HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 09/01/2015 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Meeting
September 1, 2015
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring September as Suicide Awareness Month.
B. Proclamation Declaring September as Hunger Action Month.
C. Proclamation Declaring September 12, 2015 as the Historic Homes Tour Day.
D. Proclamation Declaring October 2, 2015 as Manufacturing Day.
E. Proclamation Declaring September 14-20, 2015 as Colorado Cities & Towns Week.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
City Manager Review of Agenda.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Consent Calendar Review
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the
Consent Calendar and considered separately.
o Council-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered before Discussion
Items.
o Citizen-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered after Discussion
Items.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Individuals may comment regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar and items not
specifically scheduled on the agenda. Comments regarding land use projects for which a development
application has been filed should be submitted in the development review process** and not to the
Council.
Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the table in the lobby (for recordkeeping
purposes).
All speakers will be asked by the presiding officer to identify themselves by raising their hand,
and then will be asked to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby, for
those who are not able to stand while waiting).
The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
Each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and general address for the record, and to
keep comments brief. Any written comments or materials intended for the Council should be
provided to the City Clerk.
A timer will buzz once and the timer light will turn yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of
speaking time remain, and will buzz again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has
ended.
[**For questions about the development review process or the status of any particular development,
citizens should consult the Development Review Center page on the City’s website at
fcgov.com/developmentreview, or contact the Development Review Center at 221-6750.]
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the
important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone
may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered
separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under
Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by City Council with
one vote. The Consent Calendar consists of:
● Ordinances on First Reading that are routine;
● Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine;
● Those of no perceived controversy;
● Routine administrative actions.
City of Fort Collins Page 3
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2015, Amending Chapter 23 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins with Regards to Facility and Property Naming Policies.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015 amends City Code
regarding the policy for naming City-owned facilities. The amendments clarify opportunities for public
input and the process for selecting facility names. Staff recommendations include adding a
preference for using natural feature names for City natural areas, removing the City Council ad hoc
naming committee and the ability to name facilities for living people other than donors. In place of a
City Council committee, staff recommends that the department responsible for managing the
property or facility to be named conduct a public input process and that each site receive a historical
review to help solicit possible names.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2015, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into the
Recreation Fund for the Aging Mastery Program at the Fort Collins Senior Center.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, appropriates grant
funds in the amount of $7,500 received from the National Council on Aging to support a yearlong
Aging Mastery Program at the Fort Collins Senior Center. The Aging Mastery Program has been
designed by the National Council on Aging and empowers older adults to make and maintain small
but impactful changes in their behaviors. The Program consists of two components, the Aging
Mastery Academy and AMP Clubs, both of which will be planned and programmed at the Fort Collins
Senior Center.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated
Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities, Tourism
Programming, and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Ordinance No. 092, 2015, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, appropriates
$392,184 of which $123,448 is for 2015 Cultural Development and Programming Activities (Fort
Fund), $38,007 is for 2015 Tourism Programming (Fort Fund), and $230,729 is for 2015 Fort Collins
Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) activities from Unanticipated Revenue (Lodging Tax) and
Prior Year Reserves (unspent appropriations) in the General Fund Lodging Tax Reserves. Lodging
Taxes for 2014 were estimated at $975,000 and actual Lodging Tax revenues collected equaled
$1,304,612.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2015 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the
General Fund and Appropriating Funds From the Community Development and Neighborhood
Services Operating Budget for the Restorative Justice Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, appropriates grant
revenue to fund Restorative Justice Services within Community Development and Neighborhood
Services. A grant in the amount of $56,192 has been received from the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Diversion fund for the continued operation of Restorative Justice
Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice
Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other offenses.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2015, Appropriating Grant Revenue into the Light and
Power Fund for the Integrated Utility Services (IUS) Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, appropriates $125,000
in grant revenues from the American Public Power Association into Fort Collins Utilities Light and
Power Operations fund to pilot an enhanced delivery structure for energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects. The project will be implemented through the Efficiency Works Home program in
collaboration with Platte River Power Authority. Matching funds will come from existing
appropriations in Resource Conservation and incorporate an additional $25,000 from Platte River.
City of Fort Collins Page 4
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2015 Amending to Ordinance No. 090, 2010 Relating to the
City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bonds,
Series 2010A, and Tax-Exempt Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2010B, to Reduce the
Respective Interest Rates on Such Bonds.
Ordinance No. 096, 2015, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, amends the
Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) 2010 bond series, reducing the spread on the rate
adjustment date. The DDA’s 2010 bond series is set for a rate adjustment at the 5-year mark in
2015. Great Western Bank, the bond series purchaser, has offered a rate reduction resulting in an
estimated savings of $143,000 in interest expense over the remaining 5-year life of the bonds. This
adjustment would be executed through an amendatory ordinance encompassing each bond, Series
2010A (Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bonds) and Series 2010B (Tax-Exempt Tax Increment
Revenue Bonds). Currently these bonds are to reset at 4.5% over the 5 year U.S. Treasuries, the
amendments would reduce the spread on the two series to 3.5% over the 5 year U.S. Treasuries on
Series 2010A and 4.25% on Series 2010B.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2015, Amending Provisions in Articles III and IV of City
Code Chapter 25 Concerning the Exemption of Charitable Organizations from the City's Sales and
Use Tax and Lodging Tax.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, amends the definition of
“charitable organization” as used in the City Code’s sales and use tax and lodging tax provisions in
order to mitigate the impact of current Colorado case law on a substantial number of the City’s
current tax exempt charitable organizations.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2015, Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Smoking in Public Areas.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, revises the current
Smoking in Public Places Ordinance to include exemptions for retail tobacco establishments within
the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone and for City facility users who smoke on City premises in a fully
enclosed, privately-owned vehicle. The Ordinance also provides clarification on the City-owned or
maintained sidewalks that are intended to be covered by the provisions in the current Ordinance.
9. Postponement of Items Relating to the Kechter Farm Second Annexation and Zoning to October 6,
2015.
Staff requests postponement of Second Reading of the Kechter Farm Second Annexation and
Zoning Ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 099 and 100, 2015) to October 6, 2015 to allow time for Larimer
County to complete the entitlement process for Second Filing. The Larimer County Planning
Department has indicated that the Board of County Commissioners will not have taken final action in
time for the City Council to adopt the annexation and zoning on Second Reading on September 1,
2015. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County, the City has agreed to not
annex lands within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan until after final plan approval by the County.
The postponement to October 6, 2015 will allow time for Larimer County to complete its review
process.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2015, Amending Ordinance No. 081, 2003, to Rename the
Wiggins House and Garage at 1009 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as the
Wiggins/Taylor Property Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Ordinance No. 101, 2015, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, renames the
Landmark property at 1009 West Mountain Avenue, currently known as the Wiggins House and
Garage, to the Wiggins/Taylor Property, in recognition of long-time owner Patricia Taylor.
City of Fort Collins Page 5
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2015, Designating the Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property, 1312
South College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, designates the
Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property at 1312 South College Avenue as a Fort Collins landmark. The
owner of the property, MaOlPh LLC, is initiating this request.
12. Items Relating to Traffic Code Amendments Regarding Accommodation of Low-speed Electric
Vehicles and Parking Regulations.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2015, Amending Section 1410.1 of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code Allowing Low-Speed Electric Vehicles.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2015, Amending Section 1205 and 1205.5 of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code Amending Parking Restrictions.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, amend two sections
of the Fort Collins Traffic Code. The amendment to Section 1410.1 will permit low speed electric
vehicles on certain City streets. Section 1205 is proposed to be amended to permit parking
configurations that will accommodate the potential for parking-protected bike lanes and back-in angle
parking.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2015, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General
Fund to be Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related
Activities.
The purpose of this item is to return the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for public services and
facilities received from the Fort Collins Housing Authority in 2014 with respect to a HUD financed
Public Housing Program that provides low income rental units. The Authority paid the City of Fort
Collins PILOT of $7,271 in 2014 under a previously approved Cooperation Agreement and requests
that the City return the PILOT to fund needed affordable housing related activities.
The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including
remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public
purpose. The Council has returned the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund
for the Purpose of Completing the Construction of a Public Television Studio for Fort Collins Public
Access Network.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate funds from PEG reserves to be spent on additional
improvements for FC-PAN’s television studio in the City’s Carnegie Building.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2015, Amending Section 23-130 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Regarding the Disposition of Lost, Abandoned, or Other Unclaimed Property.
The purpose of this item is to significantly reduce the volume of abandoned and unclaimed items left
and abandoned on City property. Section 23-130 of City Code sets forth a process by which lost,
abandoned, or other unclaimed property coming into the City’s possession may be sold, kept, or
destroyed by the City. Current City Code requires the City to store this property for not less than
thirty (30) days and then publish notice to afford the owner the opportunity to reclaim the property.
