the Planning Board voted 5-0 (S. Silver absent) to
approve an amendment to the Transit Village Area Plan to change the 30th Street cross section so as to remove on-
street parking and to replace trees in grates with an eight wide streetscape planting strip and 10-foot-wide
detached sidewalk and protected bike lanes per the Transportation Master Plan, including text amendments as
provided in the staff memo.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A. AGENDA TITLE: Change in City Council Meeting Day / How does this affect Planning Board
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro presented to the board that City Council will be changing to Thursday evenings starting in July
2022. He questioned the board members if moving meetings to Tuesdays would work.
Board Comments:
• L. Smith, J. Gerstle and J. Boone had no concerns. D. Ensign and P. Vitale would no longer be
on the board as of July 2022.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
___03/17/2022________________
DATE
Attachment C - Planning Board Action Minutes 02.17.2022
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 52
Packet Page 138 of 305
Attachment D:
Additional Information on Housing Requirements
The following is intended to address the concerns raised by Planning Board, as described
in the motion language recommending approval of the amendment by City Council.
1.NUMBER AND TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS THAT WOULD BE BUILT
At the hearing on Feb. 17, 2022, the Planning Board expressed a desire to better
understand the number and type of dwelling units that would be built on the site
under the existing agreement and proposed amendment.
From a zoning perspective, allowable density and intensity in the RM-1 zone district
is determined by the provision of usable open space. Residential uses in the RM-1
zone district are required to provide 3,000 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit, meeting the requirements of Section 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981. Since
allowable intensity is determined by open space the potential number of units
ultimately depends upon the proposed site design for the redevelopment of the one-
acre property.
In terms of possible development in accordance with the annexation terms, insight
can be gained from the other properties with the same annexation terms. The site was
annexed to the city in 1999 along with five surrounding properties on the east side of
55th Street and along Scenic View Court. Not one of the five properties have
redeveloped, and all contain the same housing that was present when they were
annexed in 1999.
Tobys Lane. The property formerly addressed 1480 55th St. (now the Tobys Lane
development) is comparable to the subject property in size and annexation terms. The
property was originally included in the same group annexation but dropped out of the
application near the end of the process. The parcel was sold to different applicants,
who applied to annex to the city in 2000. The annexation terms for the site are similar
to the subject property in that 30% of any new units must be permanently affordable
to low to moderate incomes based on city standards, and an additional 30% must be
permanently affordable for middle income households based on HUD standards. The
agreement states that density must be maximized as practical in order to increase the
number of affordable housing units on the site.
Following annexation, the owners attempted to sell the property for nine years, but
prospective buyers said that development of the site was not feasible given the
affordability requirements. Thistle Communities purchased the property in 2009. The
purchase was contingent on an agreement with the city that that the city would secure
funding to support the development. With $290,806 in city funding Thistle developed
the property with eight small single-family homes. Five of the homes (63%) are
permanently affordable (two affordable to low- to moderate-incomes and three to
moderate incomes). The homes are accessed from a public access lane.
Attachment D - Additional Housing Requirements
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 53
Packet Page 139 of 305
As stated above, the agreement for the Tobys Lane property requires that density be
maximized to the extent practical. At the time, it was determined that although greater
density could be possible through attached units the provision of detached single-
family units was appropriate. The applicant had to demonstrate that density was
maximized for the specific housing unit type.
The Tobys Lane site is approximately one acre in area. The site was developed at a
density of 8 du/acre; eight single-family homes of roughly 1,300-1,400 square feet on
lots ranging from 3,200 square feet to 4,000 square feet. This development was only
possible with the support of an affordable housing provider and funding from
the city.
2. CASH-IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT
At the public hearing Planning Board questioned whether the city could maximize the
per-dwelling-unit cash-in-lieu amount beyond $25,000 per new dwelling unit, since
this is significantly less than would be paid under today’s inclusionary housing
program. To provide some background, the site was annexed to the city in 1999. The
city’s mandatory inclusionary housing (IH) ordinance was not adopted until 2000. At
time of adoption, the IH program required 20% of housing in new developments to be
priced affordably for low-income households. Since that time, the affordable housing
requirement has increased to 25% and a higher amount per unit has been established
for developments that pay cash-in-lieu fee within a for-sale development. The
proposed fee was also mutually agreeable to both parties in the annexation
negotiations.
3. MISSING MIDDLE GOALS
At the hearing board members expressed an interest in understanding how the
annexation amendment could address Boulder’s missing middle goals. The Middle
Income Housing Strategy was adopted in 2016. The strategy outlines a
comprehensive approach to create and preserve housing choice for middle income
households and defines an aggressive, but obtainable goal to increase housing options
for middle income households. The strategy recommends that the city support the
construction of new homes that are attached and/or relatively small, and designed to
serve a variety of middle-income households, including individuals, families with
children, and seniors. Housing suitable for these households are generally small
detached homes (in a cluster development), townhomes, patio homes, or condos. Two
categories of middle-income homes are defined as having importance to meeting the
middle-income housing goals:
a. For-sale homes with middle income deed restricting covenants; and
b. Market-rate middle income-oriented homes, affordable to middle income
families (e.g., attached, “missing middle”, potential for future
homeownership, tenure).
Attachment D - Additional Housing Requirements
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 54
Packet Page 140 of 305
The proposed amendment would address the need for more ownership opportunities in
the city in line with the adopted strategy. The proposed amendment would ensure for-sale
units serving middle income households. Based on the underlying zoning and
requirement to development at the highest feasible density, the site will be developed as a
“missing middle” housing type like small detached homes (in a cluster development),
townhomes, patio homes, or condos. These housing types are more attainable to middle-
income families in the city and meet their specific needs. The amended affordable
housing requirements will enable the development of the site and, in turn, add to the
ownership housing inventory of the city.
Attachment D - Additional Housing Requirements
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 55
Packet Page 141 of 305
Attachment E:
Staff Response to Hotline Questions
Prior to the Mar. 15, 2022 City Council meeting, staff received a Hotline post from
councilmember Wallach. The following information is intended to address two of
Councilmember Wallach concerns that were identified in the Hotline post.
1. How does this amended annexation agreement relate to today’s value and is it
equivalent to what they would have paid in 1999?
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was first adopted a year after the annexation
in 2000. In that year 20% of new development was targeted for affordable
housing and cash-in-lieu (CIL) per unit would have been approximately
$13,000/unit, or $19,000 for an annexation. In consideration of the annual %
increase to CIL over the years, and in-line with the policy approach at the time,
that amount would be about $35,000 per unit today.
2. The annexation doesn’t define the maximum size, so what size homes would
one expect, as the site is developed to the maximum density?
A similar development of the same size (Tobys Lane) is located two parcels north
of this development. The Tobys Lane development added eight small single-
family homes, with the largest home being roughly 1,400 square feet. If Council
were interested in using this development as an analog, the size of units and the
number of units could vary, based on the unit type, such as townhome or single
family. It is important to note that this development was only possible with the
support of an affordable housing provider and funding from the city. Refer to
Attachment D for more information on the Tobys Lane development.
3. It doesn’t appear that the current annexation agreement would allow the
developer to build one large home by adding on to the existing home. Can the
developer, using the existing annexation agreement simply create one large
home?
Yes. The annexation agreement does not prohibit development or redevelopment
with one detached dwelling unit. Refer to ‘Project Description’ above. The
affordable housing requirements and requirement to develop to the maximum
practical density are triggered by the addition of dwelling units to the property.
The property is currently, and was at the time of annexation, developed with one
detached dwelling unit.
Agenda Item 3H - Proposed annexation agreement amendment
for the property at 1422 55th Street
Page 56
Packet Page 142 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
C ommunity and Environmental Assessment Process for the Downtown Boulder Station
improvements project
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
J ean Sanson, Senior Transportation Planner
B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M
T he Transportation Advisory Board will hold a Public Hearing on this item on J uly 11, 2022,
giving 30 days for Council to review and call up this item.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Downtown B oulder Station Expansion C E AP
Packet Page 143 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project Community Environmental Assessment
Plan (CEAP)
PRESENTERS
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility
Gerrit Slatter, Principal Transportation Projects Engineer
Jean Sanson, Principal Transportation Planner
Nathan Pope, Senior Transportation Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Downtown Boulder Station Expansion project is to expand capacity at
the bus station to improve operational efficiency and the pedestrian and transit rider
access experience. Five on-street bus stops, along with wider sidewalks, signage, and
landscaping, will be added on 14th Street, between Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe
Avenue. Staff has engaged in a Community Environmental Assessment Plan (CEAP)
process that has included robust community and stakeholder engagement and conceptual
design that best balances multiple community goals as well as public preferences shared
via an online questionnaire and public meetings. Following City Council approval of the
CEAP, staff will complete preliminary and final design, with the project anticipated to be
advertised for construction by fall 2023.
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 1
Packet Page 144 of 305
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic - This project helps the city achieve its economic goals by expanding
infrastructure that ensures reliable travel time, comfortable amenities, and
improved connections for transit passengers. Providing a multimodal
transportation network that is designed to appeal to residents, employees and
visitors of a wider range of ages and abilities is anticipated to promote reliable
transportation connections to key destinations and employers in the central
Boulder business district, including the civic area, Boulder High School, and the
Pearl Street Mall.
• Environmental - This project helps the city achieve its environmental goals by
facilitating alternative modes of transportation and shifting single occupant
vehicle trips to transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing vehicle miles
traveled and associated greenhouse gases. This shift can also protect water and air
quality through reduction of mobile source emissions of pollutants and can work
to help achieve the city’s energy and climate goals by providing safe and
convenient modes of transportation to the downtown area and throughout the city.
• Social - This project helps the city achieve its social sustainability goals by
improving the transportation options for all members of the community to use and
improving public safety in the Downtown Boulder Station area.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal - In 2019, the City of Boulder received federal funding through the Denver
Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) for this project, which has a total budget of $982,000 and is
composed of federal ($370,000), Regional Transportation District ($200,000) and
city ($389,200) transportation funds, which are allocated in the 2022-2027 CIP.
• Staff time – This project is part of staff’s normal work plan.
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to approve the Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Community
Environmental Assessment Plan (CEAP)
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 2
Packet Page 145 of 305
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
On July 11, 2022, the Transportation Advisory Board held a public hearing on this
project and recommended City Council approve the Downtown Boulder Station
Expansion CEAP.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
There have been ongoing opportunities for public input and feedback on the Downtown
Boulder Station Expansion project. The project’s community engagement plan is founded
on a “consult” level of engagement per the city’s public engagement framework. This
means that project staff has been working directly with the public throughout the project
to ensure their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood, considered and
reflected in design development as well as to share feedback on how public input
influences design decisions.
Information on the project is available on the project webpage and has been presented
during two virtual public meetings in fall 2021 and spring 2022. Meeting notifications
were distributed to over 500 residents, property owners, businesses and other interested
parties through a direct mailing. The City of Boulder also distributed this information in
both English and Spanish through city email groups and social media. An online
questionnaire, as well as one-on-one meetings with adjacent property owners and
stakeholders, were also used to capture community feedback.
Staff engaged with underrepresented groups throughout the community engagement
process. The project was presented to the City’s Community Connectors in Residence
stakeholder group on May 6, 2022, followed by a site visit with members of the Center
for People with Disabilities on May 19, 2022. Staff, with Community Connectors
support, also conducted pop up events at the Downtown Boulder Station to speak with
community members in both English and Spanish, connecting with over 175 transit
riders.
BACKGROUND
In recent years, the Downtown Boulder Station has accommodated more buses and
passengers than its current size was designed to serve and the need for station capacity is
expected to continue to increase as planned Bus Rapid Transit along CO 119 and CO 7 is
implemented. While COVID has impacted transit service and ridership, it is expected that
both demand and service will return over time, and the need for additional capacity
remains. The city envisions increases to both local and regional transit service to include
more routes serving a larger area, as well as increased frequency of service for those
routes. The Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project will address these capacity
needs at the bus station, improve transit operations and enhance connections to the station
for people accessing it by foot, bicycle, bus or personal vehicle. Figure 1 illustrates the
project area.
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 3
Packet Page 146 of 305
Figure 1: Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project Area
CONCEPT DESIGN
The Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project, as shown in Figure 2, will include
redesigning 14th Street between CO 119/Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue to
provide five additional bus gates that will accommodate existing and future transit
services stopping and laying over at the Downtown Boulder Station. The bus gates are
on-street bus stops and layover spaces, that include passenger amenities such as wider
sidewalks, information kiosks, signage, wayfinding, urban design, and landscaping
treatments. In addition, at a future time, as additional funding is available, the two
existing gates on CO 119/Canyon Blvd, Gates K and L, that are located on the north and
south side of Canyon at 14th and 16th Streets respectively, will be enhanced with
shelters, benches, and accessibility improvements to meet Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) design guidelines.
The Project will also modify turning movements at Arapahoe and 14th Street so that buses
can more efficiently navigate the intersection. The key changes at this intersection entail
removing the eastbound left-turn lane (left turns will still be permitted from the through
lane) so that busses turning from southbound 14th Street to westbound Arapahoe will not
encroach into the existing left turning lane. Additional signal enhancements will be
incorporated to facilitate safer pedestrian crossing at Canyon and 14th Street, as notated
on Figure 2.
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 4
Packet Page 147 of 305
Figure 2: Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Design Concept
NEXT STEPS
Upon council’s approval, staff will complete preliminary and final design, with the
project anticipated to be advertised for construction by fall 2023.
ATTACHMENT
A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Community Environmental Assessment Plan
(CEAP)
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 5
Packet Page 148 of 305
City Of Boulder
Community and Environmental Assessment Process
Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project
June 2022
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 6
Packet Page 149 of 305
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.Project Description and Location ...................................................................................................... 6
2.Project Background, Purpose and Need ............................................................................................ 6
3.Project Design Options ..................................................................................................................... 8
4.Preferred Design Option ................................................................................................................... 8
5.Permits, Wetlands Protection and Habitat Encroachment ................................................................ 9
6.Public Input to Date ........................................................................................................................ 10
7.Staff Project Manager ..................................................................................................................... 12
8.Other Consultants or Relevant Contacts ......................................................................................... 12
GOALS ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................... 13
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................................... 17
CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................................................. 17
CHECKLIST QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................... 22
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 7
Packet Page 150 of 305
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project is located on 14th Street between
Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 1). In 2019, the City of Boulder
received federal funding through the Denver Regional Council of Governments
(DRCOG) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for this project, which has a total
budget of $982,000 and is composed of federal ($370,000), Regional Transportation
District ($200,000) and city ($389,200) transportation funds.
In recent years, the Downtown Boulder Station has accommodated more buses and
passengers than its current size was designed to serve and the need for station capacity is
expected to continue to increase as planned Bus Rapid Transit along CO 119 and CO 7 is
implemented. While COVID has impacted transit service and ridership, it is expected that
both demand and service will return over time, and the need for additional capacity
remains. The city envisions increases to both local and regional transit service to include
more routes serving a larger area, as well as increased frequency of service for those
routes.
The Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project will address these capacity needs at
the bus station, improve transit operations and enhance connections to the station for
people accessing it by foot, bicycle, bus or personal vehicle. The project will expand
capacity at the bus station to improve operational efficiency and the pedestrian and transit
rider access experience. Five on-street bus stops, along with wider sidewalks, signage,
and landscaping, will be added on 14th Street, between Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe
Avenue. Figure ES-1 illustrates the project area.
Figure ES-1: Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 8
Packet Page 151 of 305
4
The Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) is a formal review
process to consider the impacts of public development projects. The CEAP provides the
opportunity to balance multiple community goals in the design of a capital project by
assessing a project against the policies outlined in the BVCP and departmental master
plans. The 2017 Downtown Boulder Station Feasibility Study identified and evaluated
several bus gate expansion alternatives and identified an expansion along 14th Street
between Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue as the preferred alternative, and the
only design concept accepted and supported by RTD. Therefore, this CEAP report
provides an evaluation of the project, as shown in Figure ES-2, against a No Build option.
The planned improvements are designed to meet both the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards and RTD Bus Infrastructure Standards.
Figure ES-2: Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Design Concept
Compared to the No Build option, the project balances all of the safety, modal and
project features it is intended to provide, as well as public preferences shared via an
online questionnaire and public meetings. The project also meets the policy objectives in
the BVCP and meets the goals of the TMP and the city’s Climate Commitment.
As the project moves into the next phase of implementation, the design concept will be
used for the basis of preliminary and final design. Where the design concept is not
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 9
Packet Page 152 of 305
5
feasible due to budget and other considerations, refinements may be necessary. Design
refinements will be minimized to the extent possible to achieve the concept plan.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 10
Packet Page 153 of 305
6
City Of Boulder
Community and Environmental Assessment Process
1.Project Description and Location
The Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project is located on 14th Street between
Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project
2.Project Background, Purpose and Need
In recent years, the Downtown Boulder Station has accommodated more buses and
passengers than its current size was designed to serve and the need for station capacity is
expected to continue to increase as planned Bus Rapid Transit along CO119 and CO7 is
implemented. Pre-COVID, the Downtown Boulder Station served nearly the same
number of bus routes as Denver’s Union Station, while occupying less than one-eighth of
Union Station’s space and has half the gate capacity. Figure 2 illustrates typical bus
crowding at the station. In 2019, the Downtown Boulder Station served over 1,200 daily
bus trips and over 3,300 passenger boardings. While COVID has impacted transit service
and ridership, it is expected that both demand and service will return over time, and the
need for additional capacity remains. The city envisions increases to both local and
regional transit service to include more routes serving a larger area, as well as increased
frequency of service for those routes.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 11
Packet Page 154 of 305
7
Figure 2: Bus Overcrowding at Downtown Boulder Station
The Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project will address these capacity needs at
the bus station, improve transit operations and enhance connections to the station for
people accessing it by foot, bicycle, bus or personal vehicle. The project will expand
capacity at the bus station to improve operational efficiency and the pedestrian and transit
rider access experience. Five on-street bus stops, along with wider sidewalks, signage,
and landscaping, will be added on 14th Street, between Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe
Avenue. Figure 1 illustrates the project area.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 12
Packet Page 155 of 305
8
Several local plans laid the foundation for this project’s development:
•Canyon Boulevard Complete Streets Study (2017): examined improvements to urban
design, landscaping and placemaking features to enhance travel along this corridor
between 9th and 17th Streets.
•Downtown Boulder Station Feasibility Study (2017): documented capacity limitations
and expansion needs.
•City of Boulder’s Transportation Master Plan (2019): identified Downtown Boulder
Station improvements as a Near Term (2019-2024) Action Item.
3. Project Design Options
The 2017 Downtown Boulder Station Feasibility Study identified and evaluated several
bus gate expansion alternatives and identified an expansion along 14th Street between
Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue as the preferred alternative, and the only design
concept accepted and supported by RTD. Therefore, this CEAP report provides an
evaluation of the project, or Build option, as shown in Figure 3, against a No Build
option. Both options within the CEAP were assessed using the CEAP impact checklist.
Figure 3: Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Design Concept
4.Preferred Design Option
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 13
Packet Page 156 of 305
9
The preferred design option, or Build Option, will include redesigning 14th Street
between CO119/Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue to provide five additional bus
gates that would accommodate existing and future transit services stopping and laying
over at the Downtown Boulder Station. This will include on-street bus stop and layover
space, wider sidewalks, information kiosks, signage, wayfinding, urban design and
landscaping treatments. Enhancements will also include shelters, benches, and
accessibility improvements to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) design
guidelines.
Compared to the No Build Option, the Build Option best meets the needs for capacity
expansion as well as public preferences shared via an online questionnaire and during
public meetings. This option also meets the policy objectives in the BVCP and meets the
goal of the TMP.
As the project moves into the next phase of implementation, the preferred design option
will be used for the basis of preliminary and final design. Where the preferred design
option is not feasible due to budget and other considerations, refinements may be
necessary. Design refinements will be minimized to the extent possible to achieve the
preferred design option.
The construction period is estimated to be six months.
5.Permits, Wetlands Protection and Habitat Encroachment
Construction of the project components may require the following permits:
•Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Stormwater
Discharge Permit (Construction Activity General Permit and Stormwater
Management Plan)
•City of Boulder Floodplain Development Permit
•Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Construction
Dewatering Permit
•City of Boulder construction dewatering discharge agreement.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 14
Packet Page 157 of 305
10
6. Public Input to Date
The engagement plan for this project is founded
on a “consult” level of engagement per the city’s
public engagement framework. This means that
project staff is working directly with the public
throughout the project to ensure their concerns and
aspirations are consistently understood, considered
and reflected in design development as well as to
share feedback on how public input influences
design decisions.
Information on the project is available on the
project webpage and has been presented during two virtual public meetings in fall 2021
and spring 2022. Meeting notifications were distributed to over 500 residents, property
owners, businesses and other interested parties through a direct mailing. The City of
Boulder also distributed this information in both English and Spanish through city email
groups and social media. An online questionnaire, as well as one-on-one meetings with
adjacent property owners and stakeholders, were also used to capture community
feedback.
Staff engaged with underrepresented groups throughout the community engagement
process. The project was presented to the City’s Community Connectors in Residence
stakeholder group on May 6, 2022, followed by a site visit with members of the Center
for People with Disabilities on May 19, 2022. Staff, with Community Connectors
support, also conducted pop up events at the Downtown Boulder Station to speak with
community members in both English and Spanish, connecting with over 175 transit
riders.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 15
Packet Page 158 of 305
11
The following is a summary of community and agency (RTD) feedback received and
how project staff has incorporated this input into the final concept plan and will continue
to incorporate community and stakeholder input in the next phase of preliminary
engineering:
• Reduce conflicts between buses and vehicles at the intersections of 14th Street
and Canyon Boulevard and 14th Street and Arapahoe Avenue.
o Eastbound and westbound dedicated left turn lanes on Arapahoe Avenue
will be eliminated and restriped to accommodate bus turning movements
to and from Arapahoe and 14th. Left turns will still be permitted, but from
the general purpose through lane.
• Ensure safety of Boulder High School students in the area, given additional bus
traffic.
o Concept design refinements integrated Vision Zero principles for all
modes of travel, with a particular emphasis on pedestrians and safe
crossing movements of 14th Street with a mid-block pedestrian crossing
and Canyon Boulevard.
• Consider amenities along 14th Street, such as bicycle parking and lighting.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 16
Packet Page 159 of 305
12
o Preliminary engineering will consider additional bicycle parking as well as
lighting, as per the city’s standards.
• Extend the White Rock Ditch multi-use path across 14th Street.
o The city recently replaced the existing box culvert bridge over White Rock
Ditch, connecting 14th and 15th Streets with a new bridge that lays the
groundwork for an extension of the White Rock Ditch multi-use path
further east and west, as identified in the city’s Transportation Master
Plan. Currently, the city timeline to complete this gap in the path system is
unknown due to private property constraints.
• Make it easier and more comfortable to cross Canyon Boulevard, especially for
those with mobility challenges.
o The project will add an extended button press function at Canyon
Boulevard to allow people to request additional time for crossing the
street. Additionally, the traffic signal will be replaced in three years and at
that time further opportunities for improving crossing safety of Canyon
Boulevard will be explored.
7. Staff Project Manager
This project is being managed by the City of Boulder’s Transportation & Mobility
Department. Gerrit Slatter is the Project Manager and Nathan Pope and Jean Sanson
providing planning, public outreach and involvement and preparation of the CEAP
document.
8. Other Consultants or Relevant Contacts
AECOM, a current continuing-service provider consultant for the City of Boulder, is
composed of engineers, architects, planners, and scientists, is the prime civil engineering
consultant development the designs and plans for the project. RTD planning and
operations staff are involved with the design aspects of the project.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 17
Packet Page 160 of 305
13
Goals Assessment
1. Using the BVCP and department master plans, describe the primary city
goals and benefits that the project will help to achieve:
a. Community Sustainability Goals – How does the project improve the quality of
economic, environmental and social health with future generations in
mind?
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and Transportation Master
Plan (TMP) call for a multimodal transportation system with accessible and safe
travel options and connections. The proposed Downtown Boulder Station
Expansion project supports the master plans’ goals by improving the facilities for
all modal users, as included in the TMP.
The project helps the city achieve its economic goals by improving walking,
bicycling, driving and transit access to and from the downtown area.
This project helps the city achieve its environmental goals by providing safer and
more comfortable access and connections to the larger bicycle, pedestrian and
transit network. In addition to addressing current bus capacity needs, this project
is anticipated to decrease single-occupant vehicle use which would reduce and
minimize the use of non-renewable energy resources and greenhouse gas
emissions.
This project helps the city achieve its social sustainability goals by improving the
transportation options for all members of the community to use and improving
public safety in the Downtown Boulder Station area.
b. BVCP Goals related to:
Built Environment – The city’s goal is to evolve toward a compact,
interconnected urban form that helps ensure the community’s
environmental health, social equity and economic vitality. It also supports
cost-effective infrastructure and facility investments, a high level of
multimodal mobility and easy access to employment, recreation, shopping
and other amenities, as well as a strong image of Boulder as a distinct
community. The project improvements are in support of these goals for an
interconnected urban form providing multimodal mobility and easy access
to employment, shopping, and educational activities.
Urban Services - The proposed project helps to implement the goals and
objectives of the TMP by providing safer and more comfortable access for
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 18
Packet Page 161 of 305
14
people using transit, walking, and bicycling.
Natural Environment – This section of the BVCP recognizes that the
natural environment that characterizes the Boulder Valley is a critical
asset that must be preserved and protected and is the framework within
which growth and development take place. The project’s transit
enhancements can support the environmental health of the community by
facilitating alternative modes of transportation and shift single occupant
trips to transit, walking, and biking thereby reducing vehicle miles
traveled and associated greenhouse gases. This shift can also protect
water and air quality through reduction of mobile source emissions of
pollutants and can work to help achieve the city’s energy and climate
goals by providing safe and convenient modes of transportation to the
downtown area and throughout the city.
Economy – The policies in this section of the BVCP support the following
goals related to maintaining a sustainable and resilient economy:
-Strategic Redevelopment and Sustainable Employment
-Diverse Economic Base
-Quality of Life
-Sustainable and Resilient Business Practices
-Job Opportunities, Education and Training
This project supports a sustainable and resilient economy with funding
and construction of expanded infrastructure that ensures reliable travel
time, comfortable amenities, and improved connections for passengers.
Providing a multimodal transportation network that is designed to appeal
to residents, employees and visitors of a wider range of ages and abilities
is anticipated to promote reliable transportation connections to key
destinations and employers in the central Boulder business district,
including the civic area, Boulder High School, and the Pearl Street Mall.
Transportation – The BVCP and TMP support the maintenance and
development of a balanced transportation system that achieves Vision
Zero goals and supports all modes of travel, making the system more safe
and efficient in carrying travelers, while increasing non- single-occupant
vehicle trips. This project helps to provide a safer multimodal
transportation system with an investment in high quality transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure.
Housing- The new and improved transit passenger facilities will provide
safe and comfortable access for the over 37,000 residents living within
one mile of the station and for the approximately 43,000 households
throughout the city who will have access to the expanded station. The
project may increase the use of transit, walking, and bicycling, thereby
possibly decreasing household transportation costs.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 19
Packet Page 162 of 305
15
Community Well Being and Safety – The policies in this section of the
BVCP relate to Human Services; Social Equity; Safety and Community
Health; and Community Infrastructure and Facilities. The transit station
expansion will provide safer and more comfortable access for all users of
the local and regional transit system.
c. Describe any regional goals (potential benefits or impacts to regional systems
or plans?)
This project helps to fulfill the vision for a network of regional multimodal
corridors as set out in the City of Boulder TMP and the RTD Northwest
Area Mobility Study (NAMS). The City of Boulder aims to reduce the
single-occupancy (SOV) mode share to 40 percent of work trips for non-
residents and 80 percent of all trips for residents. Transit is expected to
account for 12 percent of the shift for non-resident trips and 10 percent of
the total shift from SOV for resident trips. The TMP also calls for a
Renewed Vision for Transit. The City envisions increases to both local
and regional transit service to include more routes serving a larger area,
as well as increased frequency of service for those routes. By providing
additional gate capacity and enhanced on-street bus stops, the local and
regional goals and priorities can be met.
2. Is this project referenced in a master plan, subcommunity or area plan? If
so, what is the context in terms of goals, objectives, larger system plans,
etc.? If not, why not?
This project is identified in the City of Boulder Transportation Master
Plan and it supports the goals of the TMP by contributing to a safe,
accessible and sustainable multimodal transportation system connecting
people with each other and where they want to go; and being safe,
equitable, reliable, providing travel choices, and supporting clean air and
the city’s climate commitment.
3. Will this project be in conflict with the goals or policies in any
departmental master plan and what are the trade-offs among city policies
and goals in the proposed project alternative? (e.g. higher financial
investment to gain better long-term services or fewer environmental
impacts)
This project will not be in conflict with the goals or policies or any other
departmental master plan.
4. List other city projects in the project area that are listed in a departmental
master plan or the CIP.
The Transportation Master Plan identifies the Downtown Boulder Station
expansion, and associated multimodal improvements. There are not any
other city projects identified in the CIP that are in the project area.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 20
Packet Page 163 of 305
16
5. What are the major city, state, and federal standards that will apply to the
proposed project? How will the project exceed city, state, or federal
standards and regulations (e.g. environmental, health, safety, or
transportation standards)?
The project will comply with all required city, state and federal permits
and meet or exceed the city and national standards (RTD and AASHTO)
for the development of the transit gate expansion.
6. Are there cumulative impacts to any resources from this and other projects
that need to be recognized and mitigated?
There are none identified at this time.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 21
Packet Page 164 of 305
17
Impact Assessment
Using the attached checklist, identify the potential short or long-term impacts of the project
alternatives.
Use +, - or 0 in the checklist table to indicate impacts, benefits and no changes for each
alternative.
+ indicates a positive effect or improved condition
- indicates a negative effect or impact
0 indicates no effect
Categories on the Checklist Table indicating positive or negative impacts (+ or –) should
answer the Checklist Questions following the table in full.
City Of Boulder
Community and Environmental Assessment Process
Checklist
+ Positive effect
- Negative effect
0 No effect
Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project No Build Option Build Option
A. Natural Areas or Features
1. DISTURBANCE TO SPECIES, COMMUNITIES, HABITAT, OR
ECOSYSTEMS DUE TO:
a. Construction activities 0 0
b. Native vegetation removal 0 0
c. Human or domestic animal encroachment 0 0
d. Chemicals (including petroleum products,
fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides)
0 0
e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due
to noise from use activities)
0 0
f. Habitat removal 0 0
g. Introduction of non-native plant species in the
site landscaping
0 0
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 22
Packet Page 165 of 305
18
Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project No Build Option Build Option
h. Changes to groundwater or surface runoff 0 0
i. Wind erosion 0 0
2. Loss of mature trees or significant plants? 0 0
B. Riparian Areas/Floodplains
1. Encroachment upon the 100-year, conveyance ore high
hazard flood zones?
0 -
2. Disturbance to or fragmentation of a riparian corridor? 0 0
C. Wetlands
1. Disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site? 0 0
D. Geology and Soils
1. a. Impacts to unique geologic or physical features? 0 0
b. Geologic development constraints? 0 0
c. Substantial changes in topography? 0 0
d. Changes in soil or fill material on the site? 0 0
e. Phasing of earth work? 0 0
E. Water Quality
1. Impacts to water quality from any of the following?
a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other
construction activities
0 -
b. Change in hardscape 0 -
c. Change in site ground features 0 -
d. Change in storm drainage 0 0
e. Change in vegetation 0 0
f. Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic 0 0
g. Pollutants 0 0
2. Exposure of groundwater contamination from excavation
or pumping?
0 0
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 23
Packet Page 166 of 305
19
Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project No Build Option Build Option
F. Air Quality
1. Short or long term impacts to air quality (CO2 emissions,
pollutants)?
a. From mobile sources? 0 +
b. From stationary sources? 0 0
G. Resource Conservation
1. Changes in water use? 0 0
2. Increases or decreases in energy use? 0 0
3. Generation of excess waste? 0 0
H. Cultural/Historic Resources
1. a. Impacts to a prehistoric or archaeological site? 0 0
b. Impacts to a building or structure over fifty years
of age?
0 0
c. Impacts to a historic feature of the site? 0 0
d. Impacts to significant agricultural land? 0 0
I. Visual Quality
1. a. Effects on scenic vistas or public views? 0 -
b. Effects on the aesthetics of a site open to public
view?
0 -
c. Effects on views to unique geologic or physical
features?
0 0
d. Changes in lighting? 0 0
J. Safety
1. Health hazards, odors, or radon? 0 0
2. Disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0
3. Site hazards? 0 0
K. Physiological Well-being
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 24
Packet Page 167 of 305
20
Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project No Build Option Build Option
1. Exposure to excessive noise?
0 -
2. Excessive light or glare? 0 0
3. Increase in vibrations? 0 0
L. Services
1. Additional need for:
a. Water or sanitary sewer services? 0 0
b. Storm sewer/Flood control features? 0 0
c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes? 0 0
d. Police services? 0 -
e. Fire protection services? 0 0
f. Recreation or parks facilities? 0 0
g. Library services? 0 0
h. Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation? 0 +
i. Parking? 0 -
j. Affordable housing? 0 0
k. Open space/urban open land? 0 0
l. Power or energy use? 0 0
m. Telecommunications? 0 0
n. Health care/social services? 0 0
o. Trash removal or recycling services? 0 -
M. Special Populations
1. Effects on:
a. Persons with disabilities? 0 +
b. Senior population? 0 +
c. Children or youth? 0 +
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 25
Packet Page 168 of 305
21
Downtown Boulder Station Expansion Project No Build Option Build Option
d. Restricted income persons? 0 +
e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and
other immigrants)?
0 +
f Neighborhoods 0 +
g. Sensitive populations located near the project (e.g.
schools, hospitals, nursing homes)?
