05.12.21 DAB PacketBoulder Design Advisory
Board Agenda Wednesday, May 12, 2021 Virtual Meeting 4 – 7 p.m.
The following items will be discussed:
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Rules of Decorum
B. Swearing in of New Design Advisory Board Members
C. Nominations and Elections of New Design Advisory Board Chair/Vice Chair
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The February 10, 2021 minutes are scheduled for review.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. STUDENT PROJECT: Envisioning an Alternative Future for the Valmont Power
Plant Vision
5. BOARD MATTERS
6. CALENDAR CHECK
7. ADJOURNMENT
For further information on these projects, please contact:
Kalani Pahoa at 303.441.4248 pahoak@bouldercolorado.gov or
For administrative assistance, please contact:
Cindy Spence at 303.441.4464 spencec@bouldercolorado.gov
For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting, online at
www.bouldercolorado.gov, or at the Planning & Development Services Center, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor.
CITY OF BOULDER
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
February 10, 2021
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/
DAB MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lauren Folkerts, Chair
Rory Bilocerkowycz
Matthew Schexnyder
John Gerstle, Planning Board Ex-Officio Member
DAB MEMBERS ABSENT:
Todd Bryan
STAFF PRESENT:
Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer
Cindy Spence, Administrative Assistant III
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Jacob Lindsey, Director of Planning and Development Services
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, L. Folkerts, declared a quorum at 4:06 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The board approved the December 9, 2020 Design Advisory Board minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one spoke.
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. PROJECT REVIEW: Project Review for a proposed three-story addition to the existing Grace
Commons Church (formerly First Presbyterian Church) building located at 1820 15th Street
along with a new mixed-use building located at 1603 Walnut Street. The church project will be
primarily assembly space and meeting rooms. Proposed on the church’s property at 1603
Walnut (referred to as the “Annex”) is a four-story mixed use building with ground floor
cafe/restaurant and tuck-under alley-accessed parking. There are 30 permanently affordable
apartments planned on the second and third floor (12 one-bedroom and 18 efficiency living
units) along with and an event space and roof deck on the fourth floor.
• Staff Introduction
E. McLaughlin provided a summary of the OLIV at Boulder project located at 1750 15th
Street.
• Applicant Presentation
Pete Weber, with Coburn Architects, Josh Felix, with BGW Architects, and Carol Adams,
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 2 of 59
with Studio Terra, Inc., representing the applicant, presented the item to the board.
• Public Participation
1) Scott Herrin, representing The Walnut HOA, requested the design conform with the
Design Guidelines and respect the scale and characteristics of the existing neighborhood.
• Board discussion
L. Folkerts summarized the board’s recommendations. She stated that as the design evolves
new complexities may arise and may cause some comments to no longer apply. The board is
attempting to provide design guidance and not a literal road map, therefore, the applicant
should apply their best judgment.
1603 Walnut (the “Annex”) - Best aspects regarding this portion of the project
o The board appreciated that the building holds the block and is an increase in density
over the existing structure is more in line with what would work in that area. In
addition, the board appreciated the street scape improvements, the inclusion of the
service oriented commercial space, the affordable housing component, the inclusion
of brick as a façade material, and the two-story massing on the south side of the
building.
1603 Walnut (the “Annex”) - Discussion of referral topics
2.1A continuity of building wall
o The board encouraged a step back final unit on the third floor to fifteen feet,
otherwise they found the project largely in compliance with the requirements.
2.1B, 2.1C, 2.1D view corridor/mechanical screen/sunshade
o The board encouraged a stepping back final unit on the third floor. They approved of
the location and screening of the mechanical equipment. In general, they approved of
the sunshades. They suggested looking a structure that provides more shade.
2.1.I Open space
o The board encouraged more operable windows next to the café seating on the south.
The suggested considering the reassignment of some of the open space adjacent to the
lobby to the west or south side of the building.
Excerpt from section 1.1A Exterior materials, window openings and patterning
o The board encouraged a reduction in the variety of aperture sizes. They would
encourage a higher percentage of brick cladding. At a minimum, the “corner stone”
portion should be clad in brick. The board encouraged a removal of the shed parapet.
They suggested a modern interpretation of a cast iron lower level with brick above.
The board found that the window groupings and balconies met the intent of the
twenty-five-foot bay requirement. They encouraged the residential entrance to
command more space and/or have additional embellishment to make its purpose clear
and have the dignity it deserves.
1.2.C window proportions
o The board encouraged a reduction in the variety of aperture sizes and a stronger
adherence to consistent horizontal datums. The board found the more horizontal
window bay appropriate to the transitional context. They encouraged a careful look at
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 3 of 59
window groupings with an eye to establishing a clearer primary, secondary, and
tertiary hierarchy.
1.4.A Durable materials
o The board found that fiber cement could be durable enough especially for a secondary
cladding material. They believed a subdued material pallet would be important and
encouraged continued refinement of the exterior cladding materials. Two of the three
board members recommended using brick for a significant proportion of the exterior
cladding.
2.2.A, 2.2B Height
o The board found the height to be in scale with adjacent structures and within the
allowed height limit. One out of the three board members recommended looking at
stepping back the south side stair so that more of the south façade would be stepped
back.
2.2.C, Large forehead
o The board encouraged looking at making the south side third story windows taller or
adding lintel to reduce the forehead. Currently, the board found that the awnings
successfully break up the façade. The appreciated the steel parapet cap as an
appropriate modern touch.
2.2.C, Human scale
o The board found the scale of the building cladding to be acceptable. They would
encourage a closer look at the pattern and how it would be treated where it meets
smaller details, if this scale of material would actually be used.
2.2.C, Distinction between ground floor and floors above
o The board agreed the lower level did a good job of creating transparency. The board
found the deep structure successful at creating transition (eddies) between sidewalk
and structure. The board encouraged a careful review of the number of columns to
balance preserving the openness with providing a consistent pattern. The encouraged
more porosity adjacent to the café with either additional operable windows or doors.
2.2.E, Maintain Rhythms
o The board found that some variation in bay size is completely acceptable if not
preferred. The board would encourage a light modification to the large columns for a
slightly more regular pattern to satisfy this requirement. The board found that a strict
adherence to the twenty-five-foot bay would not be appropriate in this instance.
2.2.F, First Floor should feel taller
o The board found the window height acceptable. They appreciated the wood screen
detail, although it may be better in metal. The board encouraged looking at adjusting
door height to make doors taller and transoms smaller. The board would encourage
changing the exterior wall to a material would match the window frame, increasing
the apparent size of the windows.
1603 Walnut (the “Annex”) - Best aspects regarding this portion of the project
o The board appreciated the entry knuckle, the inviting outdoor space, and the outdoor
space buffering the historic structure.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 4 of 59
1820 15th Street (the Grace Commons Church) - Discussion of referral topics
2.1E 4-sided design/trash enclosure
o Generally, the board does not have an issue with the trash enclosure. They would
encourage aligning the header with the adjacent window. In addition, the board
encouraged looking at siding it with building siding, so the doors disappear. They
encouraged moving the sidewalk away from the trash door.
Excerpt from 1.1.A Building material/display windows/entrance hierarchy/ storefront/
wood header detail/parapet/25’ bay
o The board appreciated the use of brick on the upper levels. They would be okay with
a light material on the lower level. They encouraged a simplified more rhythmic
exterior. The Entry element could be the jewel of the project and all other
architectural elements should be in deference to it. The board suggested the use of
awnings and window patterning to help clarify the hierarchy of entrances and where
entrances exist. They encouraged a more consistent parapet height across the project.
1.2.C Maintain Proportions
o The board recommended the creation of a clearer primary, secondary and tertiary
hierarchy of fenestration. They encouraged simplifying the variety of patterns across
the building but adding nuanced detail to the execution of the pattern.
1.4.A Building Materials
o The board would encourage the use of more brick as an exterior material and a more
simplified material pallet.
2.2.B Mass and scale
o The board had concerns that the tower element might be confusing to pedestrians
because it looks like it calls out an entrance. The board liked that the tower element
tied into the adjacent buildings. They recommended creating a façade that moved
people toward the entrance courtyards. The board encouraged simplifying existing
modules into a more cohesive overall building.
2.2.C Human and scale
o The board encouraged a strong base element of concrete, limestone, or similarly
massive material that would search across the lower level of the entire corner building
with larger windows that correspond to the structural grid. They encouraged the
consideration of two-story window elements in a brick façade for the office area on
both facades.
2.2.C Texture and pattern of building
o The board appreciated that the color of the fiber cement panels at the base provided a
nice floating effect. They encouraged the use of a more durable material. The board
appreciated the deep punch in of some lower-level windows. They would like to see
this more consistently along the entire base. They suggested raising the sill where
there are windows and not doors to make it clear that this is not an entrance.
2.2.C Texture and pattern of building level
o At the ground floor, the board recommended having a glazing fill area between heavy
structural elements. They found that glazing above could be as wide as glazing below,
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 5 of 59
with window trim color used to make the windows above look smaller (possibly
light-colored frames that match exterior materials on first level, dark colored frames
that contract to exterior materials on upper levels).
2.2.C Maintain distinction between ground floor and upper levels
o See comments above
5. BOARD MATTERS
6. CALENDAR CHECK
7. ADJOURNMENT
The Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
APPROVED BY
_________________________________
Board Chair
_________________________________
DATE
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 6 of 59
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD (DAB) AGENDA ITEM
1
DATE: MAY 12, 2021
TO: DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD (DAB)
FROM: KATHLEEN KING (COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, P+DS)
SUBJECT: STUDENT PROJECT: ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER
PLANT VISION
OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE:
City staff from Comprehensive Planning have been hosting two graduate students from the University of Colorado at
Denver (UCD) Masters of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) program since January 2021. This student team has been
tasked with a Capstone project that envisions an “alternative future” for the Valmont Power Plant site. As part of their
final deliverables of the project, the team will present their concepts to the city’s Design Advisory Board for the Board’s
review, critique, and feedback.
BACKGROUND & INFORMATION:
Considering alternative futures or alternative uses that might be appropriate for the future of Valmont Power Plant
site has emerged as a community topic of interest during the East Boulder Subcommunity Planning process. The East
Boulder Subcommunity Plan is a collaborative, long-range planning project to envision the future of the East Boulder
subcommunity. The intention of the plan is to implement the citywide goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP) at the local level. The process kicked off in the Spring of 2019 and to date has completed the first three phases
of the scope of work (Project Kick-off, Inventory and Analysis and Concept Development). The project is currently
nearing the end of the fourth major phase, Scenario Testing and Alternative Futures. The deliverable of this phase of
work will include a “Preferred Alternative Future” Land Use Plan and a Conceptual Connections Plan.