City staff is finding an increasing volume of abandoned and unclaimed items in deteriorated condition
within City natural areas, parks, trails, road underpasses and other public places. In addition to the
unsafe condition this property presents to the public in situ, it is also creating handling concerns and
storage challenges to those involved. This Ordinance amending Section 23 -130 sets forth a
process by which abandoned items of no utility or value may be promptly removed and destroyed
City of Fort Collins Page 6
following a 24-hour notification. Finally, this amendment also adds a 30 day appeals provision to
contest the disposal of personal property. Based on recent experience, staff believes the impact of
this Ordinance will be minor as the target is abandoned or unclaimed items, not property that can be
associated with an individual or property with real or marketable value.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2015, Amending Sections of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Pertaining to City Service Areas.
The purpose of this item is to update Service Area definitions in City Code to reflect structural
adjustments needed to clarify organization roles, and enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the
City organization.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2015, Extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Which Amended the
Land Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District
Through March 9, 2016.
The purpose of this item is to consider a 6 month extension to the Planned Development Overlay
District (PDOD) Pilot Process as the current pilot will expire on September 9, 2015. A request has
been received by a prospective applicant within the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)
boundary to extend the pilot for an additional six months.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2015, Amending the Land Use Code Pertaining to Seasonal
Overflow Shelters and Homeless Shelters.
The purpose of this item is to add two new uses, Seasonal Overflow Shelters and Homeless
Shelters, amend Article Four to add these new uses to various appropriate zone districts and amend
Article Three to add supplemental regulations and review criteria for Seasonal Overflow Shelters
only.
19. Items Relating to the Acquisition of Property at 4200 County Road 30.
A. Resolution 2015-080 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City
of Loveland to Acquire and Cooperate Regarding a Parcel of Land and Water Rights at 4200
County Road 30 Within the Fort Collins – Loveland Community Separator.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2015, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Right of First Offer
and Right of First Refusal to the City of Loveland for Property at 4200 County Road 30.
The purpose of this item is to seek Council approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Loveland outlining the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to a proposed 113-acre acquisition
in the Fort Collins-Loveland Community Separator and approval of the conveyance of a Right of First
Offer and Right of First Refusal on the same parcel to Loveland. The City of Loveland’s Water &
Power Department is purchasing 50 Units of Colorado Big Thompson Project (CBT) water historically
associated with the land. In addition, Loveland’s Parks and Recreation Department will contribute
funds towards the land. In total, Loveland will contribute $1.5M and Fort Collins will contribute $1.5M
towards the purchase price of $3M.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2015, Amending the Zoning Map of the City by Changing the
Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Salud Family Health Center Rezoning.
The purpose of this item is to rezone 22.8 acres located at 1830 Laporte Avenue (formerly occupied
by Forney Industries) from Transition (T) to Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) and
Limited Commercial (C-L), in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan).
City of Fort Collins Page 7
21. Resolution 2015-081 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding the Appeal of the
Administrative Hearing Officer Marcus McAskin Decision Approving the River Modern Project
Development Plan.
On July 20, 2015, Max D. Oesterle et al. filed a Notice of Appeal on grounds that the Decision Maker
failed to properly interpret and apply certain provisions of the Land Use Code.
On August 18, 2015, City Council voted 7-0 on the motion that the Hearing Officer did not fail to
properly interpret and apply certain provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections
3.4.1(E)(2), 3.5.1(B), (C), (D), and (E), and added conditions to the project’s approval.
END CONSENT
CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
STAFF REPORTS
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Discussion Items
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
● Staff presentation (optional)
● Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (three minute limit for each citizen)
● Council questions of staff on the item
● Council motion on the item
● Council discussion
● Final Council comments
● Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
22. Resolution 2015-082 Directing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the
City's Comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern
Integrated Supply Project (staff: John Stokes; 15 minute staff presentation; 2 hour discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review, and to consider endorsement by resolution, comments directed
to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding the Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). Please
note that this Agenda Item Summary and the attached comments to the Corps are intended to
protect the interests of the City by identifying the City’s concerns with NISP and the SDEIS. The
City of Fort Collins Page 8
comments are further intended to create a record that establishes a firm foundation for the City’s
participation in future administrative, legal, and informal processes associated with NISP in order to
address direct impacts in Fort Collins and to the City.
As noted for Council’s July 28 Work Session, staff believes certain areas of the SDEIS represent a
significant improvement over the 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Common
Technical Platform (CTP) required by the Corps for the hydrological modeling underlying the SDEIS
has provided valuable baseline information to its analysts and reviewers. Furthermore, the CTP is
being used in the City’s EIS process for the Halligan Water Supply Project. Based on the CTP, the
impacts analysis of the SDEIS has been strengthened in certain key areas. In addition, the SDEIS
includes a conceptual mitigation plan put forward by Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(Northern) that provides an overview of how Northern has initially proposed to deal with some of the
unavoidable impacts of NISP. The City welcomes Northern beginning the conversations around
mitigation.
Notwithstanding these valuable improvements and potential benefits, as summarized below, staff
continues to have numerous significant and fundamental concerns with respect to NISP’s impacts to
the City and the failure of the SDEIS to adequately or accurately describe all of the impacts. The
concerns include:
The absence of a critical water quality and stream temperature report that quantifies the water
quality impacts. Many of the potential impacts to Fort Collins hinge on the report’s findings.
The inclusion of a no-action alternative that is not bona fide; this improperly skews the entire
analysis in favor of the preferred alternative.
The potential for water quality degradation that could affect source water and wastewater
treatment facilities.
Flawed analyses and conclusions related to the project’s reduction of peak flows which are likely
to harm the environment and potentially increase flood risk.
In general, flawed analyses and conclusions regarding long-term degradation of habitat.
A failure to analyze an alternative that would avoid most negative impacts to Fort Collins.
A conceptual mitigation plan that is premature and inadequate because the impacts of the project
have not yet been correctly described.
A conceptual mitigation plan that includes an augmentation flow that, as currently described, is
not likely to be allowed under Colorado water law and administration.
Significant negative impacts to the recreation values of the River.
Where possible, the City’s comments include suggestions for how to improve the analysis or resolve
the City’s concerns.
Please note that the comments provided on NISP to the Corps could lead to potentially significant
delays and increased costs to the City’s Halligan Water Supply Project, since changes to the
analysis of NISP as a result of these and other comments will likely be required for both projects.
23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2015, Amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code
Pertaining to the Addition of Permitted Uses in Eight Zone Districts. (Option A or Option B) (staff:
Cameron Gloss; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to amend the Land Use Code to require City Council review of Addition of
Permitted Use (APU) applications in eight residential zone districts. Second Reading of this
City of Fort Collins Page 9
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2015, was postponed to this date and
time to allow time to develop the revised final ordinance.
Two APU process options are proposed for City Council consideration:
Option A is a bifurcated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would make a decision on
a development plan conditional upon Council approval of the APU application and then forward a
recommendation to Council on the APU.
Option B is a consolidated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would review a
consolidated APU/development plan application and make a recommendation to the City
Council.
CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers.
(Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to
initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not
originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.)
ADJOURNMENT
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business
commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City
Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of
considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending
at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting
which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council
meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Larimer County lost 83 individuals to suicide in 2014; and
WHEREAS, over the last ten years more than 591 people have died by suicide in
Larimer County; and
WHEREAS, suicide permeates all demographic boundaries and causes extreme
suffering, grieving, and pain that affects families, schools and communities; and
WHEREAS, many of the social, demographic, biological, clinical, and behavioral risk
factors for suicide are known, and many promising strategies exist to prevent suicide; and
WHEREAS, the risk for human self-destruction can be reduced through awareness,
education and treatment, making it necessary to regard suicide as a major health problem and to
support educational programs, research projects, and services providing support and resources to
those who have lost a loved one to suicide; and
WHEREAS, the Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s mission is to prevent suicide by
raising awareness, educating and training youth and adults about depression and suicide and
providing resources and support to those who have been impacted; and
WHEREAS, events and presentations are planned for the month of September to help
educate Poudre School District students, faculty, staff, parents, and others about suicide and
promote awareness of available resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the month of September as
SUICIDE AWARENESS MONTH
in the city of Fort Collins.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 10
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, hunger and poverty are issues of grave concern in the United States and the
State of Colorado and Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins is committed to taking steps to raise awareness about the need
to combat hunger in every part of our City and to provide additional resources that citizens of
Fort Collins need; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins is committed to working with Food Bank for Larimer County
in educating people about the role and importance of food banks in addressing hunger and
raising awareness of the need to devote more resources and attention to hunger issues; and
WHEREAS, more than 36,000 individuals in Larimer County rely on food provided by
the Food Bank for Larimer County annually; and
WHEREAS, Food Bank for Larimer County distributed more than 8.9 million pounds of
food in 2014 through its network of food pantries, partner agencies, Kids Cafe sites, and other
community organizations; and
WHEREAS, food banks across the country, including Food Bank for Larimer County,
will host events throughout the month of September to bring awareness and attention to
encourage involvement in efforts to end hunger in their local community.