0 +
N. Economy
1. Utilization of existing infrastructure? 0 0
2. Effect on operating expenses? 0 0
3. Effect on economic activity? 0 +
4. Impacts to businesses, employment, retail sales or city
revenue?
0 +
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 26
Packet Page 169 of 305
22
City of Boulder
Community and Environmental Assessment Process
CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Note: The following questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. Only those
questions indicated on the checklist are to be answered in full.
A. Natural Areas and Features
1. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of significant: species, plant
communities, wildlife habitats, or ecosystems via any of the activities listed
below. (Significant species include any species listed or proposed to be listed
as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state, county lists.)
a. Construction activities
b. Native Vegetation removal
c. Human or domestic animal encroachment
d. Chemicals to be stored or used on the site (including petroleum products,
fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides)
e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use
activities)
f. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site landscaping
g. Changes to groundwater (including installation of sump pumps) or surface
runoff (storm drainage, natural stream) on the site
h. Potential for discharge of sediment to any body of water either short term
(construction-related) or long term
There will be potential for construction related sediment discharge. Short
term discharge will be treated by installing Best Management Practices
(BMPs) according to the Colorado Stormwater Discharge Permit.
i. Potential for wind erosion and transport of dust and sediment from the site
2. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of mature trees or significant
plants.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the
following information that is relevant to the project:
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate identified impacts.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 27
Packet Page 170 of 305
23
• A habitat assessment of the site, including: 1. a list of plant and animal
species and plant communities of special concern found on the site; 2. a
wildlife habitat evaluation of the site.
• Maps of the site showing the location of any Boulder Valley Natural
Ecosystem, Boulder County Environmental Conservation Area, or critical
wildlife habitat.
For all options, project staff will consult with an arborist to assess the
condition of existing trees in the preliminary design phase of the project.
Where feasible, the project will avoid impacts to mature and healthy trees;
and where not practical, the project will replace trees at a minimum ratio of
1:1.
B. Riparian Areas and Floodplains
1. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon the 100-year,
conveyance or high hazard flood zones.
A City of Boulder Floodplain Development Permit will be obtained for any
of the options prior to construction and the result will not create a negative
effect on the existing Boulder Creek floodplain. The project will encroach on
the 100-year floodplain conveyance and high hazard flood zone and is being
designed to create a no-rise condition in the floodplain.
2. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or
fragment a riparian corridor: (This includes impacts to the existing channel of
flow, streambanks, adjacent riparian zone extending 50 ft. out from each bank,
and any existing drainage from the site to a creek or stream.)
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the
following information that is relevant to the project:
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate identified impacts to habitat, vegetation, aquatic life, or water
quality.
• A map showing the location of any streams, ditches and other water
bodies on or near the project site.
• A map showing the location of the 100-year flood, conveyance, and high
hazard flood zones relative to the project site.
C. Wetlands
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 28
Packet Page 171 of 305
24
1. Describe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site that may result from
the project.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the
following information that is relevant to the project:
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate identified impacts.
• A map showing the location of any wetlands on or near the site. Identify
both those wetlands and buffer areas which are jurisdictional under city
code (on the wetlands map in our ordinance) and other wetlands pursuant
to federal criteria (definitional).
D. Geology and Soils
1. Describe any:
a. impacts to unique geologic or physical features;
b. geologic development constraints or effects to earth conditions or
landslide, erosion, or subsidence;
c. substantial changes in topography; or
d. changes in soil or fill material on the site that may result from the project.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate identified impacts.
• A map showing the location of any unique geologic or physical features,
or hazardous soil or geologic conditions on the site.
E. Water Quality
1. Describe any impacts to water quality that may result from any of the
following:
a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities that will be
involved with the project;
There will be potential impacts from the Build Option, but
these will be mitigated through the water quality Best Management
Practices (BMPs) outlined in the stormwater pollution prevention plan.
b. Changes in the amount of hardscape (paving, cement, brick, or buildings)
in the project area;
c. Permanent changes in site ground features such as paved areas or changes
in topography;
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 29
Packet Page 172 of 305
25
b. and c.: The Build Option will result in a very slight increase in the amount
of impervious surface due to the addition of sawtooth bus bays.
d. Changes in the storm drainage from the site after project completion;
e. Change in vegetation;
f. Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic;
g. Potential pollution sources during and after construction (may include
temporary or permanent use or storage of petroleum products, fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides).
2. Describe any pumping of groundwater that may be anticipated either during
construction or as a result of the project. If excavation or pumping is planned,
what is known about groundwater contamination in the surrounding area (1/4
mile in all directions from the project) and the direction of groundwater flow?
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following
that is relevant to the project:
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate impacts to water quality.
• Information from city water quality files and other sources (state oil
inspector or the CDPHE) on sites with soil and groundwater impacts
within 1/4 mile radius of project or site.
• If impacts to site are possible, either from past activities at site or from
adjacent sites, perform a Phase I Environmental Impact Assessment prior
to further design of the project.
• Groundwater levels from borings or temporary peizometers prior to
proposed dewatering or installation of drainage structures.
F. Air Quality
1. Describe potential short or long term impacts to air quality resulting from this
project. Distinguish between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/trips) and
stationary sources (APEN, HAPS).
For the Build Option, the emissions from construction equipment would have
a short term effect on air quality during construction. The effects of the
emissions would be negligible because of the small number of short term
emission sources.
The manufacture and use of resources for the construction can provide some
short-term impacts to air quality at the manufacture site or construction site.
The long term impacts to mobile source air quality for the Build Option is
expected to be a positive one with an increase in the use of transit, bicycling
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 30
Packet Page 173 of 305
26
and walking. This project supports and encourages the shift towards transit
use and reduces auto trips which leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas (GhG)
emissions.
G. Resource Conservation
1. Describe potential changes in water use that may result from the project.
a. Estimate the indoor, outdoor (irrigation) and total daily water use for the
facility.
b. Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site (Xeriscape
landscaping, efficient irrigation system).
2. Describe potential increases or decreases in energy use that may result from
the project.
a. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the project or how energy
conservation measures will be incorporated into the building design.
b. Describe plans for using renewable energy sources on the project or how
renewable energy sources will be incorporated into the building design?
c. Describe how the project will be built to LEED standards.
3. Describe the potential for excess waste generation resulting from the project.
If potential impacts to waste generation have been identified, please describe
plans for recycling and waste minimization (deconstruction, reuse, recycling,
green points).
H. Cultural/Historic Resources
1. Describe any impacts to:
a. a prehistoric or historic archaeological site;
b. a building or structure over fifty years of age;
c. a historic feature of the site such as an irrigation ditch; or
d. significant agricultural lands that may result from the project.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate identified impacts.
I. Visual Quality
1. Describe any effects on:
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 31
Packet Page 174 of 305
27
a. scenic vistas or views open to the public;
b. the aesthetics of a site open to public view; or
c. view corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features
that may result from the project.
For the Build Option, the project will be a benefit to the aesthetics of the 14th
Street streetscape. However, due to the addition of buses in the area, both
parked and traveling along 14th Street, the visual quality and scenic vistas or
views may be degraded as compared to the No Build option in which mainly
cars, which are lower profile, travel and park along 14th Street.
J. Safety
1. Describe any additional health hazards, odors, or exposure of people to radon
that may result from the project.
2. Describe measures for the disposal of hazardous materials.
3. Describe any additional hazards that may result from the project. (Including
risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate
identified impacts during or after site construction through management of
hazardous materials or application of safety precautions.
K. Physiological Well-being
1. Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise, light or glare
caused by any phase of the project (construction or operations).
In the Build Option, buses may generate noise passing through the project
area and, in very cold or very hot weather, bus operators are permitted to idle
up to three minutes to heat or cool the interior of the vehicle for passengers
prior to trip departures. During peak hours, RTD street supervisory staff will
be present to oversee that bus operators are not creating excessive noise or
odor impacts by exceeding idling restrictions, and will conduct spot-checks
during off-peak hours.
2. Describe any increase in vibrations or odor that may result from the project.
See response to K.1 above.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 32
Packet Page 175 of 305
28
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate
identified impacts.
During peak hours, RTD street supervisory staff will be present to oversee
that bus operators are not creating excessive noise or odor impacts by
exceeding idling restrictions, and will conduct spot-checks during off-peak
hours
L. Services
1. Describe any increased need for the following services as a result of the
project:
a. Water or sanitary sewer services
b. Storm sewer / Flood control features
c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes
d. Police services
e. Fire protection
f. Recreation or parks facilities
g. Libraries
h. Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation
i. Parking
j. Affordable housing
k. Open space/urban open land
l. Power or energy use
m. Telecommunications
n. Health care/social services
o. Trash removal or recycling services
d. RTD security personnel currently routinely patrol the existing Downtown
Boulder Station gates and would expand the patrol area to cover the additional
bus gates. RTD is also evaluating adding additional security personnel and
will work in partnership with city police services to determine these needs.
The project will also ensure fiber and power connections are in place for RTD
to install several CCTV cameras at the new bus gates.
h. Transportation improvements associated with the project include changes
to lane striping and traffic signal operations, all of which will maintain
and/or improve travel conditions for all modes, as follows:
- RTD required that busses be able to make right turn from southbound 14th
St to westbound Arapahoe without encroaching into the adjacent
eastbound left turn lane; city will make striping revisions at this
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 33
Packet Page 176 of 305
29
intersection so that the existing eastbound Arapahoe to northbound 14th St
left turn lane would be painted out so that only turning busses can use the
space. Left turns will still be permitted from the eastbound general
purpose lane.
- RTD also required that busses be able to make a two-stage left turn lane
from southbound 14th Street to Eastbound Arapahoe during peak
congestion periods when there are not sufficient gaps to allow busses to
safely make this turn. This adjustment will allow for bus travel time
reliability. Left turns from westbound Arapahoe to the Boulder High
School parking lot will still be permitted, but not from the westbound left
turn lane, rather from the westbound general purpose lane.
- Adjustments will be made to the existing traffic signal at Canyon and 14th
to allow for extended crossing time for pedestrians to ensure that the
crossing is safer for users of all ages and abilities.
- Future traffic signal improvements will be implemented at Canyon and
14th to allow for improved bus and pedestrian operations at this
intersection.
o. The Build Option will create a public space where more people are likely to
gather and trash removal services are needed. RTD security personnel will be
responsible for trash removal.
3. Describe any impacts to any of the above existing or planned city services or
department master plans as a result of this project. (e.g. budget, available
parking, planned use of the site, public access, automobile/pedestrian
conflicts, views)
The project will reduce parking revenue for the City’s general fund from loss
of on-street parking.
M. Special Populations
1. Describe any effects the project may have on the following special
populations:
a. Persons with disabilities
b. Senior population
c. Children or Youth
d. Restricted income persons
e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other immigrants)
f. Sensitive Populations located near the project (e.g. adjacent neighborhoods
or property owners, schools, hospitals, nursing homes)
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 34
Packet Page 177 of 305
30
• A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate identified impact.
• A description of how the proposed project would benefit special
populations.
For the Build Option, the project would benefit special populations by providing
more safe, comfortable, and accessible transit facilities with enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle connections. In the DRCOG TIP application it was estimated that the
project is located within 1 mile of the following vulnerable populations:
Vulnerable Populations Population within 1 mile
Persons over age 65 3,047
Minority persons 7,344
Low-Income households 4,356
Linguistically-challenged persons 650
Individuals with disabilities 3,117
Households without a motor vehicle 1,578
Children ages 6-17 2,535
Health service facilities served by project: 16
N. Economic Vitality
1. Describe how the project will enhance economic activity in the city or region
or generate economic opportunities?
2. Describe any potential impacts to:
a. businesses in the vicinity of the project (ROW, access or parking),
b. employment,
c. retail sales or city revenue and how they might be mitigated.
The Build Option will realign driveway access to properties located at 1420 and
1750 14th Street, thereby creating safer driveway access into these businesses. It
will also remove 19 public parking spaces from 14th Street.
The Build Option will increase access and connections for a number of travel
modes to benefit local businesses through improved transportation for customers,
services and employees.
Attachment A – Downtown Boulder Station Expansion CEAP
Item 4A - CEAP for the Downtown Boulder Station
Improvements Project
Page 35
Packet Page 178 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Use Review application for a 3,716 square foot restaurant (Raising Cane’s) at 3033 28th
Street with a double drive-thru and 615 square foot outdoor patio and a 23% parking
reduction that has been requested pursuant to administrative review #A D R2022-00062. T he
project site is zoned Business-C ommunity 1 (BC -1). Case No. LUR2020-00061. T he
application was denied by Planning Board on J une 23, 2022.
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Shabnam Bista, City Senior Planner
B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M
T he application was called up by Planning Board on 5/26/2022. T he public hearing was
scheduled for 6/16/2022. T he board moved to continue the matter to 6/23/2022 with staff
preparing the denial findings which were adopted on 6/23/2022.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Rev iew
Packet Page 179 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE Call-Up Consideration Item: Consideration of a Use Review
application for a 3,716 square foot restaurant (Raising Cane’s) with a double drive-thru
and 615 square foot outdoor patio and a 23% parking reduction that has been requested
pursuant to administrative review #ADR2022-00062. The project site is zoned Business-
Community 1 (BC-1). Case No. LUR2020-00061.
Applicant: Raising Cane’s
Owner: TEBO STEPHEN D
PRESENTER/S
Planning & Development Services
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director
Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager
Shabnam Bista, City Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the above-
referenced application for review and comment at a public hearing.
On June 16, 2022, the Planning Board held a virtual public hearing meeting and reviewed and
commented on the proposal. After discussing the applications and whether the applicant had
demonstrated that the applications meet the applicable review criteria, the Planning Board voted
to continue the consideration of the item and directed staff to return with draft finding of denial
for the board’s consideration on June 23, 2022. The denial findings were adopted at the June 23rd
meeting.
The 30-day call up period concludes on July 25, 2022. City Council is scheduled to consider this
application for call-up at its July 21, 2022 meeting.
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 1
Packet Page 180 of 305
The staff memorandum to Planning Board, recorded video, and the applicant’s submittal materials
along with other related background materials are available in the city archives for Planning
Board. The recorded video from the hearing can be found here. The applicant’s submittal package
is provided in Attachment B. The draft minutes for the meeting are provided in Attachment D.
REVIEW PROCESS
Per Table 6-1, “Use Table,” B.R.C. 1981 drive-thru uses require Use Review to operate in the
BC-1 zoning district. The proposed drive-thru must meet the use review criteria set forth in
Subsection 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981.The use is also subject to the use standards in Section 9-6-
10(c), “Drive Thru Uses”, B.R.C. 1981. The purpose of use review is to determine the proposed
use is appropriate in the proposed location. Per Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981, applications for Use
Review are subject to call up by the Planning Board. No modifications from the development
code have been requested through the use review process. A 23 percent parking reduction was
requested in compliance with Section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981. While, parking reductions for
commercial developments up to 25 percent can usually be considered as part of an
Administrative Review application, pursuant to Section 9-9-6(f)(6), if a proposed use requires
both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, “Use Review,” B.R.C. 1981, and a public hearing, the
city manager will make a recommendation to the approving agency to approve, modify, and
approve, or deny the parking reduction as part of the use review approval. This section and call-
up of the use review render the approval agency of the use review also the approval agency for
the associated parking reduction application. The proposal does not trigger or require Site
Review. Refer to Attachment A for the Planning Board Disposition.
The proposed application was transmitted to the Planning Board for call up consideration on
May 19, 2022. The Planning Board subsequently called up the application for a public hearing
on May 26, 2022 pursuant to Section 9-4-4(b), B.R.C. 1981. The public hearing was held on
June 16, 2022 and a subsequent meeting was held on June 23, 2022 for Planning Board to review
and adopt the denial findings.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic: None identified.
• Environmental: None identified.
• Social: None identified.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal: no fiscal impacts are anticipated
• Staff time: the application was completed under standard staff review time.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
At the virtual public hearing on June 16, 2022, the Planning Board heard presentations by staff
and the applicant, and asked questions following each presentation. During the public hearing, a
few members of the public expressed concerns about the vehicular and pedestrian conflict,
operating characteristics and parking.
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 2
Packet Page 181 of 305
At the public hearing, the Planning Board discussed three key issues identified by staff. The board’s
discussion on each issue is described in detail in the draft minutes of the Planning Board meeting
(Attachment D).
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property
owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property. Comments
received prior to Planning Board are included in the staff memo to Planning Board and as a
separate attachment in the city archives for Planning Board. As described above, a few members
of the public addressed the board regarding the proposal at the public hearing. Community
Cycles raised concerns about pedestrian and vehicular conflict. There were also concerns voiced
regarding the operating hours of the restaurant given the proximity to a residential district.
BACKGROUND
Existing Site and Surrounding Context
The 0.94 – acre project site is located north of Valmont Road and west of 28th Street. The
adjacent property to the west is the Rayback Collective, with an outdoor patio and mobile food
truck service. Properties to the east, across 28th Street consist of restaurants, coffee shop and a
fuel sales use. To the south of the project side, across Valmont Rd. consists of another fuel sales
use and a commercial shopping center. Refer to Figure 1.
Higher density residential occurs within walking distance of the property, and there are existing
and proposed pedestrian bicycle improvements along both Valmont Road and 28th Street.
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 3
Packet Page 182 of 305
Figure 1.Subject Property, 3033 28th Street, and Surrounding Context
The existing building to the south of the parcel is currently a restaurant, Ali Babas and the
building on the north side of the parcel was a drive-thru liquor store which is no longer active.
The building on the north side of the parcel was approved as part of a Drive-up Review (#DU-
85-3) for a Taco Bell. There was a subsequent Minor Modification in 1999 (#ADR1999-00010)
approved for the change of use on the site from a drive-thru restaurant to a drive-thru liquor
store. Refer to Figure 2 for existing conditions.
Eden East
Condos
Subject
Property
Commercial
strip
Gas station
Gas station
Walgreens –
drive thru
Rayback
Collective
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 4
Packet Page 183 of 305
Figure 2. Existing structures on project site
Zoning Description
The site is zoned Business – Community 1 (BC-1), which is defined as “Business areas
containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores
predominate” in section 9-5-2(c)(2)(G), B.R.C. 1981. The zone districts immediately
surrounding the subject property to the south, west and east (across 28th Street) are also BC-1.
The BC-2 zone district is located across Valmont and has the same definition within the land use
code, but varies only in intensity for residential projects within the zones. Adjacent zoning to the
west and to the southwest is Residential – High 4 (RH-4). Refer to Figure 3 for a Zoning Map.
Figure 3. Zoning of Site
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 5
Packet Page 184 of 305
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation
As shown in the map below, the subject property is designated Mixed Use Business (MUB) in
the BVCP, which is defined as follows: “MUB development may be appropriate and will be
encouraged in some business areas. (Generally, the use applies to areas around 29th Street as
well as North Boulder Village Center, the commercial areas near Williams Village and other
parcels around Pearl, 28th and 30th Streets.) Specific zoning and other standards and
regulations will be adopted which define the desired form, intensity, mix, location and design
characteristics of these uses.” Refer to Figure 4 below for a BVCP land use map.
Figure 4. BVCP Land Use Designation
Subject
Property
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 6
Packet Page 185 of 305
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is to redevelop the property into a new Raising Cane’s double drive-thru
fast-food restaurant. The applicant is proposing a new 3,716-square foot restaurant and a 615
square foot covered patio, with two drive-thru lanes. Refer to Figure 5 . The existing two
structures on site will be demolished. The drive-thru facility is proposed on the eastern side of
the property, along the 28th Street frontage. A screening wall varying in height, new street trees,
shrubs, and groundcover are proposed along 28th Street to screen the vehicles in the drive-thru
area. The screen wall runs along the length of the property 28th Street boundary. Refer to Figure
6. The proposed drive-thru use is proposed to operate from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. from Sunday
to Thursday, and 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 a.m. Friday to Saturday. The patio is proposed on the rear of
the building next to the parking lot.
Figure 5. Site Plan
The proposed site design includes 12 bicycle parking spaces (10 short-term and two long-term
secure spaces) and 26 vehicle parking spaces. The site currently has five curb cuts providing
vehicular access to the property. The project proposes closing three of the curb cuts to provide
two access points. The drive-thru use can be accessed from 28th Street and through a private
alley from Valmont Road. Both access points are limited to right-in/right-out traffic. The 28th
Street access point is proposed to be designed to accommodate the multi-use path. A detached
multi-use path, 10 feet in width is proposed along 28th Street to accommodate the city’s 28th
Street Improvements Project. The applicant’s submittal package is provided in Attachment B.
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 7
Packet Page 186 of 305
Figure 6. Perspective on 28th St.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Board found that the Applicant has failed to establish that the proposal meets the
use review standards of section 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981, the drive-thru standards of Section 9-6-
10(c), B.R.C. 1981 and the parking reduction criteria of Section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981. Refer to
Attachment C for the Denial Findings.
Please refer to staff’s June 16, 2022 staff memorandum and June 23, 2022 denial findings to
Planning Board.
MATRIX OF OPTIONS
The City Council may call up a Use Review application within thirty days of the Planning
Board’s review. Any application that it calls up, the City Council will review at a public meeting
within sixty days of the call-up vote, or within such other time as the city manager or council and
the applicant mutually agree. The City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-
up at its July 21, 2022 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning Board Notice of Disposition
B. Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
C. Denial Findings
D. Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022 and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board
Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 8
Packet Page 187 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION
You are hereby advised that on June 23, 2022 the following action was taken by the Planning Board based on the
standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Title 9, B.R.C.1981, as applied to the proposed
development.
DECISION:
PROJECT NAME:
DENIED
RAISING CANE’S
CHI CKEN FINGERS
DESCRIPTION: Use review for a single story 3,716 square foot Raising Cane’s
Chicken Fingers restaurant with covered 615 square foot patio and double drive
thru. A 23% parking reduction was requested p ursuant to ADR2022-00062.
LOCATION: 3033 28TH STREET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit A
APPLICANT: DANICA POWELL, TRESTLE STRATEGY GROUP
MAURISSA MUHA, PM DESIGN GROUP
LUARON FOSTER, RAISING CANE'S CHICKEN FINGERS
OWNER: STEPHEN D. TEBO d/b/a TEBO PROPERTIES
APPLICATION: Use Review, LUR2020-00061
Parking Reduction, ADR2022-00062
ZONING: Business - Community 1 (BC-1)
CASE MANAGER: Shabnam Bista
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: No; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right under Section 9-
2-20, B.R.C. 19 81.
This decision may be called up by the City Council on or before July 25, 2022. The 30-day call-up period ends on
Saturday July 23, 2022, therefore, the call-up period expires on the following weekday, Monday July 25, 2022. If
no call-up occurs, the decision is deemed final on July 26, 2022.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on the applications on June 16, 2022, and on June 23, 2022, the Planning Board denied
the applications, 4-0 (J.Boone, S. Silver, L.Smith absent) with the following motion by ml. Robles_, seconded by M.McIntyre :
Motion to deny Use Review application #LUR2020-00061 and Parking Reduction application ADR2022-00062, finding
that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the applications meet the review criteria and adopting the denial findings
of fact prepared for the Planning Boar d’s June 23 consideration of these applications as revised by the Board during the
June 23, 2022 meeting.
DENIAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Introduction
In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981, the City of Boulder Planning Board (the “Planning Board”), on
June 16, 2022, held a public hearing after giving notice as required by law on the application for a drive-thru Use Review Case
No.2020-00061 and associated parking reduction Administrative Review #ADR2022-00062 (the “Project”).
Raising Cane’s, as the proponent (the “Applicant”) of the application for a drive-thru Use Review and associated parking reduction, is
seeking approval to redevelop the property at 3033 28th St. for a Raising Cane’s drive-thru restaurant with approximately 3,716 square
feet of floor area and 615 square feet of a covered patio. The proposal includes a two-lane drive-thru with two vehicle access points,
26 parking spaces including two accessible parking space and 12 bicycle spaces (10 short-term and two long-term secure spaces).
The existing two structures on site totaling 4,421 square feet are proposed to be demolished. The site is located within the Business-
Community 1 (BC-1) zone district. Pursuant to the “Use Standards” in section 9-6-1, B.R.C 1981, a Use Review is required for a drive-
thru in the BC-1 zoning district. The Applicant filed a separate application for a 23% parking reduction. When a proposed use requires
both a use review and a public hearing, which is the case here after the Use Review was called up by the Planning Board, the
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 9
Packet Page 188 of 305
approving agency also becomes the decision-making authority on the requested parking reduction as part of the use review.
The Applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the applications meet all applicable requirements of the Boulder Revised
Code, Subsection 1-3-5(h), B.R.C. 1981.
Criteria
The applicable review criteria for the applications are:
Use Review : Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981, and the Conditional Use criteria for a Drive -thru in Section 9-6-
10(c), B.R.C. 1981.
Parking Reduction: Section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981.
Summary of Findings
Based on a consideration of the entire evidentiary record, the Planning Board makes the following findings of fact. The Applicant failed
to demonstrate, based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the applications meet the following criteria:
Use Review:
1. Rationale: Section 9-2-15(e)(2), B.R.C. 1981. The use either:
(A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood;
(B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses;
(C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including,
without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and nonresidential mixed uses in
appropriate locations and group living arrangements for special populations; or
(D) Is an existing legal nonconforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section.
2. Circulation: Section 9-6-10(c)(4), B.R.C. 1981. Internal circulation and access to and egress from the site do not substantially
impair the movement of other modes of transportation, such as bicycles and pedestrians, to and through the site.
3. Curb Cuts Serving the Use: Section 9-6-10(c)(8), B.R.C. 1981. Any curb cuts serving the use are not located within two
hundred feet of any intersection of the rights-of-way of any two of the major streets or major arterials shown on the map of
major streets.
4. Operating Characteristics: Section 9-6-10(c)(9), B.R.C. 1981. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the
proposed facility are such that the drive-thru operation will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact
on the use of nearby properties.
Parking Reduction:
1. Parking Reduction Criteria Section 9 -9-6(f)(3), B.R.C. 1981.
(A) The parking needs of the use will be adequately served through on-street parking or off-street parking;
(B) A mix of residential uses with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be
accommodated through shared parking;
(C) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking
needs; or
(D) The applicant provides an acceptable proposal for an alternate modes of transportation program, including a
description of existing and proposed facilities, proximity to existing transit lines, and assurances that the use of
alternate modes of transportation will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
In evaluating the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence, the Planning Board considered the entire record, which included
materials and testimony provided by the Applicant, Planning staff, and the Public, and weighed a number of specific factors, the
collective and corroborative weights of which were considered as follows:
Use Review: The Applicant must demonstrate the proposed use meets the use review criteria and all applicable conditional use
standards:
1. Rationale: Section 9-2-15(e)(2), B.R.C. 1981. The Applicant failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence,
that the redevelopment of the site would provide direct service or convenience to the surrounding neighborhood or
uses or that it would reduce adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or uses.
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 10
Packet Page 189 of 305
The site is located in an auto -oriented commercial area and adjacent to major vehicular thoroughfares. The drive -
thru use caters to patrons driving to the site and coming from driving distances rather than the immediate residential
neighborhood. In addition, rather than reducing adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and uses, public
testimony showed that the double drive-thru use and its operating hours would create additional pollution and noise
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and uses, in particular the residential use to the west of the site. The
proposed operating hours exceed those of other restaurants in the area resulting in noise at additional hours from
customers visiting the use and employees arriving and leaving.
The Applicant stated in its written statement that the other alternative rationales in Section 9-2-15(e)(2)(B) through
(D), B.R.C. 1981, do not apply and has not demonstrated that any alternative rationales are met. In particular, the
board finds that (B) the use does not provide a compatible transition between higher and intensity and lower
intensity uses being a higher intensity use; (C) the Applicant has not demonstrated that the use is necessary to
foster a specific city policy express in the BVCP; and (D) the use is not an existing legal nonconforming use.
2. Circulation: Section 9-6-10(c)(4),, B.R.C. 1981. The Applicant failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the Project ’s internal circulation and access to and egress from the site does not substantially impair the movement of
other modes of transportation, such as bicycles and pedestrians, to and through the site.
The application proposes multiple raised crosswalks within the site to direct pedestrians; however, the Applicant
failed to demonstrate that the design would not substantially impair the movement of bicycles and pedestrians. In
particular, pedestrian traffic approaching on 28th Street from the south is proposed to cross motor vehicle traffic to
and through the site twice before entering the building. There is also a risk that motor vehicles approaching from the
south on 28th Street will quickly make a U- turn and then right turn into the site upon spotting the restaurant, putting
pedestrians and bikes traveling north on the multi-use path along 28th Street in danger. Finally, the screening wall
along 28th Street will impact the ability of motor vehicle drivers exiting the drive-thru use to notice pedestria n and
bicycles approaching on the multi-use path on 28th Street from the south, putting them in danger.
3. Curb Cuts Serving the Use: Section 9-6-10(c)(8), B.R.C. 1981. The Applicant failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that any curb cuts serving the use are not located within two hundred feet of any intersection of the rights-of-
way of any two of the major streets or major arterials shown on the map of major streets.
Both 28th Street and Valmont Road are considered a major street per the map in Appendix A to Title 9, “Land Use Code,”
B.R.C. 1981. The curb cut proposed on Valmont Road directly accesses the Project property and would serve the use by
providing vehicle and pedestrian access to the use. The Applicant’s development plan shows that this curb cut is located
less than two hundred feet from the intersection of Valmont Road and 28th Street. The intersection is the area embraced
within the prolongation of the lateral curb lines of Valmont Road and 28th Street that join one another.
4. Operating Characteristics: Section 9-6-10(c)(9), B.R.C. 1981. B.R.C. 1981. The Applicant failed to demonstrate, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed operating characteristics of the proposed facility are such that
the proposed drive-thru operation will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impacts on the use
of nearby properties .
The Applicant proposed the operating hours as 9:30 a.m.-1:30 a.m. Sunday-Thursday and 9:30 a.m. -3:30 a.m.
Friday-Sat urday. To the west of the property is Rayback Collective and to the north are drive-thrus for Dunkin
Donuts and Taco Bell. The closing hours for those uses range from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. The proposed hours for
Raising Cane’s are expanded compared to those of similar uses around the area and these operating hours of the
restaurant and drive-thru will add noises from traffic, idling cars, car music, car doors, and customers and
employees in the middle of the night with negative impacts on the use of nearby residential properties to the west.
Parking Reduction: The Applicant must demonstrate the proposed use meets all applicable parking reduction criteria:
1. Parking Reduction Criteria: Section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981.The Applicant failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that (A) the parking needs of the use will be adequately served through on-street parking or off-
street parking or (B) the Applicant’s proposal for an alternate modes of transportation program is acceptable.
The Applicant requested a 23 % parking reduction as part of the application, providing only 26 off-street parking
spaces on site. There is no on-street parking conveniently close to the use to accommodate any parking needs
generated by the use. The testimony demonstrated that the proposed number of parking spaces is based on the
number of indoor and outdoor seating. However, in addition to customers, 10-15 employees are expected to be on
site and the parking spaces do not adequately account for the parking needs of these 10-15 employees. Although
there are transit routes, a bike path along Valmont Rd., and the Elmer’s Tow Mile Path in proximity to the Project
site, the parking spaces do not account for parking needs of employees working later hours or peak hours. In
addition, the Applicant’s representative testified that the Applicant anticipates kids’ sports teams to meet in the
restaurant after games. This will likely involve parents and kids of entire teams driving to the restaurant and trying to
park there. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the parking needs of such a large number of customers plus
the employees will always and on an ongoing basis be adequately accommodated by the on-site parking. The
Planning Board also does not find that the alternate modes of transportation program is acceptable to justify the
requested parking reduction as the Applicant has not shown that it would reduce the need for on-site parking to an
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 11
Packet Page 190 of 305
extent that the proposed parking can adequately accommodate the parking needs of the Project.
As the Project does not propose any residential uses with office or retail or the joint use of common parking areas,
the compliance alternatives of Section 9-9-6(f)(3)(B) and (C) do not apply.
By:
Brad Mueller, Secretary of the Planning Board
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 12
Packet Page 191 of 305
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 13
Packet Page 192 of 305
EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land located in the southwest 1/4 Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th
P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of Valmont Road which is 187 feet West and 30 feet North of the Southeast corner
of said Southwest 1/4 Southwest 1/4;
Thence North, parallel with the East line of said Southwest 1/4 Southwest 1/4 a distance of 368.22 feet;
Thence East, parallel with the South line of said Southwest 1/4 Southwest 1/4 a distance of 150 feet more or less to a
point on the West line of 28th Street;
Thence South along the West line of 28th Street 252.22 feet;
Thence West, parallel with the South line of said Southwest 1/4 Southwest 1/4 a distance of 117.6 feet to a point 155 feet
West of the East line of said Southwest 1/4 Southeast 1/4;
Thence South, and parallel with the East line of said Southwest 1/4 Southwest 1/4 a distance of 116 feet to a point on the
North line of Valmont Road;
Thence West along the North line of Valmont Road 32 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning;
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Boulder, Colorado by the Quit Claim Deed and Deed of
Dedication recorded May 28, 1970 on Film 699 at Reception No. 944247, described as follows:
A parcel of land located in the southwest 1/4 Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th
P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range
70 West of the 6th P.M.
Thence Westerly along the centerline of Valmont Road, 187.0 feet;
Thence Northerly and parallel with the centerline of 28th Street, 30.0 feet, to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing Northerly and parallel with the centerline of 28th Street, 10.5 feet;
Thence Easterly and parallel with the centerline of Valmont Road, 32.0 feet;
Thence Southerly and parallel with the centerline of 28th Street, 10.5 feet, to the Northerly right-of-way of Valmont Road;
Thence Westerly and along the Northerly right-of-way of Valmont Road, 32.0 feet to the True Point of Beginning,
AND FURTHER EXCEPTING therefrom any portion of the above first described parcel of land that might lie within that
portion as conveyed to the Department of Highways, State of Colorado by the Special Warranty Deed recorded January
20, 1959 in Book 1099 at Page 265, described as follows:
A tract or parcel of land in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., in Boulder County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North property line from which point the Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 70 West, bears South 6°45'30" East, a distance of 333.0 feet;
1. Thence along the North property line, North 89°41'30" East, a distance of 23.8 feet to a point on the existing West
right of way of 28th Street;
2. Thence along the existing West right of way of 28th Street, South 00°12'30" East, a distance of 184.9 feet;
3. Thence along the South property line south 89°41'30" West, a distance of 23.1 feet;
4. Thence North 00°24' West, a distance of 184.9 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning,
AND FURTHER EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city, by
Special Warranty Deed recorded December 8, 2017 at Reception No. 03629859,
County of Boulder, State of Colorado.