As the topic gained interest, staff identified an opportunity to work with graduate students at UCD’s MURP program to
dive into some concepts and conduct initial research about the history of the site and prepare case studies of
redevelopment under similar conditions. The students were on-boarded in January 2021 and their semester’s work will
be completed in May 2021.
The Valmont Power Plant is located outside city limits, east of 63rd Street and north of Arapahoe Avenue. This is an
active plant and will continue to operate beyond the planning horizon of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The
concepts and ideas that will be presented are exploratory student work and do not represent city planning for the
area.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES/CONSIDERATIONS:
In the Board’s review and feedback for the students’ project, please consider:
1. Do these concepts offer contributions to achieving citywide goals from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan?
2. What elements of these concepts would DAB like to see move forward?
3. How could the student presentation be improved?
ATTACHMENTS:
A. East Boulder Subcommunity Plan Vision Statements
B. Intro to Project
C. “First Half Draft” of Project
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 7 of 59
December 10, 2020
VISION STATEMENTS
East Boulder Vision Statements will guide decision-making, objectives and strategies for the
East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The vision will help shape the range of options considered
about where, what and how East Boulder's future might evolve – to achieve citywide goals
established in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). These will be further defined as
the subcommunity plan is developed.
FOCUS AREA: SMALL LOCAL BUSINESS
BVCP CITYWIDE GOALS: Pro-actively support small local business
Retain small local business
Provide affordable business space
VISION STATEMENT: The city will protect affordable business space, support a wide variety of businesses and
deliver attractive neighborhoods for employers, employees and customers in order to help local businesses
thrive in East Boulder.
FOCUS AREA: ARTS & CULTURE
BVCP CITYWIDE GOALS: Support arts and cultural experiences as essential to community well-being.
VISION STATEMENT: The city will play an active role in supporting East Boulder’s development of art spaces
and experiences, installations, businesses and venues for professional and
amateur creatives that reflect the subcommunity’s local culture.
FOCUS AREA: DESIGN QUALITY & PLACEMAKING
BVCP CITYWIDE GOALS: Ensure that redevelopment and infill deliver buildings and public spaces of high-
quality design
Create pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods
VISION STATEMENT: East Boulder will evolve to include walkable neighborhoods, for all ages and abilities,
whose aesthetic character reflect the subcommunity’s unconventional personality and industrial identity. The
area will welcome experimentation in design and construction to build enduring and engaging places.
Click Here for more info..
Click Here for more info..
Click Here for more info..
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 8 of 59
December 10, 2020
FOCUS AREA: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY & DIVERSITY
BVCP CITYWIDE GOALS: Increase the number of affordable units in the city
Increase the diversity of housing types
Increase the number of housing units in commercial and industrial areas
VISION STATEMENT: East Boulder will be home to new and affordable housing that complements existing uses,
includes a diverse mix of housing types and ownership models and extends live-work-play choices to those
interested in living in Boulder.
FOCUS AREA: RESILIENCE & CLIMATE COMMITMENT
BVCP CITYWIDE GOALS: Achieve energy system resilience
Improve community capacity and resilience to natural and economic disruptions
Reduce carbon emissions
VISION STATEMEN: (Re)development in East Boulder will respect and enhance the integrity of the area’s
natural resources and minimize disruptions, including flood events.
The subcommunity’s numerous public and health care facilities will provide a strong
network for resilience in the face of future health crises.
FOCUS AREA: ACCESS & MOBILITY
BVCP CITYWIDE GOALS: Increase access to alternative modes of transportation
VISION STATEMENT: People and goods will easily and safety travel to, from, and through East Boulder by
variety of efficient and affordable modes, employing advanced transportation
technology where appropriate.
How were these Vision Statements created?
The focus areas and citywide goals were adopted by City Council during the 2015 BVCP update.
These draft vision statements were crafted through review of community input received through the East
Boulder Working Group, Growing Up Boulder Sessions with youth, Focus Group sessions, Be Heard Boulder
IDEAS page, Subcommunity Stories interviews, and Vision comments received from many different community
members during the “Who Are We?” phase.
Click Here for more info..
Click Here for more info..
Click Here for more info..
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 9 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE
FUTURE FOR VALMONT POWER PLANT
Chelsea Gieryic and Ali Pfenninger
URPL 6900: Planning Capstone
Master of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Colorado Denver
Project Advisor: Jenny Steffel Johnson
Project Client: City of Boulder
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 10 of 59
East Boulder
Subcommunity
City of Boulder Boundary
Valmont Power
Plant
1234mi
PROJECT CONTEXT
City of Boulder:
- City of Boulder is engaged in evaluating industrial lands on the east side of the
city for alternative uses
- Currently creating the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan
Xcel Energy
- Decommissioned the coal unit and coal impoundments at the Valmont Power
Plant site in 2019
- Forecasted to operate site until 2038
CU Denver Students
- Helping the city create alternative visions for the long term future of the site
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 11 of 59
PROJECT DELIVERABLES
I. CASE STUDY
Review case studies of similarly situated industrial
sites that have been redeveloped.
Identify 6 case studies, each with different.
programming, financing, and sustainability.
elements, highlighting different takeaways.
Case Study Report
(6 case studies total)
Community Engagement
Report
(analyze results, outline
engagement process)
ENVISIONING AN
ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR
THE VALMONT POWER PLANT
VIDEO
(4 - 5 minute video detailing
project context, site history,
existing conditions, and concepts
for the future)
Research virtual community engagement
techniques.
Hold 2 virtual engagement events (one with the
East Boulder Sub-Community Working Group, one
with interested citizens).
Develop a survey.
Integrate engagement throughout the project.
Develop a vision plan with 2-3 alternative visions
for Valmont Power Plant that is representative of
what the community desires.
Create video to quickly communicate final
concepts and project process.
II. COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
III. VISION PLAN
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 12 of 59
BACKGROUND: SITE CONTEXT
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 13 of 59
BACKGROUND: SITE HISTORY
Land inhabited by
Arapahoe and Ute
tribes
Town of Valmont
officially platted
1865:
Valmont Power Plant
began operation, Public
Service Company of
Colorado purchased
the Hillcrest and
Leggett reservoirs
1924:
Public Service
Company expanded
the plant, created the
Valmont Reservoir
1961:
Coal unit and coal
impoundments closed
at Valmont Power Plant
site
2019
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 14 of 59
BACKGROUND: SITE HISTORY
Land inhabited by
Arapahoe and Ute
tribes
Town of Valmont
officially platted
1865:
Valmont Power Plant
began operation, Public
Service Company of
Colorado purchased
the Hillcrest and
Leggett reservoirs
1924:
Public Service
Company expanded
the plant, created the
Valmont Reservoir
1961:
Coal unit and coal
impoundments closed
at Valmont Power Plant
site
2019
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 15 of 59
BACKGROUND: SITE HISTORY
Land inhabited by
Arapahoe and Ute
tribes
Town of Valmont
officially platted
1865:
Valmont Power Plant
began operation, Public
Service Company of
Colorado purchased
the Hillcrest and
Leggett reservoirs
1924:
Public Service
Company expanded
the plant, created the
Valmont Reservoir
1961:
Coal unit and coal
impoundments closed
at Valmont Power Plant
site
2019
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 16 of 59
BACKGROUND: SITE HISTORY
Coal unit and coal
impoundments closed
at Valmont Power Plant
site
2019
Land inhabited by
Arapahoe and Ute
tribes
Town of Valmont
officially platted
1865:
Valmont Power Plant
began operation, Public
Service Company of
Colorado purchased
the Hillcrest and
Leggett reservoirs
1924:
Public Service
Company expanded
the plant, created the
Valmont Reservoir
1961:
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 17 of 59
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS
Constraints
- Contaminated site
- Physical barriers to
access
- Surrounding industrial
land use
Opportunities
- Open space / recreation
- Valuable wildlife habitat
- East to west connectivity
- Public interest in
preserving the power
station for events, etc.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 18 of 59
ENGAGEMENT TAKEAWAYS
Focus Groups:
Date: March 25, 2021 from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
April 1, 2021 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Number of Participants:
March 25, 2021: 8 working group members, 2 city staff, 1 CU Denver
capstone student participated in this event.
April 1, 2021: 1 community member, 1 city staff, 2 CU Denver
capstone students participated in this event.
Location: Meeting held via videoconferencing Zoom.
Focus Groups:
25 respondents
What we heard:
What people are excited about at the
Valmont Power Plant site
• Renewable energy production facilities
• Power station building should be publicly
accessible space
• Event space to become a cultural attraction
• Cultural learning opportunities about history
of the site and nearby native lands
• Environmental learning opportunities
• Mixed use development
• Partnerships with local organizations and
groups
• Tie together the site with a common theme
• Variety of recreational pursuits, specifically
trails
• Emphasis on start up companies and
incubator spaces
• Low-middle income housing
What people had concerns about at
the Valmont Power Plant site
• Overall conflicting concerns
• Contamination
• High density development
• Housing
• Losing the history of the site through
development
• Power station building privately operated
• Financial constraints
• Loss of industrial land use in East Boulder
• Obtrusive public art installations
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 19 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE
FUTURE FOR VALMONT POWER PLANT
FIRST HALF DRAFT
Chelsea Gieryic and Ali Pfenninger
URPL 6900: Planning Capstone
Master of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Colorado Denver
Project Advisor: Jenny Steffel Johnson
Project Client: City of Boulder
February 25, 2021
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 20 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 2
Community Engagement Methodology
Vision Plan Methodology
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
SOURCES
Focus Areas
Case Studies
Remediation
Adaptive Reuse
Energy Innovation
SWOT Analysis
Site Context
Site History
Problem Goals
INTRODUCTION 3
4
5
13
34
14
35
38
39
6
15
7
17
7
20
21
8
9
Problem Statement
Project Objectives
Background
TABLE OF CONTENTS
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 21 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 3
INTRODUCTION
- Problem Statement
- Project Goals
- Project Objectives
- Background
- Site History
- Site Context
- SWOT analysis
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 22 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 4
PROBLEM STATEMENT
As part of the Spring 2021 Capstone course in the Master of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) program
at the University of Colorado Denver, MURP students Chelsea Gieryic and Ali Pfenninger will be working to
envision an alternative future for the Valmont Power Plant in Boulder. The team will work alongside Kathleen
King, Senior Planner in Boulder, to create a final report that will present alternative future redevelopment
options for Valmont Power Plant. This project is relevant for the City of Boulder as they are currently working
to create and implement the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan.