NOW, THERFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim September 2015 as
HUNGER ACTION MONTH
in Fort Collins and I call this observance to the attention of our citizens.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 11
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Poudre Landmarks Foundation, Inc., was established in 1972 to
administer the Avery House upon its acquisition by the City of Fort Collins in 1974; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the Poudre Landmarks Foundation is to preserve, restore,
protect, and interpret the architectural and cultural heritage of the Fort Collins area; and
WHEREAS, the Annual Historic Homes Tour was established in 1985 as the major
fund-raising event for the Poudre Landmarks Foundation, with all proceeds benefiting its
preservation work; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Homes Tour is a community-service event by volunteers of the
Poudre Landmarks Foundation to raise awareness about historic preservation work; and
WHEREAS, September 12, 2015, is the date of the 31st Annual Historic Homes Tour
presented by the Poudre Landmarks Foundation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim Saturday, September 12, 2015, as the
HISTORIC HOMES TOUR DAY
in the city of Fort Collins and call upon the community to join their fellow citizens in
recognizing and participating in this special observance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 12
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Fort Collins is an innovation economy with manufacturing playing a
critical role in the diverse economic climate of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins is a place where invention thrives, making the community one
of the nation’s top regions for business and careers and a great place for long-term investment;
and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins has more than 26,000 employees working in manufacturing
companies, producing everything from airplane engines to food and bikes to apparel; and
WHEREAS, Colorado manufacturers boost the state’s economic growth, provide jobs
for skilled workers, and link to innovation in other sectors; and
WHEREAS, manufacturers contribute to the economic health of Fort Collins and raise
awareness of high-skilled career opportunities in manufacturing; and
WHEREAS, the City appreciates manufacturers that “make things happen”.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim October 2, 2015 as
MANUFACTURING DAY
in Fort Collins in honor of businesses in Fort Collins and the innovative workforce that they
employ.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 13
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, municipal government is the level of government closest to most citizens
and the one with the most direct daily impact upon residents; and
WHEREAS, municipal government is administered for and by the people and is
dependent upon public commitment to and understanding of its many responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins provides high quality, efficient services in the areas
of safety, transportation, culture and recreation opportunities, environmental health,
neighborhood livability, economic health and a high performing government organization; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Municipal League’s member cities and towns have joined
together to recognize the important role played by municipal government in our daily lives; and
WHEREAS, Colorado Cities & Towns Week offers an opportunity to convey to all
Colorado residents that they can shape and influence government through their civic
involvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim September 14-20, 2015 to be
COLORADO CITIES & TOWNS WEEK
and encourage all Fort Collins residents to learn about the services the City provides, and engage
with their municipal government.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 14
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Dan Weinheimer, Policy & Project Manager
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2015, Amending Chapter 23 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins with
Regards to Facility and Property Naming Policies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015 amends City Code regarding the
policy for naming City-owned facilities. The amendments clarify opportunities for public input and the process
for selecting facility names. Staff recommendations include adding a preference for using natural feature
names for City natural areas, removing the City Council ad hoc naming committee and the ability to name
facilities for living people other than donors. In place of a City Council committee, staff recommends that the
department responsible for managing the property or facility to be named conduct a public input process and
that each site receive a historical review to help solicit possible names.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 090, 2015 (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Dan Weinheimer, Policy & Project Manager
Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2015, Amending Chapter 23 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins with
Regards to Facility and Property Naming Policies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider amendments to the policy for naming City-owned facilities. Proposed
amendments seek to clarify opportunities for public input and the process for selecting facility names. Staff
recommendations include adding a preference for using natural feature names for City natural areas, removing
the City Council ad hoc naming committee and the ability to name facilities for living people other than donors.
In place of a City Council committee, staff recommends that the department responsible for managing the
property or facility to be named conduct a public input process and that each site receive a historical review to
help solicit possible names.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Maintenance of a consistent and understandable process for naming City-owned property and facilities is
important for identification and can add to community connection to these amenities. The naming of property,
facilities or streets is not undertaken lightly, as names help with directions, convey a sense of place and help
memorialize community leaders. It is not the intent of the City to rename facilities, so taking an appropriate
length of time necessary in selecting a name is preferred.
While the current facility naming policy is holistic, the primary focus in many instances is the use of proper
names - who is eligible, attributing those individuals’ contributions appropriately and ensuring diversity within
those honored. The intent of this revision of the City Code and associated Administrative Policy update is to
focus on person naming in order to provide transparency to the selection process and ensure appropriate site-
specific historical review.
The purpose of a naming policy is to establish a systematic and consistent approach for selecting official
names for City property and facilities. City objectives for naming property and facilities are to ensure:
Fairness and appropriateness
Ease of identification and location of City facilities
Encourage the donation to the City of lands, facilities and funds by individuals and organizations
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3503 : SR 090 City Naming Policy)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
Current Process
Fort Collins has previously adopted policies governing the official naming of parks, natural areas, recreational
facilities, cultural facilities, trails and civic buildings. In November 2011, City Council adopted Ordinance No.
134, 2011, amending Chapter 23, Article V to add new provisions to the Naming of City Properties and
Facilities:
Section 23-141 Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities
This section creates a City Council ad hoc committee to develop names
Section 23-142 Naming of properties and facilities for other than persons or entities
This section concerns administrative provisions and provides guidance to the City Manager in
developing non-person facility names
Section 24-91 of the City Code contains the naming policy for City streets. Planning Services maintains the
street name list and consults with local historians, neighbors, and others on appropriate proper names for this
list. On November 20, 2012, Section 24-91 was amended to empower City Council, not developers, to name
new arterial and collector streets. Council used that authority and process in January 2015 to name Suniga
Road. The street policy is regularly updated to either add or delete eligible names. The most recent update
occurred January 20, 2015.
Recommended naming policy changes
Staff recommends the following changes to the City’s facility naming policy:
1. Remove the City Council ad hoc committee process from Section 23-141 of the City Code
a. Eliminate the ad hoc naming committee of Council and replacing it with a Council-directed public input
process managed by the staff of the department intended to manage the facility.
b. Incorporate a review of the site’s history. Within this review should be consideration of contributions to
the community of past site or structure owners, the natural or pre-historic record of site use, and
important historical events that might have occurred on or near the site. The intent is that this process
provides a chance to honor community history.
c. City Council would still adopt the recommended name, but having a community input process - open
houses, Board/Commission input, etc. - ensures an opportunity for interested parties to offer names,
time to evaluate proposals, and to develop a final name.
2. Eliminate Living Person Naming under Section 23-141 of the City Code, except in case of a donation
a. In cases where a non-donor name is selected, that person must be deceased for at least 12 months
before their name will be eligible for facility naming.
b. The intent of this change is to avoid potential embarrassment associated with a person’s future actions
where a non-donor name is selected.
3. Amend the Administrative Naming Policy referenced in Section 23-142 of the City Code
a. Attached to this Agenda Item Summary (Attachment 2) is a red-lined version of Administrative Policy
2.6, the Administrative Naming Policy, reflecting changes to this policy.
b. In cases where a donor name is not used, City staff is expected to convene a public input process that
will include an opportunity for citizens to offer suggested names. Options for public input may include a
press release, public meeting, open house, neighborhood meeting, board/commission meeting, or
other means.
4. Amend the Municipal Code Section 23-142 and Administrative Naming Policy to state a preference for
naming natural areas after natural features.
1.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3503 : SR 090 City Naming Policy)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no City financial impacts at this time, though an intent of the City's naming policy is to encourage
financial contributions and land donations to the City. Modifications to the policy are not expected to negatively
impact donations.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff has presented the naming policy to many City boards and commissions, including the Commission on
Disability, Landmark Preservation Commission, Parks and Recreation Board, Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board, Senior Advisory Board and Women's Commission. This item was also presented at the
July 29 Boards and Commissions Super Issue Meeting.