Attachment A - Planning Board Notice of Disposition
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 14
Packet Page 193 of 305
STOPDO NOT ENTERDRIVETHRUDRIVETHRUVANVALMONT ROAD(R.O.W.VARIES)28TH STREET
(R.O.W.VARIES)
℄OF ISLAND Tele: 972-769-3100 Fax: 972-769-31016800 Bishop Road, Plano, TX 75024Date:
Project Number:
Sheet Number:
Drawn By:
Store:Restaurant Support Office096519023
04/25/2022
NAM
Sheet Title:
Revisions:
# Date Description
3033 28TH STREET
BOULDER, CO 80301
Architect Information:
PH. 303.223.7931
E-MAIL:
twoody@pmdginc.com
7200 South Alton Way
Suite B-270
Centennial, CO 80112
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION
k:\den_civil\096519023_raising canes_boulder (28th & valmont)\CADD\plansheets\Land Use Review\519023SP.dwgRAISING CANE'S #573
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3033 28TH STREET
COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO
R
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.NORTHLEGEND
SITE PLAN
1
SITE DATA
SITE NOTES
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 15
Packet Page 194 of 305
Tele: 972-769-3100 Fax: 972-769-3101
6800 Bishop Road, Plano, TX 75024Date:Project Number:Sheet Number:Drawn By:Store:Restaurant Support Office09651902304/25/2022NAMSheet Title:Revisions:# DateDescription3033 28TH STREETBOULDER, CO 80301Architect Information:PH. 303.223.7931E-MAIL:twoody@pmdginc.com7200 South Alton WaySuite B-270Centennial, CO 80112FOR REVIEW ONLYNOT FORKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.CONSTRUCTIONk:\den_civil\096519023_raising canes_boulder (28th & valmont)\CADD\plansheets\Land Use Review\519023GD.dwg
RAISING CANE'S #573DEVELOPMENT PLAN3033 28TH STREETCOUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADORKnow what's below. Call before you dig.NORTHLEGENDGRADING ANDUTILITY PLAN2MEFLHPSWLPFFETWGENERAL NOTESVANVALMONT ROAD(R.O.W.VARIES)28TH STREET(R.O.W.VARIES)Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written StatementsItem 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use ReviewPage 16Packet Page 195 of 305
STOPDO NOT ENTERDRIVETHRUDRIVETHRUVAN(4)PL2
(4)PL2
(9)PF2
(11)ER
(2)CS(2)CO(1)CS
(7)AA2
(9)ER
(5)ER
(4)QR
(3)AS
(1)OV
(19)JO
(2)PF2
(3)PL
(21)MR
(19)MR
(7)JO
(6)PL
(16)CS2
(4)QR
(39)JS2
(2)PL
(4)JO
(25)PF2
(57)ER
DECIDUOUS TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE
AS 3 ACER GRANDIDENTATUM `SCHMIDT`ROCKY MOUNTAIN GLOW MAPLE B & B 2" CAL MIN 12` HT MIN
CS 3 CATALPA SPECIOSA WESTERN CATALPA B & B 2" CAL MIN 14` HT MIN
CO 2 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY B & B 2" CAL MIN 14` HT MIN
OV 1 OSTRYA VIRGINIANA AMERICAN HOPHORNBEAM B & B 2" CAL MIN 14` HT MIN
QR 8 QUERCUS ROBUR `FASTIGIATA`PYRAMIDAL ENGLISH OAK B & B 2" CAL MIN 12` HT MIN
DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING SIZE
AA2 7 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA `REGENT`SASKATOON SERVICEBERRY 5 GAL SEE PLAN 24" FULL
CS2 16 CORNUS SERICEA `ARCTIC FIRE`ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOOD 5 GAL 36" OC 24" FULL
ER 82 EUONYMUS ALATUS `RUDY HAAG`RUDY HAAG BURNING BUSH 5 GAL SEE PLAN 18" FULL
PL 11 PEROVSKIA ATRIPLICIFOLIA `LITTLE SPIRE` TM LITTLE SPIRE RUSSIAN SAGE 5 GAL SEE PLAN 14" FULL
PL2 8 PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `LITTLE DEVIL` TM DWARF NINEBARK 5 GAL SEE PLAN 18" FULL
PF2 36 POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA BUSH CINQUEFOIL 5 GAL SEE PLAN 18" FULL
EVERGREEN SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING SIZE
JS2 39 JUNIPERUS X MEDIA 'SEA GREEN'SEA GREEN JUNIPER 7 GAL 36" HT MIN
JO 31 JUNIPERUS X MEDIA `OLD GOLD`OLD GOLD JUNIPER 5 GAL SEE PLAN 24" FULL
MR 40 MAHONIA REPENS CREEPING MAHONIA 5 GAL SEE PLAN 12" SPRD MIN.
GROUND COVERS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SIZE SPACING SPACING
KB 2,416 SF KEN-TEX BLUEGRASS KEN-TEX TEXAS HYRBID BLUEGRASS SOD
MC2 5,592 SF MULCH TRIPLE-SHREDDED HARDWOOD -
PLANT SCHEDULE
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL LOT AREA 40,112 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3,716 SF
TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA 26,595 SF
TOTAL AREA NOT COVERED BY A BUILDING OR PARKING LOT 13,517 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 7,332 SF
PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE 18%
REQUIRED PROVIDED
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS 33 26*
TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA IN SQ FT - 26,595 SF
TOTAL INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE AREA IN SQ FT 1,330 SF 1,345 SF
TOTAL INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE AREA AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA 5% 5%
TOTAL # OF TREES IN INTERIOR LOT LANDSCAPE AREA 1 / 200 SF 7 7
TOTAL PERIMETER PARKING LOT LANDSCAPED AREA - 2,227 SF
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREET TREES 1 / 40 LF 5 5
TOTAL QUANTITY OF PLANT MATERIAL (1 TREE & 5 SHRUBS/1,500 SF) 9 TREES / 45 SHRUBS 17 TREES / 270 SHRUBS
BIKE RACKS 5 5
*PARKING VARIANCE TO BE REQUESTED DURING PLANNING STAGE
NOTE: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED ON THE OVERALL LANDSCAPE APPROVED AS PART OF THE SITE REVIEW Tele: 972-769-3100 Fax: 972-769-31016800 Bishop Road, Plano, TX 75024Date:
Project Number:
Sheet Number:
Drawn By:
Store:Restaurant Support Office096519023
04/25/2022
NAM
Sheet Title:
Revisions:
# Date Description
3033 28TH STREET
BOULDER, CO 80301
Architect Information:
PH. 303.223.7931
E-MAIL:
twoody@pmdginc.com
7200 South Alton Way
Suite B-270
Centennial, CO 80112
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION
k:\den_civil\096519023_raising canes_boulder (28th & valmont)\CADD\plansheets\Land Use Review\519023_LA_SP.dwgRAISING CANE'S #573
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3033 28TH STREET
COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO
R
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
3NORTH LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
1. RAISING CANES SITE NEEDS TO BE 100 PERCENT READY FOR LANDSCAPE
INSTALLATION AND LANDRY'S LANDSCAPE WILL MAKE A SITE VISIT THE WEEK BEFORE
THE SCHEDULED INSTALL TO CONFIRM THAT THE SITE IS COMPLETED AND READY FOR
INSTALLATION.
2. LANDRY'S LANDSCAPE WILL PERFORM FINAL FINE GRADING OF THE SITE'S TOP 4 INCH
OF LANDSCAPE AREAS PRIOR TO SOD INSTALLATION. ALL OTHER SITE GRADING TO BE
DONE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
3. BEFORE INTITIAL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND FINAL FINE GRADING. ALL DEBRIS IS
TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITES LANDSCAPE AREAS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO) ALL CONCRETE DEBRIS, TRASH, AND WOOD FORMS.
4. FINAL SITE CLEANUP AND PRESSURE WASHING IS TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE
GENERAL CONTRACTOR. LANDRY'S LANDSCAPE WILL REMOVE ALL TRASH AND
MATERIAL RELATED TO THE LANDSCAPE INSTALL ALONG WITH PRESSURE WASHING
ANY DISTURBED AREAS DUE TO THE INSTALL AND BLOW THE SITE CLEAN UPON
COMPLETION. ANY ADDITIONAL PRESSURE WASHING SERVICE'S LANDRY'S CAN
PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE
5. CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE ANY DAMAGED EXISTING LANDSCAPE IN KIND.
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 17
Packet Page 196 of 305
Tele: 972-769-3100 Fax: 972-769-31016800 Bishop Road, Plano, TX 75024Date:
Project Number:
Sheet Number:
Drawn By:
Store:Restaurant Support Office096519023
04/25/2022
NAM
Sheet Title:
Revisions:
# Date Description
3033 28TH STREET
BOULDER, CO 80301
Architect Information:
PH. 303.223.7931
E-MAIL:
twoody@pmdginc.com
7200 South Alton Way
Suite B-270
Centennial, CO 80112
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION
k:\den_civil\096519023_raising canes_boulder (28th & valmont)\CADD\plansheets\Land Use Review\519023_LA_SP.dwgRAISING CANE'S #573
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3033 28TH STREET
COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO
R
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
LANDSCAPE
DETAILS
4
TREE PLANTING - STAKING
SECTION / PLAN
SECTION
NOTES:
A. FINAL TREE STAKING DETAILS AND PLACEMENT TO
BE APPROVED BY OWNER.
B. REMOVE BURLAP, WIRE AND STRAPS (ANYTHING
THAT COULD GIRDLE TREE OR RESTRICT ROOT
GROWTH) ON UPPER 1/3 OF ROOTBALL.
C. PRUNE ALL TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI
A-300.
D. INSTALL PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE PRIOR TO
PLANT INSTALLATION.
1
2
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
5
3X ROOTBALL WIDTH MIN.6"12" TYP.
TRUNK/ROOT BALL TO BE CENTERED AND
PLUMB/LEVEL IN PLANTING PIT.
1
6" DIA. CLEAR OF MULCH AT TRUNK FLARE.2
4" MINIMUM MULCH AS SPECIFIED. WHERE
TREES ARE PLACED IN SOD, MULCH RING
FOR TREES SHALL BE 6' DIAMETER (MIN.) OR
AS DIRECTED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
3
4" HIGH BERM, FIRMLY COMPACTED.4
8' x 2" TREATED LODGE POLE PINE TREE STAKES,
TWO (2) PER TREE; AVOID PENETRATING ROOT BALL.
14 GAUGE, ANNEALED STEEL GUY WIRE. STAPLE
ENDS TO INSIDE OF TREE STAKE. ADJUST TENSION
BY TURNING WIRE PAIRS FROM THE MIDDLE
5
FINISHED GRADE. (SEE GRADING PLAN)6
TOP OF ROOTBALL MIN. 1" ABOVE FINISHED
GRADE.
7
PREPARED PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED.8
TOP OF ROOTBALL SHALL BE 1" ABOVE
FINISHED GRADE. ROOTBALLS GREATER
THAN 24" DIAMETER SHALL BE PLACED ON
MOUND OF UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT
SETTLING. ROOTBALLS SMALLER THAN 24" IN
DIAMETER MAY SIT ON COMPACTED EARTH.
9
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL.10
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING
PIT.
11
NTS4
1 TREE PLANTING ON A SLOPE - STAKING
SECTION / PLAN NTS
PLAN
SECTION
MULCH/TOPSOIL BACKFILL
ROOTBALL AND TRUNK
TREE STABILIZATION AND
FERTILIZATION SYSTEM
NOTES:
A. FINAL TREE STAKING DETAILS AND PLACEMENT TO
BE APPROVED BY OWNER.
B. REMOVE BURLAP, WIRE AND STRAPS (ANYTHING
THAT COULD GIRDLE TREE OR RESTRICT ROOT
GROWTH) ON UPPER 1/3 OF ROOTBALL.
C. PRUNE ALL TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI
A-300.
2
4
6
12
1
7
3
8
9
10
5
11
2X ROOTBALL WIDTH MIN.6"TRUNK/ROOT BALL TO BE CENTERED AND
PLUMB/LEVEL IN PLANT OPENING.1
6" DIA. CLEAR OF MULCH AT TRUNK FLARE.2
4" HIGH BERM, FIRMLY COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL.3
3" MINIMUM OF MULCH AS SPECIFIED. WHERE
TREES ARE PLACED IN SOD, MULCH RING FOR
TREES SHALL BE 6' DIAMETER (MIN.) OR AS
DIRECTED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
4
5
6
TOP OF ROOTBALL MIN. 1" ABOVE FINISHED
GRADE.7
PREPARED PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED.8
ROOTBALLS GREATER THAN 24" DIAMETER
SHALL BE PLACED ON MOUND OF
UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLING.
ROOTBALLS SMALLER THAN 24" IN
DIAMETER MAY SIT ON COMPACTED EARTH.
9
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL.10
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANT OPENING.11
CUT BACK SLOPE TO PROVIDE A FLAT
SURFACE FOR PLANTING.
12
8' x 2" TREATED LODGE POLE PINE TREE STAKES OR 8'
STEEL T-POSTS, THREE (3) PER TREE; AVOID
PENETRATING ROOT BALL. 14 GAUGE, ANNEALED
STEEL GUY WIRE. STAPLE ENDS TO INSIDE OF TREE
STAKE. ADJUST TENSION BY TURNING WIRE PAIRS
FROM THE MIDDLE.
CUT BACK SLOPE TO PROVIDE A FLAT
SURFACE FOR PLANTING.
4
2
MAINTAIN 12" DEAD ZONE
AT BED EDGE.
REFER TO PLANT
SCHEDULE FOR SPACING.
BEST FACE OF SHRUB/
GROUNDCOVER TO FACE
FRONT OF PLANTING BED.
X X
NOTES:
A. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE PERCOLATION OF ALL PLANTING AREAS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
B. WHEN SHRUBS ARE PRUNED IN MASSES, PRUNE ALL SHRUBS TO ACHIEVE UNIFORM MASS / HEIGHT.
C. ALL SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PLUMB VERTICALLY, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY PROJECT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
D. PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO BE APPLIED PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION.4"TYP.2X ROOT BALL WIDTH
MINIMUM
1
3
4
10
'X'
5
8
9
6
7
6
7
8
2
SHRUB/GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
SECTION / PLAN NTS
PLAN
SECTION
TOP OF ROOTBALLS TO
BE PLANTED AT GRADE OR SLIGHTLY
ABOVE SURROUNDING SOIL. 2" DIA.
CLEAR OF MULCH AT TRUNK FLARE.
1
PRUNE ALL SHRUBS TO
ACHIEVE A UNIFORM
MASS/HEIGHT.
2
4" MULCH LAYER AS
SPECIFIED.
3
EXCAVATE ENTIRE BED
SPECIFIED FOR GROUNDCOVER
BED.
4
FOR CONDITIONS WITH FINISHED
GRADE OF 4:1 MAX SLOPE ON ALL
SIDES (SEE GRADING PLAN).
5
PREPARED PLANTING SOIL AS
SPECIFIED. (SEE LANDSCAPE
NOTES) NOTE: WHEN GROUND-
COVERS AND SHRUBS USED IN
MASSES, ENTIRE BED TO BE
AMENDED WITH PLANTING SOIL
MIX AS SPECIFIED.
6
SCARIFY PLANT OPENING
SIDES AND BOTTOM.
7
4" HIGH BERM FIRMLY
COMPACTED.
8
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL.9
FERTILIZER TABLETS (MAX 3"
DEEP)
10
4
3
NOTES:
A. EXCAVATE A CONTINUOUS 24" DEEP PIT (FROM TOP OF CURB) FOR ENTIRE LENGTH AND WIDTH OF
ISLAND & BACKFILL WITH APPROVED PLANTING MIX.
B. PROTECT AND RETAIN ALL CURBS AND BASE. COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO REMAIN FOR STRUCTURAL
SUPPORT OF CURB SYSTEM (TYP).
C. ALL ISLANDS SHALL UTILIZE POOR DRAINAGE DETAIL WHEN PERCOLATION RATES ARE 2" PER HOUR
OR LESS.
WIDTH VARIES - SEE PLANS
SEE NOTE
1
2
3
PLANTED PARKING LOT ISLANDS/MEDIANS
SECTION NTS
CROWN ISLANDS @ 5:1 SLOPES (OR AS SPECIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS).1
CLEAR ZONE: 36" MIN. FROM BACK OF CURB TO CENTER OF NEAREST SHRUB. CLEAR
ZONE SHALL CONTAIN 4" CONTINUOUS MULCH OR TURF, SEE PLANS.
2
2" MIN VERTICAL CLEARANCE, TOP OF CURB TO TOP OF MULCH.3
4
4
EXISTING
GRADE
(DASHED)
NOTES:
A. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE PERCOLATION OF ALL PLANT
OPENINGS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
B. WHEN SHRUBS ARE PRUNED IN MASSES, PRUNE ALL SHRUBS TO
ACHIEVE UNIFORM MASS / HEIGHT.
C. ALL SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PLUMB
VERTICALLY, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY OWNERS
REPRESENTATIVE.
D. PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO BE APPLIED PRIOR TO PLANT
INSTALLATION.
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
94" TYP.2X ROOT BALL
WIDTH MINIMUM
SHRUB/GROUNDCOVER PLANTING ON A SLOPE
SECTION NTS
TOP OF ROOTBALLS TO
BE PLANTED AT GRADE OR SLIGHTLY
ABOVE SURROUNDING SOIL. 2" DIA.
CLEAR OF MULCH AT TRUNK FLARE.
1
PRUNE SHRUBS AS DIRECTED BY
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
2
4" MINIMUM OF MULCH AS
SPECIFIED. WHERE SHRUBS ARE
PLACED IN MASSES, MULCH SHALL
BE SPREAD IN A CONTINUOUS BED.
3
SOIL BERM TO HOLD WATER. TOP
OF PLANTING PIT 'BERM' TO BE
LEVEL ACROSS PIT. SLOPE
DOWNHILL PORTION OF BERM AS
REQUIRED TO MEET EXISTING
GRADE. MULCH OVER EXPOSED
TOPSOIL.
4
FINISHED GRADE (SEE GRADING
PLAN)
5
PREPARED PLANTING SOIL AS
SPECIFIED. (SEE LANDSCAPE
NOTES).
6
SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF
PLANTING PIT.
7
FERTILIZER TABLETS (MAX 3"
DEEP).
8
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL9
4
5
2'-0"
MIN. CLR.
MIN. 1/2 MATURE
SHRUB WIDTH
1
2
PARKING SPACE/CURB PLANTING
SECTION NTS
INSTALL CONTINUOUS MULCH BED ADJACENT TO PARKING SPACES AS SHOWN.
MULCH SHALL BE MIN. 4" DEEP. NO POP-UP IRRIGATION HEADS SHALL BE
LOCATED WITHIN 24" OF A PARKING SPACE ON ANY SIDE.
1
CURB / PARKING LOT EDGE.2
4
6
NOTES:
1. CLEAR ZONE: 36" MIN. FROM BUILDING TO CENTER OF NEAREST SHRUB.
2. INSTALL SPECIFIED MULCH: 24" MIN. FROM BUILDING. SPECIFIED MULCH TO BE INSTALLED AT
A DEPTH OF 4" (MIN.)
PLANTINGS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS
SECTION NTS
24" MIN. CLEAR
MIN. 1/2
MATURE
SHRUB WIDTH
BUILDING
SPECIFIED
MULCH
4
7 2'-0"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"
2'-6"
MIN. 1
2 MATURE
SHRUB WIDTH
MIN. 5' CLEAR
MIN. 1
2 MATURE
SHRUB WIDTH
FIRE HYDRANT
1
2
3
SHRUB PLANTING AT FIRE HYDRANT
SECTION / PLAN NTS
PLAN
SECTION
FIRE HYDRANT.1
NO PLANT EXCEEDING 12"
MATURE HEIGHT
MATERIAL SHALL BE
PLACED WITHIN SHOWN
RADIUS OF ALL
PROPOSED OR EXISTING
FIRE HYDRANTS.
CONTRACTOR SHALL
ADJUST PLANT
MATERIAL SO THAT NO
CONFLICTS WITH FIRE
HYDRANTS OCCUR ON
SITE.
2
FRONT OF HYDRANT
(TOWARD CURB)
3
4
8
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 18
Packet Page 197 of 305
Tele: 972-769-3100 Fax: 972-769-31016800 Bishop Road, Plano, TX 75024Date:
Project Number:
Sheet Number:
Drawn By:
Store:Restaurant Support Office096519023
04/25/2022
NAM
Sheet Title:
Revisions:
# Date Description
3033 28TH STREET
BOULDER, CO 80301
Architect Information:
PH. 303.223.7931
E-MAIL:
twoody@pmdginc.com
7200 South Alton Way
Suite B-270
Centennial, CO 80112
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION
k:\den_civil\096519023_raising canes_boulder (28th & valmont)\CADD\plansheets\Land Use Review\519023_LA_SP.dwgRAISING CANE'S #573
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3033 28TH STREET
COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO
R
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
LANDSCAPE
NOTES
5
A. SCOPE OF WORK
1. THE WORK CONSISTS OF: FURNISHING ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, TRANSPORTATION, AND ANY OTHER
APPURTENANCES NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS SPECIFIED
HEREIN.
2. WORK SHALL INCLUDE MAINTENANCE AND WATERING OF ALL CONTRACT PLANTING AREAS UNTIL CERTIFICATION OF
ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER.
B. PROTECTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES
1. ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS, WALKS, WALLS, PAVING, PIPING, OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS, AND PLANTING ALREADY
COMPLETED OR ESTABLISHED AND DESIGNATED TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE BY THE CONTRACTOR
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING ALL NECESSARY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
DEVICES ACCORDING TO ALL REGULATORY AGENCY'S STANDARDS THROUGH THE DURATION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (MOT) THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE
PROJECT.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UTILITIES, WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, PRIOR TO
EXCAVATION. THE OWNER AND DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY AND
COMPLETENESS OF ANY SUCH INFORMATION OR DATA. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR;
REVIEWING AND CHECKING ALL SUCH INFORMATION AND DATA; LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES DURING
CONSTRUCTION; THE SAFETY AND PROTECTION THEREOF; REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE THERETO RESULTING FROM THE
WORK. THE COST OF ALL WILL BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT PRICE. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL NOTIFY ANY AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES OR AGENCIES IN WRITING AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING
CONSTRUCTION.
C. PROTECTION OF EXISTING PLANT MATERIALS
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNAUTHORIZED CUTTING OR DAMAGE TO TREES AND SHRUBS
EXISTING OR OTHERWISE, CAUSED BY CARELESS EQUIPMENT OPERATION, MATERIAL STOCKPILING, ETC... THIS SHALL
INCLUDE COMPACTION BY DRIVING OR PARKING INSIDE THE DRIP-LINE AND SPILLING OIL, GASOLINE, OR OTHER
DELETERIOUS MATERIALS WITHIN THE DRIP-LINE. NO MATERIALS SHALL BE BURNED ON SITE. EXISTING TREES KILLED OR
DAMAGED SO THAT THEY ARE MISSHAPEN AND/OR UNSIGHTLY SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE COST TO THE CONTRACTOR OF
FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($400) PER CALIPER INCH ON AN ESCALATING SCALE WHICH ADDS AN ADDITIONAL TWENTY (20)
PERCENT PER INCH OVER FOUR (4) INCHES CALIPER AS FIXED AND AGREED LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. CALIPER SHALL BE
MEASURED SIX (6) INCHES ABOVE GROUND LEVEL FOR TREES UP TO AND INCLUDING FOUR (4) INCHES IN CALIPER AND
TWELVE (12) INCHES ABOVE GROUND LEVEL FOR TREES OVER FOUR (4) INCHES IN CALIPER.
2. SEE TREE MITIGATION PLAN AND NOTES, IF APPLICABLE.
D. MATERIALS
1. GENERAL
MATERIAL SAMPLES LISTED BELOW SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL, ON SITE OR AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER.
UPON APPROVAL, DELIVERY OF MATERIALS MAY COMMENCE.
MATERIAL SAMPLE SIZE
MULCH ONE (1) CUBIC FOOT
TOPSOIL MIX ONE (1) CUBIC FOOT
PLANTS ONE (1) OF EACH VARIETY (OR TAGGED IN NURSERY)
2. PLANT MATERIALS
a. FURNISH NURSERY-GROWN PLANTS TRUE TO GENUS, SPECIES, VARIETY, CULTIVAR, STEM FORM, SHEARING, AND OTHER
FEATURES INDICATED IN PLANT SCHEDULE SHOWN ON DRAWINGS AND COMPLYING WITH ANSI Z60.1 AND THE COLORADO
NURSERY ACT; AND WITH HEALTHY ROOT SYSTEMS DEVELOPED BY TRANSPLANTING OR ROOT PRUNING. PROVIDE
WELL-SHAPED, FULLY BRANCHED, HEALTHY, VIGOROUS STOCK, DENSELY FOLIATED WHEN IN LEAF AND FREE OF DISEASE,
PESTS, EGGS, LARVAE, AND DEFECTS SUCH AS KNOTS, SUN SCALD, INJURIES, ABRASIONS, AND DISFIGUREMENT.
b. TREES FOR PLANTING IN ROWS SHALL BE UNIFORM IN SIZE AND SHAPE.
c. NO SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ANY
ROW TREES MUST BE APPROVED BY OFFICE OF THE CITY FORESTER.
d. PROVIDE PLANTS OF SIZES, GRADES, AND BALL OR CONTAINER SIZES COMPLYING WITH ANSI Z60.1 AND COLORADO
NURSERY ACT FOR TYPES AND FORM OF PLANTS REQUIRED. PLANTS OF A LARGER SIZE MAY BE USED IF ACCEPTABLE TO
PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH A PROPORTIONATE INCREASE IN SIZE OF ROOTS OR BALLS.
e. PLANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL AT THE PLACE OF GROWTH, OR UPON DELIVERY TO THE SITE,
AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER, FOR QUALITY, SIZE, AND VARIETY. SUCH APPROVAL SHALL NOT IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF
INSPECTION AND REJECTION AT THE SITE DURING PROGRESS OF THE WORK OR AFTER COMPLETION FOR SIZE AND
CONDITION OF ROOT BALLS OR ROOTS, LATENT DEFECTS OR INJURIES. REJECTED PLANTS SHALL BE REMOVED
IMMEDIATELY FROM THE SITE. NOTICE REQUESTING INSPECTION SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING BY THE CONTRACTOR
AT LEAST ONE (1) WEEK PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED DATE.
f. TREES WITH DAMAGED, CROOKED, OR MULTIPLE LEADERS; TIGHT VERTICAL BRANCHES WHERE BARK IS SQUEEZED
BETWEEN TWO BRANCHES OR BETWEEN BRANCH AND TRUNK ("INCLUDED BARK"); CROSSING TRUNKS; CUT-OFF LIMBS
MORE THAN 3
4 INCH (19 MM) IN DIAMETER; OR WITH STEM GIRDLING ROOTS WILL BE REJECTED.
g. FURNISH TREES AND SHRUBS WITH ROOTS BALLS MEASURED FROM TOP OF ROOT BALL, WHICH SHALL BEGIN AT ROOT
FLARE ACCORDING TO ANSI Z60.1 AND COLORADO NURSERY ACT. ROOT FLARE SHALL BE VISIBLE BEFORE PLANTING.
h. LABEL AT LEAST ONE PLANT OF EACH VARIETY, SIZE, AND CALIPER WITH A SECURELY ATTACHED, WATERPROOF TAG
BEARING LEGIBLE DESIGNATION OF COMMON NAME AND FULL SCIENTIFIC NAME, INCLUDING GENUS AND SPECIES. INCLUDE
NOMENCLATURE FOR HYBRID, VARIETY, OR CULTIVAR, IF APPLICABLE FOR THE PLANT AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS.
i. IF FORMAL ARRANGEMENTS OR CONSECUTIVE ORDER OF PLANTS IS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS, SELECT STOCK FOR UNIFORM
HEIGHT AND SPREAD, AND NUMBER THE LABELS TO ASSURE SYMMETRY IN PLANTING.
E. SOIL MIXTURE
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST EXISTING SOIL AND AMEND AS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES BELOW:
2. SOIL MIXTURE SHALL CONSIST OF TWO PARTS OF TOPSOIL AND ONE PART SAND, AS DESCRIBED BELOW. CONTRACTOR TO
SUBMIT SAMPLES AND PH TESTING RESULTS OF SOIL MIXTURE FOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE APPROVAL PRIOR TO
PLANT INSTALLATION OPERATIONS COMMENCE.
a. TOPSOIL FOR USE IN PREPARING SOIL MIXTURE FOR BACKFILLING PLANT OPENINGS SHALL BE FERTILE, FRIABLE, AND OF A
LOAMY CHARACTER; REASONABLY FREE OF SUBSOIL, CLAY LUMPS, BRUSH WEEDS AND OTHER LITTER; FREE OF ROOTS,
STUMPS, STONES LARGER THAN 2" IN ANY DIRECTION, AND OTHER EXTRANEOUS OR TOXIC MATTER HARMFUL TO PLANT
GROWTH. IT SHALL CONTAIN THREE (3) TO FIVE (5) PERCENT DECOMPOSED ORGANIC MATTER, HAVE A PH BETWEEN 5.5 AND
8.0, AND SOLUBLE SALTS LESS THAN 3.0 MMHOS/CM. SUBMIT SOIL SAMPLE AND PH TESTING RESULTS FOR APPROVAL.
b. SAND SHALL BE COARSE, CLEAN, WELL-DRAINING, NATIVE SAND.
3. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED IN THE EXISTING NATIVE SOIL ON SITE, UNLESS DETERMINED TO BE UNSUITABLE - AT WHICH
POINT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO DISCUSS ALTERNATE
RECOMMENDATION PRIOR TO PLANTING.
F. WATER
1. WATER NECESSARY FOR PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE SHALL BE OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY TO SUSTAIN ADEQUATE
PLANT GROWTH AND SHALL NOT CONTAIN HARMFUL, NATURAL OR MAN-MADE ELEMENTS DETRIMENTAL TO PLANTS. WATER
MEETING THE ABOVE STANDARD SHALL BE OBTAINED ON THE SITE FROM THE OWNER, IF AVAILABLE, AND THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS USE BY HIS TANKS, HOSES, SPRINKLERS, ETC....
IF SUCH WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE SITE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SATISFACTORY WATER FROM SOURCES
OFF THE SITE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
* WATERING/IRRIGATION RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY - REFER TO PROPERTY'S JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY.
G. FERTILIZER
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FERTILIZER APPLICATION SCHEDULE TO OWNER, AS APPLICABLE TO SOIL TYPE, PLANT
INSTALLATION TYPE, AND SITE'S PROPOSED USE. SUGGESTED FERTILIZER TYPES SHALL BE ORGANIC OR OTHERWISE
NATURALLY-DERIVED.
* FERTILIZER RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY - REFER TO PROPERTY'S JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY.
H. MULCH
1. MULCH MATERIAL SHALL BE MOISTENED AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION TO PREVENT WIND DISPLACEMENT, AND APPLIED AT
A DEPTH OF THREE (3) INCHES. CLEAR MULCH FROM EACH PLANT'S CROWN (BASE) OR AS SHOWN IN PLANTING DETAILS.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS, MULCH SHALL BE DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH DARK BROWN FINES BY
MOUNTAIN HIGH SAVATREE OR APPROVED EQUAL. DYED MULCH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. SUBMIT SAMPLES TO PROJECT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL. MULCH SHALL BE PROVIDED OVER THE ENTIRE AREA OF EACH SHRUB BED,
GROUND COVER, VINE BED, AND TREE RING (6' MINIMUM) PLANTED UNDER THIS CONTRACT, AS WELL AS FOR ANY EXISTING
LANDSCAPE AREAS AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
I. DIGGING AND HANDLING
1. ALL TREES SPECIFIED SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED (B&B) UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY PROJECT LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
2. PROTECT ROOTS OR ROOT BALLS OF PLANTS AT ALL TIMES FROM SUN, DRYING WINDS, WATER AND FREEZING, AS
NECESSARY UNTIL PLANTING. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE ADEQUATELY PACKED TO PREVENT DAMAGE DURING TRANSIT.
TREES TRANSPORTED MORE THAN TEN (10) MILES OR WHICH ARE NOT PLANTED WITHIN THREE (3) DAYS OF DELIVERY TO
THE SITE SHALL BE SPRAYED WITH AN ANTITRANSPIRANT PRODUCT ("WILTPRUF" OR EQUAL) TO MINIMIZE
TRANSPIRATIONAL WATER LOSS.