Located in East Boulder at 1800 63rd Street (figure 1), The Valmont Power Plant went into service in 1924 and
at the time stood as the largest power station west of the Missouri River. Currently owned by Xcel Energy, the
Valmont Power Station has closed its three coal ash impoundment areas within the last several years due
to concerns over the public health and environmental impacts associated with coal power plants. Boulder
has long been a city that prides itself in environmental stewardship and thoughtful redevelopment and the
power plant offers an opportunity to continue this legacy.
Because the power plant exists as a gateway experience for people arriving to Boulder from the east,
the city considers the Valmont Power Plant a legacy project that will transform East Boulder for future
generations. Ultimately, the Valmont Power Plant project will combine planning, design, and community
input to shift industrial lands from polluted spaces to valuable community assets.
Figure 1: Context map
Source: https://studio.mapbox.com/
East Boulder
Subcommunity
City of Boulder Boundary
Valmont Power
Plant
1234mi
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 23 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 5
PROJECT GOALS
The purpose of the project is to explore alternative futures for the Valmont Power Plant site in East Boulder.
This project will be helpful to our client, the City of Boulder, as the city and the community are currently
engaged in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan process. The final products for this project will include a
case study report, community workshop implementation, community input analysis, and finally a master
plan for the site.
Additionally, this project is in line with many of the focus areas identified in the 2017 Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (figure 2). The project fits in with the resilience and climate commitment focus area.
The site is highly contaminated and the project will involve researching opportunities for remediation.
Additionally, 57% of the East Boulder subcommunity lies within the floodplain, which highlights the need for
resilient stormwater planning and design (East Boulder Inventory and Analysis Report, 2019). The project
also aligns with the design quality and placemaking focus area, as the site has an interesting history and
striking existing structures. The project addresses another focus area, housing affordability and diversity, as
there are currently 17,000 jobs in the east Boulder area and very limited housing (King, 2020). The project is
in line with the arts and culture focus area, as the project offers an opportunity to create a unique cultural
place and enhance economic and environmental vibrancy in East Boulder.
This project is significant for planning practice as it will provide an example of integrating extensive
background research and community feedback to create a final vision and consolidated report for a
specific site. This project is also important as climate resilience continues to be a major concern in the field.
The exploration of alternative futures for the Valmont site will highlight sustainable and equitable planning
and design initiatives for post-industrial landscapes that could be applied in a variety of frameworks.
%Housing Affordability & Diversity
Design Quality & Placemaking
Resilience & Climate Commitment
Arts & Culture
Figure 2: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan focus areas that apply to the Valmont Power Plant project
Source: https://bouldercolorado.gov/bvcp
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 24 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 6
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
PROJECT STAGES:FINAL DELIVERABLES:
I. CASE STUDY
Review case studies of similarly situated industrial
sites that have been redeveloped.
Identify 6 case studies, each with different.
programming, financing, and sustainability.
elements, highlighting different takeaways.
CASE STUDY REPORT
(6 CASE STUDIES TOTAL)
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT REPORT
(ANALYZE RESULTS,
OUTLINE ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS)
ENVISIONING AN
ALTERNATIVE FUTURE
FOR THE VALMONT
POWER PLANT VISION
PLAN
PROJECT SUMMARY
VIDEO
Research virtual community engagement
techniques.
Hold 2 virtual engagement events (one with the
East Boulder Sub-Community Working Group, one
with interested citizens).
Potentially develop a survey.
Integrate engagement throughout the project.
Develop a vision plan with 2-3 alternative visions
for Valmont Power Plant that is representative of
what the community desires.
Create video to quickly communicate final
concepts and project process.
II. COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
III. VISION PLAN
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 25 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 7
BACKGROUND: SITE HISTORY
VALMONT POWER PLANT DRAWINGS (1924)
Figure 1: Mechanical plan. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A54544?solr_
nav%5Bid%5D=771ad6ec8f1ba4931030&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=9&solr_nav%5Bquery%5D=%22Valmont%22
Figure 2: Longitudinal section of the mechanical plan. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A54544?solr_
nav%5Bid%5D=771ad6ec8f1ba4931030&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=9&solr_nav%5Bquery%5D=%22Valmont%22
Valmont exists as an area directly on the eastern fringe of Boulder County. Historically, the land where the
plant currently sits was occupied by Arapaho and Ute tribes who camped, hunted, and considered the site
their home. As the mid-1800s approached, pioneers traversed through the area setting up various mining
base camps before Valmont was officially platted as a town in 1865. The town of Valmont grew as railroads
were built in the 1870s. Overall, the previous life of the Valmont site is rich in cultural history and an essence
of historical significance remains at the site today.
The Valmont Power Plant site became officiated in 1924 when the Public Service Company of Colorado
purchased the Hillcrest and Leggett reservoirs outside of Boulder and began adjacent construction of the
Valmont Power Plant. The reservoirs were an important component of this site as an adequate supply of
cooling water was essential for the coal plants operation. The second smokestack at the Valmont Plant was
constructed in 1937 and took one year to complete. In 1961, the Public Service Company ended up expanding
the plant thus creating Valmont Reservoir.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 26 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 8
BACKGROUND: SITE CONTEXT
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 27 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 9
BACKGROUND: SWOT ANALYSIS
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
• Arterial roads access
• Proximity to South Boulder Creek
• East to West connectivity -- site acts as gateway entering Boulder from the East
• Industrial dominated surroundings
• Property acquisition
• Possible infrastructure deterioration
• Pedestrian discomfort due to surrounding uses
• Reuse of infrastructure
• Eligibility for National Register
• Integrating commercial surroundings
• Integration of sustainable infrastructure
• Increased commercial presence
• Deconstruction of stacks
• Railroad tracks
• Barriers to mutiple site access points
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 28 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 10
BACKGROUND: SWOT ANALYSIS
ECONOMIC
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
• Unique Industrial history
• Funding mechanisms
• Xcel ownership
• Funding
• Employment opportunities
• Brownfield funding opportunities
• Potential to capitalize on past with energy production, focus on renewable energy
• Financial decomissioning barriers
• Economic uncertainity due to Covid-19
• Remediation process
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 29 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 11
BACKGROUND: SWOT ANALYSIS
CULTURAL
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
• Public Interst
• East Area Subcommunity Plan
• Cultural resources
• Lack of residential immersion
• Connectivity through transit for citizens
• Affordable housing
• Human health equity
• Increased interest in public space due to Covid-19
• Potential for recreational emphasis
• Displacement due to increased property value
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 30 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 12
BACKGROUND: SWOT ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
• Site open space and biodiversity
• Proximity to natural features
• History associated with water pollution
• Extensive environmental assessment
• Environmental remediation
• Open space conservation & stewardship
• Eco-friendly transition aligning with Boulder’s values
• Environmental education
• Habitat restoration
• Potential for agricultural focus
• Ecological restoration -- (pollinator species, native plant species, raptor nesting)
• prairie dog population & management
• Remediation process/contamination history
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 31 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 13
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
- Focus Areas
- Remediation
- Adaptive Reuse
- Energy Innovation
- Case Studies
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 32 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 14
FOCUS AREAS
Phases of power plant remediation
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/4783_plant_decommissioning_remediation_and_redevelopment_508.pdf
The Valmont Power Plant is a site with a complicated set of existing issues. There are generally four
main phases of coal power plant decommissioning: retirement, decommissioning, remediation, and
redevelopment. Our focus areas will concentrate on the remediation and redevelopment phases. These
focus areas identify key areas of research that could feasibly be integrated into the future of the Valmont
Power Plant.
The focus area research intends to identify feasibility for differ-
ent interventions at the Valmont Power Plant.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 33 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 15
Coal fly ash has been a byproduct of energy production at the Valmont Power Plant for decades. The
burned ash, known as coal combustion residuals (CCRs), is collected at multiple stages throughout the
coal combustion process, combined with water, and stored in pits known as coal ash ponds. Valmont has
two coal ash ponds which are slated to be removed. This wet storage method has led to pollution of the
soil, contamination of surface and ground water, and dispersion of air particles which negatively impact
environmental and human health (Gajic, et. Al, 2018). Every year American coal plants generate about 110
million tons of coal ash per year (Turrentine, 2019). The question of what to do with coal ash ponds that are
being decommissioned is pertinent nation-wide and at the Valmont site. From a feasibility standpoint there
are two traditional remediation options that the Environmental Protection Agency suggests, removing the
coal ash from the facility or installing an engineered cap or cover system (Xcel Energy). There are other
innovative and sustainable methods for addressing the fly ash such as phytoremediation and artistic reuse.
Closure by removal of the coal fly ash is a
common practice. This involves dewatering
and excavating the ash and moving it to a
lined landfill. This method has been used at the
Valmont in the past, as the northwest portion
of the site has been lined and converted to a
landfill. This is a particularly polluted portion of
the site, as Allied Chemical pumped as much as
200,000 gallons per day of radioactive lead and
arsenic tainted water directly into the reservoirs
(figure 2) (Cortina, 2018). This option, though
popular, has several feasibility considerations
including the amount of material to be moved,
the logistics of drying the material before
putting it in the landfill, and the cost of loading
it onto trucks or rail cars (Proctor, 2018). This is a
more expensive option compared to closure in
place, recently costing Duke Energy Corp $5.6
billion to remove nearly 100 million tons of waste
produced by six coal-fired power plants in North
Carolina (Sweeney et. Al, 2019).
FOCUS AREAS: REMEDIATION
TRADITIONAL REMEDIATION:
CLOSURE BY REMOVAL (MOVE FLY ASH TO LANDFILL)
CLOSURE IN PLACE
Closure in place is the most cost-effective
option for addressing coal fly ash. This method
involves dewatering the impoundment,
stabilizing the CCRs, and installing a cover
system to prevent new water sources or
material from entering the basin (Proctor,
2018). It is important that stable liners are
utilized to preserve water quality and reduce
groundwater contamination. Larger sites with
a sizable volume of coal ash are better suited
for closure in place to avoid massive costs
associated with transporting the waste off-
site.