Staff received suggestions from board and commission members but no formal board or commission
recommendations. The comments are included as Attachment 2.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, June 23, 2015 (PDF)
2. Board and Commission Outreach Summary, July 21, 2015 (PDF)
3. City Code Section 23-141 (PDF)
4. Revised Administrative Naming Policy (PDF)
1.1
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3503 : SR 090 City Naming Policy)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 090, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WITH REGARDS TO FACILITY AND PROPERTY NAMING POLICIES
WHEREAS, in November 2011, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 134, 2011,
amending Chapter 23, Article V to add new provisions to the Naming of City Properties and
Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the City’s naming policy is to establish a systematic and
consistent approach to selecting official names for city amenities in a manner that is fair and
appropriate, easily identifies city facilities, and encourages donation of public lands, facilities,
and funds by individuals and entities; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-141 of the City Code, entitled “Naming of properties and
facilities for persons or entities”, as adopted under Ordinance No. 134, 2011, creates a process
whereby a City Council ad hoc committee is convened to identify names of persons or entities
appropriate for naming City real property and facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-142 of the City Code, entitled “Naming of properties and
facilities for other than persons or entities”, as adopted under Ordinance No. 134, 2011, provides
guidance in delegating to the City Manager authority to develop administrative provisions to
select names appropriate for City real property and facilities other than for persons or entities;
and
WHEREAS, naming of arterial and collector streets in the Fort Collins street system is
based on procedures set forth at Section 24-91 of the City Code, which distills public input from
local historians, neighbors, and the community into a list of acceptable names, approved by
Council, from which names are selected as streets are added to the public road system; and
WHEREAS, following recent instances where an ad hoc City Council naming committee
was convened to select a name for a new natural area and trail, pursuant to Section 23-141, staff
has identified an opportunity to improve transparency and timeliness in the City’s naming
practices under that Code section; and
WHEREAS, based on feedback from the community and City Council, staff has
recommended the naming of City property and facilities, whether for persons or entities or non-
persons or non-entities, be aligned under a common set of procedures, beginning with public
outreach under administrative guidelines; and
WHEREAS, staff has further recommended discontinuation of naming city property or
facilities for living persons, other than donors making contributions greater than seventy five
percent of the cost of a facility or portion thereof; and
1.2
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Ordinance No. 090, 2015 (3503 : SR 090 City Naming Policy)
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the City Council had determined that amending Chapter 23 of the City Code
to align and create additional transparency in the processes for naming city property and facilities
is in the best interest of the City and its residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that updating the procedures and conditions
followed in the naming of City properties and facilities for persons or entities in Chapter 23,
Article V of the City Code, is in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. That Section 23-141 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
repealed in its entirely and re-adopted to read as follows:
Sec. 23-141. Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities.
(a) The requirements of this Section shall apply to the naming of City-owned or -
operated properties or facilities for persons or entities, including, but not limited
to, individuals, families, designated groups of persons, and for-profit and not-for-
profit organizations and associations. Any property assets under the City's
ownership and control, including parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic
buildings, natural areas, trails or any portions of such properties or facilities, shall
be named in accordance with this Section or § 23-142, except that the naming of
streets and alleys, to the extent carried out by the City, shall be governed by § 24-
91 of this Code.
(b) The City Manager is authorized to establish administrative rules and procedures
for the consideration and recommendation to City Council of names for City-
owned or -operated properties or facilities or portions thereof, except as specified
in § 24-91 of this Code. All administrative consideration of names for properties
and facilities, and portions thereof, shall be in accordance with such rules and
procedures. Names for City-owned or -operated properties or facilities shall be
adopted and amended by the City Council by resolution.
(c) (c) Except as set forth in Subsection (e) below, the City Manager shall not
recommend naming City-owned or -operated properties or facilities, or portions
thereof, for living persons, and shall not offer for sale or auction the name or
naming rights of any such property, facility or portion thereof.
(d) A resolution adopted by City Council approving a City property or facility name
pursuant to this Section shall include a description of the donation or other
significant service, benefit or significance to the community that is the basis for
the designation of the name approved. The resolution shall further provide that the
City may modify or remove the approved name in the future in the event the City
Council determines such modification or removal to be appropriate in light of
changed circumstances or other matters of public interest or convenience.
Examples of such grounds for modification of an approved name include, but are
1.2
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Ordinance No. 090, 2015 (3503 : SR 090 City Naming Policy)
- 3 -
not limited to, a change of use of the facility, a change in public perception of the
name, or development of a new purpose or priority for the property named.
(e) In the event a significant financial donation has been made for the acquisition,
construction or improvement of a property or facility, the property or facility or a
portion thereof may be named either for the donor or in consideration of the
wishes of the donor, which name may be that of a person living or deceased.
Donations shall be for no less than seventy-five (75) percent of the total value or
cost of the property or facility or portion thereof to be named. If such a donation
is received from an individual, family or entity, the City Council will give
significant weight to a naming or recognition request from the donor, but will
consider such a request in light of other policy or practical priorities and concerns
and the public interest in general. In some instances, the naming of a portion of a
property or facility or a specific feature of the property or facility for a donor may
be an appropriate alternative to naming the entire property or facility.
(f) A property or facility or a portion thereof may be named for a deceased
community member or other significant contributor to the community, as set forth
in this Subsection. To be eligible for naming consideration under this Subsection,
a person must be deceased for no less than twelve (12) months at the time of
nomination, and be a former City officer, employee, or volunteer, another person
important in the history of the City or a former citizen of exemplary character
deserving of special recognition. Persons or entities for which a property or
facility or portion thereof is named hereunder shall be determined to have
provided significant service or direct benefit to the community, or to have
achieved historical significance, that has endured, or will endure, over many
years.
(g) Prior to City Council approval of a resolution naming a property or facility named
for a person, the City shall make reasonable efforts to identify, locate and obtain
the consent of the next of kin of such person.
(h) If a name is approved pursuant to this Section that also appears on the list
maintained under § 24-91 of this Code, the Director of Community Development
and Neighborhood Services shall strike the name from the street name list and
promptly update that list as required by § 24-91.
(i) When an existing named property or facility is being added to or augmented, the
name of the existing facility may be attached to the new acreage or facility
without the requirement of additional City Council action.
Section 3. That Subsection 23-142(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 23-142. - Naming of properties and facilities for other than persons or entities.
1.2
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Ordinance No. 090, 2015 (3503 : SR 090 City Naming Policy)
- 4 -
…
(c) In connection with the naming of such properties and facilities, the City
Manager shall generally give preference to the use of names associated with
geographic location, unique natural, historical or cultural features or significance, and
the specific purposes of the property or facility, and the avoidance of confusion with
existing facilities or locations. When naming natural areas specifically, as such areas
are defined in Section 23-192 of this Code, the City Manager shall give preference to
names associated with unique or significant natural attributes or natural history of the
property over other characteristics or purposes of such properties.
Section 4. That Section 23-142 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the adoption of a new Subsection (d) to read as follows:
(d) When an existing named property or facility is being added to or augmented, the
name of the existing facility may be attached to the new acreage or facility without the
requirement of additional City Council action.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1.2
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Ordinance No. 090, 2015 (3503 : SR 090 City Naming Policy)
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Katie Stieber, Recreation Supervisor
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2015, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into the Recreation
Fund for the Aging Mastery Program at the Fort Collins Senior Center.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, appropriates grant funds in the
amount of $7,500 received from the National Council on Aging to support a yearlong Aging Mastery Program
at the Fort Collins Senior Center. The Aging Mastery Program has been designed by the National Council on
Aging and empowers older adults to make and maintain small but impactful changes in their behaviors. The
Program consists of two components, the Aging Mastery Academy and AMP Clubs, both of which will be
planned and programmed at the Fort Collins Senior Center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 091, 2015 (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 23
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Katie Stieber, Recreation Supervisor
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2015, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into the Recreation
Fund for the Aging Mastery Program at the Fort Collins Senior Center.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $7,500 received from the National
Council on Aging to support a yearlong Aging Mastery Program at the Fort Collins Senior Center. The Aging
Mastery Program has been designed by the National Council on Aging and empowers older adults to make
and maintain small but impactful changes in their behaviors. The Program consists of two components, the
Aging Mastery Academy and AMP Clubs, both of which will be planned and programmed at the Fort Collins
Senior Center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Aging Mastery Program (AMP) is a behavior change incentive program for aging well. Central to the AMP
philosophy is the belief that modest lifestyle changes can produce big results and that people can be
empowered and supported to cultivate health and longevity. Equally important, the program encourages
mastery skill development, sustainable behaviors across many dimensions that will lead to improved health,
stronger financial security, and overall well-being. Each level of mastery is based on consistency and duration,
allowing participants to set individual goals. Another key element of the program is the reward system,
designed to both motivate and encourage ongoing participation.
This program is in a pilot phase and the Fort Collins Senior Center has been chosen as one of eight grant
recipients to implement for one year. Aging Mastery is an outcome based program that will utilize checklists,
course outlines, assessments and evaluations to look at the value of the program itself as well as benefits that
seniors are gaining throughout the program. The goal is to create a self-sustaining program, after the grant
funding runs out, to continue the program into 2016-2017 and on.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
$7,500 will be awarded to the City’s Recreation Department through a grant by the National Council on Aging
in 2015. This money in turn will be appropriated through the Recreation Fund to fund all AMP presenters,
equipment and supplies, any staff time directly related to implementation, marketing costs, and program
rewards to participants.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff will advertise the program in the Recreator magazine, public service announcements, and marketing
avenues available through our partners, Columbine Health System and University of Colorado Health.