3. B&B, AND FIELD GROWN (FG) PLANTS SHALL BE DUG WITH FIRM, NATURAL BALLS OF SOIL OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO
ENCOMPASS THE FIBROUS AND FEEDING ROOTS OF THE PLANTS. NO PLANTS MOVED WITH A ROOT BALL SHALL BE PLANTED
IF THE BALL IS CRACKED OR BROKEN. PLANTS SHALL NOT BE HANDLED BY STEMS.
J. CONTAINER GROWN STOCK
1. ALL CONTAINER GROWN MATERIAL SHALL BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, WELL-ROOTED PLANTS ESTABLISHED IN THE
CONTAINER IN WHICH THEY ARE SOLD. THE PLANTS SHALL HAVE TOPS WHICH ARE OF GOOD QUALITY AND ARE IN A
HEALTHY GROWING CONDITION.
2. AN ESTABLISHED CONTAINER GROWN PLANT SHALL BE TRANSPLANTED INTO A CONTAINER AND GROWN IN THAT
CONTAINER SUFFICIENTLY LONG ENOUGH FOR THE NEW FIBROUS ROOTS TO HAVE DEVELOPED SO THAT THE ROOT MASS
WILL RETAIN ITS SHAPE AND HOLD TOGETHER WHEN REMOVED FROM THE CONTAINER. CONTAINER GROWN STOCK SHALL
NOT BE HANDLED BY THEIR STEMS.
3. ROOT BOUND PLANTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AND WILL BE REJECTED.
K. MATERIALS LIST
1. QUANTITIES NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
QUANTITY ESTIMATES HAVE BEEN MADE CAREFULLY, BUT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER ASSUMES NO LIABILITY
FOR OMISSIONS OR ERRORS. SHOULD A DISCREPANCY OCCUR BETWEEN THE PLANS AND THE PLANT LIST QUANTITY, THE
PLANS SHALL GOVERN. ALL DIMENSIONS AND/OR SIZES SPECIFIED SHALL BE THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE SIZE.
L. FINE GRADING
1. FINE GRADING UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL CONSIST OF FINAL FINISHED GRADING OF LAWN AND PLANTING AREAS THAT
HAVE BEEN DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FINE GRADE THE LAWN AND PLANTING AREAS TO BRING THE ROUGH GRADE UP TO FINAL
FINISHED GRADE ALLOWING FOR THICKNESS OF SOD AND/OR MULCH DEPTH.
3. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE GRADED AND MAINTAINED FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO SURFACE/SUBSURFACE STORM
DRAIN SYSTEMS. AREAS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM THE BUILDINGS. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER'S
PLANS FOR FINAL GRADES, IF APPLICABLE.
M. PLANTING PROCEDURES
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN WORK AND SURROUNDING AREAS OF ALL RUBBISH OR OBJECTIONABLE MATTER DAILY.
ALL MORTAR, CEMENT, BUILDING MATERIALS, AND TOXIC MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM PLANTING
AREAS. THESE MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE MIXED WITH THE SOIL. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR FIND SUCH SOIL CONDITIONS IN
PLANTING AREAS WHICH WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLANT GROWTH, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY CALL IT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. FAILURE TO DO SO BEFORE PLANTING SHALL MAKE THE CORRECTIVE
MEASURES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.
2. VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES, CONDUITS, SUPPLY LINES AND CABLES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: ELECTRIC,
GAS (LINES AND TANKS), WATER, SANITARY SEWER, STORMWATER SYSTEMS, CABLE, AND TELEPHONE. PROPERLY
MAINTAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES. CALL COLORADO (811) TO LOCATE UTILITIES AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO REMOVE ALL EXISTING AND IMPORTED LIMEROCK AND LIMEROCK SUB-BASE FROM ALL
PLANTING AREAS TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 36" OR TO NATIVE SOIL. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO BACKFILL THESE
PLANTING AREAS TO ROUGH FINISHED GRADE WITH CLEAN TOPSOIL FROM AN ON-SITE SOURCE OR AN IMPORTED SOURCE.
IF LIMEROCK OR OTHER ADVERSE CONDITIONS OCCUR IN PLANTED AREAS AFTER 36" DEEP EXCAVATION BY THE
CONTRACTOR, AND POSITIVE DRAINAGE CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED, CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE POOR DRAINAGE CONDITION
PLANTING DETAIL.
4. FURNISH NURSERY'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. INSPECT AND SELECT
PLANT MATERIALS BEFORE PLANTS ARE DUG AT NURSERY OR GROWING SITE.
5. COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND
WORK. UPON ARRIVAL AT THE SITE, PLANTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY WATERED AND PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL
PLANTED. PLANTS STORED ONSITE SHALL NOT REMAIN UNPLANTED OR APPROPRIATELY HEALED IN FOR A PERIOD
EXCEEDING TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS. AT ALL TIMES WORKMANLIKE METHODS CUSTOMARY IN ACCEPTED HORTICULTURAL
PRACTICES AS USED IN THE TRADE SHALL BE EXERCISED.
6. WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH OTHER TRADES TO PREVENT CONFLICTS. COORDINATE PLANTING WITH IRRIGATION
WORK TO ASSURE AVAILABILITY OF WATER AND PROPER LOCATION OF IRRIGATION APPURTENANCES AND PLANTS.
7. ALL PLANTING OPENINGS SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO SIZE AND DEPTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI Z60.1-2014 AMERICAN
STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK.
8. TEST ALL TREE OPENINGS WITH WATER BEFORE PLANTING TO ASSURE PROPER DRAINAGE PERCOLATION IS AVAILABLE. NO
ALLOWANCE WILL BE MADE FOR LOST PLANTS DUE TO IMPROPER DRAINAGE. IF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS, UTILIZE "POOR
DRAINAGE CONDITION" PLANTING DETAIL.
9. TREES SHALL BE SET PLUMB AND HELD IN POSITION UNTIL THE PLANTING MIXTURE HAS BEEN FLUSHED INTO PLACE WITH A
SLOW, FULL HOSE STREAM. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WITH PLANTING PROCEDURES
AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE FOREMEN.
10. PRIOR TO EXCAVATION OF TREE OPENINGS, AN AREA EQUAL TO TWO TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL SHALL BE
ROTO-TILLED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE ROOT BALL.
11. EXCAVATION OF TREE OPENINGS SHALL BE PERFORMED USING EXTREME CARE TO AVOID DAMAGE TO SURFACE AND
SUBSURFACE ELEMENTS SUCH AS UTILITIES OR HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS, FOOTERS AND PREPARED SUB-BASES.
12. IN CONTINUOUS SHRUB AND GROUND COVER BEDS, THE ROTO-TILLED PERIMETER SHOULD EXTEND TO A DISTANCE OF ONE
FOOT BEYOND THE DIAMETER OF A SINGLE ROOT BALL. THE BED SHALL BE TILLED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE ROOT BALL
DEPTH PLUS 6".
13. TREE OPENINGS FOR WELL DRAINED SOILS SHALL BE DUG SO THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE ROOT BALL WILL REST ON
UNDISTURBED SOIL AND THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL WILL BE FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE. IN POORLY DRAINED SOILS THE
TREE OPENING SHALL BE DUG SO THAT THE ROOT BALL RESTS ON UNDISTURBED SOIL AND THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL IS
1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. PLANT PIT WALLS SHALL BE SCARIFIED PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION.
14. TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS AND BUILDING STRUCTURES WHILE INSTALLING
TREES.
15. SOIL MIXTURE SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 'E'.
16. TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE SET STRAIGHT AT AN ELEVATION THAT, AFTER SETTLEMENT, THE PLANT CROWN WILL STAND
ONE (1) TO TWO (2) INCHES ABOVE GRADE. EACH PLANT SHALL BE SET IN THE CENTER OF THE PIT. SOIL MIXTURE SHALL BE
BACK FILLED, THOROUGHLY TAMPED AROUND THE BALL, AND SETTLED BY WATER (AFTER TAMPING).
17. AMEND PINE AND OAK PLANT OPENINGS WITH ECTOMYCORRHIZAL SOIL APPLICATION PER MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATION. ALL OTHER PLANT OPENINGS SHALL BE AMENDED WITH ENDOMYCORRHIZAL SOIL APPLICATION PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION. PROVIDE PRODUCT INFORMATION SUBMITTAL PRIOR TO INOCULATION.
18. FILL HOLE WITH SOIL MIXTURE, MAKING CERTAIN ALL SOIL IS SATURATED. TO DO THIS, FILL HOLE WITH WATER AND ALLOW
TO SOAK MINIMUM TWENTY (20) MINUTES, STIRRING IF NECESSARY TO GET SOIL THOROUGHLY WET. PACK LIGHTLY WITH
FEET, ADD MORE WET SOIL MIXTURE. DO NOT COVER TOP OF BALL WITH SOIL MIXTURE.
19. ALL BURLAP, ROPE, WIRES, BASKETS, ETC.., SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SIDES AND TOPS OF BALLS, BUT NO BURLAP
SHALL BE PULLED FROM UNDERNEATH.
20. TREES SHALL BE PRUNED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI A-300, TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE PLANT. ALL
SOFT WOOD OR SUCKER GROWTH AND ALL BROKEN OR BADLY DAMAGED BRANCHES SHALL BE REMOVED WITH A CLEAN
CUT. ALL PRUNING TO BE PERFORMED BY CERTIFIED ARBORIST.
21. SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER PLANTS SHALL BE EVENLY SPACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND AS INDICATED
ON THE PLANT LIST. MATERIALS INSTALLED SHALL MEET MINIMUM SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS OR QUANTITIES SHOWN ON
PLANS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. CULTIVATE ALL PLANTING AREAS TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6", REMOVE AND DISPOSE ALL
DEBRIS. MIX TOP 4" THE PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION E. THOROUGHLY WATER ALL PLANTS AFTER
INSTALLATION.
22. TREE GUYING AND BRACING SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS TO INSURE
STABILITY AND MAINTAIN TREES IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION. IF THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER DECIDE TO WAIVE THE TREE
GUYING AND BRACING, THE OWNER SHALL NOTIFY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN WRITING AND AGREE TO
INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN THE EVENT UNSUPPORTED TREES PLANTED
UNDER THIS CONTRACT FALL AND DAMAGE PERSON OR PROPERTY.
23. ALL PLANT BEDS SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF NOXIOUS WEEDS UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK. IF DIRECTED BY THE
OWNER, "ROUND-UP" SHALL BE APPLIED FOR WEED CONTROL BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL TO ALL PLANTING AREAS IN SPOT
APPLICATIONS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION, TREAT ALL PLANTING BEDS WITH
AN APPROVED PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE AT AN APPLICATION RATE RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER. (AS
ALLOWED BY JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY)
N. LAWN SODDING
1. THE WORK CONSISTS OF LAWN BED PREPARATION, SOIL PREPARATION, AND SODDING COMPLETE, IN STRICT ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE APPLICABLE DRAWINGS TO PRODUCE A TURF GRASS LAWN ACCEPTABLE TO THE
OWNER.
2. ALL AREAS THAT ARE TO BE SODDED SHALL BE CLEARED OF ANY ROUGH GRASS, WEEDS, AND DEBRIS BY MEANS OF A SOD
CUTTER TO A DEPTH OF THREE (3) INCHES, AND THE GROUND BROUGHT TO AN EVEN GRADE. THE ENTIRE SURFACE SHALL
BE ROLLED WITH A ROLLER WEIGHING NOT MORE THAN ONE-HUNDRED (100) POUNDS PER FOOT OF WIDTH. DURING THE
ROLLING, ALL DEPRESSIONS CAUSED BY SETTLEMENT SHALL BE FILLED WITH ADDITIONAL SOIL, AND THE SURFACE SHALL
BE REGRADED AND ROLLED UNTIL PRESENTING A SMOOTH AND EVEN FINISH TO THE REQUIRED GRADE.
3. PREPARE LOOSE BED FOUR (4) INCHES DEEP. HAND RAKE UNTIL ALL BUMPS AND DEPRESSIONS ARE REMOVED. WET
PREPARED AREA THOROUGHLY.
4. SODDING
a. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SOD ALL AREAS THAT ARE NOT PAVED OR PLANTED AS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS WITHIN
THE CONTRACT LIMITS, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE.
b. SOD PANELS SHALL BE LAID TIGHTLY TOGETHER SO AS TO MAKE A SOLID SODDED LAWN AREA. SOD SHALL BE LAID
UNIFORMLY AGAINST THE EDGES OF ALL CURBS AND OTHER HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS, PAVED AND PLANTED AREAS.
ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS, A 24 INCH STONE MULCH STRIP SHALL BE PROVIDED. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SOD LAYING, THE
LAWN AREAS SHALL BE ROLLED WITH A LAWN ROLLER CUSTOMARILY USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES, AND THEN THOROUGHLY
IRRIGATED. IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE OWNER, TOP-DRESSING IS NECESSARY AFTER ROLLING TO FILL THE VOIDS BETWEEN
THE SOD PANELS AND TO EVEN OUT INCONSISTENCIES IN THE SOD, CLEAN SAND, AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE, SHALL BE UNIFORMLY SPREAD OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THE SOD AND THOROUGHLY WATERED IN.
FERTILIZE INSTALLED SOD AS ALLOWED BY PROPERTY'S JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY.
5. DURING DELIVERY, PRIOR TO, AND DURING THE PLANTING OF THE LAWN AREAS, THE SOD PANELS SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE
PROTECTED FROM EXCESSIVE DRYING AND UNNECESSARY EXPOSURE OF THE ROOTS TO THE SUN. ALL SOD SHALL BE
STACKED SO AS NOT TO BE DAMAGED BY SWEATING OR EXCESSIVE HEAT AND MOISTURE.
6. LAWN MAINTENANCE
a. WITHIN THE CONTRACT LIMITS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRODUCE A DENSE, WELL ESTABLISHED LAWN. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR AND RE-SODDING OF ALL ERODED, SUNKEN OR BARE SPOTS (LARGER THAN
12"X12") UNTIL CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. REPAIRED SODDING SHALL BE
ACCOMPLISHED AS IN THE ORIGINAL WORK, INCLUDING REGRADING IF NECESSARY.
b. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING SOD/LAWN UNTIL ACCEPTANCE BY THE
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. PRIOR TO AND UPON ACCEPTANCE, CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE WATERING/IRRIGATION
SCHEDULE TO OWNER. OBSERVE ALL APPLICABLE WATERING RESTRICTIONS AS SET FORTH BY THE PROPERTY'S
JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY.
O. EDGING
a. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 4"X
1
8" ROLLED TOP STEEL EDGING BETWEEN ALL SOD/SEED AREAS AND PLANTING BEDS.
P. CLEANUP
1. UPON COMPLETION OF ALL PLANTING WORK AND BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL
MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND DEBRIS RESULTING FROM CONTRACTORS WORK. ALL PAVED AREAS SHALL BE CLEANED AND
THE SITE LEFT IN A NEAT AND ACCEPTABLE CONDITION AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
Q. PLANT MATERIAL MAINTENANCE
1. ALL PLANTS AND PLANTING INCLUDED UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY WATERING, CULTIVATING,
SPRAYING, PRUNING, AND ALL OTHER OPERATIONS (SUCH AS RE-STAKING OR REPAIRING GUY SUPPORTS) NECESSARY TO
INSURE A HEALTHY PLANT CONDITION BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE.
R. FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
1. FINAL INSPECTION AT THE END OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD SHALL BE ON PLANTING, CONSTRUCTION AND ALL OTHER
INCIDENTAL WORK PERTAINING TO THIS CONTRACT. ANY REPLACEMENT AT THIS TIME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
ONE (1) YEAR WARRANTY (OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER IN WRITING) BEGINNING WITH THE
TIME OF REPLACEMENT AND ENDING WITH THE SAME INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE HEREIN DESCRIBED.
S. WARRANTY
1. THE LIFE AND SATISFACTORY CONDITION OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLED (INCLUDING SOD) BY THE LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE WARRANTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) CALENDAR YEAR COMMENCING AT
THE TIME OF CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
2. ANY PLANT NOT FOUND IN A HEALTHY GROWING CONDITION AT THE END OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD SHALL BE REMOVED
FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED AS SOON AS WEATHER CONDITIONS PERMIT. ALL REPLACEMENTS SHALL BE PLANTS OF THE
SAME KIND AND SIZE AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANT LIST. THEY SHALL BE FURNISHED PLANTED AND MULCHED AS SPECIFIED
AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
3. IN THE EVENT THE OWNER DOES NOT CONTRACT WITH THE CONTRACTOR FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE,
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD VISIT THE PROJECT SITE PERIODICALLY DURING THE ONE (1) YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD TO
EVALUATE MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES BEING PERFORMED BY THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER IN
WRITING OF MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES OR CONDITIONS WHICH THREATEN VIGOROUS AND HEALTHY PLANT GROWTH.
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 19
Packet Page 198 of 305
Side Entry Elevation
Scale: 1" = 12'-0"
Drive Thru Elevation
Scale: 1" = 12'-0"
Front Entry Elevation
Scale: 1" = 12'-0"
Rear Elevation
Scale: 1" = 12'-0"
Material Finishes
EM-4 EWF-1 EWF-2EM-3 EWF-5EWF-4 EWF-6
Reclaimed metal panel:
vintage car hood
Occurs at face of the
“1” element only
"132 Mountain Fog” Portland
cement stucco
Boral: “Alamo” modular
brick, morter to match
solomon products io h,
light buff Sack rub finish.
"456 oyster shell"
cement stucco
hot rolled Steel w/ carbon
grade finish - w/ clear,
matte powder coat finish
Belden norman Brick Masonry
Medium range, smooth, Iron
Spot. Mortar to match
solomon products io h,
weathered horizontal strike.
vertical joints are flush
EWS-2
aluminum storefront system
Finish: anodized Black
"SW 7669 Summit gray" portland
cement stucco
C0573 Boulder, CO Rendered Elevations
08/19/2021
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 20
Packet Page 199 of 305
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 21
Packet Page 200 of 305
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 22
Packet Page 201 of 305
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 23
Packet Page 202 of 305
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 24
Packet Page 203 of 305
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 25
Packet Page 204 of 305
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 26
Packet Page 205 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
Updated May 10, 2022
Raising Cane’s
Owners of 3033 28th St. are proposing to redevelop the
property into a new Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers restaurant.
Founded in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Raising Cane’s is a fast
casual restaurant specializing in chicken fingers. With hundreds
of locations scattered throughout the US, this Boulder location will be the fourteenth in Colorado.
The project will combine two adjacent buildings into one consolidated site, totaling 0.92 acres.
The existing structures, a drive through liquor store and a restaurant (totaling 4,421 sf) will be
removed and a new 3,716 square foot (SF) restaurant will be constructed including a 615 SF
covered patio. The restaurant will feature a double lane drive-thru and the site will have two
vehicle access points. 26 parking spaces and 12 bicycle parking spaces will be provided (where 5
are required).
Existing Entitlements
The site is located within Business Community 1 (BC-1) zoning with a land use designation of
Mixed Use Business (MUB). The City of Boulder’s Use Table Standards (9-6-1) indicate that
drive-thru uses are permitted in BC-1 zone district pending use review approval. In 1997 a minor
modification to an approved 1985 discretionary review plan (DU-85-3) was approved on the
1
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 27
Packet Page 206 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
property. Both the 1985 and 1997 approvals included drive-thru uses (Taco-Bell and other similar
uses). This use review seeks to maintain the drive-thru operations that have previously been
permitted for this site in order to accommodate the operational goals of this redevelopment.
With the redevelopment of this site, three of four curb cuts will be removed on 28th Street. The
remaining curb cut will be limited to right in/right out located far away from the Valmont
intersection and thereby significantly decreasing the risks to pedestrians, bikers and vehicles.
The application also provides for significant new landscaping and other site improvements
providing visual screening of the use as well as full build out of the 28th Street improvements,
including multi use path, landscaping and street trees. The proposed project is safer, more
aesthetically appealing, and utilizes far superior screening and landscaping than current site
conditions and the bulk of other drive-thru locations in Boulder.
Meetings With City Staff and Revisions
Over the course of this project, the consultant team has met with City staff several times to
discuss project changes and design considerations to meet the intent of the Use Review criteria.
These constructive meetings encouraged site planning and operation alterations where our team
discussed potential site plan changes to address staff concerns and continue to meet the code
criteria for drive throughs. The changes and resulting revisions include:
●Pushing the building further away from 28th Street to increase the setback and landscape
buffer and to ensure that sight triangles and pedestrian crossings are safe and highly
visible.
●Creating a landscape strip between the proposed site screening wall and the drive through
lane.
●Curving the screen wall to allow for greater line of sight for safer egress and increased
landscaping.
●Adjustment of the drive through lane to allow a vehicle to exit the site at a 90 degree angle
for safer pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular safety.
●Addition of a second drive lane (EXPO lane) and clarification of efficient drive thru
management protocol to manage on site queuing and exiting.
●Parking lot connections and landscape screening.
2
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 28
Packet Page 207 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
Operations
Raising Cane’s projected hours of operation are from Sunday through Thursday 9:30am to 1:30
am, Friday and Saturday 9:30am to 3:30 am depending on the day of week and realized demand.
An estimated number of 10-15 employees are anticipated to be working depending on the time of
day. In addition to standard fast casual restaurant operations, Raising Cane’s also offers mobile
ordering where customers order their food before arriving at the restaurant. Mobile ordering
capabilities provide an additional option to customers and will reduce the number of idling cars on
site.
When the drive thru lane becomes backed up by more than one car past the order board, the
additional lane will be opened. Staff will closely monitor the drive-thru efficiency to prevent long
lines from forming and creating vehicle congestion. The two lane drive-thru operation will help
meet peak demand while maintaining site and operation flexibility. The two lanes will not be
operational throughout the day, both lanes will be utilized when needed and when appropriate.
Key components of the additional drive-thru lane include:
●EXPO Lanes: EXPO lanes are additional paved lanes or paved areas that allow customers
to have their order taken and meal delivered adjacent to the primary drive-thru lane (the
lane further east and closer to 28th Street),
●Raising Cane’s personnel are deployed to the additional lane with handheld tablets to take
orders and deliver meals while providing a more personalized and streamlined experience.
This allows orders to be taken faster and further down the drive thru queue line, including
before the drive thru menu boards,
3
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 29
Packet Page 208 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
●Enhances speed and accuracy of service,
●When the outer lane isn’t used, cones will direct customers to the correct location in the
interior lane.
Drive-thru operations have been pulled away from the parking lot area and positioned between the
building and 28th St in order to reduce potential pedestrian conflicts within the parking lot area.
The ability of the two drive-thru lanes to accommodate multiple vehicles will prevent cars from
queuing in the general parking lot and vehicle access areas. See submitted traffic analysis report
for specifics.
Site Improvements
In addition to the two drive-thru lanes along the site’s southern and eastern edge, there is new
landscaping around the site’s perimeter and within the site. A total of 7,332 SF of landscaped area
is provided, roughly 18% of the site. Along with the proposed screen wall, there will be 12 trees
along 28th Street acting as a visual barrier to help screen the drive-thru operation from 28th
Street. These trees will also provide shade to the newly installed 10 foot wide multi-use path
discussed later. The varying height screen wall runs nearly the entire length of the property’s 28th
St. boundary and will prevent vehicles on 28th St and pedestrians on the adjacent multi-use path
from being blinded by the headlights of queuing vehicles.
A detached multi-use path measuring 10 feet wide is proposed along 28th St. to accommodate
the City of Boulder’s 28th Street Improvements project (attached are the 28th St. improvement
project plans provided by the City to our project team). Safety precautions will be included to
prevent vehicle-pedestrian conflicts as discussed later. This new on-site multi-use path is
detached from 28th Street by 8 feet. Connected to the multi-use path is a covered bicycle parking
area that features a bicycle repair stand that is available to the public.
The outdoor covered patio is 615 SF and provides patrons the opportunity to enjoy their meal in
an outdoor setting. Situated on the western side of the building, patio users will be able to enjoy
their meals away from the high-trafficked 28th St. and with western views of the Flatirons.
Ground mounted signage has been positioned near the property’s primary access on 28th St. and
in a location where sight lines will not be impacted to both vehicles and pedestrians.
After analyzing existing site utility services, it was determined that the existing sewer line, which
runs north-south near the western property line, only serves the existing buildings on this site.
This project plans to cut back this sewer line and tie-in just north of the proposed Raising Cane’s
building. The proposed trash locations will have no impact on underground sewer services.
4
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 30
Packet Page 209 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
A new trash enclosure will be installed along the western property line as well as a fence along
the north and west property lines for parking lot screening. Any existing site lighting will be
relocated and/or replaced with new fixtures as required to meet City code. The proposed building
height is 19’‐10”.
Parking & Vehicle Access
26 parking spaces including two accessible parking spaces will be provided on site, including four
EV ready spaces, three EV capable spaces, and two EVSE installed spaces. 12 covered bicycle
parking spaces are provided along with a bike repair stand. This repair stand will be easily visible
and accessible to pedestrians utilizing the multi-use path.
Currently five curb-cuts provide vehicle access points to the property. The project will remove
three of these curb-cuts on 28th Street, leaving two access points. The two access points will be
designed as right-in/right-out with the 28th St. access point designed to accommodate the 28th
St. multi-use path. Vehicle and pedestrian safety features include designated and raised
crosswalks to reinforce proper circulation practices, slow down vehicle traffic on site, and to
eliminate potential conflicts.
5
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 31
Packet Page 210 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
Use Review Criteria - 9-2-15(e)
Consistency with Zoning and Non-conformity - 9-2-15(e)(1)
Criteria: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-2,
“Zoning Districts Established”, B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use.
Response: The City’s code defines the Business Community 1 (BC-1) zone as “Business
areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type
stores predominate.” Furthermore, the City’s Use Standards as defined in 9-6-1 permit as
an “allowed use” restaurant uses within the BC-1 zone district. A use review is required
because of the project’s proximity to the residential zone to the west regarding the patio
amenity and required for the drive-thru operations. Other uses in the area, specifically the
Rayback Collective immediate to the west, include large outdoor dining and entertainment
patios. Additionally, multiple other drive-thru restaurant operations are easily accessible
along 28th Street.
Rationale - 9-2-15(e)(2)(A) & (D)
Criteria:The use either:
1. Provides a direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding
uses or neighborhood;
Response: Cane’s provides an alternative option for local food along a transit rich corridor that
has many similar restaurants and quick servicing stores. Previous uses of the site included a Taco
Bell with a drive-thru, drive-thru liquor store and Ali Baba restaurant. In order to encourage
alternative forms of transit, a covered bike storage facility is being provided with a bike repair
station and an outdoor patio is being provided to serve both bicyclists and pedestrians. A 10’
sidewalk is being constructed along the property’s eastern edge and a highly traveled multi use
path is located to the west of the project providing connectivity to the city’s vast multi use path
system.
The current site consists of two buildings, each with multiple curb cuts into the properties, which
creates dangerous conditions and conflicts between automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. The
existing site has 5 curb cuts (driveways) for automobile access. The proposed improvements will
remove 3 curb cuts and simplify the vehicular circulation while adding significant pedestrian and
bicycle circulation improvements, including raised sidewalks, stripings. These circulation
improvements in combination with the landscape, sidewalk, access and visibility improvements
will significantly reduce the conflicts that currently exist on the site to create a much safer,
coordinated site that meets Vision Zero goals of the community and reduces adverse impacts to
the community. The redevelopment will also construct the improvements that are currently in the
design phase for 28th Street, including enhanced access points, landscaping and widened
sidewalks.
6
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 32
Packet Page 211 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
Beyond transportation and circulation improvements, the outdoor dining will be
semi-screened and covered for shade. The trash enclosure will be screened and locked.
The consolidation of two restaurants into one quick serve restaurant will reduce the
number of buildings and provide consolidated trash pick up and deliveries.
2. Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses;N/A
3. Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the BVCP, including without
limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential
mixed uses in appropriate location, and group living arrangements for special populations,
or taxpayers; OR N/A
4. Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under
subsection (e) of this section.
Response:In 1997 a minor modification to an approved 1985 discretionary review plan (DU-85-3)
was approved on the property. Both the 1985 and 1997 approvals included drive-thru uses. This
use review seeks to approve maintain the drive-thru operations that are allowed to be pursued by
Use Review similar to those that have previously been permitted for this site in order to
accommodate the operational goals of this new redevelopment project.
Compatibility - 9-2-15(e)(3)
Criteria: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or
change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and
have minimal negative impact on the use of the nearby properties.
Response:It is important to note that while a use review is required due to the project’s 615 SF
outdoor patio and its proximity to the residential zoned area to the west (~250 feet away), the
Rayback Collective is positioned between the project and this residential zone. The Rayback
Collective is a very successful and unique operation featuring a very large patio area, multiple
food trucks every day, beverage services, and routine events at all times of day. Raising Cane’s
outdoor patio of 615 SF will have minimal to no impact on the residential community to the west
as a result of Rayback’s presence.
Additionally, 28th St. has evolved to become Boulder’s primary arterial that experiences significant
vehicle use and accommodates multiple other drive-thru operations of similar size. These
drive-thru operations when traveling south to north on 28th St. include McDonalds, Burger King,
Bank of America, First Citizens Bank, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Walgreens, Gloss Auto Wash and
Cafe, Two Car Wash facilities, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Taco Bell. Our project is located within the
concentration of these other compatible uses and provides economical alternatives for both
residents and visitors traveling through Boulder.
The redeveloped site and building will adhere to modern design principles while reflecting
Raising Cane’s image. This is compatible with the surrounding community as it consists
7
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 33
Packet Page 212 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
of both local and national-chain tenants where building design often follows tenant design
guidelines in order to best represent tenant images. The building has been located to
minimize the impacts to the public realm to the highest degree possible. A screen wall
has been integrated into the landscaping to provide multiple layers visual screenings of
the drive thru facility, fences are provided at other property boundaries, and significant
landscaping has been added to the site.
Additionally, these changes significantly reduce the impact on the surrounding area by
eliminating one of the two existing buildings and three curb cuts on 28th Street,
Infrastructure - 9-2-15(e)(4)
Criteria:As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, “Permitted Uses of Land”,
B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a nonconforming use,
the proposed development will not significantly or adversely affect the infrastructure of the
surrounding area, including without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm draining utilities and
streets.
Response:The project will not significantly impact existing infrastructure and will improve
existing infrastructure by providing water quality and storm water management. After surveying
existing site utility services, it was determined that the existing sewer line, which runs north-south
near the western property line, only serves the existing buildings on this site. This project plans to
cut back this sewer line and tie-in just north of the proposed Cane’s building. The proposed
dumpster locations will have no impact on underground sewer services. The proposed building
will replace two outdated buildings, and will have a smaller footprint.
8
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 34
Packet Page 213 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
Character of Area - 9-2-15(e)(5)
Criteria:The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
Response:Raising Cane’s will not change the character of the area. Multiple restaurants that do
or do not feature drive-thrus can be found in the immediate vicinity of the project. Redeveloping
the property will enhance the site and immediate vicinity through undated landscaping, improved
multi-use paths, and elegant design. Additionally, the project replaces structures (a liquor drive
through and Ali Baba restaurant) that have been boarded up and vacant for some time.
Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non-Residential Uses - 9-2-15(e)(6)
Criteria:Conversion of Dwelling Units to NonResidential Uses: There shall be a presumption
against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts set forth in
Subsection 9-6-1(d), B.R.C. 1981, to non-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use
review, or through the change of one non-conforming use to another nonconforming use. The
presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be
approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need
in the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, religious
assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or
an educational use.
Response:N/A
Criteria 9-6-6 b.5
Restaurants, Brewpubs, and Taverns With Outdoor Seating Within 500 Feet of a Residential Use
Module: The following criteria apply to any outdoor seating area that is within 500 feet
(measured from the perimeter of the subject property) of a residential use module. Outdoor
dining areas that are within the BMS, DT, and I zoning districts are also subject to the provisions
of Subparagraph (b)(4)(A), (b)(4)(B), or (b)(4)(C) of this section, when applicable.
(A) Size Limitations: Outdoor seating areas shall not exceed the indoor seating area or
seating capacity of the restaurant or tavern.
Response: The outdoor seating is less than the seating capacity of the indoor
seating area..
(B) Parking Required: Parking in compliance with Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C.
1981, shall be provided for all outdoor seating areas except those located in general
improvement districts.
Response: Parking is provided for the outdoor seating area. A parking reduction
is being requested for the overall parking due to the site’s proximity to
alternative modes of transportation.
(C) Music: No outdoor music or entertainment shall be provided after 11 p.m.
9
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 35
Packet Page 214 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
Response: No outdoor music or entertainment shall be provided after 11 p.m.
Please see the management plan.
(D) Sound Levels: The outdoor seating area shall not generate noise exceeding the levels
permitted in Chapter 5-9, "Noise," B.R.C. 1981.
Response: The outdoor seating area shall not generate noise exceeding the levels
permitted by code. Please see the management plan.
(E) Trash: All trash located within the outdoor dining area, on the restaurant or tavern
property, and adjacent streets, sidewalks, and properties shall be picked up and
properly disposed of immediately after closing.
Response: All trash shall be picked up regularly and shall be properly disposed of
immediately after closing. Please see the management plan.
Drive-Thru Review Criteria - 9-6-10(c)
9-6-10(c)(1) Criteria: No drive-thru facility is allowed in any Downtown (DT) district unless the
property is located directly abutting Canyon Boulevard.
Response:N/A
9-6-10(c)(2) Criteria: Hazardous and other adverse effects on adjacent sites and streets are
avoided.
Response: The proposed project removes 3 curb cuts on two main streets - Valmont and 28th
Street. The remaining 2 curb cuts provide safe access and circulation to enter and exit the site in
an organized and efficient manner.