Pollution near Coal Ash Disposal Area
https://www.boulderweekly.com/news/something-fishys-going-
valmont-reservoir/
Close in place coal fly ash diagram
https://www.powermag.com/construction-considerations-are-key-
in-closure-planning-for-coal-ash-ponds/05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 34 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 16
FOCUS AREAS: REMEDIATION
Phytoremediation presents a cost effective,
sustainable technology that uses plants
to reduce or remove pollutants from the
environment. If the remaining CCRs were to be
closed in place at Valmont, the site could be
planted with specific species that are known
to extract pollutants. This would be a way to
combine traditional and innovative remediation
methods. Phytoremediation has estimated
cost savings of 50% for the extraction of heavy
metals and up to 80% for the removal of
petroleum hydrocarbons from soil compared
to traditional methods (Field Guide to
Phytoremediation, 2011). The limiting factor with
this method is time, as it takes plants several
years to establish sufficient root systems and
decontaminate the sites. Additionally, it may
be difficult for plants to effectively remediate
if the contaminants are deep within the soil
profile. There is an environmental education
opportunity associated with phytoremediation
with the potential to involve volunteers in
planting and use the site as a living laboratory.
INNOVATIVE REMEDIATION:
PHYTOREMEDIATION
1717
TEST
REPLANT
TEST
PLANT
TEST
REPLANT
PHYTOEXTRACTION
$5-20 /sq ft
HARVEST > COMPOST > TOXIC WASTE
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
EXCAVATION AND FILL
$20-40/sq ft
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
EXCAVATE
FILL
TOXIC WASTE
CLEAN SOIL
EXTRACT EXTRACT EXTRACT
EXCAVATE
COAL FLY ASH SCULPTURES
There are artistic ways to re purpose CCRs.
An environmental activist in North Carolina
is working with scientists to use polymer to
encapsulate the ash. This seals the material
and prevents further pollution. The material
can then be cast in molds and used to create
sculptures. This is a new technology that has
been applied at smaller scales but could
be utilized to create interesting public art
installations that honor the industrial history of
the site.
Phytoremediation versus extraction costs
https://www.youarethecity.com/pdf/fieldguide_youarethecity.pdf
Sculpture created with concrete and coal ash
https://keepingitneutral.tumblr.com/post/176384334222/jamie-
north-slag-bowl-i-ii-2013-concrete
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 35 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 17
FOCUS AREAS: ADAPTIVE REUSE
Adaptive reuse refers to the transformation and repurpose of an existing site or structure for a purpose other
than what it had previously been used for. While this concept falls into the realm of historic preservation,
it differs in that it facilitates a compromise between both demolition and preservation. Adaptive reuse
is flexible and strategic thus offering a “green” element – materials are typically reused throughout the
structure and other new, more efficient architectural materials are brought in as well. Aside from preserving
historical significance, adaptive reuse also helps to combat urban sprawl and land conservation, which are
important factors when considering this method of use for a growing city.
CIRCULAR ECONOMY CONCEPT:
The circular economy framework for the
adaptive reuse of historic buildings encourages
a framework that incorporates techniques
to aim toward cost effective reconstruction
and reduction of environmental impacts
tied to new construction. Underutilized
buildings of historic nature are key assets to
communities seeking to incorporate vibrancy,
historical acknowledgement, and sustainable
redevelopment into prospective projects. The
circular economy model is a production and
consumption based process that requires
a minimal level of overall natural resource
extraction and environmental impact by
extending the use of materials, waste and
energy, which all support cost effectiveness.
The circular economy framework also separates
the building life cycle into a design phase
and building materials sourcing as separate
phases. The building life cycle is broken
down into these two categories to ensure
efficiency between stakeholders so that a
project includes financially backed decisions
without gaps or overlaps. The design phase
is where transformation is planned, designed,
and financed. Key participants during this
phase may include project team lead, project
financers, head architects, cultural heritage
experts, conservation experts, owners, and
local government planners. The building
materials sourcing phase considers which
raw materials are extracted and sourced for
a project. Key participants during this phase
may include regional materials suppliers, local
manufacturers of components, traditional
artisans, companies for waste and materials
recovery, contractors, and architects. The
overall framework of the circular economy
system sets out to provide understandable
guidance to both non-technical and technical
participants of an adaptive reuse project.
Ascending circularity strategies indicating order of priority.
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 36 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 18
FOCUS AREAS: ADAPTIVE REUSE
INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL (IO): ECONOMIC IMPACT
Studies over the last several decades have suggested that adaptive reuse is more sustainable regarding
environmental, social, and economic impacts than typical development which would otherwise include
total demolition and new construction. Since much of the information presented on this topic is mostly
qualitative, a methodology based on Input-Output (IO) models for measuring both economic and energy
impacts of choosing adaptive reuse as the method of (re)construction. Various cost analyses at the project
level have been examined over time but it is important to consider the larger scale economic impacts
for the economy of a place as a whole. Each adaptive reuse project is unique to the characteristics of
the building as well as location so understanding if adaptive reuse is the most feasible and economically
favored choice, requires a deeper examination.
An IO study was done to understand the
adaptive reuse construction of projects specific
to Ontario, Canada. The research in this
study (Bachmann), sought to address three
considerations:
1.) Quantify the potential impacts of adaptive
reuse construction on gross domestic product
($), total and sectoral output ($), employment
(jobs) and energy consumption in Ontario;
2.) Determine the sensitivity of these impacts
to changes in the market share for adaptive
reuse projects, structural material savings, non-
structural material savings, and demand for
these projects; and
3.) Identify the domains of potential futures that
have positive outcomes on both the economy
and the environment.
ONTARIO (IO) STUDY:
Scenario planning was essentially what was
used in this methodology where several
scenarios were created to represent different
adaptive reuse situations pertinent to one
project. For example, a very basic scenario may
have represented a situation where only the
building’s super-structure and substructure
were reused. This specific scenario would then
be cross-analyzed to a separate scenario
which would analyze the reuse of internal non-
structural components.
IO modeling is typically used as an approach
to evaluate the level an economic system will
react to either external shocks or short-term
policy changes. In this report (Bachmann),
adaptive reuse adjustments of both residential
and non-residential buildings were applied
separately to a multitude of scenarios which are
shown in the table below.
Scenario Names and Descriptions. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271750/1-s2.0-S0959652620X00102/1-
s2.0-S0959652620309860/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB8aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJH05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 37 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 19
FOCUS AREAS: ADAPTIVE REUSE
INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL (IO): ECONOMIC IMPACT
ONTARIO (IO) STUDY:
In this report (Bachmann), adaptive reuse adjustments of both residential and non-residential buildings
were applied separately to a multitude of scenarios. Once one ‘main’ scenario is defined, 15 sub-scenarios
are each paired with the existing main scenario. Next, the set of 16 scenarios would be broken into two sets,
1) representing where demand for adaptive reuse buildings is fixed, and 2) situations where demand for
adaptive reuse buildings increases.
Many conclusions can be drawn from the cross-analysis presented for the Ontario study. The IO
methodology works to create a multitude of conclusions that can be processed together to inform a
decision. In this case, for example, gains in construction-related industries such as architectural and
engineering, do not offset the upstream manufacturing sectors losses – which would in turn imply that
the demand for adaptive reuse is higher and in demand to either remain at a neutral state employment-
wise or is required to increase the amount of jobs in this field. Conducting these studies to analyze future
economic impacts of adaptive reuse will hopefully lead to insights for both regional and local economies
which in turn, will present opportunities for policy and tax structure changes.
Building end of life concept map. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271750/1-s2.0-S0959652620X00102/1-
s2.0-S0959652620309860/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB8aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJH
MEUCICaammd1wD0VYfizvKxIHPSqSlnGPTADeXj5SDYY2AE7AiEA1Z7cHbXpU%2Byq7rvm72mBSAZyMpX0mp-
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 38 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 20
FOCUS AREAS: ENERGY INNOVATION
FLOATING SOLAR PANELS (FLOATOVOLTAICS):
Floating solar panels (floatovoltaics) are
solar arrays floating in a body of water. These
panels are an interesting way to capitalize on
sunshine. Valmont’s three reservoirs are calm
bodies of water, a key element of suitability for
this technology. The landfill in the northwest
corner of the Valmont site is not suited to
have heavy structures built here due to
contamination concerns, making floating solar
panels an attractive option. There are several
environmental benefits to this technology
including reduced presence of algae blooms
and reduced surface evaporation, a particular
concert in Boulder’s drought prone semi-arid
climate.
Floatovoltaics utilized on a small lake
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/will-floatovoltaics-become-next-big-
thing
The Valmont Power Plant has traditionally been utilized for energy production in the past, presenting an
opportunity to integrate innovative energy technologies. This would be a way to honor the site’s past while
creating a more resilient future for Boulder.
WINDWHEEL:
The “Windwheel” is a sustainable development
project in Europe, slated to be completed
by 2025 in Rotterdam. The Windwheel, at 174
meters high, intends to become a resilient
icon for the city. The structure will integrate a
variety of renewable energy methods, including
facade solar panels, wind energy, and biogas
production. The development will include hotels,
restaurants, residences, commercial, retail, and
event space. While this project’s funding is still
unknown, it is likely to be a costly endeavor. A
project of this scale may not be a great fit for
the Valmont Power Plant but the motivation
behind the project is applicable. This is a
compelling way to combine a cultural attraction
with innovative energy production.
Diagram of energy generation
https://dutchwindwheel.com/en/index
Elevation renderings of the Windwheel
https://dutchwindwheel.com/en/index
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 39 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 21
INTRODUCTION:
The following case studies highlight lessons surrounding adaptive reuse, industrial site remediation, and
public engagement for legacy projects. The six chosen cases represent a variety of scales, ecologies, and
unique challenges. Each case will introduce the site’s significance, provide an overview of related issues,
detail the redevelopment plan or public engagement approach, and most importantly identify key lessons
from each that apply to the Valmont Power Plant.
CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDY ORIGINAL
USE
COSTPOST DVLPT
USE
LOCATION SIZE
Seaholm Power
Plant
Landschafts-
park
Candlestick
Point State
Recreation Area
Rocky Flats
Wildlife Refuge
Denver
Tramway
Powerhouse
Gas Works Park
Gas Works Park
Austin, TX 7.8 acres Gas/oil
generation
Mixed-use,
commercial,
residential
$150 - $180
million
Duisburg-Nord,
Germany
400 acres Coal / steel
power plant
Public park,
event space
$48 million
San Francisco,
CA
200 acres Landfill / parking Public park,
recreational
trails
n/a
Golden, CO 6,592 acres Nuclear testing
site
Wildlife refuge $7 billion
Denver, CO 1.5 acres Coal power
plant
REI (retail) $6.3 million
Seattle, WA
Boulder, CO
19.1 acres
841 acres
Gasification
plant
Coal power
plant
Public park
n/a
$2 million
n/a
CASE STUDY MATRIX:
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 40 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 22
CASE
STUDIES:
01
SEAHOLM POWER PLANT
AUSTIN, TX
The Seaholm Power Plant was
a power plant initially designed
for coal that shifted to burning
heavy crude oil before the coal
bins were ever utilized. The plant,
sitting on a 7.8 acre site, was
first commissioned in 1948 to
meet growing electricity needs
in Austin, Texas. Construction of
the 130,000 square foot power
plant complex was completed
in 1958. At its peak, the Seaholm
facility generated 100 megawatts
of electricity, enough to supply
power to the entire city of Austin.
In 1989 a concerned group of
citizens petitioned to shut down
the plant due to environmental
concerns. The plants final boiler
was decommissioned in 1992.
The plant was nearly demolished
in 1997 but a local friends group
worked to save the site. The
structure itself was constructed
in the “Art Moderne” style. The
building is a National Historic
Landmark in the State of Texas
and is also on the National
Register of Historic Places. In 2004
Austin City Council requested
proposals for re-development
partners. The mixed-use
redevelopment project began in
2013 and it was completed in 2016.
Financial Precedent:
The LEED silver designated
redevelopment project cost
between $150 million - $180
million. The project required $15
million in initial financing for an
eight-year pre-construction
phase. The site was a brownfield
and remediation alone cost
$13 million. The City of Austin
contributed $18.6 million for the
cost of street and utility projects,
public parks, and an underground
parking garage. Overall, over $100
million was funded privately. The
project includes a parking garage
with 538 spaces, 315 of which the
city owns, providing a revenue
stream.
Challenges:
Brownfield site
Connectivity barrier within the city
Nearly half the site had on-
structure construction
Redevelopment Plan:
The ambitious redevelopment of
this site successfully reclaimed
a brownfield through infill
development while re purposing
a facility on the National Register
of Historic Places into a new set
of uses. In 2005 Seaholm Power,
LLC was selected to redevelop the
full site included the power plant.
The site fits into a larger vision for
the city, as this area is part of the
EcoDistrict program, one of eleven
districts in nine American cities
participating in a two-year urban
regeneration program. A high-
rise tower offers 615,000 square
feet of residential space, totaling
280 luxury condos. A two-story
low-rise building presents over
67,000 square feet of mixed-use
space including retail, salons, and
office space. All three buildings
on site received four stars from
the Austin Energy Green Building
program for sustainability. This
development surrounds a one-
acre public-plaza and lawn. The
plaza and lawn were envisioned
as a multi-purpose front yard for
downtown Austin and provides
gathering space for 1500 visitors.
This is complemented by smaller
areas intended for passive
recreating. Landscape design
elements allude to the sites
Figure 1:
Source: https://savingplaces.org/stories/the-
history-behind-one-of-austin-texas-hottest-
Figure 2:
Source: https://www.charlesrosearchitects.com/projects/power-plant-offices/
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 41 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 23
LESSONS:
Site redeveloped into major
civic venue
Iconic structure was
preserved and celebrated
Site has become a multi-
modal transportation hub
Excellent sustainability
initiatives, rainwater
harvesting
Figure 3:
Source: https://landezine-award.com/seaholm-power-plant-redevelopment/
Figure 4:
Source: https://landezine-award.com/seaholm-power-plant-redevelopment/
Figure 5:
Source: https://landezine-award.com/seaholm-
power-plant-redevelopment/
past, for example fountains with
misters represent steam that
once powered the generators.
Most of the old infrastructure
was preserved, which further
strengthened the redevelopments
connection with the site’s rich
history.
The site used to operate as
a barrier between Austin’s
downtown and the western
portion of the city’s open space
and parks region. The developers
recognized this and created
a vision for a multi-modal
hub. Seaholm Power Plant was
connected to major adjacent
trail systems and key bike ways.
The developers considered
that it might be a future stop
for the proposed Lone Star Rail
connecting Austin to San Antonio.
This project was completed with
sustainability at the forefront of
design, particularly relating to
water. Many existing historical
elements, such as discharge
pipes and existing weirs, have
been retrofitted to accommodate
a large-scale rainwater
harvesting system. The site’s three
buildings allow rainwater capture
and collection from a combined
70,000 square feet. The impressive
rainwater harvesting system
collects 320,000 gallons of water
for nearly all the site’s irrigation
needs.
Overall, this power plant mixed-
use redevelopment did a
wonderful job of celebrating the
historic character of the site while
creating a contemporary space
that benefits the community and
strengthens the local economy.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 42 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 24
CASE
STUDIES:
LANDSCHAFTSPARK
02
Figure 1: Thyssen Meiderich Steelworks in the early 1900s.
Source: https://www.landschaftspark.de/en/background-
knowledge/introduction/
Figure 2: Landschaftspark today.
Source: https://www.kuladig.de/Objektansicht/KLD-268839
DUISBURG-NORD, GERMANY
Lansdchaftspark is a site in
Duisburg-Nord, Germany that
was previously owned by Thyssen
Meiderich Steelworks, an ironwork
company founded in 1901. The
Steelworks consisted of five blast
furnaces which were operational
from 1903 – 1985. In 1985, the
European Union decreased new
steel production quotas. Thyssen
decided to close the plant, leaving
8000 steelworkers with no job
and 570 acres of polluted land
behind. The probable future for
the site was for it to be either
demolished or sold to China.
Luckily, a group of concerned
citizens protested and advocated
for rehabilitating the site to
preserve local heritage. The site
has become a flagship project
for industrial redevelopment
through park design and using
remediation techniques to create
thriving ecologies and spaces for
people. Landschaftspark is an
international model for landscape
planning.
Financial Precedent:
Overall, it would have been much
more costly to tear down the
entire site than to rehabilitate it.
As of 2004, it had cost $24 million
to renovate the buildings and
another $24 million to renovate
the grounds. The project was
financed through a public-
private partnership, relying on
investments from the city of
Duisburg, the state of North
Rhine-Westphalia, the LEG State
Development Company, and
Federal Republic of Germany.
Maintenance costs about $7
million per year.
Challenges:
Contaminated site.
Local politicians advocated
for demolition, afraid of costs
associated with redevelopment.
Industrial equipment made site
unsuitable for visitors.
Redevelopment Plan:
This was an ambitious
redevelopment plan, as there
was no large-scale precedent
for adapting a contaminated
industrial site into public space.
The site was saved from re-sale
and demolition in the late 1980s
after the community advocated
to save the historical site. Around
the same time the North Rhine-
Westphalian state government
was looking for new ways to
approach structural change in
this region. A project entitled the
“International Building Exhibition”
(IBA) was founded in 1988 by the
state and federal government
and IBA acquired the site in 1989.
Shortly thereafter, an international
competition was launched calling
for a visionary approach for
redesign. In 1991 Peter Latz won
the competition for his innovative
proposal that emphasized
preserving the industrial
equipment and honoring the site’s
unique history. By 1994 the first
part of the park was opened to
the public.
Today the park operates as a
recreational space, a center for
cultural activities, and a living
witness to the history of steelworks
technology. The complex includes
the power
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 43 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 25
LESSONS:
Power plant redevelopment
that celebrates industrial
past
Focus on recreation and
regional trail system
Utilizes phytoremediation
techniques to remediate
polluted soil
Figure 3: Birch trees are utilized to remediate contaminated soil on site
Source: https://powerplantsphytoremediation.com/westergasfabriek-1
Figure 4: The site preserves industrial heritage while creating
new uses.
Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/233202086926903108/
Figure 5: Combining industrial past with wild plantings to heal the site.
Source: https://powerplantsphytoremediation.com/westergasfabriek-1
plant, the gas meter building,
and the main switching house.
These have all been repurposed
into management offices, event
space, and visitor centers.
There are several unique
elements of Lansdchaftspark
that could be incorporated into
alternative future visions for the
Valmont Power Plant. Many of the
industrial structures have been
repurposed to collect and purify
rainwater, an element that could
be important in Boulder’s semi-
arid climate. The site provides an
example of phytoremediation, the
practice of decontaminating soil
using plants to treat pollutants.
Latz + Partners worked to slowly
use plants to heal the site. For
example, birch trees were planted
in a zone with particularly polluted
soil instead of capping over the
soil which would have resulted in
a total loss of vegetation (FIGURE).
This is an efficient, inexpensive,
and environmentally friendly
technique. Beyond remediating
soils, phytoremediation can be
used for educational purposes, to
control flooding, and to expand
ecosystems. The site itself is also
integrated into the Industrial
Heritage Trail, a circular trail
nearly 400 km long that runs
through the entire Ruhr District.
There are 25 anchor points along
the trail, providing core nodes
for trail users to stop and learn
more about the history of the
region. There is an opportunity to
incorporate a similar recreative
trail at the Valmont Power Plant
site.
Overall, this post-industrial
landscape provides a great
example of combining a
site’s history with innovative
technologies at the landscape
planning scale.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 44 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 26
CASE
STUDIES:
CANDLESTICK POINT STATE RECREATION AREA
03
Figure 1: Candlestick Point Park in 1928.
Source: https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Candlestick_Before_
and_After_Stadium_Built
Figure 2: Candlestick Point Park in 1957 during construction of the stadium,
much of the coast has been filled.
Source: https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Candlestick_Before_
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
The candlestick recreation area
is a State Recreation Area (SRA)
in southwestern San Francisco,
California. The site was once a
170-acre landfill functioning as
a United States Navy shipyard
during World War II. In 1974 the
shipyard stopped operating and
the site maintained its function
as a place to dump garbage
for surrounding communities.
In 1993 the state legislature
purchased the land for $10
million dollars. It became the
state’s first urban recreation
area in 1977. The park offers
a recreative respite for urban
dwellers with hiking and biking
trails, picnic areas and a fitness
course. In 2010 the City of San
Francisco Planning Department
began work on a general plan to
provide management guidelines
and develop a concept for the
future of the site. The community
engagement process for this
project ensured that residents
were involved in determining
programming and the vision
moving forward.