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (3501 : SR 091 Aging Mastery Program)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 091, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE
INTO THE RECREATION FUND FOR THE AGING MASTERY PROGRAM
AT THE FORT COLLINS SENIOR CENTER
WHEREAS, the Recreation Department has received a grant from the National Council
on Aging for $7,500 to support a year-long Aging Mastery Program at the Fort Collins Senior
Center; and
WHEREAS, the Aging Mastery Program (the “Program”) has been designed by the
National Council on Aging and empowers older adults to make and maintain small but impactful
changes in their behaviors; and
WHEREAS, the Program consists of two components, the Aging Mastery Academy and
AMP Clubs, both of which will be planned and programmed at the Fort Collins Senior Center;
and
WHEREAS, the Program encourages mastery skill development, sustainable behaviors
across many dimensions that will lead to improved health, stronger financial security, and overall
well-being; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins permits the
City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal
year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all
previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and
anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the appropriation of the grant revenue as
described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Recreation Fund to exceed
the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the
fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant
revenue in the Recreation Fund the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($7,500) to support a year-long Aging Mastery Program at the Fort Collins Senior Center.
2.2
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Ordinance No. 091, 2015 (3501 : SR 091 Aging Mastery Program)
- 2 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
2.2
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Ordinance No. 091, 2015 (3501 : SR 091 Aging Mastery Program)
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Kelly DiMartino, Assistant City Manager
Loren Scheu, Financial Coordinator
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue
in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities, Tourism Programming, and the Fort
Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 092, 2015, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, appropriates $392,184
of which $123,448 is for 2015 Cultural Development and Programming Activities (Fort Fund), $38,007 is for
2015 Tourism Programming (Fort Fund), and $230,729 is for 2015 Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau
(CVB) activities from Unanticipated Revenue (Lodging Tax) and Prior Year Reserves (unspent appropriations)
in the General Fund Lodging Tax Reserves. Lodging Taxes for 2014 were estimated at $975,000 and actual
Lodging Tax revenues collected equaled $1,304,612.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 092, 2015 (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 27
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Kelly DiMartino, Assistant City Manager
Loren Scheu, Financial Coordinator
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in
the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities, Tourism Programming, and the Fort
Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $392,184 of which $123,448 is for 2015 Cultural Development and
Programming Activities (Fort Fund), $38,007 is for 2015 Tourism Programming (Fort Fund), and $230,729 is
for 2015 Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) activities from Unanticipated Revenue (Lodging
Tax) and Prior Year Reserves (unspent appropriations) in the General Fund Lodging Tax Reserves. Lodging
Taxes for 2014 were estimated at $975,000 and actual Lodging Tax revenues collected equaled $1,304,612.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Section 25-44 of the City Code requires that 75% of the total lodging tax receipts be used for the promotion of
convention and visitor activities and 25% of receipts be used for cultural development and programming
activities. Actual revenue collected is appropriated based on this allocation formula and any excess revenue
and budget savings are reserved for these activities in the General Fund balance.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (3500 : SR 092 Lodging Tax)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 092, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND UNANTICIPATED
REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PROGRAMMING ACTIVITIES, TOURISM PROGRAMMING, AND THE FORT
COLLINS CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU
WHEREAS, Section 25-244 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins requires that lodging
tax revenue is to be allocated as follows: 75% for the promotion of convention and visitor
activities and 25% for cultural development and programming activities; and
WHEREAS, Lodging Taxes were estimated at $975,000 for 2014, this amount was
appropriated and all but $62,572, was spent in 2014; and
WHEREAS, at the end of 2014, a total of $1,304,612 in Lodging Tax revenues had been
collected and the unspent portions lapsed into the General Fund Reserves for Lodging Tax
programs and activities; and
WHEREAS, unanticipated Lodging Tax revenue in the amount of $329,612 held in the
General Fund Reserves is to be appropriated for each of the Lodging Tax programs and activities
as follows; and
Cultural Development and Programming $ 82,403
Tourism Programming $ 16,480
Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau $ 230,729
WHEREAS, unexpended 2014 appropriations of Lodging Tax revenue in the amount of
$62,572 have lapsed and were returned to the General Fund, and are to be appropriated for
Lodging Tax programs and activates based on the use specified when they were first
appropriated, as follows:
Cultural Development and Programming $ 41,045
Tourism Programming $ 21,527
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriation by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
3.2
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Ordinance No. 092, 2015 (3500 : SR 092 Lodging Tax)
- 2 -
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to appropriate all funds allocated for Cultural Development
and Programming, Tourism Programming, and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves
in the General Fund the total sum of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT DOLLARS ($123,448) for Cultural Development and
Programming activities.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves
in the General Fund the total sum of THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN DOLLARS
($38,007) for the Tourism Programming.
Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves
in the General Fund the total sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED TWENTY NINE DOLLARS ($230,729) for the Fort Collins Conventions and
Visitors Bureau.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
3.2
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Ordinance No. 092, 2015 (3500 : SR 092 Lodging Tax)
- 3 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
3.2
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Ordinance No. 092, 2015 (3500 : SR 092 Lodging Tax)
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Perrie McMillen, Restorative Justice Program Coordinator
Delynn Coldiron, Interim Neighborhood Services Manager
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2015 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund
and Appropriating Funds From the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Operating Budget for
the Restorative Justice Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, appropriates grant revenue to
fund Restorative Justice Services within Community Development and Neighborhood Services. A grant in the
amount of $56,192 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Diversion
fund for the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for
shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other offenses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 094, 2015 (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 32
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Perrie McMillen, Restorative Justice Program Coordinator
Delynn Coldiron, Interim Neighborhood Services Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2015 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund
and Appropriating Funds From the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Operating Budget for
the Restorative Justice Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate grant revenue to fund Restorative Justice Services within Community
Development and Neighborhood Services. A grant in the amount of $56,192 has been received from the
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Diversion fund for the continued operation of Restorative
Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice
Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other offenses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Restorative Justice Services and its two programs; RESTORE for shoplifting offenses, and RJCP (Restorative
Justice Conferencing Program) for all other offenses, has been partially grant funded since its inception in
2000. The Council yearly accepts grant funds from Colorado Division of Criminal Justice and other grant
funding agencies, to support Restorative Justice Services. Since it began, Restorative Justice Services has
provided a restorative justice alternative to more than 2,600 young people who committed chargeable offenses
in our community.
Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a young offender accountable by facilitating a meeting
with the offender, the victim/victim representative and members of the community to determine the harm done
by the crime, and how to repair the harm. By identifying and repairing the harm caused by the crime, Criminal
Justice Officials are optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced and the needs and concerns of
the victims and affected community will be addressed.
The programs help young people understand how family, friends, victim and community are harmed by their
actions and hold them accountable for the harm they caused. The intention is that these young people will
make better future decisions and not commit the same or similar crime again. Reducing future criminal
behavior and keeping young people out of the justice system, both contribute positively to a safer and healthier
community. Addressing the needs and concerns of crime victims and community members also has a positive
effect of the overall health and safety of the community.
Without grant funding and the support of the City, Restorative Justice Services would not be a service
available to young people and their families, crime victims, the courts, law enforcement and our community.
ATTACHMENT 1
4.1
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3506 : SR 094 Restorative Justice)
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 2
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The additional grant money in the amount of $56,192 from Division of Criminal Justice, Juvenile Diversion
Grants, provides funding for the continuation of Restorative Justice Services. The match requirement will be
met by appropriating $7,372 from the Neighborhood Services operating budget, designated for restorative
justice and a $11,358 match designated from the City for the restorative justice office space, which is used to
provide grant-funded services.
The grant period for is from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. This is the second year in a 3-year cycle for the
Juvenile Diversion grant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. RJCP Info Sheet (PDF)
2. RESTORE Info sheet (PDF)
4.1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3506 : SR 094 Restorative Justice)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 094, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE
GENERAL FUND AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice has awarded the City of Fort
Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services (“CDNS”) a grant in the amount
of $56,192 for salaries associated with the continued operation of the Restorative Justice
Program (the “Program”); and
WHEREAS, the Program is an alternative method to the traditional criminal justice
system, providing services to more than 2,600 young people who committed chargeable offenses
in the community; and
WHEREAS, the Program facilitates a meeting with the young offender, the victim, and
community members to discuss the harm caused by the young offender and to find meaningful
ways for the young person to repair that harm; and
WHEREAS, the grant period for this award is from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the grant requires a 25% grant match of $18,730 where the City’s cash
match of $7,372 will come from the CDNS operating budget for Restorative Justice and the
remaining $11,358 match requirement will come from the City in the form of office space
provided for the grant funded services; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in
the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received
in that fund during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to
transfer by Ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one
project to another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be
expended remains unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
4.2
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Ordinance No. 094, 2015 (3506 : SR 094 Restorative Justice)
- 2 -
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the
General Fund the sum of FIFTY SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY TWO
DOLLARS ($56,192) for expenditure in the General Fund for continuation of the Restorative
Justice Program.
Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of SEVEN THOUSAND
THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO DOLLARS ($7,372) is hereby authorized for transfer
from the Community Development and Neighborhood Services operating budget in the General
Fund to the grant project for Restorative Justice Services and appropriated herein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
4.2
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Ordinance No. 094, 2015 (3506 : SR 094 Restorative Justice)
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2015, Appropriating Grant Revenue into the Light and Power Fund for
the Integrated Utility Services (IUS) Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, appropriates $125,000 in grant
revenues from the American Public Power Association into Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Operations
fund to pilot an enhanced delivery structure for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The project
will be implemented through the Efficiency Works Home program in collaboration with Platte River Power
Authority. Matching funds will come from existing appropriations in Resource Conservation and incorporate an
additional $25,000 from Platte River.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 095, 2015 (PDF)
5
Packet Pg. 37
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2015, Appropriating Grant Revenue into the Light and Power Fund for the
Integrated Utility Services (IUS) Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $125,000 in grant revenues from the American Public Power
Association into Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Operations fund to pilot an enhanced delivery structure
for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The project will be implemented through the Efficiency
Works Home program in collaboration with Platte River Power Authority. Matching funds will come from
existing appropriations in Resource Conservation and incorporate an additional $25,000 from Platte River.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The American Public Power Association (APPA) maintains an ongoing research and development grant
program titled Demonstration of Energy & Efficiency Developments (DEED). Fort Collins Utilities succeeded in
receiving DEED grant approval for a project titled “Integrated Utility Services (IUS)” in the amount of $125,000.
The grant period is from June 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016.
The objective of the pilot project is to positively impact the local community, environment, and individual
homeowners by delivering a new model of efficiency program for existing homes (the Pilot). The streamlined
pilot version of the Efficiency Works Homes (EW Home) program with integrated financing will aim to increase
the number of participating households, as well as the energy conservation in each home, thereby helping to
meet the City’s Climate Action Plan.
The Efficiency Works Home (EW Home) program initially launched in summer 2014 in Fort Collins, Loveland,
Longmont and Estes Park. The program is administered by CLEAResult under contract with the Platte River
Power Authority. EW Home closely replicated the prior Fort Collins Home Efficiency Program with audits,
energy advising, rebates, contractor lists and quality assurance.
The pilot project will:
Provide the blueprint of how to increase the number of projects, the scope of those projects, and energy
savings of projects.
Better understand homeowner motivations, barriers, and benefits. The customer feedback will be used
help determine the structure of an expanded EW Home program.
Test messaging to a targeted customer groups based on home age, construction type and energy use.
Test the use of discounted, comprehensive energy improvement packages, sorted by house type and heat
type.
ATTACHMENT 1
5.1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (3498 : SR 095 Energy Efficiency Grant)
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 2
Test a new delivery model of home performance, where coordination of local trade specific contractors is
coordinated on behalf of customers.
Test the integration of Utilities On-Bill-Financing (aka HELP) into the package offer for customers.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The appropriation of these funds will enable Utilities to move forward with the pilot project. Matching funds are
from existing appropriations. Platte River has pledged an additional $25,000 which is managed through the
EW Home program per an existing IGA with the City of Fort Collins.
5.1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (3498 : SR 095 Energy Efficiency Grant)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 095, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING GRANT REVENUE INTO THE LIGHT AND POWER
FUND FOR THE INTEGRATED UTILITY SERVICES (IUS) PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Light and Power Utility Energy Services Division has received a grant
from the American Public Power Association for $125,000 for a pilot demonstration project of
an enhanced delivery structure of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for Utilities
customers known as the Integrated Utility Services Project (IUS); and
WHEREAS, matching funds of $125,000 will come from existing appropriations for
Energy Services and include $25,000 from Platte River Power Authority per an existing IGA
with the City of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the grant period is from June 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the project will be implemented through the Efficiency Works Home
program in collaboration with Platte River Power Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Efficiency Works Home (EW Home) program launched in summer 2014
in Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont and Estes Park and is administered by CLEAResult under
contract with Platte River Power Authority, closely replicating Fort Collins prior Home
Efficiency Program with audits, energy advising, rebates, contractor lists and quality assurance;
and
WHEREAS, a streamlined version of the EW Home program with integrated financing
aims to increase not only the number of participating households, but also increase the energy
conservation in each home, thereby helping to meet the City’s Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins permits the
City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal
year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all
previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and
anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the appropriation of the grant revenue as
described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Light and Power Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during
any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant
revenue in the Light and Power Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($125,000) for a pilot demonstration project of an enhanced delivery
structure of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for Utilities customers known as the
Integrated Utility Services Project.
5.2
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Ordinance No. 095, 2015 (3498 : SR 095 Energy Efficiency Grant)
- 2 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
5.2
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Ordinance No. 095, 2015 (3498 : SR 095 Energy Efficiency Grant)
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Jennifer Hensley, Finance Coordinator
Matt Robenalt, Executive Director
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2015 Amending to Ordinance No. 090, 2010 Relating to the City of
Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A, and
Tax-Exempt Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2010B, to Reduce the Respective Interest Rates on Such
Bonds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 096, 2015, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, amends the Downtown
Development Authority’s (DDA) 2010 bond series, reducing the spread on the rate adjustment date. The
DDA’s 2010 bond series is set for a rate adjustment at the 5-year mark in 2015. Great Western Bank, the bond
series purchaser, has offered a rate reduction resulting in an estimated savings of $143,000 in interest
expense over the remaining 5-year life of the bonds. This adjustment would be executed through an
amendatory ordinance encompassing each bond, Series 2010A (Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bonds) and
Series 2010B (Tax-Exempt Tax Increment Revenue Bonds). Currently these bonds are to reset at 4.5% over
the 5 year U.S. Treasuries, the amendments would reduce the spread on the two series to 3.5% over the 5
year U.S. Treasuries on Series 2010A and 4.25% on Series 2010B.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 096, 2015 (PDF)
6
Packet Pg. 42
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Jennifer Hensley, Finance Coordinator
Matt Robenalt, Executive Director
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2015 Amending to Ordinance No. 090, 2010 Relating to the City of Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A, and Tax-
Exempt Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2010B, to Reduce the Respective Interest Rates on Such
Bonds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to amend the Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) 2010 bond series reducing
the spread on the rate adjustment date. The DDA’s 2010 bond series is set for a rate adjustment at the 5-year
mark in 2015. Great Western Bank, the bond series purchaser, has offered a rate reduction resulting in an
estimated savings of $143,000 in interest expense over the remaining 5-year life of the bonds. This
adjustment would be executed through an amendatory ordinance encompassing each bond, Series 2010A
(Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bonds) and Series 2010B (Tax-Exempt Tax Increment Revenue Bonds).
Currently these bonds are to reset at 4.5% over the 5 year U.S. Treasuries, the amendments would reduce the
spread on the two series to 3.5% over the 5 year U.S. Treasuries on Series 2010A and 4.25% on Series
2010B.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The 2010 bond series collectively were issued on September 21, 2010 for $12,500,000. The initial interest rate
fixed for the first five years is 4.5% over the 5 year U.S. Treasuries on both bonds. Series 2010A is currently at
6.08%; Series 2010B is at 4.01%. These bonds were issued for various tax increment financing (TIF)
investments, culture and arts funding, grants and funding to the City, and DDA programs and projects. Current
balance collectively is $9,140,000; final payment on the bonds is in December 2020. Ordinance No. 90, 2010
and DDA Resolution 2010-05 authorized the issuance of these bonds.
Unanimous City Council Finance Committee support was received for the amendment at its July 20 meeting.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Estimated savings of $143,000 in interest expense over the remaining 5 year life of the bonds is expected.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 13, 2015 meeting, the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors adopted Resolution
2015-04 requesting Council support of the amendments to reduce the interest rates on the Series 2010A and
2010B bonds.
ATTACHMENT 1
6.1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3502 : SR 096 DDA Bond Interest)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. DDA Resolution 2015-004 (PDF)
2. Consent of Great Western Bank (PDF)
6.1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3502 : SR 096 DDA Bond Interest)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 096, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 090, 2010 RELATING TO
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2010A, AND TAX-EXEMPT TAX
INCREMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2010B, TO
REDUCE THE RESPECTIVE INTEREST RATES ON SUCH
BONDS.