The proposed drive-thru is located west of a screened wall and several new street trees, which
minimizes the visual impacts associated with automobile queues. The building’s location towards
the center of the site also minimizes impacts to surrounding uses and provides a buffer for the
proposed drive-thru uses from all surrounding uses.
Based on average vehicle spacing of 20 feet, this allows for a total of approximately 34 vehicles
queuing in the drive through lanes and adjacent drive aisle. The drive through area currently is
designed to accommodate 16 vehicles which meets the 12-vehicle design queue best practice
standard for fast casual restaurants as referenced in the ITE Summer 2012, Drive-Through Queue
Generation. Vehicles exiting the site will have good site visibility to prepare for crossing the
sidewalk and returning to 28th Street.
9-6-10(c)(3) Criteria: The location of any access to the drive-thru facility from an adjacent street
does not impair its traffic-carrying capacity.
Response: Per the submitted Traffic Study Letter, site visitors utilizing the drive-thru will be
queuing only on the site and will not negatively impact Valmont nor 28th St.
10
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 36
Packet Page 215 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
9-6-10(c)(4) Criteria: Internal circulation and access to and egress from the site do not
substantially impair the movement of other modes of transportation, such as bicycles and
pedestrians, to and through the site.
Response: The proposed drive-thru facility would not affect pedestrian or bicycle access to and
movement within the site. Multiple striped crosswalks are proposed to help direct pedestrians to
specific parking lot crossing points between the bike parking, the building entrance and the
outdoor patio. The new 10 foot wide detached multi-use path is separated from the drive-thru
lanes by a screened wall in order to prevent bicycle or pedestrian conflicts with vehicles. The path
will be tapered in order to provide transition between the sub standard sidewalk on adjacent
properties. The City includes upgrades to these adjacent properties in the design/engineering
plans for 28th Street.
9-6-10(c)(5) Criteria: Clearly marked pedestrian crosswalks are provided for each walk-in
customer access to the facility adjacent to the drive-thru lanes.
Response: The parking area includes clearly marked and raised pedestrian crosswalks, and the
proposed drive-thru is located so as to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. Specifically, the
parking for the proposed restaurant does not require customers to cross the drive-thru lanes. A
sidewalk is provided along the perimeter of the building which will allow customers to access the
parking area directly after exiting the building and avoiding the queuing vehicles.
9-6-10(c)(6) Criteria: The drive-thru use is screened from adjacent rights-of-way and properties
through placement of the use, screening, landscaping or other site design techniques.
Response: As previously discussed, the drive-thru use will be screened from 28th Street by the
proposed screened wall (which will block cars, headlights and the drive through) and several new
street trees and overall site landscaping. The screen wall can include decorative features and
public art to create an interesting visual experience for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians while
providing building screening as required by code.
The drive through is located in the least visible area on the site due to the site’s north/south
orientation and the one way entrance off Valmont into the site and the right in/right out access
point on 28th Street. The bulk of the queuing vehicles will be screened by the building from the
11
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 37
Packet Page 216 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
west and north. New landscaping is proposed to help shade the drive-thru from the adjacent
property to the south.
9-6-10(c)(7) Criteria: Environmental impacts, including, without limitation, noise, air emissions
and glare are not significant for the employees of the facility or the surrounding area.
Response: The drive-thru is located so as to minimize environmental impacts for employees of
the facility. Rather than extend around the entire building as is commonly the case with drive-thru
facilities, the drive-thru is located behind a screened wall and new street trees with a northbound
movement pattern. This allows site employees and vehicle drivers to not be negatively impacted
by glare and to be protected from the noise generated by the fast-moving 28th Street.
9-6-10(c)(8) Criteria: Any curb cuts serving the use are not located within two hundred feet of
any intersection of the rights-of-way of any two of the major streets or major arterials shown on
the map of major streets.
Response: The curb cut serving as the primary exit point of the drive-thru is located over 300 feet
from the 28th/Valmont intersection. Valmont is a right in/right out entrance point to the site and
the site’s flagpole-shaped layout allows an additional 105 feet before entering the drive thru area,
at which point the queuing vehicles are located well within the site. Per the submitted Traffic
Study Letter, the proposed site layout is capable of supporting the anticipated peak demand
without impacting any right-of-way. The site previously supported drive through uses and per the
city letter dated November 14, 2019 confirms that this is a continuation of the previous drive
through use.
9-6-10(c)(9) Criteria: The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
facility are such that the drive-thru operation will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal
negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
Response: The proposed project is to construct a 3,716 square foot, single story Raising Canes
restaurant building with a drive-thru facility, which is a continued permissible use per recent
conversations with City Planning and Development Services (see attached communications).
Given the site’s history as a drive-thru use, its location within the City and the high-intensity
regional commercial character of the surrounding area, the proposal to continue drive-thru
operations with standard hours of operation and sufficient parking to the subject site will be
compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of surrounding properties.
9-6-10(c)(10) Criteria: The noise generated on the site is inaudible to adjacent residential uses,
measured at or inside the property line of property other than that on which the sound source is
located.
Response: Not applicable, as there are no residential uses immediately adjacent to the subject
site. Vehicles traveling in 28th Street are likely to generate more noise than vehicles utilizing the
drive-thru.
12
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 38
Packet Page 217 of 305
3033 28th St.
Written Statement - Use Review LUR2020-00061
9-6-10(c)(11) Criteria: Nonconforming drive-thrus shall comply with the criteria of Subsection
9-10-2(d), B.R.C. 1981.
Response: Not applicable, as the proposed use is allowed through the Use Review process.
13
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 39
Packet Page 218 of 305
kimley-horn.com 4582 South Ulster Street, Suite 1500, Denver, CO 80237 303 228 2300
April 25, 2022
City of Boulder
Planning & Development Services
1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Attn: David Thompson, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
Re:Trip Generation Letter – Raising Cane’s Boulder
Northwest Corner of Valmont Road and 28th Street
Boulder, Colorado
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Introduction
At the request of the City of Boulder, this Traffic Assessment Letter presents a trip generation, site
circulation discussion, and drive through queueing analysis for the proposed Raising Cane’s project to
be located near the northwest corner of the Valmont Road and 28th Street intersection. The site is a
proposed redevelopment project anticipated to include a 3,716 square foot Raising Cane’s fast-food
restaurant with a drive through area containing two lanes (site plan attached). The project is proposed
to redevelop a liquor store and an existing sit-down restaurant. The site currently provides four
accesses along 28th Street (US-36) and one access along Valmont Road. With the redevelopment, the
project proposes two accesses with one right-in/right-out access located on the north side of Valmont
Road and one right-in/right-out access along the west side of 28th Street. As requested by the City of
Boulder and to restrict the driveway along 28th Street to right-in/right-out movements, the existing
raised median along 28th Street will need to be extended beyond the property line consistent with City
of Boulder design standards.
Based on this study, vehicle queues from the drive through window are expected to be adequately
accommodated onsite. As requested by the City of Boulder, user-specific drive-through vehicle queues
were observed at two Raising Cane’s; one located at 3609 Wadsworth Boulevard in Wheat Ridge,
Colorado and the other located at 18200 Cottonwood Drive in Parker, Colorado. The Wheat Ridge
location was selected for data collection due to having a dual drive-through lane configuration
consistent with the Raising Cane’s Boulder proposal. The Wheat Ridge location also contains a similar
building size, surrounding retail, access to the arterial street system, and is located in a fully developed
area consistent with the Boulder proposal. The Parker location was selected due to a similar right-
in/right-out access configuration. The Parker site also contains a similar building size, access to the
arterial system, and surrounding retail. Based on Raising Cane's market share summary reports which
include demographics comparing these three sites, it is believed that the Boulder restaurant will serve
less volume than the two sites counted for data collection.
Trip Generation
Site-generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates
and equations are applied to the proposed land use to estimate traffic generated by the development
during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the Trip Generation
Manual1 published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE has established trip rates in
nationwide studies of similar land uses. For this study, Kimley-Horn used the ITE Trip Generation
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition, Washington DC, 2017.
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 40
Packet Page 219 of 305
Traffic Study Letter
096519023
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 4582 South Ulster Street, Suite 1500, Denver, CO 80237 303 228 2300
Report average rates that apply to Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window (ITE Code 934).
The following Table 1 summarizes the estimated trip generation for Raising Cane’s restaurant
(calculations attached).
Table 1 – Raising Cane’s Trip Generation
Use and Size
Vehicles Trips
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive Thru
(ITE 934) – 3,716 Square Feet 1,752 76* 73* 149* 63 58 121
* = ITE Trip Generation Calculations, Raising Cane’s are not open during AM peak hour.
As shown in the table and based on ITE Trip Generation calculations, Raising Cane’s is anticipated to
generate approximately 1,752 daily trips, in which 149 of these trips would occur during the morning
peak hour and 121 trips would occur during the afternoon peak hour. It should be noted that Raising
Cane’s restaurants are not open during the morning peak hour and is expected to generate negligible
traffic during this time period.
It is important to note that this redevelopment project includes removal of the approximate 2,800 square
foot sit-down restaurant and 2,300 square foot liquor store. When the liquor store was open, and with
the existing sit-down restaurant, these two retail establishments had the potential to generate
approximately 550 daily trips with 28 trips occurring during the morning peak hour and 65 trips occurring
during the afternoon peak hour. Therefore, the proposed Raising Cane’s project is expected to account
for an increase of approximately 1,202 daily weekday trips and 56 afternoon peak hour trips than the
existing uses on site.
Site Circulation and Drive Through Queuing Analysis
Regional access to the Raising Cane’s will be provided by Foothills Parkway, Broadway, Diagonal
Highway, and Arapahoe Avenue. Primary access will be provided by 28th Street and Valmont Road.
Direct access will be provided by two existing right-in/right-out driveways, one on 28th Street and one
on Valmont Road. Parking for the site is proposed on the north and west sides of building. Vehicles will
be able to circulate in both directions on the north and west sides of the building and in a
counterclockwise direction through the driveway lanes on the south and east sides of the building.
The Raising Cane’s will contain a drive through window with two lanes and both drive through lanes
plan to remain open during all business hours. During non-peak times, vehicles will be directed after
placing their order to merge to the payment and pick up window closest to the building. During peak
times, vehicles in the second drive-through lane will be directed straight ahead with outside staff
collecting orders and payments on tablets while food will be distributed to the second drive-through
lane by staff members as well. Staff will be deployed outside to collect orders and distribute food to the
second drive-through lane if and when vehicles extend beyond the designated drive through area.
The Raising Cane’s will contain a drive through window with two lanes extending north to south and
then bending east to west for a total of approximately 420 feet combined between both drive-thru lanes.
Based on average vehicle spacing of 20 feet, this allows for a total of approximately 21 vehicles to
queue within the designated drive-thru area (see attached site plan for vehicle queues). The drive
through window is located on the east side of the project building and will circulate vehicles south to
north through the drive through lanes. The drive through area currently is designed to accommodate
21 vehicles which meets the 12-vehicle design queue best practice standard for fast food restaurants
as referenced in the ITE Summer 2012, Drive-Through Queue Generation, 1st Edition, written by Mike
Spack. The appropriate documents from this publication are attached.
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 41
Packet Page 220 of 305
Traffic Study Letter
096519023
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 4582 South Ulster Street, Suite 1500, Denver, CO 80237 303 228 2300
As directed by the City of Boulder, user-specific drive through vehicle queues were observed at two
Raising Cane’s; one located at 3609 Wadsworth Boulevard in Wheat Ridge, Colorado and the other
located at 18200 Cottonwood Drive in Parker, Colorado. The queues were observed on Friday, January
8, 2021 and Saturday, January 9, 2021 during the peak lunch hours from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM and
during the peak dinner hours from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Drive through vehicle queue counts are
attached. This was due to City staff concerns that Raising Cane’s developments having longer than
typical drive-thru queues compared to the average fast-food restaurant. The Wheat Ridge location was
selected for data collection due to having a dual drive-thru lane configuration consistent with the Raising
Cane’s Boulder proposal. The Wheat Ridge location also contains a similar building size, surrounding
retail, access to the arterial street system, and is located in a fully developed area consistent with the
Boulder proposal. The Parker location was selected due to a similar right-in/right-out access
configuration. The Parker site also contains a similar building size, access to the arterial system, and
surrounding retail.
A maximum of 19 vehicles were observed in the drive-thru area during the Friday counts and 13
vehicles during the Saturday counts at the Parker location. Likewise, the maximum vehicle queue
observed in the drive through at the Wheat Ridge location was 28 vehicles on both Friday and Saturday.
Taking into account both site locations, an average maximum vehicle queue was determined to be 24
vehicles among the Parker and Wheat Ridge Raising Cane’s locations. These drive through queueing
counts were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic which caused all vehicles to use the drive
through due to inside dining being closed. However, online orders for pick-up services are currently
available at these sites as well. When operations return to normal, it is believed that a portion of the
drive through vehicles will use inside facilities; therefore, likely decreasing the drive through queue in
the future. Further, Raising Cane’s are new establishments in the area and are attracting a high volume
of visitors in the first year. It is believed that once Raising Cane’s becomes more established in the
Colorado area there will be fewer daily trips. It should also be noted that both Raising Cane’s with
collected data were not utilizing outside staff members to collect orders/payments and to distribute food.
This streamlined process with outside staff will be utilized at the Raising Cane’s Boulder location which
will process orders more efficiently and reduce vehicle queues.
Although not expected to occur, six (6) vehicles can queue beyond the designated drive through area
to the south prior to Valmont Road. Likewise, eight (8) vehicles can queue beyond the designated drive
through area to the north prior to east-west drive aisle on site. In the rare event that vehicles queue
beyond the designated drive through area, outside staff can be flaggers to direct traffic appropriately
and prevent vehicles from queuing to the adjacent public streets. With the maximum allowable queue
length at this Raising Cane’s location being 35 vehicles in the drive through area and adjacent drive
aisle, it is believed that the maximum queue of 28 vehicles, from the user specific data, will be
accommodated.
CDOT Access Permits
The proposed site to be redeveloped currently provides four accesses along US-36 (28th Street) which
is controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The existing north access along
US-36 is proposed to be redeveloped as part of this project. The remaining three accesses to the south
along US-36 will be removed. Therefore, a CDOT access permit will be required for the existing full
movement access being redeveloped as part of this project. In addition, the three accesses being
removed as part of this project will require CDOT access removal permits.
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 42
Packet Page 221 of 305
Traffic Study Letter
096519023
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 4582 South Ulster Street, Suite 1500, Denver, CO 80237 303 228 2300
Conclusions
These results show preliminary traffic information for the development of the proposed Raising Cane’s
project including trip generation, site circulation, and drive through queuing analysis within the existing
retail center on the northwest corner of the Valmont Road and 28th Street intersection. Kimley-Horn
believes the proposed Raising Cane’s development traffic will be successfully incorporated into the
existing roadway network. Further, vehicle queues from the drive through window are expected to be
adequately accommodated onsite. If you have any questions or require anything further, please feel
free to call me at (720) 943-9962.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jeffrey R. Planck, P.E.
Project Manager
04/25/2022
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 43
Packet Page 222 of 305
Conceptual Site Plan
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 44
Packet Page 223 of 305
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 45
Packet Page 224 of 305
Proposed Trip Generation Calculations
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 46
Packet Page 225 of 305
Project Raising Cane's Boulder
Subject Trip Generation for Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window
Designed by TES Date March 05, 2021 Job No.
Checked by Date Sheet No.of
TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES
ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, Average Rate Equations
Land Use Code - Fast Food Restaurant With Drive-Through Window (934)
Independant Variable - 1000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area (X)
Gross Floor Area =3,716 Square Feet
X = 3.716
T =Average Vehicle Trip Ends
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (900 Series page 158)
Average Weekday Directional Distribution:51% ent. 49%exit.
T = 40.19 (X)T =149 Average Vehicle Trip Ends
T = 40.19 *3.716 76 entering 73 exiting
76 + 73 =149
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (900 Series page 159)
Average Weekday Directional Distribution:52% ent. 48%exit.
T = 32.67 (X)T =121 Average Vehicle Trip Ends
T = 32.67 *3.716 63 entering 58 exiting
63 +58 =121
Weekday (900 Series page 157)
Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
T = 470.95 (X)T =1752 Average Vehicle Trip Ends
T = 470.95 *3.716 876 entering 876 exiting
876 + 876 = 1752
Saturday Peak Hour of Generator (900 Series page 163)
Directional Distribution:51% ent. 49%exit.
T = 54.86 (X)T =204 Average Vehicle Trip Ends
T = 54.86 *3.716 104 entering 100 exiting
104 + 100 =204
Non Pass-By Trip Volumes (Per ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition September 2017)
AM Peak Hour =51%Non-Pass By PM Peak Hour =50%Non-Pass By
IN Out Total
AM Peak 39 37 76
PM Peak 32 29 61
Daily 438 438 876 PM Peak Hour Rate Applied to Daily
Pass-By Trip Volumes (Per ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition September 2017)
AM Peak Hour =49%Pass By PM Peak Hour =50%Pass By
IN Out Total
AM Peak 37 36 73
PM Peak 32 29 61
Daily 438 438 876 PM Peak Hour Rate Applied to Daily
096519023
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 47
Packet Page 226 of 305
Existing Site Trip Generation Calculations
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 48
Packet Page 227 of 305
Trip Generation Planner (ITE 10th Edition) - Summary Report
Weekday Trip Generation Project Name
Trips Based on Average Rates/Equations Project Number
ITE
Code
Internal Capture Land
Use Land Use Description
Independent
Variable Setting/Location
No. of
Units
Avg
Rate
or Eq
Daily
Rate
AM
Rate
PM
Rate
Daily
Trips
AM
Trips
PM
Trips
AM
Trips
In
AM
Trips
Out
PM
Trips
In
PM
Trips
Out
899 Retail Liquor Store (1)1,000 Sq Ft General Urban/Suburban 2.3 Avg 101.49 4.55 16.37 234 38 19 19
932 Restaurant High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 1,000 Sq Ft General Urban/Suburban 2.8 Avg 112.18 9.94 9.77 316 28 27 15 13 17 10
1,000 Sq Ft
1,000 Sq Ft 2.3 234 38 19 19
1,000 Sq Ft 2.8 316 28 27 15 13 17 10
Screen(s)
Dwelling Unit(s)
Room(s)
Grand Total 550 28 65 15 13 36 29
Notes:
(1)AM and/or PM rates correspond to peak hour of generator
(2)Land use was removed in Trip Generation, 10 Edition,trip generation data from the ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition
Subtotal before
Internal Capture
Total Office
Total Retail
Total Restaurant
Total Ciema/Entertainment
Total Residential
Total Hotel
Total Other
Raising Cane's Boulder
096519023
Rates Total Trips
Exst Site to Remove Trip Gen Planner V10.xlsx
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
2013 CQI, Jim West, Pleasanton, CA 1
3/22/2022
9:28 AM
Planner Sheet
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 49
Packet Page 228 of 305
ITE Summer 2012, Drive-Through Queue Generation, 1st Edition
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 50
Packet Page 229 of 305
Drive-Through Queue Generation 1 February 2012
Drive-Through Queue Generation
Mike Spack, PE, PTOE, Max Moreland, EIT, Lindsay de Leeuw, Nate Hood
1.0 Introduction
This report provides queuing data for businesses with drive-through services. It is intended to
be an aid for site designers and reviewers, similar to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
Trip Generation and Parking Generation reports. The data presentation is modeled on the
Parking Generation report and data is provided based on at least six sites, similar to data sets
marked as statistically significant in Trip Generation.
Businesses with drive-through lanes are very common in the United States and having data that
gives usage information for drive-through lanes will assist designers as well as cities in
determining the appropriate amount of storage needed for proposed drive-through businesses.
Data for drive-through queues was published by the ITE Technical Council Committee 5D-10 in
1995 based on information collected between the late 1960’s and the 1990’s. A paper was also
published in 2009 by Mark Stuecheli, PTP giving updated information for bank and coffee shop
drive-through lanes. The results from the 2009 study are incorporated into this paper (thank
you Mark for your assistance).
2.0 Data Collection
Data was collected using COUNTcam video recording systems at a total of 30 drive-through
locations in Minneapolis, MN and several surrounding suburbs between 2010 and 2012 (26 of
the 30 videos were recorded in February of 2012, which should represent peak usage in the
cold Minnesota winter). Videos of drive-through lanes were collected at banks, car washes,
coffee shops, fast food restaurants and pharmacies. A total of six locations were selected for
each of the five different land uses. Each location was recorded for between one and five days
where the majority of locations were recorded for two consecutive days. The days of the week
that each video was recorded on varies.
The 24-hour videos were watched at high speeds with the PC-TAS counting software and
maximum queues throughout the day were noted. Most of the COUNTcams were set up such
that the entire queue lane could be seen, but at a few locations the drive-through lanes
wrapped around the building in a way that the entire queue length would not be able to be
seen. For these situations, the COUNTcams were set up so that the ordering window and back
of the queue could be seen and it was noted how many vehicles could fit between the ordering
window and the front of the queue. For drive-through locations with multiple lanes, the
number of lanes was noted but the maximum queue is defined as the sum of the queues at
each lane for any given point in time, not the queue per lane. This approach provides overall
demand, which may assist designers in determining how many drive through lanes are
appropriate in addition to determining how long they should be.
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 51
Packet Page 230 of 305
Drive-Through Queue Generation 7 February 2012
Coffee shops produced the longest maximum queues of any of the land uses in this study with
all of the maximum queues occurring in the morning. In four of the six cases, the queues spilled
out of the parking lot and into the street. These spillovers would typically only happen once or
twice a day and last only a few minutes, however, one location had stacking into the street for
about 15 minutes in addition to multiple periods of several minutes where cars would queue in
the street.
With an 85th percentile maximum queue of 13 vehicles, the data suggests that coffee shops
with drive-through lanes should be able to accommodate at least 260 feet of vehicle stacking
during morning hours.
3.4 Fast Food Restaurants
Data collection was done at six fast food restaurants with drive-through services in August 2011
and February 2012. Fourteen days of data were collected. The restaurants were located in the
cities of Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minneapolis and St. Louis Park, MN. Vehicles being served
were counted as being in the queue.
Table 3.4 – Drive-Through Fast Food Restaurant Maximum Queue Statistics
Number of Data Points 14
Average Maximum Queue (Vehicles) 8.50
Standard Deviation (Vehicles) 2.68
Coefficient of Variation 32%
Range (Vehicles) 5-13
85th Percentile (Vehicles) 12.00
33rd Percentile (Vehicles) 7.90
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 52
Packet Page 231 of 305
Drive-Through Queue Generation 8 February 2012
Figure 3.4 – Drive-Through Fast Food Restaurant Maximum Queue Frequency
The maximum queues for fast food restaurants were spread throughout the day from 8:00am
to 10:00pm. With an 85th percentile maximum queue of 12 vehicles, the data suggests that fast
food restaurants with drive-through lanes should be able to accommodate 240 feet of vehicle
stacking throughout the day.
3.5 Pharmacies
Data collection was done at six pharmacies with drive-through services in February 2012.
Twelve days of data were collected. The pharmacies were located in the cities of Hopkins,
Minneapolis, New Hope and Robbinsdale, MN. Vehicles being served were counted as being in
the queue.
Table 3.5 – Drive-Through Pharmacy Maximum Queue Statistics
Number of Data Points 12
Average Maximum Queue (Vehicles) 2.92
Standard Deviation (Vehicles) 1.16
Coefficient of Variation 40%
Range (Vehicles) 1-5
85th Percentile (Vehicles) 4.05
33rd Percentile (Vehicles) 2.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Frequency Maximum Queue Length (Vehicles)
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 53
Packet Page 232 of 305
Drive Through Vehicle Counts
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 54
Packet Page 233 of 305
Parker - Cottonwood Wheat Ridge - Wadsworth
Friday Saturday Friday Saturday
11:15 3 11:15 5 11:15 8 11:15 5
11:30 6 11:30 5 11:30 9 11:30 7
11:45 8 11:45 3 11:45 16 11:45 12
12:00 12 12:00 7 12:00 19 12:00 20
12:15 11 12:15 9 12:15 18 12:15 28
12:30 14 12:30 11 12:30 22 12:30 24
12:45 9 12:45 13 12:45 16 12:45 21
1:00 10 1:00 13 1:00 16 1:00 23
1:15 8 1:15 8 1:15 19 1:15 14
1:30 11 1:30 7 1:30 16 1:30 20
1:45 8 1:45 7 1:45 12 1:45 19
2:00 9 2:00 8 2:00 13 2:00 11
4:15 6 4:15 4 4:15 14 4:15 4
4:30 7 4:30 2 4:30 11 4:30 21
4:45 10 4:45 3 4:45 11 4:45 11
5:00 7 5:00 5 5:00 11 5:00 6
5:15 5 5:15 6 5:15 18 5:15 14
5:30 9 5:30 4 5:30 19 5:30 11
5:45 15 5:45 5 5:45 26 5:45 7
6:00 18 6:00 7 6:00 24 6:00 9
6:15 19 6:15 6 6:15 28 6:15 13
6:30 12 6:30 6 6:30 26 6:30 9
6:45 9 6:45 11 6:45 25 6:45 4
7:00 12 7:00 11 7:00 22 7:00 9
7:15 19 7:15 6 7:15 25 7:15 9
7:30 8 7:30 5 7:30 23 7:30 8
7:45 8 7:45 2 7:45 19 7:45 4
8:00 5 8:00 3 8:00 24 8:00 8
Friday, January 8, 2021 & Saturday January 9, 2021
Raising Cane's Drive Through Queue Lengths (Vehicles)
Attachment B - Applicant Concept Plans and Written Statements
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 55
Packet Page 234 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 23, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Continuation of consideration of a Use Review application for a 3,716 square foot
restaurant (Raising Cane’s) at 3033 28th Street with a double drive-thru and 615 square
foot outdoor patio and a 23% parking reduction that has been requested pursuant to
administrative review #ADR2022-00062. The project site is zoned Business-Community
1 (BC-1). Case No. LUR2020-00061.
Applicant: Raising Cane’s
Owner: TEBO STEPHEN D
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 16, 2022, the Planning Board held a quasi-judicial hearing on a Use Review application
for a restaurant proposed at 3033 28th Street with a double drive-thru and an outdoor patio and
for an associated application for a parking reduction for this restaurant. The staff memorandum
for the June 16, 2022 public hearing and Planning Board consideration of these applications can
be found in Attachment A. After discussing the applications and whether the applicant had
demonstrated that the applications meet the applicable review criteria, the Planning Board voted
to continue the consideration of the item and directed staff to return with draft finding of denial
for the board’s consideration on June 23, 2022 with the following motion:
On a motion by M. McIntyre seconded by ml. Robles the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J.
Boone absent) to continue this item for preparation of denial findings on June 23, 2022.
Based on the board’s discussion and direction, staff has prepared the following Staff
recommendation and findings of denial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Planning Board action in the form of the following motion:
Suggested Motion Language:
Motion to deny Use Review application #LUR2020-00061 and Parking Reduction application
ADR2022-00062, finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the applications meet
the review criteria and adopting the denial findings of fact prepared for the Planning Board’s
June 23 consideration of these applications as revised by the Board during the June 23, 2022
meeting.
DENIAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Attachment C - Denial Findings
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 56
Packet Page 235 of 305
Introduction
In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981, the City of Boulder
Planning Board (the “Planning Board”), on June 16, 2022, held a public hearing after giving
notice as required by law on the application for a drive-thru Use Review Case No.2020-00061
and associated parking reduction Administrative Review #ADR2022-00062 (the “Project”).
Raising Cane’s, as the proponent (the “Applicant”) of the application for a drive-thru Use
Review and associated parking reduction, is seeking approval to redevelop the property at 3033
28th St. for a Raising Cane’s drive-thru restaurant with approximately 3,716 square feet of floor
area and 615 square feet of a covered patio. The proposal includes a two-lane drive-thru with two
vehicle access points, 26 parking spaces including two accessible parking space and 12 bicycle
spaces (10 short-term and two long-term secure spaces). The existing two structures on site
totaling 4,421 square feet are proposed to be demolished. The site is located within the Business-
Community 1 (BC-1) zone district. Pursuant to the “Use Standards” in section 9-6-1, B.R.C
1981, a Use Review is required for a drive-thru in the BC-1 zoning district. The Applicant filed a
separate application for a 23% parking reduction. When a proposed use requires both a use
review and a public hearing, which is the case here after the Use Review was called up by the
Planning Board, the approving agency also becomes the decision-making authority on the
requested parking reduction as part of the use review.
The Applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the applications meet all applicable
requirements of the Boulder Revised Code, Subsection 1-3-5(h), B.R.C. 1981.
Criteria
The applicable review criteria for the applications are:
Use Review: Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981, and the Conditional Use criteria
for a Drive-thru in Section 9-6-10(c), B.R.C. 1981.
Parking Reduction: Section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981.
Summary of Findings
Based on a consideration of the entire evidentiary record, the Planning Board makes the
following findings of fact. The Applicant failed to demonstrate, based upon a preponderance of
evidence, that the applications meet the following criteria:
Use Review:
1. Rationale: Section 9-2-15(e)(2), B.R.C. 1981. The use either:
(A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood;
(B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity
uses;
Attachment C - Denial Findings
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 57
Packet Page 236 of 305
(C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation,
moderate income housing, residential and nonresidential mixed uses in
appropriate locations and group living arrangements for special populations; or
(D) Is an existing legal nonconforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under
subsection (f) of this section.
2. Circulation: Section 9-6-10(c)(4), B.R.C. 1981. Internal circulation and access to and
egress from the site do not substantially impair the movement of other modes of
transportation, such as bicycles and pedestrians, to and through the site.
3. Curb Cuts Serving the Use: Section 9-6-10(c)(8), B.R.C. 1981. Any curb cuts serving the
use are not located within two hundred feet of any intersection of the rights-of-way of
any two of the major streets or major arterials shown on the map of major streets.
4. Operating Characteristics: Section 9-6-10(c)(9), B.R.C. 1981. The location, size, design
and operating characteristics of the proposed facility are such that the drive-thru
operation will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the
use of nearby properties.
Parking Reduction:
1. Parking Reduction Criteria Section 9-9-6(f)(3), B.R.C. 1981.
(A) The parking needs of the use will be adequately served through on-street parking
or off-street parking;
(B) A mix of residential uses with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the
parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking;
(C) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will
accommodate proposed parking needs; or
(D) The applicant provides an acceptable proposal for an alternate modes of
transportation program, including a description of existing and proposed facilities,
proximity to existing transit lines, and assurances that the use of alternate modes
of transportation will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an
ongoing basis.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
In evaluating the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence, the Planning Board
considered the entire record, which included materials and testimony provided by the Applicant,
Planning staff, and the Public, and weighed a number of specific factors, the collective and
corroborative weights of which were considered as follows:
Use Review: The Applicant must demonstrate the proposed use meets the use review criteria
and all applicable conditional use standards:
1. Rationale: Section 9-2-15(e)(2), B.R.C. 1981. The Applicant failed to
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the redevelopment of the site
Attachment C - Denial Findings
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 58
Packet Page 237 of 305
would provide direct service or convenience to the surrounding neighborhood or
uses or that it would reduce adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or
uses.
The site is located in an auto-oriented commercial area and adjacent to major
vehicular thoroughfares. The drive-thru use caters to patrons driving to the site
and coming from driving distances rather than the immediate residential
neighborhood. In addition, rather than reducing adverse impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood and uses, public testimony showed that the double
drive-thru use and its operating hours would create additional pollution and noise
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and uses, in particular the residential use
to the west of the site. The proposed operating hours exceed those of other
restaurants in the area resulting in noise at additional hours from customers
visiting the use and employees arriving and leaving.
The Applicant stated in its written statement that the other alternative rationales in
Section 9-2-15(e)(2)(B) through (D), B.R.C. 1981, do not apply and has not
demonstrated that any alternative rationales are met. In particular, the boards
finds that (B) the use does not provide a compatible transition between higher and
intensity and lower intensity uses being a higher intensity use; (C) the Applicant
has not demonstrated that the use is necessary to foster a specific city policy
express in the BVCP; and (D) the use is not an existing legal nonconforming use.
2. Circulation: Section 9-2-15(e)(5), B.R.C. 1981. The Applicant failed to demonstrate, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the Project’s internal circulation and access to and
egress from the site does not substantially impair the movement of other modes of
transportation, such as bicycles and pedestrians, to and through the site.
The application proposes multiple raised crosswalks within the site to direct
pedestrians; however, the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the design would
not substantially impair the movement of bicycles and pedestrians. In particular,
pedestrian traffic approaching on 28th Street from the south is proposed to cross
motor vehicle traffic to and through the site twice before entering the building.
There is also a risk that motor vehicles approaching from the south on 28th Street
will quickly make a U- turn and then right turn into the site upon spotting the
restaurant, putting pedestrians and bikes traveling north on the multi-use path
along 28th Street in danger. Finally, the screening wall along 28th Street will
impact the ability of motor vehicle drivers exiting the drive-thru use to notice
pedestrian and bicycles approaching on the multi-use path on 28th Street from the
south, putting them in danger.
3. Curb Cuts Serving the Use: Section 9-6-10(c)(8), B.R.C. 1981. The Applicant failed to
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any curb cuts serving the use are
not located within two hundred feet of any intersection of the rights-of-way of any two of
the major streets or major arterials shown on the map of major streets.
Both 28th Street and Valmont Road are considered a major street per the map in
Appendix A to Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981. The curb cut proposed on
Attachment C - Denial Findings
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 59
Packet Page 238 of 305
Valmont Road directly accesses the Project property and would serve the use by
providing vehicle and pedestrian access to the use. The Applicant’s development plan
shows that this curb cut is located less than two hundred feet from the intersection of
Valmont Road and 28th Street. The intersection is the area embraced within the
prolongation of the lateral curb lines of Valmont Road and 28th Street that join one
another.