Challenges:
Many passionate stakeholders
Big redevelopment plans for
areas adjacent to the park.
Redevelopment Plan:
The public engagement method
for the Candlestick Point SRA
General Plan was a collaborative
effort between city staff and
AECOM. The process consisted
of a series of workshops to help
the community understand
the existing conditions, site
opportunities and constraints,
and alternatives for future
development. The engagement
approach consisted of four main
workshops.
Workshop 1: Visioning
The first workshop aimed to
inform the public and gather
public opinion to begin forming
conceptual designs. The format
consisted of a short presentation
with background about the
site and the general planning
process. The meeting then
moved into breakout groups
with 7 to 10 people. These
were led by an engagement
facilitator and allowed for a more
comfortable environment to
provide input. The participants
were shown precedent imagery
for potential programming
and site components which
the engagement team termed
“character typologies”. The
participants were invited to put
green dots on imagery that
inspired them and red dots on
elements they did not want to
see integrated in Candlestick
Point SRA. A similar activity
could be completed in a virtual
environment, perhaps using a free
interactive website like “Miro”.
Workshop 2: Plan Alternatives
The next workshop took place
six months later. This workshop
included a longer presentation
covering site background, general
planning process, overview of
public input received at the first
workshop, site opportunity and
constraints, current and future
users, and a presentation of
three conceptual alternatives
for the site. Each alternative was
distinct from one another both
spatially and in overall goals.
They were each presented with
a site plan, layering of relevant
site information (path types,
landscape types, facilities, and
gathering areas), and precedent
photographs. Breakout groups
spent time discussing each
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 45 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 27
LESSONS:
Provides a framework for
community engagement
involving alternative visions
for a similarly sized site
Project goal is a long-term
vision plan, similar to the
Valmont Power Plant Master
Plan
40 respondents
WORKSHOP 2 RESULTS
40 respondents
• Alternatives 3 and 4 highest rated
(most “1s”)
• Alternative 3 preferred overall
14
16
18
20
Workshop 2 + Web Results
6
8
10
12
14
Hot
Lukew
Cold
0
2
4
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
ALTERNATIVES
public preferences
Figure 3: Workshop 2- participants filled out this questionnaire after the engagement team
presented three distinct alternative futures for the park.
Source: https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/cpsra_wkshp3_draft_preferred_alt.pdf
alternatives development
ALTERNATIVE 2 – COLLABORATION & CULTURE
2 Collaboration
& culture
Create a destinational
draw through cultural
programs and
partnerships.
Assumes no
redevelopment or land
exchange.
Partnerships or revenue
generating facilities help
create financially
sustainable programs
• urban agriculture
• art walk/ribbon
• cultural complex
nNalternatives development
FACILITIES
program areas
Interpretive art/signage
buildings
ALTERNATIVE 2 – COLLABORATION & CULTUREnN
Figures 4 & 5: Workshop 2- The San Francisco Planning Department presented conceptual site plans
for four preferred alternatives.
Source: https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/cpsra_wkshp3_draft_preferred_alt.pdf
Figure 4: Workshop 1- engagement board
Source: https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/
files/cpsra_wkshp3_draft_preferred_alt.pdf
alternative and the participants
then filled out a questionnaire
about the alternatives (Figure 3).
Each alternative had a multiple
choice for whether they “liked it”
thought it was “okay” or “did not
like it”. There were open ended
questions, prompting participants
to write both what they like and
dislike generally about each
scenario. This questionnaire
approach for final alternatives
could be very useful for the
Valmont Power Plant Master Plan
engagement process.
Workshop 3: Preferred Alternative
This workshop took place another
six months later. During this
workshop, the engagement team
presented a draft of the preferred
alternative for the site, going into
more details for different areas
of the park. They used precedent
photographs, physical models,
and site plans to illustrate the final
vision.
Workshop 4: Preferred Alternative
This final meeting took place
another six months later, the
entire engagement process
spanning two years. The final draft
of the general plan was presented
to the public for comments.
Overall, in our semester-long
project we are hoping to have
two events. The first could be
modeled after Workshop 1 and the
second after Workshop 2. Our final
presentations at the end of the
semester will be a combination
of what Workshop 3 and 4
accomplished for Candlestick
Point SRA due to time constraints.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 46 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 28
CASE
STUDIES:
DENVER TRAMWAY POWERHOUSE
04
DENVER, CO
Figure 1:
Source: https://www.confluence-denver.com/features/
Figure 2:
Source: https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/6c932da0-dbf6-4cb7-95b5-
The Denver Tramway Powerhouse
is located within central Denver
at the confluence of the South
Platte River and Cherry Creek. The
90,000-square-foot industrial
structure was constructed
during the period of 1901-1904
and several additions followed
over the next two decades. The
powerhouse is oriented on the
northwest-southwest axis that
is consistent with the diagonal
orientation of Denver’s downtown
street grid. In 1911, an addition to
the original structure was added
which resulted in a building
footprint twice the size of the
original. In 1924, a second addition
serving as the battery house was
included which is an all-concrete
two-story structure.
The powerhouse structure is
an example of what American
Industrial architecture of the early
20th Century was typical of – late
Victorian with Richardsonian
Romanesque qualities featuring
classic windows and detailed
masonry. During the early 1900s,
Denver’s streetcar network made
the transformation to an all
electric system. The location of
the powerhouse was strategic for
the reliance of nearby rail lines
to transport coal to the facility,
as well as the Platte River which
allowed for cooling water and
dumping of waste.
The powerhouse was the main
provider of electricity for Denver’s
streetcars until the Denver
Tramway streetcar service
ceased to operate in 1950. The
powerhouse closed in 1955 and
was sold several times before
becoming a transportation
museum in 1967. The museum
revenue was not substantial
enough to keep up with the
maintenance of the building so
much of the deterioration present
before the renovation occurred
during this time. Eventually, the
building was sold to Recreation
Equipment Inc. (REI), in 1998.
Between 1998 and 2000, the
powerhouse was converted into
the REI Denver flagship store
which functions as the continued
use presently.
Financial Precedent:
REI worked with Mithun Partners
architectural firm to carry out
the rehabilitation as a federal
investment tax credit project.
In 1998, the Denver Urban
Renewal Authority granted REI
a $6.3 million tax increment to
adaptively reuse and redevelop
the powerhouse. The total project
cost for this redevelopment was
roughly $32 million.
Challenges:
Contaminated site.
Local politicians advocated
for demolition, afraid of costs
associated with redevelopment.
Industrial equipment made site
unsuitable for visitors.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 47 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 29
LESSONS:
Transformation of a
threatened landmark into
a new retail store with
connection to local parks,
transit and waterways
Reactivation of unutilized
space thus allowing the
Central Platte Valley and
Confluence Park to become
greater hubs for Denver
Metro Residents
Both public and private
sectors joined forces to
make such a large project
successful
Redevelopment Plan:
Aesthetically, the powerhouse
went through a major
rehabilitation which was
necessary to bring the
powerhouse back to a heightened
state after experiencing years of
deterioration. Original windows
were restored and the whole
exterior of the building was
cleaned, and the brick repainted.
Several portions of the exterior
walls were completely rebuilt,
and the buildings concrete
was repaired and structurally
reinforced. Foundations were
also stabilized to ensure
structural integrity and a new
metal roof was incorporated
into the improved design. Steel
mezzanines were also inserted
into the interior so that the space
could transition to retail purposes.
The exterior, which once housed
rail lines and railroad cars, was
considerably improved with
landscaping.
Figure 3:
Source: https://digital.denverlibrary.org/digital/collection/p16079coll2/id/1429
Figure 4:
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/80651083@
Figure 5:
Source: https://ondenver.com/rei-denver-more-than-just-a-fabulous-place-for-all-
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 48 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 30
CASE
STUDIES:
05
Rocky Flats is the site of a former
nuclear weapons production
facility with manufacturing
specific to plutonium triggers. The
site was in operation from 1951
to 1992 under the control of the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Located at the eastern base of
the Rocky Mountains’ Front Range,
the Rocky Flats site underwent
an environmental remediation
process from 1996-2005. A 4,000-
acre buffer zone circling the site
were transferred to the US Fish
and Wildlife Service in 2007 and
at this time became known as
the Rocky Flats National Wildlife
Refuge. The remediation that
occurred at Rocky Flats is known
as the largest remediation
operation in American history.
At one time, Rocky Flats was
documented to be Colorado’s
seventh largest employer. The
number of bombs housed at
this site were enough to make
Colorado the world’s fourth
largest nuclear power. Originally,
Rocky Flats started out as a 2,500-
acre site that was undeveloped
other than the operative plant
facilities which consumed roughly
400 acres. In 1975, the site was
expanded to 7,600 acres which
allowed for the buffer zone.
The original point of the buffer
was for security and secrecy
maximization but also to protect
the site against private property
as Denver was quickly escalating
in population in the 1940s and 50s.
It wasn’t until the late 1960s that
the site was protested due to
health and safety concerns. The
location of the site was brought
into question as activists inquired
as to why the military chose
for a site of this manner to be
located within close proximity to
a growing metro area. The site of
Rocky Flats was chosen precisely
due to the nature of an adjacent
workforce and anticipated
population growth indeed. The
Rocky Flats site is also home to
a wide diversity of both animal
species and flora types. The
ranching that existed in this area
before the Rocky Flats site began
operation had depleted some
of the native fauna and invasive
plant species began to creep in.
By the 1970s, this area was at
least somewhat regenerated
and tall grasses and animal
species native to the area
began to return. Eventually,
the US Energy Research and
Development Administration had
acknowledged increased levels of
plutonium in certain species in the
area but ensured that there would
be no adverse effect health-wise.
At the time of its termination as a
nuclear production plant, Rocky
Flats was owned by Rockwell
International. In June 1989,
production was suspended due to
Operation Desert Glow – a raid by
80 FBI agents who had become
aware that multiple violations of
health, safety, and environmental
regulations had been committed
at the site. Rocky Flats soon
became considered a superfund
site and the shift to remediation
began.