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) is a home rule municipality
and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “State”) organized and existing under a
home rule charter (the “Charter”) pursuant to Article XX of the Constitution of the State; and
WHEREAS, the City duly established the Fort Collins Downtown Development
Authority (the “Authority”) pursuant to Ordinance No. 46, 1981, and approved the Plan of
Development for the Fort Collins Colorado Downtown Development District pursuant to
Resolution 81-129; and
WHEREAS, the City duly adopted Ordinance No. 090, 2010 (the “2010 Ordinance”)
authorizing the issuance of the City’s (a) Downtown Development Authority Taxable Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A, dated September 21, 2010, in the original aggregate
principal amount of $8,015,000 (the “2010A DDA Taxable Bonds”), and its (b) Downtown
Development Authority Tax-Exempt Tax Increment Revenues Bonds, Series 2010B, dated
September 21, 2010, in the original aggregate principal amount of $4,485,000 (the “2010B DDA
Tax-Exempt Bonds,” and together with the 2010A DDA Taxable Bonds, the “2010 DDA
Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, all of the outstanding 2010 DDA Bonds are owned by Great Western Bank
(the “Bank”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the 2010 Ordinance, the interest rate
payable on the 2010A DDA Taxable Bonds will be converted to a new interest rate on December
2, 2015 in accordance with a formula set forth in Section 3.D.(3) of the 2010 Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the 2010 Ordinance, the interest rate
on the 2010B DDA Tax-Exempt Bonds will be converted to a new interest rate on December 2,
2015 in accordance with a formula set forth in Section 3.D.(3) of the 2010 Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City, the Authority and the Bank have determined to revise the formulas
for determining the respective interest rates on the 2010 DDA Bonds in order to reduce the
respective interest rates on the 2010 DDA Bonds; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11 of the 2010 Ordinance, the City may reduce the
interest rates on the 2010 DDA Bonds by amending the 2010 Ordinance only with the prior
6.2
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Ordinance No. 096, 2015 (3502 : SR 096 DDA Bond Interest)
- 2 -
written consent of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of
the outstanding 2010 DDA Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Bank, as the owner of 100% of the outstanding 2010 DDA Bonds, has
given its written consent to the amendment of the 2010 Ordinance and the adoption of this
Ordinance and has filed its written consent and approval in the office of the City Clerk, as
required by Section 11.C. and Section 11.D. of the 2010 Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has adopted a resolution (the “Authority Resolution”)
requesting that the City Council adopt this amendatory Ordinance in order to reduce the interest
rates on the 2010 DDA Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined and hereby determines that adopting this
amendatory Ordinance is necessary and in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the
meanings set forth in the 2010 Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO:
Section 1. Ratification and Approval of Prior Actions. All action heretofore taken
(not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance) by the City Council or the officers,
agents or employees of the City Council or the City relating to reducing the respective interest
rates on the 2010A DDA Taxable Bonds and the 2010B DDA Tax-Exempt Bonds and the
execution and delivery of this Ordinance is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 2. Finding of Best Interests. The City Council hereby finds and determines,
pursuant to the Constitution, the laws of the State and the Charter, that amending the 2010
Ordinance in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Ordinance is necessary,
convenient, and in furtherance of the City’s purposes and is in the best interests of the inhabitants
of the City.
Section 3. Amendment of 2010 Ordinance.
A. Section 3.D.(3) of the 2010 Ordinance shall be amended and restated in its entirety as
follows:
(3) Interest Rates. The 2010A DDA Taxable Bonds shall initially bear
interest at the per annum interest rate of 6.08% from the date of issuance to December 1,
2015. The 2010B DDA Tax-Exempt Bonds shall initially bear interest at the per annum
interest rate of 4.01% from the date of issuance to December 1, 2015. From December 2,
2015 (the “Conversion Date”) to their respective Maturity Dates (a) the interest rate on
the 2010A DDA Taxable Bonds shall be converted to a new interest rate calculated by
the Financial Officer no more than thirty (30) days and no less than fifteen (15) days prior
to the Conversion Date as the rate on such calculation date that is 3.5% above the United
6.2
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Ordinance No. 096, 2015 (3502 : SR 096 DDA Bond Interest)
- 3 -
States 5-year Treasury Rate based on a 365/366-day year, and (b) the interest rate on the
2010B DDA Tax-Exempt Bonds shall be converted to a new interest rate calculated by
the Financial Officer no more than thirty (30) days and no less than fifteen (15) days prior
to the Conversion Date as the rate on such calculation date that is 0.66 multiplied by the
following rate: 4.25% above the United States 5-year Treasury Rate and based on a
365/366-day year. The City will notify the Owners of the Bonds by first-class postage
prepaid mail of the new interest rate on the Bonds within ten (10) days of such
calculations. The maximum net effective interest rate on the Bonds shall not exceed
10.00% per annum.
B. The footnote on the first page of the Form of Bond set forth in Section 3.D.(8) of the
2010 Ordinance shall be conformed to comply with the amendments to Section
3.D.(3) set forth above
.
Section 4. Direction to Act. The Mayor, the City Manager, the Financial Officer, the
City Clerk and other appropriate officials and employees of the City are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver for and on behalf of the City any and all certificates, documents,
instruments and other papers, and to perform all other acts that they deem necessary or
appropriate, in order to implement and carry out this Ordinance.
Section 5. Ratification of 2010 Ordinance. Except as expressly amended hereby, the
2010 Ordinance shall remain as originally adopted and is hereby ratified, approved and
confirmed.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, clause or provision of
this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or
unenforceability of such section, subsection, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any
of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance, the intent being that the same are severable.
Section 7. Repealer. All orders, resolutions, bylaws, ordinances or regulations of the
City, or parts thereof, inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent only of
such inconsistency.
Section 8. Effective Date. As set forth in Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, this
Ordinance shall take effect on the tenth day following its passage.
6.2
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Ordinance No. 096, 2015 (3502 : SR 096 DDA Bond Interest)
- 4 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
6.2
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Ordinance No. 096, 2015 (3502 : SR 096 DDA Bond Interest)
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Peggy Streeter, Senior Sales Tax Auditor
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2015, Amending Provisions in Articles III and IV of City Code Chapter
25 Concerning the Exemption of Charitable Organizations from the City's Sales and Use Tax and Lodging Tax.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, amends the definition of
“charitable organization” as used in the City Code’s sales and use tax and lodging tax provisions in order to
mitigate the impact of current Colorado case law on a substantial number of the City’s current tax exempt
charitable organizations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 097, 2015 (PDF)
7
Packet Pg. 49
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Peggy Streeter, Senior Sales Tax Auditor
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2015, Amending Provisions in Articles III and IV of City Code Chapter 25
Concerning the Exemption of Charitable Organizations from the City's Sales and Use Tax and Lodging Tax.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is amend the definition of “charitable organization” as used in the City Code’s sales
and use tax and lodging tax provisions in order to mitigate the impact of current Colorado case law on a
substantial number of the City’s current tax exempt charitable organizations. Colorado case law was recently
discovered to have a substantial impact on staff’s interpretation of the charitable organization definition. Code
changes related to the City’s sales and use taxes were discussed with the Council Finance Committee on June
23, 2015, and the Committee concurred with the recommendation and supported staff bringing an ordinance to
Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Chapter 25 of the City Code allows organizations that meet the definition of a “charitable organization” to
purchase tangible personal property for use in the organizations’ activities free from the City’s sales and use
taxes and lodging tax.
CURRENT CITY CODE LANGUAGE
General Information
City Code Section 25-71 defines a “charitable organization” as:
“Charitable organization shall mean any entity which: (i) has been certified as a not-for-profit
organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and (ii) is a religious or charitable
organization. As used in this definition, a "charitable organization" is an organization which exclusively,
and in a manner consistent with existing laws and for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons,
freely and voluntarily ministers to the physical, mental or spiritual needs of persons, and which thereby
lessens the burdens of government.”
The City currently has 295 charitable organizations that hold an “exempt organization license” issued by the
City. In general terms, the Code allows these organizations to make purchases free of sales and use tax but
does not exempt them from collecting sales tax on transactions. For example, if a charitable organization, as
defined by City Code, purchases materials for use in its activities, it does not pay sales tax. However, if the
ATTACHMENT 1
7.1
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3499 : SR 097 Charitable Organizations)
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 2
organization sells tangible goods, for example in a book sale, it is generally still required to collect and remit
the tax to the City. This is an important distinction.
The process to become an exempt organization with the City is as follows:
Application submitted with following documents:
o List of officers
o Articles of Incorporation
o 501(c)3 letter
o Bylaws
o Colorado Certificate of Incorporation
o Copy of State exemption certificate
o Financial statements
Application reviewed by staff for completeness and determines if organization meets definition of
“charitable organization”
Application approved or denied (3 year renewable period). If denied, organization can request a hearing
with the Financial Officer or designee
The City’s lodging tax provisions, in Article IV of City Code Chapter 25, do not define “charitable organization.”