4. Operating Characteristics: Section 9-6-10(c)(9), B.R.C. 1981. B.R.C. 1981. The
Applicant failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
proposed operating characteristics of the proposed facility are such that the
proposed drive-thru operation will be reasonably compatible with and have
minimal negative impacts on the use of nearby properties.
The Applicant proposed the operating hours as 9:30 a.m.-1:30 a.m. Sunday-
Thursday and 9:30 a.m. -3:30 a.m. Friday-Saturday. To the west of the property is
Rayback Collective and to the north are drive-thrus for Dunkin Donuts and Taco
Bell. The closing hours for those uses range from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. The proposed
hours for Raising Cane’s are expanded compared to those of similar uses around
the area and these operating hours of the restaurant and drive-thru will add noises
from traffic, idling cars, car music, car doors, and customers and employees in the
middle of the night with negative impacts on the use of nearby residential
properties to the west.
Parking Reduction: The Applicant must demonstrate the proposed use meets all
applicable parking reduction criteria:
1. Parking Reduction Criteria: Section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981.The Applicant failed to
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (A) the parking needs of
the use will be adequately served through on-street parking or off-street parking
or (B) the Applicant’s proposal for an alternate modes of transportation program
is acceptable.
The Applicant requested a 23 % parking reduction as part of the application,
providing only 26 off-street parking spaces on site. There is no on-street parking
conveniently close to the use to accommodate any parking needs generated by the
use. The testimony demonstrated that the proposed number of parking spaces is
based on the number of indoor and outdoor seating. However, in addition to
customers, 10-15 employees are expected to be on site and the parking spaces do
not adequately account for the parking needs of these 10-15 employees. Although
there are transit routes, a bike path along Valmont Rd., and the Elmer’s Tow Mile
Path in proximity to the Project site, the parking spaces do not account for parking
needs of employees working later hours or peak hours. In addition, the
Applicant’s representative testified that the Applicant anticipates kids’ sports
teams to meet in the restaurant after games. This will likely involve parents and
kids of entire teams driving to the restaurant and trying to park there. The
Applicant failed to demonstrate that the parking needs of such a large number of
customers plus the employees will always and on an ongoing basis be adequately
Attachment C - Denial Findings
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 60
Packet Page 239 of 305
accommodated by the on-site parking. The Planning Board also does not find that
the alternate modes of transportation program is acceptable to justify the
requested parking reduction as the Applicant has not shown that it would reduce
the need for on-site parking to an extent that the proposed parking can adequately
accommodate the parking needs of the Project.
As the Project does not propose any residential uses with office or retail or the
joint use of common parking areas, the compliance alternatives of Section 9-9-
6(f)(3)(B) and (C) do not apply.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Planning Board finds that the Applicant has failed to establish that the
proposal meets the use review standards of section 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981, the drive-thru standards
of Section 9-6-10(c), B.R.C. 1981 and the parking reduction criteria of Section 9-9-6(f), B.R.C.
1981.
PLANNING BOARD OPTIONS
Planning Board may:
(1) Approve the applications and adopt findings of approval;
(2) Approve the applications with conditions and adopt findings of approval, or
(3) Deny the application and adopt the findings of denial.
The Planning Board may adopt as proposed by staff or modify and adopt any findings
prepared by staff.
Attachment C - Denial Findings
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 61
Packet Page 240 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
June 16, 2022
Virtual Meeting
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 Gerstle, Chair
Laura Kaplan
Mark McIntyre
ml Robles
Sarah Silver
Lisa Smith
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Jorge Boone
STAFF PRESENT:
Charles Ferro, Development Planning Senior Manager
Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney
Cindy Spence, Planning & Zoning Specialist
Sarah Huntley, Meeting Moderator
Shabnam Bista, City Senior Planner
Sloane Walbert, Planning Manager
Edward Stafford, Civil Engineer Senior Manager
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, J. Gerstle, declared a quorum at 6:01 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by ml. Robles the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone
absent) to approve the May 5, 2022, May 19, 2022, May 26, 2022 and June 2, 2022 minutes as
amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one spoke.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS
A. CALL UP ITEM: Standard Wetland Permit (WET2022-00005); East Boulder Ditch Diversion
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 62
Packet Page 241 of 305
Dam Removal & Reconstruction. The decision may be called up by Planning Board on or
before June 23, 2022.
B. CALL UP ITEM: Use review for the expansion of an existing outside patio for the Postino Wine
Cafe within 500 feet of a residential district at 1468 Pearl Street. The patio will be 716 square
feet in size with 49 exterior seats. The restaurant and patio will operate Mon-Fri from 11:00 a.m.
-11:00 p.m. and Sat-Sun 9:00 a.m. -11:00 p.m. The call-up period expires on June 24, 2022.
C. CALL UP ITEM: MINOR SITE REVIEW AMENDMENT for an addition and renovation to the
existing 20,760 square-foot building, previously Boulder Beer Company at 2880 Wilderness
Place. The addition and renovation will increase the floor area to 30,833 square feet for a new
use consistent with the IG zoning and surrounding buildings. The building will be used by a
medical laboratory. The call-up period expires on June 24, 2022.
These items were not called up.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an
annexation of a 0.9-acre enclave property generally known as 1021 Gapter Road with initial
zoning of Residential – Rural (RR-2) (LUR2021-00054).
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
S. Walbert presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
S. Walbert answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
No one spoke.
Board Comments:
There was no discussion by the board.
Motion:
On a motion by M. McIntyre seconded by ml. Robles the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone absent)
to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 1021
Gapter Road with an initial zoning designation of Residential – Rural 2 (RR-2) pertaining to case
number LUR2021-00054, incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the
recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the draft annexation
agreement in Attachment C.
B. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review for a 3,716 square foot
restaurant (Raising Cane’s) with a double drive-thru and 615 square foot outdoor patio at 3033
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 63
Packet Page 242 of 305
28th Street. A 23% parking reduction has been approved pursuant to administrative review
#ADR2022-00062. The project site is zoned Business-Community 1 (BC-1). Case No.
LUR2020-00061.
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
S. Bista presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
S. Bista and E. Stafford answered questions from the board.
Applicant Presentation:
Danica Powell, with Trestle Strategy Group, James Dixon, with Tebo Properties, and LuAron Foster,
with Raising Cane’s, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
Danica Powell, LuAron Foster, and Bryce Christensen, with Kimley Horn, representing the applicant,
answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
1) Jonathan Singer
2) Macon Cowles
3) Kurt Nordback
4) Bob Schafer
Applicant Rebuttal:
LuAron Foster and Bryce Christensen addressed some of the questions and concerns brought up
during public comments.
Board Comments:
Key Issue #1: Is the proposed project consistent with the Use Review criteria within Section 9-2-
15, B.R.C. 1981?
Key Issue #2: Is the drive-thru facility consistent with the criteria within Section 9-6-10(c), B.R.C.
1981?
Key Issue #3: Does the requested parking reduction meet the criteria within Section 9-9-6(f),
B.R.C. 1981?
• L. Smith said, in general, the proposed use for the restaurant on this location would seem
reasonable. Have hard time opposing given. Aside from safety concerns and signage concerning
the proposed drive-thru, she would have a difficult time opposing the drive-thru given the status
of Broadway and Highway36 and the number of drive-thrus that are on those roads currently.
However, she thought the specific safety concerns of how it would work on the site will be
something the board would discuss in depth. She did not feel opposed to a drive-thru in and of
itself or as a concept as it would meet the criteria. She said the parking reduction would not
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 64
Packet Page 243 of 305
concern her. She would like to discuss the proposed hours and how it would compare to other
restaurants on the site.
• M. McIntyre said he would be in support of voting against this Use Review. He said it would
not meet the code, therefore he would not have a conflict with his vote. He said it does not meet
the letter, intent or spirit of 9-2-15(e). The board should judge and interpret and apply their best
judgment, based on a code that cannot be one hundred percent interpreted. He said he spend a lot
of time within the Code but mainly looked at the BVCP. The Plan does not mention drive-thrus
or the promotion of drive-thrus as an aspirational plan. The Plan does talk about neighborhood
character, and in this case, he found that most of the existing neighborhood character is a
suburban auto center and not an overall ideal experience down 28th Street. The exception to that
experience is the Rayback Collective which has improved the neighborhood character with its
bicycle accessibility which is always packed. An additional drive-thru would not improve the
character or improve the city goals. He said on the Core Values page within the BVCP, it talks
about neighborhoods and development and infill that would support evolution to a more
sustainable urban form, environmental stewardship and climate action and all mode
transportation system to make getting around without a car easy. The application has failed with
core values of the BVCP. This plan was based on a template and could be placed in any
suburban, car-centric area; however, it does not read like an application for Boulder. He quoted
Policies 6.01, 6.05, 6.14 from the BVCP and said this particular plan read like what should not
be done when applying for a Use Review within the City of Boulder. The applicant had chosen a
design, with a drive-thru as their dominant mode, and does not read like an application for
Boulder. He said based on both the letter of the Code and the intent and spirit of the BVCP, he
would be voting to not approve.
• ml. Robles said, regarding Key Issue #1, that there were some folks from the public that spoke to
that as well, and she agreed with their comments. She did not believe this project would be
providing a direct service to the neighborhood especially when seventy percent of the client base
would be coming in from their cars, late at night. Since the closing hour would be 3:00 a.m. and
the buses would not be running, those employees would need a place to park their vehicles. She
said that has not been accommodated in the proposal and it would impact the neighborhood. She
said the proposal did not meet Key Issue #1. Regarding Key Issue #2, while there had been a
preexisting drive-thru at that location, she said that would be irrelevant as this would be a new
application and this would be a new use of a drive-thru for this site. She said the board had heard
comments regarding the environmental impacts from the number of proposed cars, the noise, and
the air quality from the proposal. The plan does not appear to offer a place for a pedestrian to
enter from 28th Street without being in a car centric area and she said that seemed problematic.
She could not imagine this proposal not creating an impact on Valmont with cars queuing up to
enter the site. While there are arguments that 28th Street is already a busy and has a lot of cars on
it, the goal should be to start reducing that. She did not believe that the application met Key Issue
#2. Regarding Key Issue #3 and the parking reduction, she said if the staff was not going to be
accommodated, then that would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. She was
inclined to decline this application.
• S. Silver said the Code allows for drive-thru operations in the zone it has proposed. She was
more aligned with L. Smith in her opinion. She said this would be an allowed use. Personally,
she would want to change the hours of operation to close to be the same as the Rayback
Collective so it would be keeping with the general essence of the neighborhood serving into
businesses. She added that this is one of those challenges when the landowner wants to use the
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 65
Packet Page 244 of 305
land in a certain way however the board may or may not think it would be the best use of that
land. She appreciated the issues addressed by M. McIntyre from the BVCP. On an aside, she
noted that limiting the Site Review update to just few elements of the BVCP would be a bad
ideas from the board’s perspective since there would be a lot of other issues within the BVCP
which the board would want to reference at any given time with any given project. Generally,
she had to agree with L. Smith, but understood the concerns of ml. Robles and M. McIntyre.
• L. Kaplan said she understood that this highly auto-dependent use of a double drive-thru would
not be the direction that we would want to take Boulder per the BVCP; however, per code, the
BVCP is not one of the criteria which the board uses to judge the Use Reviews. Also, she
expressed concern with specific things that applied to the drive-thru and the parking reduction.
She said she thought the proposal failed on the safety criteria due to the curb cut on Valmont
being located within two hundred feet of the intersection of two major streets. In addition, she
had concerns regarding the double drive-thru. While she was convinced that staff and the
applicant had worked hard to make the design possible for this particular site, she was not
convinced it would work or would be safe. She had fears there would be accidents, people would
be hurt, and there would be significant impacts to traffic. She did not know how to design make
it better and maybe there would not be a way to accommodate a double drive-thru on that site
that would be safe and, at the same time, have the screening wall which would be required by
code. Based on those two points, she said she would have difficulty approving this project.
Regarding the number of proposed parking spaces, she was not certain there would be enough
based on the number of employees and restaurant seating. In addition, there is no nearby on-
street parking on 28th Street or Valmont. All of these concerns could create a potentially
dangerous traffic and pedestrian situation. In response to staff’s explanation to her question
regarding the safety criteria due to the curb cut on Valmont being located within two hundred
feet of the intersection of two major streets, she said she did not agree with staff’s interpretation.
While she has great respect for staff and the work they do, staff have previously established the
Valmont entrance would be an essential in and out point for the restaurant. She said that having
just one entrance on 28th Street would not be adequate to serve the circulation of that site.
Therefore, the curb cut which leads to what staff were considering a “private alley” directly
serves the drive-thru and appeared to be an essential access point for the drive-thru.
• J. Gerstle said the proposed project would be consistent with the Use Review criteria, however
he did not think the drive-thru facility was consistent with the criteria which was described as
pointed out by L. Kaplan. Regarding the requested parking reduction, this facility will be
dependent on people showing up in cars, therefore he did not think it would be appropriate to
give a reduction for that parking requirement, given the nature of the business. In general, he was
sympathetic with the points made by M. McIntyre and ml. Robles with respect to how this
project would fit in with our BVCP objectives and goals. However, it has been pointed out the
board must make a criteria-based decision tonight.
• S. Silver said it would appear that four out of the six board members present would be against
this application. She would be happy to support the majority.
• L. Smith said she was open either way. While she was not overly supportive of the drive-thru,
she was not overly concerned about it. She was curious what would be useful to the applicant at
this time.
• ml. Robles said she was very specific that Key Issues #1 and #2 do not meet the applicable
codes as opposed to referencing the values in the BVCP.
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 66
Packet Page 245 of 305
• M. McIntyre stated that while he did reference a lot of things from the BVCP, he would be
basing his vote on what he judged to be the failure to meet the Use Review Criteria 9-2-15(e)2a,
9-2-15(e)2b, and 9-2-15(e)2c. He did not find that this application met the criteria.
Motion:
On a motion by M. McIntyre seconded by ml. Robles the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone absent)
to continue this item for preparation of denial findings on June 23, 2022.
6. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. INFORMATION ITEM: Outdoor Dining Pilot Program
B. AGENDA ITEM: Retreat Planning
Board Comments:
• The board was supportive of focusing on process, rather than substantive issues, at a
Retreat. They agreed to look at the substantive issues under Matters during meetings
rather than scheduling two Retreat dates.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
APPROVED BY
_________
Board Chair
____06.23.2022___________
DATE
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 67
Packet Page 246 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
June 16, 2022
Virtual Meeting
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 Gerstle, Chair
Laura Kaplan
Mark McIntyre
ml Robles
Sarah Silver
Lisa Smith
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Jorge Boone
STAFF PRESENT:
Charles Ferro, Development Planning Senior Manager
Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney
Cindy Spence, Planning & Zoning Specialist
Sarah Huntley, Meeting Moderator
Shabnam Bista, City Senior Planner
Sloane Walbert, Planning Manager
Edward Stafford, Civil Engineer Senior Manager
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, J. Gerstle, declared a quorum at 6:01 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by L. Kaplan and seconded by ml. Robles the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone
absent) to approve the May 5, 2022, May 19, 2022, May 26, 2022 and June 2, 2022 minutes as
amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one spoke.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS
A. CALL UP ITEM: Standard Wetland Permit (WET2022-00005); East Boulder Ditch Diversion
06.16.2022 PB Draft Minutes Page 1 of 6
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 68
Packet Page 247 of 305
Dam Removal & Reconstruction. The decision may be called up by Planning Board on or
before June 23, 2022.
B. CALL UP ITEM: Use review for the expansion of an existing outside patio for the Postino Wine
Cafe within 500 feet of a residential district at 1468 Pearl Street. The patio will be 716 square
feet in size with 49 exterior seats. The restaurant and patio will operate Mon-Fri from 11:00 a.m.
-11:00 p.m. and Sat-Sun 9:00 a.m. -11:00 p.m. The call-up period expires on June 24, 2022.
C. CALL UP ITEM: MINOR SITE REVIEW AMENDMENT for an addition and renovation to the
existing 20,760 square-foot building, previously Boulder Beer Company at 2880 Wilderness
Place. The addition and renovation will increase the floor area to 30,833 square feet for a new
use consistent with the IG zoning and surrounding buildings. The building will be used by a
medical laboratory. The call-up period expires on June 24, 2022.
These items were not called up.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an
annexation of a 0.9-acre enclave property generally known as 1021 Gapter Road with initial
zoning of Residential – Rural (RR-2) (LUR2021-00054).
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
S. Walbert presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
S. Walbert answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
No one spoke.
Board Comments:
There was no discussion by the board.
Motion:
On a motion by M. McIntyre seconded by ml. Robles the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone absent)
to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 1021
Gapter Road with an initial zoning designation of Residential – Rural 2 (RR-2) pertaining to case
number LUR2021-00054, incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the
recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the draft annexation
agreement in Attachment C.
B. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review for a 3,716 square foot
restaurant (Raising Cane’s) with a double drive-thru and 615 square foot outdoor patio at 3033
06.16.2022 PB Draft Minutes Page 2 of 6
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 69
Packet Page 248 of 305
28th Street. A 23% parking reduction has been approved pursuant to administrative review
#ADR2022-00062. The project site is zoned Business-Community 1 (BC-1). Case No.
LUR2020-00061.
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
S. Bista presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
S. Bista and E. Stafford answered questions from the board.
Applicant Presentation:
Danica Powell, with Trestle Strategy Group, James Dixon, with Tebo Properties, and LuAron Foster,
with Raising Cane’s, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
Danica Powell, LuAron Foster, and Bryce Christensen, with Kimley Horn, representing the applicant,
answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
1) Jonathan Singer
2) Macon Cowles
3) Kurt Nordback
4) Bob Schafer
Applicant Rebuttal:
LuAron Foster and Bryce Christensen addressed some of the questions and concerns brought up
during public comments.
Board Comments:
Key Issue #1: Is the proposed project consistent with the Use Review criteria within Section 9-2-
15, B.R.C. 1981?
Key Issue #2: Is the drive-thru facility consistent with the criteria within Section 9-6-10(c), B.R.C.
1981?
Key Issue #3: Does the requested parking reduction meet the criteria within Section 9-9-6(f),
B.R.C. 1981?
• L. Smith said, in general, the proposed use for the restaurant on this location would seem
reasonable. Have hard time opposing given. Aside from safety concerns and signage concerning
the proposed drive-thru, she would have a difficult time opposing the drive-thru given the status
of Broadway and Highway36 and the number of drive-thrus that are on those roads currently.
However, she thought the specific safety concerns of how it would work on the site will be
something the board would discuss in depth. She did not feel opposed to a drive-thru in and of
itself or as a concept as it would meet the criteria. She said the parking reduction would not
06.16.2022 PB Draft Minutes Page 3 of 6
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 70
Packet Page 249 of 305
concern her. She would like to discuss the proposed hours and how it would compare to other
restaurants on the site.
• M. McIntyre said he would be in support of voting against this Use Review. He said it would
not meet the code, therefore he would not have a conflict with his vote. He said it does not meet
the letter, intent or spirit of 9-2-15(e). The board should judge and interpret and apply their best
judgment, based on a code that cannot be one hundred percent interpreted. He said he spend a lot
of time within the Code but mainly looked at the BVCP. The Plan does not mention drive-thrus
or the promotion of drive-thrus as an aspirational plan. The Plan does talk about neighborhood
character, and in this case, he found that most of the existing neighborhood character is a
suburban auto center and not an overall ideal experience down 28th Street. The exception to that
experience is the Rayback Collective which has improved the neighborhood character with its
bicycle accessibility which is always packed. An additional drive-thru would not improve the
character or improve the city goals. He said on the Core Values page within the BVCP, it talks
about neighborhoods and development and infill that would support evolution to a more
sustainable urban form, environmental stewardship and climate action and all mode
transportation system to make getting around without a car easy. The application has failed with
core values of the BVCP. This plan was based on a template and could be placed in any
suburban, car-centric area; however, it does not read like an application for Boulder. He quoted
Policies 6.01, 6.05, 6.14 from the BVCP and said this particular plan read like what should not
be done when applying for a Use Review within the City of Boulder. The applicant had chosen a
design, with a drive-thru as their dominant mode, and does not read like an application for
Boulder. He said based on both the letter of the Code and the intent and spirit of the BVCP, he
would be voting to not approve.
• ml. Robles said, regarding Key Issue #1, that there were some folks from the public that spoke to
that as well, and she agreed with their comments. She did not believe this project would be
providing a direct service to the neighborhood especially when seventy percent of the client base
would be coming in from their cars, late at night. Since the closing hour would be 3:00 a.m. and
the buses would not be running, those employees would need a place to park their vehicles. She
said that has not been accommodated in the proposal and it would impact the neighborhood. She
said the proposal did not meet Key Issue #1. Regarding Key Issue #2, while there had been a
preexisting drive-thru at that location, she said that would be irrelevant as this would be a new
application and this would be a new use of a drive-thru for this site. She said the board had heard
comments regarding the environmental impacts from the number of proposed cars, the noise, and
the air quality from the proposal. The plan does not appear to offer a place for a pedestrian to
enter from 28th Street without being in a car centric area and she said that seemed problematic.
She could not imagine this proposal not creating an impact on Valmont with cars queuing up to
enter the site. While there are arguments that 28th Street is already a busy and has a lot of cars on
it, the goal should be to start reducing that. She did not believe that the application met Key Issue
#2. Regarding Key Issue #3 and the parking reduction, she said if the staff was not going to be
accommodated, then that would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. She was
inclined to decline this application.
• S. Silver said the Code allows for drive-thru operations in the zone it has proposed. She was
more aligned with L. Smith in her opinion. She said this would be an allowed use. Personally,
she would want to change the hours of operation to close to be the same as the Rayback
Collective so it would be keeping with the general essence of the neighborhood serving into
businesses. She added that this is one of those challenges when the landowner wants to use the
06.16.2022 PB Draft Minutes Page 4 of 6
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 71
Packet Page 250 of 305
land in a certain way however the board may or may not think it would be the best use of that
land. She appreciated the issues addressed by M. McIntyre from the BVCP. On an aside, she
noted that limiting the Site Review update to just few elements of the BVCP would be a bad
ideas from the board’s perspective since there would be a lot of other issues within the BVCP
which the board would want to reference at any given time with any given project. Generally,
she had to agree with L. Smith, but understood the concerns of ml. Robles and M. McIntyre.
• L. Kaplan said she understood that this highly auto-dependent use of a double drive-thru would
not be the direction that we would want to take Boulder per the BVCP; however, per code, the
BVCP is not one of the criteria which the board uses to judge the Use Reviews. Also, she
expressed concern with specific things that applied to the drive-thru and the parking reduction.
She said she thought the proposal failed on the safety criteria due to the curb cut on Valmont
being located within two hundred feet of the intersection of two major streets. In addition, she
had concerns regarding the double drive-thru. While she was convinced that staff and the
applicant had worked hard to make the design possible for this particular site, she was not
convinced it would work or would be safe. She had fears there would be accidents, people would
be hurt, and there would be significant impacts to traffic. She did not know how to design make
it better and maybe there would not be a way to accommodate a double drive-thru on that site
that would be safe and, at the same time, have the screening wall which would be required by
code. Based on those two points, she said she would have difficulty approving this project.
Regarding the number of proposed parking spaces, she was not certain there would be enough
based on the number of employees and restaurant seating. In addition, there is no nearby on-
street parking on 28th Street or Valmont. All of these concerns could create a potentially
dangerous traffic and pedestrian situation. In response to staff’s explanation to her question
regarding the safety criteria due to the curb cut on Valmont being located within two hundred
feet of the intersection of two major streets, she said she did not agree with staff’s interpretation.
While she has great respect for staff and the work they do, staff have previously established the
Valmont entrance would be an essential in and out point for the restaurant. She said that having
just one entrance on 28th Street would not be adequate to serve the circulation of that site.
Therefore, the curb cut which leads to what staff were considering a “private alley” directly
serves the drive-thru and appeared to be an essential access point for the drive-thru.
• J. Gerstle said the proposed project would be consistent with the Use Review criteria, however
he did not think the drive-thru facility was consistent with the criteria which was described as
pointed out by L. Kaplan. Regarding the requested parking reduction, this facility will be
dependent on people showing up in cars, therefore he did not think it would be appropriate to
give a reduction for that parking requirement, given the nature of the business. In general, he was
sympathetic with the points made by M. McIntyre and ml. Robles with respect to how this
project would fit in with our BVCP objectives and goals. However, it has been pointed out the
board must make a criteria-based decision tonight.
• S. Silver said it would appear that four out of the six board members present would be against
this application. She would be happy to support the majority.
• L. Smith said she was open either way. While she was not overly supportive of the drive-thru,
she was not overly concerned about it. She was curious what would be useful to the applicant at
this time.
• ml. Robles said she was very specific that Key Issues #1 and #2 do not meet the applicable
codes as opposed to referencing the values in the BVCP.
06.16.2022 PB Draft Minutes Page 5 of 6
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 72
Packet Page 251 of 305
• M. McIntyre stated that while he did reference a lot of things from the BVCP, he would be
basing his vote on what he judged to be the failure to meet the Use Review Criteria 9-2-15(e)2a,
9-2-15(e)2b, and 9-2-15(e)2c. He did not find that this application met the criteria.
Motion:
On a motion by M. McIntyre seconded by ml. Robles the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Boone absent)
to continue this item for preparation of denial findings on June 23, 2022.
6. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. INFORMATION ITEM: Outdoor Dining Pilot Program
B. AGENDA ITEM: Retreat Planning
Board Comments:
• The board was supportive of focusing on process, rather than substantive issues, at a
Retreat. They agreed to look at the substantive issues under Matters during meetings
rather than scheduling two Retreat dates.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
APPROVED BY
___________________
Board Chair
___________________
DATE
06.16.2022 PB Draft Minutes Page 6 of 6
Attachment D - Adopted Minutes from June 16, 2022
and draft minutes June 23, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Item 4B - 3033 28th Street (Raising Cane's) Use Review Page 73
Packet Page 252 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
Landmark Alteration C ertificate to install cementitious siding at 456 Mapleton Ave., C ity of
Boulder, Colorado, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District., under
C hapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
C lare Brandt, Preservation Planner
B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M
Landmarks Board meeting 07.06.2022
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 4C - 456 Mapleton Av e. L andmark Alteration Certificate
Packet Page 253 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE: Call-up Consideration and extension of call up period:
Landmark Alteration Certificate to install cementitious siding at 456 Mapleton
Ave., a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District
PRESENTERS
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services
Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Lucas Markley, Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
Marcy Gerwing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner
Clare Brandt, Historic Preservation Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposal to install cementitious siding at 456 Mapleton Ave., a contributing property
in the Mapleton Hill Historic District was conditionally approved by the Landmarks
Board (3-2), at its July 6, 2022 meeting.
The decision was based upon the board’s consideration that the proposal generally meets
the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18,
B.R.C. 1981.
The board’s approval is subject to a 14-day call-up period by City Council, no later than
July 20, 2022. However, the 14-day call-up period cannot be met because the next
regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on Thursday, July 21, 2022.
Section 9-11-16(a) of B.R.C. 1981 states: “The City Manager may extend the call-up
period until the council’s next regular meeting, if the manager finds in writing within the
original call-up period that the council will not receive notice of a decision of the board in
time to enable it to call-up the decision for review.”
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 1
Packet Page 254 of 305
The city manager finds that, because the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is
after the call-up period, it did not receive notice of the Landmarks Board’s decision
regarding 456 Mapleton Ave. in time to consider call-up within 14 days. Therefore, the
City Manager extends the call-up period for this application until the City Council’s next
scheduled meeting on Thursday, July 21, 2022.
Approved By:
_____________________
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde,
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Disposition for 456 Mapleton Ave., dated July 6, 2022.
Attachment B: July 6, 2022 Landmarks Board Memo for 456 Mapleton Ave. (link)
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 2
Packet Page 255 of 305
Attachment A: Notice of Disposition for 456 Mapleton Ave., July 6, 2022
Notice of Disposition
You are hereby advised that on July 6, 2022 the following action was taken by the
Landmarks Board:
ACTION: Recommended for approval by a vote of 3-2
APPLICATION: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate application to install cementitious siding at 456
Mapleton Ave., a contributing property in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981 and under the procedures
prescribed by chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,”
B.R.C. 1981 (HIS2022-00131).
LOCATION: 456 Mapleton Ave.
ZONING: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
OWNER: Tufo Henry M III Revoc Trust
APPLICANT: Michael Oberg
This decision was based on the Board’s consideration that, provided the stated conditions
are met, the proposal generally meets the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally consistent with
the General Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks and the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
Applicant’s Presentation
Michael Oberg presented the application to the board.
Public Comment
The following members of the public spoke regarding the application:
1. Kathryn Barth
Motion
On a motion by R. Pelusio, seconded by J. Decker, the Landmarks Board voted to (3-2,
Jellick and Daniels dissenting) adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated July
6, 2022 and conditionally approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to install
cementitious siding at 456 Mapleton Ave., a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 3
Packet Page 256 of 305
Historic District, as shown on application dated June 8, 2022, finding that the proposal
meets the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-
18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines provided
the stated conditions are met.
Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the
approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit final architectural
plans and specifications to staff for its final review and approval to ensure that the
final design is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Guidelines, the intent of this approval, and the following:
a. Revised detailing to use smooth (no faux texture) horizontal siding (no
scalloped/fish scale pattern).
b. Details on the size (including lap exposure), type and style of siding
proposed to illustrate that the proposed cementitious siding matches the
design, lap exposure (reveal), profile and dimensions of the original siding
(per 1949 photographs).
c. Detail of historic window trim and apron that will be repaired, rather than
replaced. Specifications for restoring deteriorated historic trim and apron
(in wood) to match the historic detailing, if needed.
d. Detail of paint color and gutters proposed.
e. Revised drawings showing siding not lowered at the street-facing
elevations.
3. Applicant shall acknowledge that the installation of cementitious siding may not
be eligible for State Historic Preservation Tax Credits.
W. Jellick and A. Daniels’ dissenting votes were due to their opinion that cementitious
siding is not an appropriate material on contributing historic buildings based on the
Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation.
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 4
Packet Page 257 of 305
Figure 1. Location map, 456 Mapleton Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Figure 2. 456 Mapleton Ave. Real Estate Appraisal card photograph, c. 1949.
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 5
Packet Page 258 of 305
Figure 3. 456 Mapleton Ave. Historic Building Inventory Record, 1994
Figure 18. Current north elevation (siding removed), 2022.
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 6
Packet Page 259 of 305
Figure 4. 456 Mapleton Ave. north (façade) elevation, prior to siding being removed 2022
Figure 5. 456 Mapleton Ave. northeast (façade), prior to siding being removed 2022
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 7
Packet Page 260 of 305
Figure 6. 456 Mapleton Ave. east elevation, prior to siding being removed 2022
Figure 7. 456 Mapleton Ave. east elevation and rear addition (1983-1988), prior to siding being removed 2022
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 8
Packet Page 261 of 305
Figure 8. 456 Mapleton Ave. rear addition (1983-1988), prior to siding being removed 2022
Figure 9. 456 Mapleton Ave. rear addition (1983-1988), prior to siding being removed 2022
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 9
Packet Page 262 of 305
Figure 10. 456 Mapleton Ave. south and west elevation, prior to siding being removed 2022
Figure 11. North elevation, façade. Horizontal siding proposed on body; scalloped/fishtail pattern proposed for gable ends,
indicated with dashed blue line.
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 10
Packet Page 263 of 305
Figure 12. East elevation. Horizontal siding proposed on body; scalloped/fishtail pattern proposed for gable ends, indicated with
dashed blue line.
Figure 13. South elevation. Horizontal siding proposed on body.
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 11
Packet Page 264 of 305
Figure 141. West elevation. Horizontal siding proposed on body; scalloped/fishtail pattern proposed for gable ends, indicated
with dashed blue line.
Item 4C - 456 Mapleton Avenue Landmark Alteration Certificate Page 12
Packet Page 265 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
C ore Arterial Network (C A N) Update
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Valerie Watson, Transportation Planning Manager
I S T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T O N T HE C O U N C I L WORK P L AN?
Yes
H AS T HI S I T E M/P RO J E C T B E E N B U D GE T E D?
Yes
WHAT P RI MARY SU STAI N AB I L I T Y F RAME W O RK OU T C OME I S B E I N G
SU P P O RT E D?
Safe C ommunity
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Core Arterial Network (C AN) Update
Packet Page 266 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update
PRESENTER(S)
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager
Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility
Valerie Watson, Transportation Planning Manager
Gerrit Slatter, Principal Transportation Projects Engineer
Devin Joslin, Principal Traffic Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Boulder has been working for decades to create a safe, equitable and reliable
transportation and mobility system that offers travel choices and supports achieving our
climate goals (2019 Transportation Master Plan, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan).
As a result, we see significant numbers of people walking, bicycling, scooting, and taking
transit as they move about or travel in and out of the city. Although we have made great
progress, more work remains to be done along our arterial streets, which often have
higher traffic volumes and speeds and can be more complex to navigate compared to
other streets in the city. While arterials make up only 17% of streets within the city,
findings from the Vision Zero Boulder: Safe Streets Report (SSR) show that citywide
67% of total crashes resulting in severe injury or fatality occur on arterials.
In response, the city is focusing its investments and resources to design and construct
improvements on a “Core Arterial Network” (CAN). The CAN is the connected system
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 1
Packet Page 267 of 305
of protected bicycle lanes, intersection enhancements, pedestrian facilities, and transit
facility upgrades that will help reduce the potential for severe crashes and make it more
comfortable and convenient for people to get where they need to go along Boulder’s main
corridors. The 13 corridors and associated street segments identified in the CAN form a
prioritized subset of the Transportation & Mobility Department’s work plan over the next
3-5 years for project initiation, ongoing project efforts, prioritization of staff efforts and
city resources, and pursuit of grant and external funding (Attachment A).