Challenges:
Hazardous soil pollution
Air particulate contamination
Figure 1:
https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/rocky-flats-nuclear-legacy-
remains-despite-upcoming-settlements-and-trail-plans
Figure 2:
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060041317/print
ROCKY FLATS WILDLIFE REFUGE
GOLDEN, CO
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 49 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 31
LESSONS:
Site redeveloped into wildlife
refuge
Long span of various interest
groups and government
agencies working toward
different goals
Complexity of a highly
contaminated site and
understanding the longevity
of future projections for site
usage
Remediation Process:
The process of remediation for
this site consisted of closure,
cleanup, and a transition to
wildlife refuge and management
planning. In 1995, it was estimated
that remediation at the site would
take close to 50 years and cost
roughly $36.6 billion. In 1997,
Federico Pena, former mayor of
Denver and then energy secretary,
proposed that the remediation
job could actually be completed
by 2006 at a cost of $7 billion. Also
in 1997, Rocky Flats was put on the
National Register of Historic Places
as a site that was significant for a
specific production event in time.
In 2005, the remediation process
was completed by Kaiser-Hill
which was a year ahead of
schedule and contributed to the
overall concern that remediation
had happened too quickly.
After a series of debate for the
best use of the site, the space was
dedicated as a refuge which did
allow for wildlife to flourish. The
concern for human safety persists
to this day though, as plutonium’s
known radiological half-life is
24,000 years. It appears that a
greater understanding of the
‘afterlife’ of a nuclear weapons
manufacturing complex must
consider the depth of larger
issues around environmental
contamination, post-industrial
uses and how certain levels of
toxicity and biodiversity can co-
exist moving forward.
Figure 3:
Source: https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/rocky-flats-nuclear-legacy-remains-despite-
upcoming-settlements-and-trail-plans/
Figure 4:
Source: https://www.boulderweekly.com/news/feds-ask-
judge-muzzle-scientific-testimony-rocky-flats-hearing/
Figure 5:
Source: https://www.rockyflatsnuclearguardianship.org/single-post/action-alert-
take-action-today-to-halt-the-rocky-mountain-greenway
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 50 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 32
CASE
STUDIES:
06
GAS WORKS PARK
SEATTLE, WA
Gas Works Park is located on the
shore of Lake Union in Seattle,
Washington. From the early 1900s
through 1956, the Seattle Gas
Company’s manufactured gas
plant occupied the site. As natural
gas imported from Canada
became more common, the need
for natural gas subsided and the
plant eventually closed.
In 1970, Richard Haag Associates,
a Seattle design firm, set forth to
develop a master plan for the site.
Haag’s proposal was submitted
to the city in 1971. The proposal
sought to incorporate many of
the existing industrial structures
into the park and he stated that
to do so would demonstrate their
“historic, esthetic, and utilitarian
value.” The perspective Haag
had at the time was somewhat
different than the sentiment
of many Seattle residents. The
structures were often viewed
as ugly, deteriorating, and
unsalvageable.
The soil remediation process was
embraced from the start. The
uppermost layer of contaminated
topsoil was taken and mixed
with bio-degradable elements
allowing air to circulate in the
soil. Bacterial life was soon
reintroduced to the toxic soil and
this method was also proven to
be cost-productive. Following the
soil treatment, grass was able
to be grown in the park which
eventually opened in 1975.
Financial Precedent:
The original purchase of the
project was $1.3 million and phase
one construction costed an
additional $750,000.
Challenges:
Post development environmental
issues continued on the site
as scientific studies were
conducted throughout the
1980s and 1990s. Field studies
conducted determined that
carcinogenic polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
arsenic benzene, and tuolene
existed in the site’s groundwater
at unacceptable levels.
Figure 2: Dilapidated building at Seattle Gas Company Lake Union
Manufactured Gas Plant. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/larc301/
lectures/remediation2.htm
Figure 3: Gas Plant Greenspace. https://www.hartcrowser.com/project/gas-
works-park-remedial-investigationfeasibility-study-and-remediation/
Figure 1: The Manufacturing Plant that would later become Gas Works Park. https://seattle.curbed.
com/2019/4/12/18306264/gas-works-park-environmental-history
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 51 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 33
Figure 4: Site plan of Gas Works Park with significant spaces identified. https://www.webpages.
uidaho.edu/larc301/lectures/remediation2.htm
LESSONS:
Defines key character of
Seattle’s skyline
Reclaiming of public space
Soil organisms and plants for
remediation purposes
Remediation Process:
The land surrounding the
once operating gas plant, was
unproductive and polluted by
the time the plant had ceased
operation. A plot of land extending
400 feet into Lake Union, turned
into a thick swampland which
created an even greater dismal
feel surrounding the site. Hart
Crowser provided the technical
environmental and engineering
support for the cleanup of the
former gas plant site. Funding
became available for the site
cleanup in 1997 and a lengthy
remediation process followed. A
protective vegetated soil cover
up was layered into the north-
central and southeastern portions
of the site which was enforced to
demarcate the top level of soil
contamination. An air sparging
and soil vapor extraction system,
which oxygenates groundwater
and strips VOCs, was installed
to address the high levels of
benzene.
The orginal thought that
Richard Haag had regarding
soil organisms and plants as
remedies for toxicity stricken
soil ended up being true. The
plants integrated after the topsoil
turnover allowed for the process
of phytoremediation which is both
effective and economic.
Figure 6: Gas Works as community space. https://green.uw.edu/blog/2015-11/
uw-professor-pushed-revolutionary-design-gas-works-park
Figure 7:: Gas Works new growth. https://seattle.curbed.
com/2019/4/12/18306264/gas-works-park-environmental-history
Figure 5: Table demonstrating plants for
phytoremediation and their application.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/larc301/
lectures/remediation2.htm
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 52 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 34
METHODOLOGY
- Community Engagement Methodology
- Vision Plan Methodology
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 53 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 35
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
WHAT DO WE WANT TO KNOW:Casting a wide net for feedback
OUTLINE FOR EVENT:
I. PRESENTATION:
II. BREAKOUT ROOMS:
III. COME BACK TO MAIN ROOM GROUP: Generally- what do people want to
see on this site?
Guidance for our guiding principles
Interested citizen focus group
EVENT 1:
a. Share purpose of our capstone / timeline
b. Site overview / context
c. SWOT analysis
d. Share more in-depth site analysis
e. Share case study overview
TIME FRAME: BETWEEN WEEKS OF 3/8 - WEEK OF 3/29
a. Feedback about character of site
b. Use interactive website tool (like Miro) to have people put green or red “dots” on
programming alternatives they like
a. Final concluding comments from participants
b. Next steps on our end
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 54 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 36
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
WHAT DO WE WANT TO KNOW:Casting a wide net for feedback
Draft survey in the works- Sharing draft survey with City of Boulder Community Engagement Staff during
3/1/2021 meeting.GROUP: Generally- what do people want to
see on this site?
Guidance for our guiding principles
Check with COB how survey will be
administered
SURVEY:
TIME FRAME: BETWEEN WEEKS OF 3/8 - WEEK OF 3/29
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 55 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 37
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
WHAT DO WE WANT TO KNOW:Seeking more specified feedback
Feedback on alternative visions East Boulder Sub-Community
Working Group
EVENT 2:
OUTLINE FOR EVENT:
I. PRESENTATION:
II. BREAKOUT ROOMS (FACILITATE DISCUSSION /
QUESTIONAIRRE):
III. COME BACK TO MAIN ROOM
a. Share purpose of capstone / timeline
b. Share what we’ve heard from survey and Event 1
c. Site overview / context
d. Share alternatives (3 alternatives total- with the hope that 2 can be refined to move
forward for final)
TIME FRAME: BETWEEN WEEKS OF 4/12 - WEEK OF 4/19
a. Could have “low / medium / high” for how much they like each scenario multiple choice
b. Could have an open ended question for each “what do you like about this” / “what don’t
you like about this”
a. Final concluding comments from participants
b. Next steps on our end GROUP: 05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 56 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 38
VISION PLAN METHODOLOGY
The most effective approach to fulfilling project goals and client requests would be to take a multi-
media approach for the remainder of the Valmont Power Plant project. Traditional planning and utilizing
a masterplan as the main means for communication amongst the public realm. After discussions with
various subject matter experts for this project, it has become obvious that video is now an essential and
likely most effective means of communication amongst a variety of interest groups.
The community engagement meetings will help to navigate what will be included in the video and final
deliverable. The process will then turn to creating animated content that may be digitized for a short (5-6)
minute video that will visually summarize the ultimate project vision. These are several reasons that help to
describe the effectiveness of video for communication purposes:
- The audience becomes easily engaged
- Immediate display of nonverbal communication
- Video prompts shares and therefore increases overall viewer reception
- Rich and quick content can be presented in a condensed format
- Incites a call-to-action approach
- Enhances social communication over various platforms (commenting, sharing, etc.
Because the Valmont site will not actually be developed for some time, it is important to consider
several plan alternatives for site recommendations. Scenario planning will be introduced throughout the
concept process as it is an important tool for strategic forecasting and can be helpful to guide long-term
considerations. Even more specifically, Exploratory Scenario Planning (XSP), will be utilized as a tool as
we go on to formulate several different recommendations for the future use of Valmont Power Plant site.
Recommendations will also become digital renderings that will serve to articulate final references for future
developers of the site.
Finally, a formal vision plan document will be compiled as a final deliverable. This section will piece the
entirety of the project together and will become a resource for Boulder Planning Staff. The Valmont Power
Plant team will formally present to the Boulder Planning Board on May 6, 2021.
LINK TO OLIN- LA RIVER INSPIRATION VIDEO
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 57 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 39
SOURCES
Abbas, S., Abdulameer, Z. (2020). Adaptive Reuse as an Approach to
Sustainability. https://iopscience-iop-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/
article/10.1088/1757-899X/881/1/012010.
AIA Austin. (n.d.). Seaholm Power Plant Re-Development. Retrieved January
31, 2021, from https://www.aiaaustin.org/firm_project/seaholm-power-
plant-re-development
American Clean Skis Foundation. (2011, August). Repurposing Legacy Power
Plants Lessons for the Future. https://docplayer.net/51592370-Repurposing-
legacy-power-plants-lessons-for-the-future.html
Architect Magazine. (2017). Seaholm Power Plant Re-Development. https://
www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/seaholm-power-plant-re-
development
Bailey, H. (2014). Decaying factories become vital tourist attractions. Ct Post.
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Decaying-factories-become-vital-
tourist-5925249.php
“Benfield, K. (2011, September 9). Turning Power Plants Into Green
Neighborhood Development. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.
com/national/archive/2011/09/turning-power-plants-into-green-
neighborhood-development/244751/
Benfield, K. (2011, September 9). Turning Power Plants Into Green
Neighborhood Development. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.
com/national/archive/2011/09/turning-power-plants-into-green-
neighborhood-development/244751/
Boros, M.-N. (2015). Study on Soil Decontamination by Phytoremediation in
the Case of Former Industrial Sites. ProEnvironment, 8, 468–475.
Brennen, C. (2018, January 25). Xcel Energy transfers hundreds of fish from
Boulder’s Valmont power plant – Boulder Daily Camera. https://www.
dailycamera.com/2018/01/25/xcel-energy-transfers-hundreds-of-fish-
from-boulders-valmont-power-plant/
Brownfields at-a-glance. (2007). Green City Lofts: Living the
Green Life in Emeryville. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.exe/
P10096CJ.PNG?-r+75+-g+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20
DATA%5C06THRU10%5CTIFF%5C00000963%5CP10096CJ.TIF.
California Department of Parks and Recreation. (n.d.). Candlestick Point
SRA. CA State Parks. Retrieved February 7, 2021, from https://www.parks.
ca.gov/
California State Parks. (2012). Staff Report: General Plan and Environmental
Impact Report Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. http://www.parks.
ca.gov/pages/843/files/Staff%20Report%20-%20Candlestick%20Point%20
SRA%20GP.pdf
Candlestick Point D4D pp. 1-118.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2021, from
https://sfocii.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Project%20Areas/HPSY/
Phase%202%20%26%20Candlestick/Candlestick%20Point%20D4D%20%20
pp.%201-118.pdf
Cantell, Sophie. (2005). The Adaptive Reuse of Historic Industrial Buildings:
Regulation Barriers, Best Practices and Case Studies. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. http://sig.urbanismosevilla.org/Sevilla.art/
SevLab/r001US1_files/r001_US_1.pdf.
Clean Water Action. (n.d.). Xcel Energy’s Valmont Plant: Boulder, CO. https://
www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20
Valmont_ELG%20FINAL%205-3-13.pdf
Coal Ash: Colorado’s Toxic Trash Exposed. (2013, June 27). Targeted News
Service. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A335113834/STND?u=auraria_
main&sid=STND&xid=917b6466
Coates, Peter. (2014). From hazard to habitat (or hazardous habitat): The
lively and lethal afterlife of Rocky Flats, Colorado. Progress in Physical
Geography Vol. 38(3) 286-300. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-
com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/0309133313513296.
Cortina, M. (2018, April 5). Something fishy’s going on at Valmont Reservoir.
Boulder Weekly. https://www.boulderweekly.com/news/something-fishys-
going-valmont-reservoir/
Delbridge, L. (2017). Coal Ash Wastescape: Designed Remediation of
Chesterfield Power Station’s Coal Ash Ponds [Virginia Polytechnic State
University]. https://issuu.com/laurendelbridge/docs/delbridge_thesisbook
Denver Tramway Powerhouse. (2001). National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form. United States Department of the Interior National Park
Service. Retrieved from https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/6c932da0-
dbf6-4cb7-95b5-036ecdcc55fe.
Denver Tramway Powerhouse. Colorado Encyclopedia. Retrieved
from https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/denver-tramway-
powerhouse#Citation.
Dodge, J., Dyer, J., Miller, E. (2012). Valmont Butte Timeline. Boulder Daily.
https://www.boulderweekly.com/news/valmont-butte-timeline/
Dunne, J., Kammer, S., Schanz, S., & Walter, K. (n.d.). Soil Contamination and
Remediation. 58.
East Boulder Inventory and Analysis Report. (2019). https://www-static.
bouldercolorado.gov/docs/FINAL_online_20191031-1-201910311638.pdf?_
ga=2.212644244.1834565892.1610312023-353182944.1607292631
East Boulder Working Group. (2021). East Boulder Subcommunity Plan
Draft Vision Statements. https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/
EB_Vision_Statements_for_Web-1-202007161203.pdf
End of the Hunters Point Smokestacks. (2005). Forgotten New York.
Retrieved from https://forgotten-ny.com/2005/04/end-of-the-hunters-
point-smokestacks/.
Environmental Protection Agency. Recover Your Resources: Reduce, Reuse,
and Recycle Construction and Demolition Materials at Land Revitalization
Projects. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/
cdbrochure.pdf.
FerrisWheel: The Future Windmill. (2016, February 2). BetterWorldSolutions
- The Netherlands. https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/ferriswheel-the-
future-windmill/
Foster, Gillian. Circular Economy Strategies for Adaptive Reuse of Cultural
Heritage Buildings to Reduce Environmental Impacts. Elsevier: Resources,
Conservation & Recycling. https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/
Gajić, G., Djurdjević, L., Kostić, O., Jarić, S., Mitrović, M., & Pavlović, P. (2018).
Ecological Potential of Plants for Phytoremediation and Ecorestoration of
Fly Ash Deposits and Mine Wastes. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00124
Gardner, D., Jones, E., Domenico, C., Bloomfield, M., Lopez, N. F., Fitch, S.,
Gargano, L., Goldfarb, A., Hilton, D., McMillan, G., Stewart, S., Young, D., Baker,
M., Shanks, W. C. P., Martinsson, L., & Blaugrund, B. (2017). Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan. 170.
Hass, C., Rausch, C., Sanchez, B. (2019). Automation in Construction:
Deconstruction Programming for Adaptive Reuse of Buildings. https://
www-sciencedirect-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/
S0926580518308707.
Holleman, F. (2020, February 24). Cap coal ash in place? Duke and others
have learned better. Utility Dive. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/cap-
coal-ash-in-place-duke-and-others-have-learned-better/572755/
King, K. (2020, December 1). Valmont Kick Off Meeting [Interview].
Landezine. (n.d.). Seaholm Power Plant Redevelopment. Landezine
International Landscape Award. Retrieved January 31, 2021, from https://
landezine-award.com/seaholm-power-plant-redevelopment/
Liu, J. (2013). Landscape Architectural Approaches to Post-Industrial Sites:
A Design Proposal for a Mixed-Use Redevelopment of the Atlanta Ford
Assembly Plant [University of Georgia]. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/
liu_jing_201308_mla.pdf
Long Island Powerhouse. NYC Architecture. (2013). Retrieved from http://
cargocollective.com/Uofanycstudioarch/LONG-ISLAND-POWERHOUSE.
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 58 of 59
ENVISIONING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR THE VALMONT POWER PLANT: FIRST HALF DRAFT 40
SOURCES
Lubow, A. (2004, May 16). The Anti-Olmsted. The New York Times. https://
www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/magazine/the-anti-olmsted.html
McCarty, A. (n.d.). Art And Activism: Creating Sculptures From Coal
Ash. Wfmynews2.Com. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from https://www.
wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/art-and-activism-creating-
sculptures-from-coal-ash/83-571202738
Proctor, D. (2018, December 3). Cleanup and Closure Projects on a Massive
Scale. POWER Magazine. https://www.powermag.com/cleanup-and-
closure-projects-on-a-massive-scale/
Public Service Co: Valmont Power Plant, Construction Projects. Boulder
Carnegie Library for Local History. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/
islandora/object/islandora%3A40245
Rocky Flats – Facts at a Glance. Colorado Department of Public Health &
Environment. Retrieved from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/rocky-flats-facts-
glance#:~:text=Cleanup%20statistics,16%20million%20gallons%20of%20
water.
Rocky Flats. (2021). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://
academic-eb-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/levels/collegiate/article/
Rocky-Flats/606043.
San Francisco Planning Commission. (2016). Candlestick Point Design for
Development. https://sfocii.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Project%20
Areas/HPSY/Phase%202%20%26%20Candlestick/Candlestick%20Point%20
D4D%20%20pp.%201-118.pdf
Seaholm Power, LLC. (n.d.). Seaholm Development. Retrieved January 31,
2021, from https://www.seaholmdevelopment.com/
Sweeney, D., Cotting, A., & Hale, Z. (2019). Cost questions loom as utilities
prepare to close hundreds of coal ash sites. https://www.spglobal.com/
marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/cost-
questions-loom-as-utilities-prepare-to-close-hundreds-of-coal-ash-
sites-52117110
The Dutch Windwheel. (2021). https://dutchwindwheel.com/en/index
The University of Newcastlee School of Architecture. (n.d.). Power Plants
Phytoremediation. POWER PLANTS PHYTOREMEDIATION. Retrieved February 7,
2021, from https://powerplantsphytoremediation.com/westergasfabriek-1
Turrentine, J. (2019). Coal Ash Is Hazardous. Coal Ash Is Waste. But
According to the EPA, Coal Ash Is Not “Hazardous Waste.” NRDC. https://
www.nrdc.org/onearth/coal-ash-hazardous-coal-ash-waste-according-
epa-coal-ash-not-hazardous-waste
Velasquez, J. J. (2016, May 25). Seaholm redevelopment project nears
completion, spurs activity. Impact. https://communityimpact.com/
austin/central-austin/development-construction/2016/05/25/seaholm-
redevelopment-project-nears-completion-spurs-activity/
Weible, D. (2016). The History Behind One of Austin, Texas’ Hottest
Development Properties. National Trust for Historic Preservation. https://
savingplaces.org/stories/the-history-behind-one-of-austin-texas-
hottest-development-properties-seaholm-power-plant
Witkin, J. (2013, April 24). From Power Plant to Civic Renewal Centerpiece.
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/business/
energy-environment/growing-supply-of-former-power-plants-offers-
sites-for-renovation.html
Wright, Douglas. Remediation of Contaminated Sites: Gas Works Park.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/larc301/lectures/remediation2.htm
Xcel Energy. (2018). Valmont Amended Written Closure Plan. https://www.
xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/Environment/Coal%20Ash%20
Management/Valmont-CCR-Impoundment-Closure-Plan-Amended.pdf
Xcel Energy. (n.d.). Coal Ash Management. Retrieved February 25, 2021,
from https://www.xcelenergy.com/environment/responsible_operations/
coal_ash_management
youarethecity. (2011). Brownfields to Greenfields: A Field Guide to
Phytoremediation. https://www.youarethecity.com/pdf/fieldguide_
youarethecity.pdf
05.12.2021 DAB Packet Page 59 of 59