In February 2022, the Boulder City Council, in partnership with the Transportation
Advisory Board (TAB), elevated work on the CAN as one of its 10 priorities for city
department efforts. Council emphasized a need to “be bold” and to accelerate progress on
CAN project development, design, community engagement, and implementation.
Subsequently, staff developed an overall CAN initiative work plan and schedule. Since
then, staff provided an update to TAB in April 2022 and developed initial communication
and engagement content such as a project website, tabled at the annual Bicycle Film
Festival to debut the CAN work plan and initiative approach with the public, collaborated
with local walking and bicycling advocacy leaders in solidifying partnerships to support
future community engagement, and started work to develop project management and
community engagement strategies for CAN Priority Corridors, for which the department
will initiate design and project development efforts over 2022-2023.
In advance of a City Council Study Session tentatively scheduled for November 2022,
staff will update TAB on overall progress tentatively in October or November 2022. By
Fall 2022, staff aim to have conducted initial community engagement to inform the
project development process for Baseline, as well as progress on the conceptual design
for the corridor. Staff also aim to initiate project development and community
engagement on Iris Avenue in Fall 2022. In Fall 2023, staff aim to initiate project
development and community engagement for Folsom Street.
This memorandum provides: an overview on the CAN and its role in the mobility system;
the CAN’s relationship to the city’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) which
incorporates street design upgrades and safety improvements into annual roadway
pavement resurfacing work; and the overall work plan, timeline considerations, funding
strategy, and community engagement considerations for the CAN.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic - This project helps the city achieve its economic goals by improving
multimodal infrastructure that enhances safety and connectivity for people
walking, bicycling, and taking transit. Providing improved multimodal
infrastructure on Boulder’s arterial streets leverages the existing world-class
network of off-street multi-use paths, existing on-street bicycle network, and
existing transit service to afford even more low-stress connectivity for residents,
employees and visitors of a wide range of ages and abilities to key employment
and shopping destinations. Analysis conducted by staff to understand the potential
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 2
Packet Page 268 of 305
impact of project implementation reveals that 71% of Boulder jobs and 63% of
Boulder residents are within one-half mile of a CAN corridor.
• Environmental - This project helps the city achieve its environmental goals by
facilitating non-vehicular modes of transportation and shifting single occupancy
vehicle trips to transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing vehicle miles
traveled and associated greenhouse gases. This shift can also protect water and air
quality through reduction of mobile source emissions of pollutants and can work
to help achieve the city’s energy and climate goals by providing comfortable and
convenient modes of transportation throughout the city, especially in areas
currently lacking east-west and north-south connectivity for people walking and
bicycling.
• Social - This project helps the city achieve its social sustainability goals by
improving the transportation options for all members of the community to use.
With transportation generally accounting for the second highest household cost,
connecting people to jobs, healthcare, healthy food, parks, and other opportunity
with a range of mobility choices is part of lifting up those in our community who
have experienced or currently experience financial hardship.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – A funding strategy for the CAN is under development. Seven of the 13
corridors already have funding for design and/or construction. Looking forward:
o Staff have identified funds from the existing 2022 budget and anticipated
2023 budget that can be repurposed from other departmental work plan
efforts to support the initiation of design and community engagement
along the three CAN Priority Corridors in 2022 and 2023. These funding
sources were previously earmarked for an update to the Transportation
Master Plan (which will now be delayed), the Neighborhood Speed
Management Program (NSMP), the Neighborhood GreenStreets program,
as well as a small pocket of funds allocated to Vision Zero improvements
along NSMP and GreenStreets projects.
o Beyond these project initiation funds for the three CAN Priority Corridors,
staff will work to scope additional budgetary and staffing needs for
planning and capital efforts for the remainder of CAN initiative needs.
Staff will present Council with initial estimates of funding and other
resource needs at the City Council Study Session on the CAN slated for
November 2022.
o Staff have identified the opportunity to pursue external funding through
the Subregional Call for Projects of the Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
including the following projects located on CAN corridors. Initial
application scoring is anticipated in August 2022 for the Call #2 projects
submitted in June 2022, listed below. Staff are working to identify
additional CAN corridors with the potential to be competitive in the future
Call #4 application cycle that opens in late 2022.
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 3
Packet Page 269 of 305
Baseline Road Enhanced Transit Stops & Separated Bike Lanes
(30th Street to Foothills Parkway) (Call #2; application submitted)
CO93/Broadway & Table Mesa and CO93/Broadway & Regent
Transit Priority Intersections (Call #2; application submitted)
30th Street Preliminary Design (CO7/Arapahoe to CO119) (Call
#2; application submitted)
• Staff Time - Staff efforts and city resources will be shifted from certain areas of
the department’s work plan that relate to neighborhood or local streets to initiate
design and community engagement for projects on the CAN that are not already
underway. Staff and resource reallocation will include: the delay of an update to
the city’s Transportation Master Plan; pause of design, community engagement,
and construction of street improvements as part of the Neighborhood Speed
Management Program (NSMP) and Neighborhood GreenStreets program; and
Vision Zero improvements along NSMP and Neighborhood GreenStreets street
segments.
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE
None.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
On April 11, 2022, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) asked clarification
questions around the overall CAN Initiative work plan schedule and intent of community
engagement. No formal action was taken by TAB for this item.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
For the Core Arterial Network work plan, community engagement is an integral and
continual part of the overall project development process. Specific engagement strategies
will be developed for each individual corridor per the City’s Community Engagement
Framework which will range from the “inform” to “consult” level of engagement
depending upon the project scope and scale, timeline constraints, and other
considerations. Staff’s goal is to strengthen existing relationships with community-based
organizations and advocacy partners, as well as develop new relationships to broaden the
reach and quality of community engagement.
The emphasis on community engagement as a continual process throughout the life of the
overall corridor project development process reflects the principals articulated in the
City’s Community Engagement Framework, namely addressing concerns raised
previously by members of the public that they do not feel “heard,” that members of the
community most directly impacted are often not involved, and that decisions on city
efforts seemed to already be pre-determined before engagement or projects start.
Additionally, continual engagement will allow for multiple opportunities over the course
of the project development process for community members to interact and inform the
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 4
Packet Page 270 of 305
city’s efforts. In contrast to previous efforts, community engagement is not a discrete
phase of a project that lengthens the overall project timeline, but rather, a constant
feedback loop that informs project design each step of the way through to construction.
In addition to more traditional engagement approaches, staff is scoping engagement
activities via the Boulder Walks program to offer community engagement support for
individual projects – such as walk audits, Spanish-language and older adult-focused
engagement activities, and community celebrations – tailored to the needs and context of
individual corridor efforts. Staff will also be exploring a collaboration with Community
Cycles to support bikeabouts and other engagement activities for individual corridor
efforts. Additionally, staff are in regular communication with the City of Boulder’s
Communication and Engagement Department’s neighborhood liaisons who oversee the
Community Connectors program, which staff will leverage when appropriate in project
areas where there is a need for community members and organizations trusted within
their own neighborhoods to facilitate conversations with underrepresented communities.
Per the City of Boulder’s Racial Equity Plan, staff will build the use of the newly
available Racial Equity Tool into overall pre-design efforts and community engagement
strategy development for each corridor and, in general, strive to foster an environment of
respect and conduct a dignified process that builds trust and confidence in both the city’s
efforts as well as overall, long-term project support.
BACKGROUND
The 2022 Vision Zero Boulder: Safe Streets Report found that a majority (67%) of traffic
crashes that result in severe injury or fatality occur on Boulder’s arterial streets. 44% of
total citywide severe and fatal crashes occur along streets identified in the CAN work
plan. As a Vison Zero city, we believe no one should be killed or seriously injured on our
streets. In addition to the devastating impact of severe crashes on people’s lives, the Safe
Streets Report estimates the societal cost of serious injury and fatal crashes in Boulder
between 2018-2020 alone at $100 million. In tandem with the overall CAN initiative, the
forthcoming update to the city’s Vision Zero Action Plan will inform project
development along CAN corridors, identifying potential additional safety
countermeasures best suited to mitigate crashes along this network of streets and
complement foundational project elements. Strategic investment in targeted safety
countermeasures is proven to pay dividends considering their high benefit to cost ratio.
In addition to addressing the human costs of these crashes, the CAN will also help
Boulder make progress toward its climate goals. With many local and regional transit
service options and more than 300 miles of bikeways, including 73 miles of multi-use
paths and nearly 90 bicycle and pedestrian underpasses, Boulder has an extensive
network of multimodal infrastructure that makes it easier to choose non-vehicular forms
of travel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The CAN will enhance connections
between these existing facilities and the places people live and work and their other daily
community destinations.
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 5
Packet Page 271 of 305
Relationship to Other Plans and Adopted City Policy
The focus on the Core Arterial Network provides a clear path forward for improvements
to these streets, many of which have already been identified in the city’s adopted
transportation plans such as the 2019 Transportation Master Plan and Low-Stress Walk
and Bike Network Plan. Concentrating the city’s resources and pursing grant funding for
these projects will also address the goals of overarching city plans like the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan and Climate Action Plan.
As shown in Attachment A, each of the 13 CAN corridors has a general designation that
describes the modal emphasis – or potential for either bikeway- or bus-focused
improvements – along these streets. Bus-focused improvements include project elements
that contribute to service efficiency and rider experience and comfort. Bikeway-focused
improvements include the introduction or upgrade of project elements, such as vertical
and/or horizontal separation, that contribute to bicycle facility safety, quality,
connectivity, and user comfort. Specific emphasis on project elements that reduce
conflicts between modes and enhance connectivity for people walking and/or accessing
the bus along these streets are common to all CAN corridors. Several of the CAN
corridors are also identified as regional arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors in the
Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS) network. High-frequency transit service, paired
with bus-focused improvements, offers a convenient travel option that is time-
competitive with the automobile and an opportunity to reduce the nearly 80-percent of
Boulder commute trips that are currently drive-alone. With one exception (Pearl Street),
all of the CAN bikeway corridors were identified in the city’s Low-Stress Walk and Bike
Network Plan as candidates for bicycle facility design that incorporates vertical
separation, such as protected bicycle lanes or multi-use paths. (Note that the Low-Stress
Walk and Bike Network Plan identifies Pine Street and Walnut Street, parallel corridors
to Pearl Street, as key east-west bicycle connections.)
As a next step, project development for each CAN corridor will build from the policy
direction of these adopted city transportation plans and closely explore existing
conditions, advance conceptual designs infused with input from community engagement,
and examine the feasibility of proposed project elements responsive to the needs of each
corridor.
Three of the 13 CAN corridors (Baseline Road, Colorado Avenue, and Folsom Street)
have street segments that are identified in the city’s Pavement Management Program
(PMP) for future roadway pavement resurfacing. This offers an opportunity to design and
implement safety and connectivity improvements along these three street segments in
tandem with pavement resurfacing, a best practice for maximizing implementation and
resource efficiency.
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 6
Packet Page 272 of 305
ANALYSIS
In February 2022, Boulder City Council identified 13 individual corridors along the city’s
arterial street network where the city will focus its efforts over the next several years.
Projects along these streets will enhance connectivity along the CAN – amplifying
previous investments and ensuring a predictable, safe journey between where people live
and work and major destinations, such as schools, parks, grocery stores, and shopping, to
name a few. As shown in Attachment B, many projects are already underway to improve
arterial safety and others will be initiated over the next 3-5 years.
Staff efforts and city resources will be shifted from certain areas of the department’s
work plan that relate to neighborhood or local streets to initiate design and community
engagement for projects on the CAN that are not already underway. Staff and resource
reallocation will include: the delay of an update to the city’s Transportation Master Plan;
pause of design, community engagement, and construction of street improvements as part
of the Neighborhood Speed Management Program (NSMP) and Neighborhood
GreenStreets program; and Vision Zero improvements along NSMP and Neighborhood
GreenStreets street segments.
The typical project development process, shown in Attachment C, offers a look at the
various phases of an individual corridor project timeline. As mentioned above,
community engagement is a continual piece of the design process, with the most potential
for influence on the project process early on, tapering off toward the latter phase of
construction. Many factors can influence the overall timeline for an individual corridor
effort, including but not limited to the following: balancing staff and funding resources
and ongoing commitments; conflicting public opinions; road pavement resurfacing; flood
plain and hydrology; utility relocation; entitled development projects or other agency
work in the public right of way; procurement and supply chain issues; right-of way
acquisition needs; and university system and school schedules. As a general approach and
in response to Council’s elevation of these corridors as priority work plan items for the
Transportation and Mobility Department, staff have accelerated timelines to the extent
feasible to realize the safety and connectivity improvements as swiftly as possible.
Active Projects
Design and community engagement have already started on seven of the 13 CAN
corridors, with construction anticipated to start between 2023 and 2024. Staff have also
been working on updates to some of the city’s Design and Construction Standards, an
effort to better align the technical street design standards used for projects with the city’s
vision for a multimodal and connected transportation system.
Projects with ongoing and active work include:
• 28th Street Improvement Projects (Canyon Boulevard to Iris Avenue)
• 30th Street Corridor Improvements:
o 30th Street Protected Bike Lanes (Arapahoe Avenue to Colorado Avenue)
o 30th Street and Colorado Avenue Underpass/Protected Intersection
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 7
Packet Page 273 of 305
• Colorado Avenue Corridor Improvements:
o Colorado Avenue and 28th Street Intersection Improvements Project
• East Arapahoe Multimodal Corridor:
o East Arapahoe Avenue Multi-use Path and Transit Stops Project (Foothills
Parkway to Cherryvale Road)
• Baseline Road:
o Pedestrian Signal at Baseline Road and Canyon Creek Road
o Signal Upgrades at Baseline Road and Mohawk Drive
• 13th Street Neighborhood GreenStreet (enhanced crossing at 15th/Iris Streets)
• Gunbarrel Connection: Valmont Road Multi-use Path (61st to S. Boulder Creek
Path)
Upcoming Priority Corridors
Three CAN street segments are Priority Corridors for the overall Core Arterial Network
(Baseline Road, Iris Avenue, and Folsom Street). Design and community engagement for
projects along these Priority Corridors will begin starting in 2022 through 2024. These
projects were selected for their value to the network in terms of providing enhanced
multimodal north-south and east-west connectivity currently lacking in those areas of the
city, as well as the opportunity to couple improvements with scheduled pavement
resurfacing.
Summer 2022 – Staff will initiate design and community engagement for Baseline Road,
an east-west corridor connecting residents, students, and a bus route in East Boulder. This
project is expected to be part of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) that will
incorporate street design upgrades and safety improvements into annual pavement
resurfacing. Baseline is also currently under consideration as a candidate project for the
2022-25 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Subregional funding cycle to fund
construction of permanent, capital-intensive multimodal transportation improvements.
A tentative timeline for pre-design, conceptual design, and community engagement
activities for the remainder of calendar year 2022 on Baseline Road Priority Corridor
include:
• July 2022: pre-design activities including contextual data and engineering
analysis; social climate analysis of corridor context and users; relationship
building with community-based organizations
• August—September 2022: existing conditions and user feedback; virtual
project and webpage launch; Be Heard Boulder page launch; in-person focused
neighborhood walks; walkabout event; bikeabout event; Walks with Council
• October 2022: broader community engagement and initiation of conceptual
design; in-person or virtual public open house; public feedback synthesis to
inform initiation of conceptual design
• November 2022: touchpoint with TAB and Council (via Study Session);
continue conceptual design phase of overall project development process
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 8
Packet Page 274 of 305
Fall 2022 – Staff will initiate design and community engagement on Iris Avenue, another
east-west corridor connecting areas of North Boulder.
Fall 2023 – Staff will initiate design and community engagement for Folsom Street, a
key north-south connection in Central Boulder, and part of the PMP from Pine Street to
Colorado Avenue, that will link previously implemented protected bicycle lanes on
Folsom St from Valmont Road to Pine Street.
For reference, CAN Priority Corridors include the following project limits:
• Baseline Road from 30th St to Foothills Parkway
• Iris Avenue from Broadway to 28th Street
• Folsom Street from Pine Street to Colorado Avenue
Future Projects
The remaining corridors will see design and community engagement initiated in 2023 or
beyond.
Future work will be focused on the following CAN corridors:
• 30th St multimodal improvements from Arapahoe to Iris and Colorado to Baseline
• Broadway (Transit Improvement) from Baseline Road to Table Mesa Drive
• Valmont Road (Bikeway Improvement) from Folsom Street to 28th Street
• Downtown Study
CAN Work Plan Integration with the Pavement Management Program (PMP)
Three of the CAN corridors are slated for the upcoming PMP work plan, including two
CAN Priority Corridors (Baseline Road and Folsom Street), as well as Colorado Avenue
from Folsom Street to 30th Street. Pavement resurfacing is typically only feasible from
April to September due to weather and temperature conditions necessary for the
pavement materials to be installed properly. Timelines shown in Attachment 2 reflect
staff’s coordination with the PMP work plan to build out the most accelerated timeline
approach possible considering this annual work program window.
NEXT STEPS
The immediate next steps for the CAN initiative involve continuing to develop project
management and community engagement strategies for CAN Priority Corridors, for
which the department will initiate design and project development efforts over 2022-
2023. Staff have already developed a community engagement strategy for the Baseline
Road Priority Corridor and are currently finalizing a technical project management plan
for this corridor effort. Community engagement will commence in August 2022, with a
first phase of engagement concluding in October 2022, at which time public feedback
will be synthesized to inform the initiation of the conceptual design phase of the overall
project development process. Concurrent to the community engagement activities
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 9
Packet Page 275 of 305
spanning summer to fall of 2022, staff will also be conducting data and engineering
analysis as part of the “pre-design” phase of the overall project development process.
Staff will prepare for the City Council Study Session slated for November 2022 and a
presentation to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) leading up to the Study
Session.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Core Arterial Network (CAN) Map
B – Core Arterial Network (CAN) Work Plan Schedule
C – Core Arterial Network (CAN) Priority Corridors: Typical Project Development
Process
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 10
Packet Page 276 of 305
Core Arterial Network (CAN) Map
Attachment A – Core Arterial Network (CAN) Map
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 11
Packet Page 277 of 305
Core Arterial Network (CAN) Work Plan Schedule
Attachment B – Core Arterial Network (CAN) Work Plan Schedule
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 12
Packet Page 278 of 305
Core Arterial Network (CAN) Priority Corridors: Typical Project
Development Process
Attachment C – Core Arterial Network (CAN) Priority
Corridors: Typical Project Development Process
Item 6A - Core Arterial Network (CAN) Update Page 13
Packet Page 279 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
I N F O RMAT I ON I T E M
Update on city participation at the Public Utilities C ommission
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Matt Lehrman, Policy Advisor
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Update on city participation at the P ublic Utilities Commission
Packet Page 280 of 305
INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Jonathan Koehn, Interim Director of Climate Initiatives
Carolyn Elam, Energy Systems Senior Manager
Matt Lehrman, Policy Advisor, Energy Utilities
Lucas Markley, Attorney
Veronique Van Gheem, Attorney
Date: July 21, 2022
Subject: Update on city participation at the Public Utilities Commission
_____________________________________________________________________________
The City of Boulder participates in multiple venues seeking to transform state policy in support
of local action. This includes the General Assembly, the Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”),
the Air Quality Control Commission and others. The 2022 City of Boulder Policy Statement on
Regional, State and Federal Issues was discussed with council on March 1, 2022.1 A final report
on 2022 Colorado legislation that the city engaged on is also available for review. The Climate
Action Plan strategies include an active policy agenda as part of the city’s broader legislative and
regulatory efforts. The Department of Climate Initiatives also works closely with other
communities and entities such as the Colorado Communities for Climate Action 2 on many
legislative and regulatory efforts to build broad policy coalitions.
The council information packet for the March 15, 2022, meeting described city action at the
Public Utilities Commission in the fourth quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2022. This
memo updates that information packet and describes additional activity during the second quarter
of 2022.
BACKGROUND
The city participates in PUC proceedings focused on electricity and natural gas production and
consumption, including rate design, resource planning and voluntary customer products. The city
1 City of Boulder Council Agenda Item 5B - Update on State Legislation and Consideration of Revisions to the
Policy Statement on Regional, State and Federal Issues (March 1, 2022)
2 Colorado Communities for Climate Action Policy Statement
Item A - Update on city participation at
the Public Utilities Commission
Page 1
Packet Page 281 of 305
advocates for products, programs and services that advance city organization and community
priorities of affordability, safety, resilience, equity, transparency and emissions reduction.
In most PUC proceedings, the city’s participation is led by the Department of Climate Initiatives
with support from other city departments with subject matter expertise on a specific topic (e.g.,
Transportation Engineering for streetlights or Community Vitality for economic development).
Participation at the PUC may take the form of formal intervention as a party (represented by the
City Attorney’s Office), submission of written or oral comments (without formal intervention)
and participation in stakeholder workshops. The city contributes data and analysis based on the
city’s operational experience, Climate Action Plan3 and the Policy Statement on Regional, State
and Federal Issues.4 Climate Initiatives staff members routinely engage community members,
organizations and working groups to inform the city’s participation in a specific proceeding.
Boulder has long recognized the importance of the PUC’s role in driving broader systems
changes in Colorado’s electricity and natural gas sector. The actions taken by the PUC have far
reaching implications in the ability of local communities to reach their own energy and climate
goals. Since 2016, the city has participated in 26 proceedings at the PUC as well as stakeholder
workshops to inform the development of future products and services. The city’s PUC
intervention enables Boulder to take direct action to support fair and equitable rates, accelerate
emissions reduction through resource planning and inform new voluntary renewable electricity
and demand-side management programs. The city’s PUC work supports community education
and engagement when bill impacts are anticipated, greater data transparency in annual
Community Energy Reports, and transportation electrification programs for small business
customers. Most recently, in the Electric Resource Plan, the city proposed an opportunity to
develop a new Zero Emissions Communities program that may make significant progress toward
100% renewable electricity. The city also took positions focused on reducing the acquisition of
new fossil-fuel resources, accelerating renewable energy generation and storage solutions, and
adopting social cost of carbon pricing for all decision making.
Staff recognizes the importance of keeping City Council and the community informed on the
various PUC-related activities. Climate Initiatives will provide regular updates to council on the
city’s involvement in PUC activities. The update will describe current and anticipated
proceedings and the relevance to the interests of the city organization and the Boulder
community. Table 1 below includes proceedings in which the city is currently participating as
well as anticipated proceedings for the remainder of 2022. The column “City Status” includes
links to the city’s testimony and statements of position in each proceeding.
3 June 8, 2021 Memo to City Council Study Session on Update to Climate Action Plan
4 City of Boulder 2022 Policy Statement on Regional, State and Federal Issues
Item A - Update on city participation at
the Public Utilities Commission
Page 2
Packet Page 282 of 305
Table 1
Proceeding Number City Status / Results Description Relevance to
Boulder Goals5
2021 Electric
Resource Plan
21A-
0141E
The Commission held deliberations on phase 1 of the
proceeding in May and June.
A decision on the first phase of the proceeding, which will
determine how much new generation capacity must be
acquired is expected in late July or early August. This
decision was originally expected in late winter or early
spring but has been delayed as the original settlement
agreement was re-negotiated to accelerate the retirement
date of Comanche 3 and the Commission determines how
much of the cost to retire coal plants early will be recovered
from ratepayers.
Based on the phase 1 decision, Public Service will publish a
request for proposals to solicit the resources to meet the
resource need identified in the phase 1 decision. Assuming a
July 2022 decision in phase 1, multiple portfolios of
resources would be presented to intervenors – including
Boulder – to review and offer comment on in May 2023. A
decision in phase 2 that would select the actual portfolio of
resources to be acquired is expected in August 2023.
Staff expects significant community interest in both the
phase 1 and the phase 2 decision.
Proceeding to
determine load
forecast, resource need
and resource
acquisition to 2030,
including Clean Energy
Plan required by
statute, with the goal of
a minimum 80%
reduction in
greenhouse gas
emissions by 2030.
It is anticipated that
new resources procured
in this resource plan
would come online by
late 2025.
Emissions
reduction, local
generation, zero
emissions
electricity /
100%
renewable,
natural gas
5 The keywords used in the column “Relevance to Boulder Goals” are intended to identify the major topics addressed in the proceeding that are included in
Boulder’s Climate Action Plan or other city priorities. For example, “emissions reduction” means that the decision in the case may affect Boulder’s emissions
reduction work, “local generation” means that the decision will affect rooftop solar, and “streetlights” means the decision may affect the rates Boulder pays for
the operation of streetlights.
Item A - Update on city participation at
the Public Utilities Commission
Page 3
Packet Page 283 of 305
2022-2025
Renewable Energy
Standard Plan
21A-
0652EG
The city filed answer testimony in this proceeding on July
11.
The testimony recommended hourly renewable tracking, an
expansion of voluntary renewable programs available to
income-qualified customers, a new product to enable
customers to invest in community-scale energy storage, a
new product that enables communities to invest in new
renewable plus storage generation, an improvement to the
income-qualified community solar gardens program, off-site
and multi-family solar program and rejection of a proposed
natural gas offset program.
Answer Testimony of Matthew Lehrman
Answer Testimony of Carolyn Elam
Proceeding to design
voluntary renewable
energy programs
funded by Renewable
Energy Standard
Adjustment, including
Solar Rewards,
Community Solar,
Recycled Energy
capacity and incentives.
Local
generation,
community
solar,
distributed
storage,
customer data,
resilience
Amendments to
Natural Gas Rules
21R-
0449G
The Commission agreed with a recommendation made by
the city to end the subsidy to extend natural gas
infrastructure to new construction.
Rulemaking required
by Senate Bill 21-264
and House Bill 21-1238
to set rules for natural
gas utility greenhouse
gas emissions
reduction, clean heat
plan and Demand-Side
Management Strategic
Issues.
Natural gas,
emissions
reduction,
beneficial
electrification
Investigation into
Community
Choice Energy
22I-
0027E
The Commission held an information session in June.
A report to the legislature is due by December 15.
Legislature-directed
investigation of
questions related to the
potential
implementation of
community choice
energy in Colorado.
Emissions
reduction,
100%
renewable, local
generation
Item A - Update on city participation at
the Public Utilities Commission
Page 4
Packet Page 284 of 305
Equity and
Disproportionately
-Impacted
Communities
Rulemaking
22M-
0171ALL
Participation / Comments
City of Boulder Initial Comments
The Commission staff indicated there will be stakeholder
workshops, informational meetings and opportunities to
provide additional comments. No schedule has been set yet.
"The PUC shall
promulgate rules
requiring…how best to
provide equity,
minimize impacts and
prioritize benefits to
disproportionately
impacted communities
and address historical
inequalities."
Energy burden,
local generation
Resilience-as-a-
Service Tariff
22AL-
0130E
The city is participating as an intervenor in this proceeding
and may submit testimony.
Application for
approval of a
Resilience-as-a-Service
product in which Public
Service would own and
operate behind the
meter generation and
energy storage (solar,
diesel, energy storage)
with on-bill financing
available to the
customer.
Local
generation,
distributed
storage,
resilience
2022-2023
Distribution
System Plan
22A-
0189E
The city will participate as an intervenor and submit
testimony.
Application for
approval of a
distribution system
plan, including
substation demand,
distributed energy
resources forecasts,
transmission and
distribution deferral
opportunities.
Distribution
system plan,
local
generation,
distributed
storage,
resilience,
customer data
Item A - Update on city participation at
the Public Utilities Commission
Page 5
Packet Page 285 of 305
Wholesale Market
Participation
Rulemaking
22R-
0249E
The city will monitor this proceeding. Notice of proposed
rulemaking to define
filing requirements for
utilities to join and
participate in a market.
Resource
planning, 100%
renewables,
emissions
reduction
Demand-Side
Management
Strategic Issues /
Beneficial
Electrification
22A-
0309EG
This proceeding will be filed no later than July 1. The city
will participate as an intervenor and submit testimony.
Vision, strategy, and
big picture targets for
demand-side
management programs.
GHG reduction
through
electrification,
conservation,
efficiency,
demand
response,
distributed
storage
In addition to the currently active proceedings, Table 2 below includes anticipated proceedings that may substantially affect city
organization and community climate and energy work. The type of participation (e.g., intervention, public comments) will be
determined after an application is filed or rulemaking is noticed. This list is not comprehensive and may be revised if proceedings are
delayed as well as if new proceedings are initiated.
Item A - Update on city participation at
the Public Utilities Commission
Page 6
Packet Page 286 of 305
Table 2
Proceeding Anticipated
Start Date
Description Relevance to
Boulder Goals
Renewable Energy
Standard Plan
Rulemaking
Q4 2022 Follow-on rulemaking to 19R-0096E.
Will focus exclusively on rules related
to renewable energy standard plans.
Local generation,
community solar,
distributed
storage
Net Energy
Metering
Rulemaking
Q4 2022 Follow-on rulemaking to 19R-0096E.
Will focus exclusively on rules related
to net energy metering.
Local generation,
distributed
storage
2023-202X
Demand-Side
Management Plan
Q4 2022 Application for approval of
conservation, energy efficiency,
demand response programs.
Conservation,
efficiency,
demand response,
distributed
storage
Clean Heat Plan Q3 2023 Clean Heat Plan for PSCo natural gas
distribution. Amendments to natural
gas rules and AQCC rulemaking in
progress.
Natural gas,
emissions
reduction,
beneficial
electrification
Phase 2 Rate Case TBD Rate design for 2021 Phase 1 rate
case. Potential net energy metering
implications.
Energy burden,
local generation,
customer data,
streetlights
The city’s participation at the PUC allows direct action to support the development of products
and services that help community members to manage energy consumption, lower bills and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Several current and upcoming cases have implications for the
financial benefits for customers with rooftop and community solar, opportunities to accelerate
the transition to all-electric buildings, and to proactively engage in distribution system planning.
City staff will continue to work to advance the economic, social and environmental interests of
the community in partnership with like-minded stakeholders from across Colorado. Staff is
available to answer any questions council might have on ongoing or upcoming proceedings.
Item A - Update on city participation at
the Public Utilities Commission
Page 7
Packet Page 287 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
AG E N D A I T E M
05.09.22 FIN A L TA B Meeting Minutes
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Meredith Schleske, TA B Secretary
RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E
05.09.22 FIN A L TA B Meeting Minutes
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
05.09.22 F I N AL TAB Meeting Minutes
Packet Page 288 of 305
TAB Minutes
May 9, 2022
Page 1 of 6
CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING
MINUTES
Name of Board/ Commission: Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
Date of Meeting: May 9, 2022
Contact Information Preparing Summary: Meredith Schleske 303.441.3204
Board Members Present: Alex Weinheimer, Chair; Rebecca Davies; Tila Duhaime; Ryan Schuchard; Triny
Willerton
Staff Present: Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director for Transportation and Mobility
Valerie Watson, Transportation Planning Manager
Gerrit Slatter, Principal Transportation Projects Engineer
Mark Shisler, Civil Engineering Principal Project Manager
Devin Joslin, Transportation Engineering Senior Manager
Mike Sweeney, Transportation Engineer Senior Project Manager
Veronica Son, Transportation Engineer
Jean Sanson, Transportation Principal Planner
Chris Hagelin, Transportation Principal Planner
Danny O’Connor, Principal Transportation Planner, Transit Program Manager
Melanie Sloan, Principal Transportation Planner
David “DK” Kemp, Transportation Senior Planner
Gastonia Anderson, Budget Senior Analyst
Edward Stafford, Planning and Development Civil Engineering Senior Manager
Meredith Schleske, Board Secretary
Also Present: Craig Schoenburg, Toole Design Group
Kevin Crouse, Boulder B-cycle General Manager
David Sedbrook, Lime Transportation Company
Type of Meeting: Advisory/ Regular
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order [6:00 p.m.]
Instructions to Virtual Meeting Participants (not an agenda item) – Veronica Son, technical host reviewed rules
and technical operations on the virtual platform.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of April 2022 Minutes [6:03 p.m.]
Motion: Approval of April 2022 Minutes as submitted.
Motion: Duhaime Second: Weinheimer
4:0 Motion Passes.
Agenda Item 3: Public Comment [6:04 p.m.]
• Chuck Brock – sits on Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and Community Cycles Advocacy
Committee, speaking for himself. Request TAB to consider for future agenda item, given Vision Zero (VZ),
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and city’s climate goals, why did city staff agree with University of
Colorado (CU) on that turn lane to Broadway? That wouldn't invite and funnel out of town vehicles and bus
traffic across one of the busiest multiuse passes in the city on a downhill slope. VZ is supposed to be the
guiding principle of our street design decisions, and that means systematically identifying and eliminating
hazardous conditions that will predictively lead to serious crashes, not building new sources of conflict.
Hope you can determine how this design was even considered as a possibility, what was the process that led
to this decision and is the outcome the best approach or does it need to be reconsidered. Thank you for
considering this request and for your service to our community.
Triny Willerton joined the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
• Kurt Nordback - also from Community Cycles, following up on their email regarding Design and
Construction Standards (DCS) on agenda tonight but not a public hearing. Appreciate that update is
happening, looking forward to it for many years, overall layout is not friendly, urge extending the project to
Packet Page 289 of 305
TAB Minutes
May 9, 2022
Page 2 of 6
include full DCS that includes a lot of street design. It has been 27 years - beneficial to update more
frequently.
• Lynn Segal – watching out for safety, a lot of issues, drive every six months, the more cars the more biking
issues, must make a stand against CU. Can’t act as TAB watching out for best interest of bikers without
impact of CU South potential, would be devastating to Boulder economy. Issue of inner city transportation,
East Boulder Sub Community, impact on city, for example, Diagonal Plaza. Boulder Housing Partners
(BHP) is getting free recreation center passes. High end apartments are getting storage for one bike/unit, so
will drive. What is TAB saying about that? Copeland Development will not allow BHP residents to swim
there so they have to drive to recreation center. Think about 30,000 foot issues in Boulder, how it impacts
TAB budget.
• James Lieberman – company is Environmental Information Systems Inc., experienced near miss, emailed
TAB requesting fairly quick attention, will go to City Council if necessary. Near miss is usually indicative of
underlying problem that could result in injury. Use information to modify policy, specifically at 19th Street
and Quince. Narrows to a single lane on a two-lane highway via flexible reflective markers, twice on bike
almost collided with a confused auto driver. It’s not a chicane, it’s a transition. Giving feedback if the board
is willing to take action; if not, will go to the city council for the attention it deserves. Know you’re trying to
create s safe community.
• Megan Richer – lives on Quince, has two young children ages two and five, supportive of Vision Zero
Innovation Program (VZIP) infrastructure on Quince, example of commitment to 20 is Plenty. Most real
threat to my children is the cars that drive on our street, anything we can do to slow speed of travel on
residential streets in our city is saving lives. Surrounded by young families, constantly walking and biking,
Harmony preschool and Lucky grocery store are in the community. Requests constant awareness from all
drivers, forces to coordinate. Make the VZIP installation permanent, more beautiful. Innovative treatment.
o TAB Comment - update is on tonight’s agenda, Duhaime offered to be communications point with
community for TAB if permissible.
Agenda Item 4: Public hearing and TAB recommendation regarding Denver Regional Council of [6:20 p.m.]
Governments (DRCOG) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Projects
Jean Sanson and Gerrit Slatter made the report to the board.
Executive Summary
The City of Boulder is proposing to submit transportation project funding applications to the Denver Regional Council
of Governments (DRCOG) as part of the 2022-2025 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The purpose of this
agenda item is to share the city’s proposed list of subregional project applications for council review and
consideration. This DRCOG TIP call for project applications was issued May 2, 2022 and applications are due June
24, 2022 to Boulder County and DRCOG.
With the input of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), the city’s proposed projects both further the adopted
TMP and are competitive in terms of the DRCOG TIP application scoring criteria. Projects are also in support of the
DRCOG Metro Vision Plan and will advance safety improvements to the Boulder Core Arterial Network (CAN) and
regional multimodal corridors.
The projects summarized in Attachment A of the memorandum were presented for TAB’s review and consideration of
a motion to recommend City Council authorize the city to submit up to all four projects for the 2022-2025 TIP. The
TIP process requires that the city manager sign the submittal form for the final projects sent to DRCOG. The four
projects are:
• 30th Street Preliminary Design (CO7/Arapahoe - CO119)
• CO93/Broadway & Table Mesa and CO93/Broadway & Regent Transit Priority Intersections
• Baseline Enhanced Transit Stops & Protected Bike Lanes (30th Street – Foothills Parkway)
• US36/28th Street West Side Multi-Use Path (Four Mile Canyon Creek Bridge – Jay Road)
TAB Action Requested
TAB is asked to review the proposed projects and provide a recommendation to City Council to endorse submitting
the six projects from this proposed set of projects for the 2022-2025 TIP.
TAB Clarifying Questions
• Question regarding posted material, subsequently corrected.
• Inquiries whether projects are ranked by staff, how many have been approved in past.
• Question about cost of 30th Street study compared to the 30th and Colorado corridor study, comparative
length and study detail; whether staff would consider adding a short segment of Pearl Street in the context of
this study because it's an important first/last mile connection into Boulder Junction.
• Comment regarding important bus connection from 28th Street in Boulder Junction; Pearl Street from 28th
Street to Junction Place could also be added. Additional intersections to Broadway/Table Mesa may be more
cost effective to include transit enhancements at Broadway intersections with Regent and Table Mesa plus
Packet Page 290 of 305
TAB Minutes
May 9, 2022
Page 3 of 6
transit signals at Dartmouth and 27th Way and Table Mesa at RTD Park and Ride. That might expand scope
and increase cost effectiveness.
• Inquiry if option exists to indicate willingness to accept smaller amount.
• General questions regarding main expenses of transit intersections, definition of feasibility as applied to such
projects, interest expressed in rightsizing, narrowing, lane reduction, comment regarding amazing
opportunity for residents along 30th Street.
• Question whether technical advisory committee provided feedback beyond the meeting that Weinheimer and
Schuchard attended that could cause change of direction.
o Staff response - there will be no further input.
Public Participation – there was none. [6:51 p.m.]
TAB Discussion
• Support expressed for mix of projects; comment that Baseline addresses both sides of street, designated as
“favorite” project by several TAB members.
• Observation that 30th Street is funded in tiny sections, transit supports regional movement.
• Caution stated regarding funds for 28th Street multi-use path, remembering TIP funds previously awarded for
Table Mesa multi-use path then returned. Important to get them right.
• Straw poll requested concerning omission of US36/28th Street West Side Multi-Use Path (Four Mile Canyon
Creek Bridge – Jay Road) as a TAB recommendation to city council for TIP application – all TAB members
support not recommending this project.
o Staff comment that it would begin to respond to community feedback concerning crashes north of Jay
Road, not comparable to previous potential Table Mesa project, there will be another opportunity later in
2022.
o Noted that, based on TAB feedback and additional staff analysis, the northern extent of this project,
which was originally Violet Avenue, was truncated to terminate at Jay Road, thereby reducing the
project cost from $8.5M to $3.5M. project because it is single modal.
• Question about whether proposed 28th Street multi-use project would improve safety, would lessen likelihood
of award by increasing the total request to $9.4 million of total $16 million pool.
• Recommendation to check box for partial funding option on Table Mesa transit project.
Motion
Motion to recommend to City Council to approve the proposed submittal to the Denver Regional Council of
Governments for the 2022-2025 Transportation Improvements Program Subregional Project Selection Process
for the following projects:
• 30th Street Preliminary Design (CO7/Arapahoe - CO119)
• CO93/Broadway & Table Mesa and CO93/Broadway & Regent Transit Priority Intersections
• Baseline Enhanced Transit Stops & Protected Bike Lanes (30th Street – Foothills Parkway)
Further, TAB does not support submittal of the proposed US36/28th Street West Side Multi-Use Path (Four
Mile Canyon Creek Bridge – Jay Road.)
Motion: Duhaime Second: Weinheimer
5:0 Motion Passes.
Agenda Item 5: Staff briefing and TAB feedback regarding 2022-2027 Capital Improvement [7:08 p.m.]
Program (CIP) (Part I of III)
Gerrit Slatter made the report to the board.
Executive Summary
Each year, the city goes through an annual budget process in which departments create a six-year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). This year the time period is 2023 through 2028. The Transportation Advisory Board
(TAB) role in this process is identified in the Boulder Revised Code (BRC) TITLE 2 GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION, Chapter 3 Boards and Commissions, Section 14 - Transportation Advisory Board; “. . . to review
all city transportation environmental assessments and capital improvements.” This agenda item is intended to continue
TAB’s guidance with the city’s CIP development process by providing background information and analysis, a
tentative schedule and key issues for this year.
TAB will have the opportunity to review and discuss the CIP again at the upcoming board meeting in June and then be
asked to make a formal recommendation to council at the July TAB meeting. Staff appreciates the beneficial role that
TAB provided during the development of the 2022-27 CIP and looks forward to a collaborative effort for this next
Transportation CIP.
Request for TAB
Staff requests that TAB review the background information and provide feedback to staff on how we can best support
board discussions and deliberations.
Packet Page 291 of 305
TAB Minutes
May 9, 2022
Page 4 of 6
TAB Feedback
• Question whether there is a rollup that shows funding by mode; suggestion to address as number of people
served.
• Inquiry regarding bad/good/excellent road condition photos and if weight of vehicle is considered.
• Question about what signal projects are, for example, RTOT (Regional Transportation Operations and
Technology Program.)
Gerrit Slatter offered to conduct a CIP working meeting and bike tour for TAB.
Agenda Item 6: Staff briefing and TAB feedback regarding Transportation Standards (DCS) [7:39 p.m.]
Update
Gerrit Slatter made the report to the board.
Executive Summary
This memo provides a status update on Phase 2 of the transportation portion of the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards (DCS) Update. Phase 1 updates, which took place in 2019/2020, provided specific updates to
Chapter 2, with a focus on clarification of standard, buffered and separated bike lane standards such that the DCS
would be consistent with the Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan. Phase 1 also updated the pedestrian ramp
standards in Chapter 11. The Phase 1 update was adopted in February 2020. The Phase 2 DCS update will focus on
Street Geometric Design and Streetscape/Landscaping Design and Maintenance and will also include an update to the
Sight Triangle portion of the Boulder Revised Code 9-9-7 (BRC) (The BRC are regulations adopted though the
legislative process by the City Council.)
The purpose of the Phase 2 update is to align these sections with recently adopted policy and technical documents
(e.g., Transportation Master Plan, Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan, and internal Transportation Landscapes
Plan) and to ensure that industry best practices are being followed. The DCS is used to help guide public infrastructure
built by both private development and city funded capital infrastructure and maintenance projects.
The Phase 2 project was initiated in June 2021, with an initial round of community engagement in September 2021.
The team has developed initial “60%-level” recommendations for changes and is collecting input on these from the
community and from boards in April-May 2022 with anticipated adoption of final updates to the documents in Q3
2022.
Questions for TAB
1. What questions do you have about the community engagement?
2. What suggestions do you have to enhance the proposed changes?
TAB Feedback
• Question if city staff will respond to suggestions made by Community Cycles online recently, and to what
level of detail.
• Interest expressed in a floating bus stop with bike lane access from the back and including shelter in some
places, consideration of cantilevers and lean rails.
• Inquiry whether bike parking falls under DCS.
o Staff response - There are bike rack standards which will be addressed in a future update; required
bike parking is in Boulder Revised Code (BRC) Title 9 of land use code updated a few years ago;
bike parking adequacy will likely be addressed in Access Management and Parking Strategy
(AMPS) review.
• Question about where slip lanes, officially termed right turn bypass island, standards are addressed.
o Staff response – there are no current standard/rule/specification.
• Question about where double left turn lane standards are addressed, why dual left lanes do not require director
approval as do triple left turn lanes.
o Staff response - Guidance within the highway capacity manual is typically the prevailing standard
used, includes measures such as volume turning thresholds, but not necessarily City of Boulder
default. Staff will be proposing second left turn lane westbound 28th Street to southbound Colorado
for additional throughput to keep transit lane clear.
• Inquiry about sight triangles and potential speed limit revisions with higher speed skateboards, e-scooters and
e-bikes allowed on sidewalks, and safety for slow-moving users. Reconsider if there should be some speed
expectation.
• Question about when and why we allow mixing zone design; if the goal is separation of users and less
conflict, why do our design standards allow a car to cross a separated lane.
o Consultant response - Safer than some other designs when constrained by right-of-way access; for
example, better than just allowing the vehicles to cross through bike lane.
o TAB suggestion - indicate consultant’s preferred design also.
Packet Page 292 of 305
TAB Minutes
May 9, 2022
Page 5 of 6
Agenda Item 7: Matters [8:16 p.m.]
A. Matters from Staff/Non-Agenda
1. VZIP Evaluation Briefing and Feedback – Devin Joslin. Evaluation and report in process; goal is to
complete evaluation of 20 projects in six Neighborhood Speed Management Program streets by
using transparent framework to determine whether project should remain as is, be revised, or be
removed. Data collection started in April, draft to be issued in August, final report to TAB in
September/October. Communication includes mailers to residents, field signage, social media.
Documenting lessons learned, implement recommendations in early 2023.
TAB Comments
a. Question of when Quince Street project was installed – September 2021.
b. Inquiry if lifecycle or ongoing maintenance costs of the installations will be a factor in
evaluating their effectiveness.
c. Question about how often data is updated, comment that access to information is
important. Noted that data shows Quince Street treatment to be effective in reducing
speed.
d. Comment about treatment performance in winter, design projects to test multimodal and
safe streets in winter conditions and heavy snow and ice. Noted public surprise that we
are doing innovation on public streets, sell the idea.
2. Shared Micromobility Program Update – David Kemp. Objective: To provide community members
safe, equitable and sustainable forms of transportation to improve quality of life, provide
connections to transit and key destinations; and replace motor vehicle trips to reduce traffic
congestion and transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Want to get more devices by 2023,
increase number of rides, reduce crashes. Sustainability via fee income. Staff is monitoring,
revisions planned to be implemented January 2023.
TAB Comments
a. Comment that conversion to e-bikes has been a huge factor in usage, inquiry whether we
have data on out-of-town users.
Consultant response - not enough visitors/data yet, hope to see more in summer. Not
back to 2018 volume yet.
b. Observation that materials reference helmets available on request; question if can we
offer access in Boulder.
Consultant response - working with Trek bike store.
B. Matters from the Board [8:48 p.m.]
1. TAB Retreat Agenda Review – May 23, 6-10 PM, virtual.
2. TAB Appointments
a. Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) – Weinheimer; Duhaime alternate
b. Vision Zero Community Partnership Committee – Willerton; Davies alternate. Note:
Pending Boulder County acknowledgement that Vision Zero Community Partnership
Committee will continue; Joslin to follow up.
c. Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS) Working Group –merged into Access
Allies
d. Access Allies for the Curbside Management Project – Schuchard; Duhaime alternate
3. Open Board Comment
a. Duhaime – continued concern regarding serious and fatal crashes, lack of information.
Also perplexed that with recent talk about buses around University Hill at the new hotel,
why TAB has not been consulted. How can TAB have a seat at the table?
Staff response - Planning and public engagement process began many years ago, not seen
as a transportation project at the time. Going forward, TAB members are welcome to send
comments and concerns to stafforde@bouldercolorado.gov.
Duhaime – Opinion that there are times when planning board and planning staff don’t
think far enough outside the envelope with the building, think that’s been a longstanding
sentiment among TAB members long preceding these currently seated board members.
b. Schuchard – desire to renew climate discussion, no process/procedure to develop
transportation climate plan yet, recommends IPCC as resource. If there is any opportunity
to attend any meetings, offers to attend.
c. Duhaime absent from July 11th TAB meeting, could attend alternate July 25th date if
necessary for quota. Davies out of country for June 13th TAB meeting.
Packet Page 293 of 305
TAB Minutes
May 9, 2022
Page 6 of 6
d. Davies - where can recent crash data in City of Boulder be accessed?
Staff response - request via City of Boulder Police Department records, Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) has records through maybe 2020.
TAB response - may need to request per crash.
Agenda Item 8: Future Agenda Items [9:08 p.m.]
Agenda Item 9: Adjournment [9:08 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Motion: Moved to adjourn: Schuchard Second: Duhaime
Motion passes 5:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be a regular virtual meeting on Monday June 13, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise decided by
staff and the Board.
APPROVED BY: ATTESTED:
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Board Chair Board Secretary
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Date Date
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary is available on the Transportation Advisory Board
web page.
6/13/2022
Packet Page 294 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
B O ARD S AN D C O MMI SSI O N S I T E M
May 18, 2022 Boulder Arts Commission Meeting Minutes
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
C elia Seaton, Board Secretary, Library & Arts
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
May 18, 2022 B oulder Arts Commission Meeting Minutes
Packet Page 295 of 305
CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING
MINUTES
Name of Board/ Commission: Boulder Arts Commission
Date of Meeting: May 18, 2022
Contact information preparing summary: Celia Seaton
Commission members present: Kathleen McCormick, Bruce Borowsky, Georgia Schmid, Eboni Freeman, Maria Cole,
Caroline Kert, Yaelaed Whyel
Commission members absent: none
Library staff present:
Matt Chasansky, Office of Arts & Culture Manager
Lauren Click, Coordinator, Grants
Mandy Vink, Coordinator, Public Art
Cris Jones, Director
Celia Seaton, Board Secretary
City staff present:
None
Members of the public present: Heather Beasley, Patti Bruck, Maggie Saunders, Amanda Berg Wilson, Elaine Schnabel,
Beth Merckel, Gwyneth Burak, David Dadone, Leah Brenner Clack, Jessie Friedman
Type of Meeting: Regular|Remote
Agenda Item 1: Call to order and approval of agenda [0:01:44 Audio min.]
The meeting was called to order. McCormick provided an introductory orientation around the virtual procedure, as this
meeting was held through Zoom videoconference. She asked the group for any other addendums to the agenda. There was
a nod of approval from the commission for the agenda as presented in the packet.
Agenda Item 2: Review of Minutes [0:02:45 Audio min.]
Item 2A, Approval/Review of April 2022 Meeting Minutes
McCormick asked the commission for changes or addendums regarding these minutes. McCormick had changes to the
minutes, sent along beforehand. Freeman moved to approve the minutes as amended. Cole seconded, and the motion was
unanimously approved.
Agenda Item 3: Public Participation [0:05:10 Audio min.]
Berg Wilson, artistic director of the Catamounts, invited all to attend the Public Domain Theatre Festival planned for June
3-5. The Catamounts will be joined by Buntport Theater and Su Teatro for this outdoor theatre festival of short works
adapted from the public domain. Recognizing the recent spike in COVID-19 transmission, Berg Wilson highlighted need
for performing arts organizations to remain “agile” and employ ingenuity throughout the ebbs and flows of the pandemic
(e.g., these events will incorporate social distancing and the outdoor space for those in attendance.) She looks forward to
working with the Parks and Recreation Department to figure out how to activate inventive spaces for art and performance in
Boulder as the weather warms.
Agenda Item 4: Grant Program [0.07.17 Audio min.]
A. ACTION: Eligibility Questions
1. Butterfly Effect Theatre of Colorado (BETC)
2. Pro Musica Colorado Chamber Orchestra
3. Beyond Academia Free Skool
Commission discussed these applications with attention to the eligibility standard of being “headquartered in
Boulder.” Staff recommend that commission accept these applications as eligible. Click explained that the
City Attorney’s Office has advised Arts and Culture staff that the grant software reflect Boulder addresses in
the applications and should be accepted as accurate and truthful.
Packet Page 296 of 305
Chasansky noted the room for interpretation in the current eligibility standard since there is no defined
threshold in the application to determine “Boulder headquarters.” Staff also cautioned against holding the
current applications to a new standard.
Commissioners have the options to pass a motion to accept the applications as eligible, pass a motion to
decline the applications as ineligible, or postpone the decision until specific questions are answered by staff or
the applicants.
Schmid expressed desire that Boulder taxpayer money be directed to artists performing in Boulder. She
encouraged recognition of the challenges involved in maintaining a Boulder presence (e.g., limited space and
high expense).
McCormick agreed that the intent of the general operating support grants is to fund organizations whose
principles, office space/performance space is in Boulder, and advocated for firmer framing around the
language asking applicants to “demonstrate that the headquarters are in Boulder” perhaps using documentation
as proof (e.g., a lease).
Kert: “My thought is to keep it very simple. From my legal perspective, diving into the many criteria that
impact whether companies are headquartered in Colorado, for example, are extremely complex.”
In Whyel’s view, the relevant operations and performances are sited in Boulder. Due to factors such as
COVID-19, remote work, or other circumstances, the mailing address for the organization may be located
outside of Boulder – however, they still view the physical operation location as Boulder-based.
Cole made a motion to accept staff recommendation to accept all three applications as eligible. McCormick
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Commission and staff will plan further discussion, along with CAO, to more clearly define the threshold that
applicants may need to meet in order to meet the eligibility requirement regarding Boulder headquarters for the
general operating support grant awards.
B. ACTION: Reports
1. Lemon Sponge Cake, Happiness Project: Finding Joy in Tough Times, $10,000
2. Heather Schulte, Bordemos la Situación, $5,000
3. Arielle Milkman, Hostile Terrain 94 Boulder Outreach and Engagement, $4,769
Click explained that commissioners have the options to approve the grant reports, decline individual grant reports,
or postpone approval of individual reports pending the answers to specific questions.
Freeman was impressed by the line items indicating inclusivity measures in Milkman’s project. Offering
interpretation and childcare services for participants, Milkman’s project serves as a “beacon” for other
organizations looking to widen their reach and meet equity and diversity goals.
Kert made a motion to accept the three grant reports. Cole seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
C. ACTION: ION: Extension Request, Patti Bruck, River Beginning: A Journey From the Edge, $4,000 – Click
explained that this is Bruck’s fourth request for extension due to extenuating and very challenging circumstances.
She explained that commissioners have the options to approve the extension request, not approve the extension
request, or postpone approval of the extension pending the answers to specific questions. Bruck was present to
answer inquiry.
Responding to commission’s inquiry, Bruck will upload and provide a link to the current version of the film for the
commission to view.
Packet Page 297 of 305
Cole wondered if changing parameters of the project may help support the artist in coming to a conclusion with the
project with which she is satisfied. Bruck noted that there have been changes already made to the initial project.
She provided background around the film’s title subject, River, with whom she interviewed while he was
incarcerated for armed robbery. The issue of opiate addiction looms and Bruck noted a “slide downhill” which
culminated in River’s death. Despite other hurdles both personal and related to the pandemic, she never stopped
working on the film. The current stage of productions involves the challenge of editing and incorporating imagery.
She plans to finish the film as intended and believes the story especially pertinent to the current American opiate
and fentanyl crisis.
Responding to Borowsky’s inquiry, Click noted that, if granted, this would be the maximum number of extensions
ever given by commission. Borowsky feels sensitive to challenges of a filmmaker and is inclined to support the
idea of an extension – if this is the final one. The final deadline would fall on June 1, 2023. Borowsky, Kert,
Whyel, and McCormick support the extension with the additional language of “final” into the pertinent motion
language.
Freeman wondered whether the project had secured any other grants; Bruck responded that there has been no other
source than her personal funds.
Schmid suggested breaking the project down into two parts, so that a piece can be released. Bruck noted that she
has considered this option.
Cole made a motion to approve a final extension request. Borowsky seconded, and the motion passed 6-1.
Freeman voted not to accept the final extension request as she is concerned about setting precedent around the
number of extensions granted by commission.
D. ACTION: General Operating Support Grants Decisions (Medium, Large Categories) – Click explained that for
each of the four categories, commissioners have the options to approve the staff recommendation for the highest-
scoring grants, approving individual grants, or postpone approval of individual grants pending the answers to
specific questions.
Click indicated the highest scoring mid-sized organizations as Street Wise Arts, Art Parts Creative Reuse Center,
EcoArts Connections, The Catamounts, NFP, Boulder Metalsmithing Association, 3rd Law Dance/Theater, Boulder
Chorale and The Spark.
Schmid expressed concern about funding The Spark due to the limits and potentially unsafe conditions of the
present location. She noted that only 20 parking spots are available nearby and expansion doesn’t seem possible.
Without adequate lighting, the walkways and paths around the venue feel uncomfortable to traverse at night.
Kert wondered where Schmid’s concern would fall under the current rubric criteria. Schmid believes that this
consideration falls under the categories regarding capacity as well as serving the public.
Given concerns about and safety and service to the public, Freeman suggested that commission vote on a motion
that contains the highest scoring organizations with the exception of The Spark. Staff noted that grant guidelines
don’t allow for capital improvement grants unless specifically exempted by commission. Kert, responding in the
follow-up inquiry as part of the grant process, was aligned with staff in her communications and specifically
clarified with The Spark that the funds would not be used toward capital improvements on the building.
Borowsky moved that Street Wise Arts, Art Parts Creative Reuse Center, EcoArts Connections, The Catamounts,
Boulder Metalsmithing Association, 3rd Law Dance/Theater, and the Boulder Chorale be awarded general
operating support grants. Freeman seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Cole noted that The Spark is “not alone” in experiencing facility challenges in Boulder. Cole appreciates a variety
of artist space. McCormick agreed with Cole.
Cole made a motion that The Spark be awarded a general operating support grant. McCormick seconded. The
motion passed 5-2 (Cole, Kert, McCormick, Borowsky, and Whyel voted yes; Schmid and Freeman voted no.)
Packet Page 298 of 305
Click will speak with The Spark’s representatives to relay commission’s concerns about the current space and
inquire about plans to transition to a safer location.
For large categories, Click indicated the highest scoring organizations as: Motus Theater, Local Theater Company,
Studio Arts Boulder, Colorado Film Society, Museum of Boulder, Frequent Fliers Productions, Inc., JLF Colorado,
Junkyard Social Club, and Butterfly Effect Theatre of Colorado.
Freeman moved and Borowsky seconded that Motus Theater, Local Theater Company, Studio Arts Boulder,
Colorado Film Society, Museum of Boulder, Frequent Fliers Productions, Inc., JLF Colorado, Junkyard Social
Club, and Butterfly Effect Theatre of Colorado be awarded general operating support grants for large-sized
organizations.
Staff welcomed discussion around the scoring that has so far occurred. It may be helpful for applicants to
understand some of the principles behind the numbers. Some organizations were dismayed by the perception of
lower scores.
Borowsky believes his scores are self-explanatory. He bases the scores on the application contents. He suggested
applicants as well as commissioners would benefit from participating in the Q&A part of the grants training held
before applications open for the next grant season.
Cole noted the strong competition in the recent round of applications. She noted that she scores higher when there
is a good argument around growth and capacity building. She also prizes the aspect of “community priorities,”
viewing the impact of artist, neighborhood, and greater Boulder community through this lens. She appreciates
metrics such as data of repeat visitors or other specific feedback.
Schmid reviews the rubric before scoring to remind herself of the guidelines. She noted that she liked all the
applications, but her experience now allows discernment of those that appear to “go above and beyond,” like the
childcare and interpretation offerings for participants or audience.
Kert: “I stick very closely to the rubric, specifically the subcategories and descriptors of what we are looking for to
meet the city goals. I score all applications on each criterion all at once, so I am in the same frame of mind about it
while I'm looking at them all. It usually takes me 5 or so full evenings to read through everything. I look very
specifically for growth--innovation. I look specifically for evaluations and data measuring to have measured
outcomes that are linked to specific goals. I look for more than lip service to DEI principles and that there is effort
at leadership, artist, and audience levels. I look throughout the entire application for scoring on each section to
give the orgs the highest opportunity to get points.” She also approves of the blind scoring. “As a community
member that used to see the previous process, I thought it was troublesome.”
McCormick likewise sticks to the rubric, scoring each group all the way through and then performing a final
review at the end for final adjustment.
Whyel plans to score applicants not only according to “what they plan to do, but how they plan to do it.”
Freeman takes the commission’s role as stewards of the public trust very seriously. She employs the full range of
scores available to reflect the full range of offerings presented. She believes “some organizations deserve 8’s on
everything, some deserve 1 in certain areas, given what was presented by the application.” She appreciates and
aligns with Kert’s effort to give the maximum number of points possible. She reviews the entire application and
makes effort to find ways to give the best scores. She cautions applicants trying to respond to commission inquiry
in the second round: do not try to answer a query for a specific commissioner, answer to the rubric. Freeman urged
applicants pay more attention to the civic dialog item, which she has seen not addressed. She also eschews
ambiguity and approves of specifics. Regarding cultural equity, Freeman emphasized the error of some applicants
who wrote that they “do ADA accommodation.” The Americans with Disabilities Act can “influence your
accommodation, it can inform it, but you can’t ‘do’ it.” She encouraged applicants to research the regulations to be
better informed (https://www.ada.gov/.)
Packet Page 299 of 305
Schmid wondered about the standard being held for commissioners relevant to providing comments around a low
score and whether it may be necessary to formalize the structure of this feedback.
Brenner Clack: “I’d just like to say that I appreciate when commissioners make comments especially when scoring
low. when that is nonexistent- it feels like we aren’t getting a fair chance to address the concerns because we don’t
understand them. I know commenting is a lot but from the applicant point of view - it’s so important.”
Berg Wilson: “As an artist in Boulder for almost 13 years now and Artistic Director of The Catamounts, I am so
grateful when commissioners give specific feedback accompanying a lower score in the form of a question or
opportunity to explain more. It feels like a dialogue and an opportunity to collaborate on what is a shared goal--
making a more vibrant Boulder arts community.”
Saunders: “I really appreciate the idea shared by Bruce regarding a Q & A training session, that feels worthwhile
for both BAC and grant applicants.”
Click announced that question and answer sessions for grants will be hosted in November, December, and January
when the grant cycle is first published. She noted that previous recorded sessions are available through the website
(https://boulderarts.org/2022-grants-program/).
Agenda Item 5: Public Art Program [2.00.50 Audio min.]
A. DISCUSSION: Amendments to the Public Art Implementation Plan
i. Experiments in Public Art
ii. Rain Garden
Vink referred to these items needing commission recommendation to begin work, included in the packet. Her goal
is to start working on product and program. Commissioners have the options to recommend that the City Manager
approves incorporating the project into 2020-2022 Public Art Implementation Plan (staff recommendation) or
recommend that the proposal does not advance to the City Manager at this time.
Cole moved that commission recommend the City Manager incorporate the following projects into the approved
2020-2022 Public Art Implementation Plan: 2022 Experiments in Public Art, and Stormwater Quality Program:
Rain Garden Project. Borowsky seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved.
Agenda Item 6: Matters from Commissioners [2.09.30 Audio min.]
A. ACTION: BMOCA Relocation Proposal – Cole, acting as liaison for the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art
(BMoCA), introduced Dadone who serves as executive director and chief curator of BMoCA to discuss the
expansion and relocation to a new north Boulder location.
Cole noted that the expansion works on several levels. It provides opportunity for the museum to be in a facility
designed for them, to engage with a Housing & Human Services Master Plan with potential for live/work spaces, to
contribute to the emerging NoBo neighborhood, and to amplify the arts in a way that will help Boulder become a
cultural destination.
Dadone and Burak presented on the plan for an expanded facility in north Boulder (see handouts.) This location
aims to serve all equally by situating itself at the front of Boulder’s most quicky growing and diverse neighborhood
and to build on momentum of Boulder’s NoBo Art District which already houses over 200 artists with potential for
further density.
BMoCA representatives are gearing up for fundraising process in order to break ground on the facility by the end
of 2025, early 2026 depending on permitting and development process. Community partners include Boulder
Chamber, City of Boulder Office of Arts and Culture, Create Boulder, and NoBo Art District. Community
engagement opportunities will offer survey, a design committee and charette, and engagement with design finalists.
Packet Page 300 of 305
Cole serves on BMoCA’s board and will report on any important updates. Dadone also expressed willingness to
return to commission himself for further conversation.
Freeman would like to have reports back at the community feedback milestones (e.g., compilation of survey
responses).
Schmid hopes the future museum building’s architecture can align with Boulder sensibility and the city’s existing
aesthetic. In response to her inquiry about the medium for public engagement, Dadone plans to have a physical
presence during first Fridays to allow participants the chance to take the survey in person.
Borowsky felt concern with leaving vacant the existing space downtown. He doesn’t want such a vital spot to run
fallow of art. McCormick agreed and recommended working with city staff and City Council to dedicate the
current BMoCA building for future arts and culture uses.
Commission, staff, and BMoCA representatives all expressed excitement about the project and expansion.
Agenda Item 7: Matters from Staff [2.47.34 Audio min.]
A. Manager’s Memo: see packet. Chasansky welcomed questions.
B. ACTION: Criteria for Artist Hiring Incentive Grants and Arts Administration Rehiring Grants – Chasansky
presented on the staff recommendations for the criteria of these two grants funded through the American Rescue
Plan Act (see handouts.)
The purpose of the Artist Hiring Incentive Grants is aimed to respond to industry-specific, COVID-related
workforce impacts through targeted nonprofit funding. This grant is a hiring incentive for nonprofits to employ
Boulder-area visual, performing, and literary artists to perform or create new work. The funding totals $36,000,
broken into 12 grants at $3,000 each. The awards would be decided with administrative review (first come, first
served). Criteria, along with relevant deadlines were outlined.
Responding to McCormick’s inquiry, staff noted that Boulder-based applicants would be determined by whether
the primary residential address is within the City of Boulder as per the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, with a
signifier being a zip code beginning in “803.” Chasansky noted that this guideline would effectively exclude P.O.
boxes.
Borowsky favors a minimum length of residency in Boulder.
Kert “feel[s] like if we are trying to engage higher capacity for artists to move here, a length of residency cuts
against that.” Schmid agreed, and wondered “would someone really move here for a $3K grant?”
McCormick expressed concern about the first-come, first-served method of the administrative process. Cole
agreed and suggested implementing a lottery system.
Taking a straw poll, the majority of commission did not indicate favor of a requirement for a minimum length of
residency. The majority did indicate favor of administrative review using a lottery method as opposed to first-
come, first-served.
Commission provided nodding approval for staff to work on the Artist Hiring Incentive Grants.
The second funding recommendation, the Arts Administration Rehiring Grant, totals $879,000 (10 grants at
$87,900 each divided over three years). This grant aims to respond to industry-specific, COVID-related workforce
impacts through targeted grants to nonprofits. This grant is an enhancement grant to rehire arts administration
positions that were eliminated due to the pandemic. These grants would be decided by vote of commission
members. The staff recommended eligibility requirements were discussed along with the scoring and ranking
process
Packet Page 301 of 305
Commissioner McCormick approved these minutes on June 15, 2022; and Celia Seaton attested to it.
Commission provided nodding approval to the outlined staff recommendations for the Arts Administration
Rehiring Grant.
Staff will work on language to finalize construction of these two grants, incorporating the gathered feedback.
Agenda Item 8: Adjournment [3.25.30 Audio min.]
There being no further business to come before the commission at this time, the meeting was adjourned.
Date, time, and location of next meeting:
The next Boulder Arts Commission meeting will be at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, June 15, 2022.
Packet Page 302 of 305
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
July 21, 2022
D E C L ARAT I O N S I T E M
Honoring 400 Years of African American History Declaration
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Taylor Reimann
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Honoring 400 Years of African American History
Packet Page 303 of 305
Packet Page 304 of 305
Packet Page 305 of 305