Instead, Code Section 25-243(2) generally exempts “religious, charitable and eleemosynary corporations,”
without definition, from payment of the lodging tax.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT:
This Ordinance will amend City Code to exempt any entity from the City’s sales and use taxes and lodging tax,
whether religious or secular, that has been granted a sales tax exemption by the State of Colorado based on
C.R.S. Section 39-26-718(1)(a), which reads:
“(1) The following shall be exempt from taxation under the provisions of part 1 of this article:
(a) All sales made to charitable organizations, in the conduct of their regular charitable functions and activities;
except that any veterans' organization that qualifies as a charitable organization pursuant to section 39-26-102
(2.5) shall be exempt from taxation under the provisions of part 1 of this article only for the purpose of
sponsoring a special event, meeting, or other function in the state of Colorado that is not part of the
organization's regular activities in the state;”
The State of Colorado defines “charitable organization” in C.R.S. Section 39-26-102(2.5) as:
"Charitable organization" means any entity organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable,
scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international
amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities
or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of
which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities
of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and which does
not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political
campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office, or any veterans' organization registered under
section 501 (c) (19) of the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986", as amended, for the purpose of
sponsoring a special event, meeting, or other function in the state of Colorado so long as such event,
meeting, or function is not part of such organization's regular activities in the state.”
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There will be minimal revenue loss; however, the amount is difficult to quantify. In many cases the City is not
capturing the revenue because vendors accept the State’s exemption certificate for City sales and lodging
7.1
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3499 : SR 097 Charitable Organizations)
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 3
taxes when purchases are made regardless of whether the organization has an exempt organization license
from the City. Based on organizations who have been denied exemption based on the current interpretation of
the definition, we would estimate revenue loss to be approximately $30K per year.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The proposal to amend the definition was presented to the Council Finance Committee (CFC) on June 23,
2015. Three options were presented and CFC supported the option presented in this Ordinance as related to
sales and use taxes. The lodging tax was not discussed with the CFC, but staff is recommending that the
same definition for “charitable organization” be used for lodging tax to be consistent with the City’s sales and
use taxes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Finance Committee minutes, June 23, 2015 (PDF)
7.1
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3499 : SR 097 Charitable Organizations)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 097, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING PROVISIONS IN ARTICLES III AND IV OF
CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 CONCERNING THE EXEMPTION OF CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS FROM THE CITY’S SALES AND USE TAXES AND LODGING TAX
WHEREAS, under City Code Sections 25-73(c)(6), 25-74(b)(9) and 25-94(a), a
“charitable organization,” as this term is defined in Code Section 25-71, that obtains a “exempt
organization license” from the City is exempt from the City’s sales and uses taxes for the
organization’s purchases and its use in the City of tangible personal property and taxable
services; and
WHEREAS, Code Section 25-71 currently defines a “charitable organization” as any
religious or secular entity that meets all of the following requirements: (i) it is a non-profit
organization; (ii) it is recognized under the Internal Revenue Code as a Section 501(c)(3)
organization; and (iii) it is an organization that “exclusively, and in a manner consistent with
existing laws and for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, freely and voluntarily
ministers to the physical, mental or spiritual needs of persons, and which thereby lessens the
burdens of government;” and
WHEREAS, the City’s past interpretation and application of this definition has resulted
in 295 organizations currently having a valid exempt organization license issued by the City,
which license must be renewed by the organization every three years; and
WHEREAS, in a 2009 decision the Colorado Supreme Court considered this same
definition of “charitable organization” used by the City of Pueblo in its sales and use tax code
and interpreted and applied it much more narrowly than Fort Collins has previously done; and
WHEREAS, under the Supreme Court’s interpretation and application of the City’s
current definition, a significant number of the 295 organizations that have a exempt organization
license from the City would no longer qualify for this license and, consequently, would no longer
be exempt from payment of the City’s sales and use taxes; and
WHEREAS, in light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation, City staff is recommending
that the City’s definition of “charitable organization” be amended to insure that the organizations
in the City that currently have an exempt organization license continue to qualify for it and that
the new definition allow for the ease of the City’s administration in its issuance of exempt
organization licenses; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish this, City staff is recommending that the City’s definition be
amended to be consistent with the State of Colorado’s definition for “charitable organization” as
used in its sales and use tax statutes, and to do this by defining “charitable organizations” as any
entity that has and maintains a current sales tax exemption certificate from the Colorado
Department of Revenue; and
7.2
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Ordinance No. 097, 2015 (3499 : SR 097 Charitable Organizations)
- 2 -
WHEREAS, at its June 13, 2015, meeting, the Council Finance Committee considered
these recommendations, as well as other options presented to it by City staff, and the Committee
directed staff to bring forward to City Council an ordinance that would amend the City’s
definition as recommended by staff; and
WHEREAS, staff is also now recommending that this new definition for “charitable
organization” be included and used for those “religious, charitable and eleemosynary
corporations” now exempt from the City’s lodging tax in City Code Section 25-243(2), so that
the charitable organizations exempt from the City’s lodging tax are consistent with those exempt
from the City’s sales and use taxes; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City and its citizens that
the City amend its definition of “charitable organization” for sales and use tax and lodging tax
purposes to be consistent with the definition used for this term by the State of Colorado in its
sales and use tax statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the definition of “charitable organization” contained in Section 25-71
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Charitable organization shall mean any entity that has and maintains a current sales tax
exemption certificate from the Colorado Department of Revenue.
Section 2. That Section 25-94(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(b) The application for an exempt organization license shall include copies of
the organization’s current certificate of incorporation, bylaws, financial
statements showing sources of revenues and expenditures, and the organization’s
current sales tax exemption certificate from the Colorado Department of Revenue
and, if the organization has been issued one, a copy of the Internal Revenue
Service’s letter of determination recognizing the organization as a tax-exempt
organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Section 3. That Section 25-241 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of the defined term “charitable organization” to read as follows:
Charitable organization shall mean any entity that has and maintains a
current sales tax exemption certificate from the Colorado Department of Revenue.
Section 4. That Section 25-243(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
7.2
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Ordinance No. 097, 2015 (3499 : SR 097 Charitable Organizations)
- 3 -
Sec. 25-243. Transactions exempt from tax.
The following lodging transactions are exempt from taxation under this Article:
…
(2) All lodging accommodations provided to charitable organizations.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
7.2
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Ordinance No. 097, 2015 (3499 : SR 097 Charitable Organizations)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Delynn Coldiron, Interim Neighborhood Services Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2015, Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Pertaining to Smoking in Public Areas.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, revises the current Smoking in
Public Places Ordinance to include exemptions for retail tobacco establishments within the Downtown Smoke-
Free Zone and for City facility users who smoke on City premises in a fully enclosed, privately-owned vehicle.
The Ordinance also provides clarification on the City-owned or maintained sidewalks that are intended to be
covered by the provisions in the current Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 098, 2015 (PDF)
8
Packet Pg. 56
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Delynn Coldiron, Interim Neighborhood Services Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2015, Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Pertaining to Smoking in Public Areas.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to revise the current Smoking in Public Places Ordinance to include exemptions for
retail tobacco establishments within the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone and for City facility users who smoke on
City premises in a fully enclosed, privately-owned vehicle, as well as clarification on the City-owned or
maintained sidewalks that are intended to be covered by the provisions in the Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
As part of implementation efforts related to the smoking ordinance expansions approved in February, 2015,
staff has identified some areas where additional clarification is needed. Staff proposes the following clean-up
items:
1. Addition of an exemption for retail tobacco establishments within the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone.
Factors to consider include:
a. Retail tobacco establishments are generally allowed to permit smoking in limited lounge areas
in all areas except the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone.
b. There are numerous criteria that must be met for an establishment to be considered a retail
tobacco establishment that significantly reduce the concern of second-hand smoke affecting
others not frequenting the business.
c. An existing retail tobacco business has been inadvertently impacted by the new requirements
when the boundaries for the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone were expanded. The business
checked the location prior to moving and went through all applicable processes to become
designated as a retail tobacco establishment. Under the current ordinance, customers would
be required to cease all smoking on premises on January 1, 2016.
2. Addition of an exemption for City facilities and related premises that would enable facility users to
smoke on City premises provided they are in a fully enclosed, privately-owned vehicle. Factors to
consider include:
a. A similar exception exists in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone.
ATTACHMENT 1
8.1
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3509 : SR 098 Smoking)
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 2
b. This minimizes potential impacts to businesses and neighborhoods bordering no-smoking
areas by providing another option for smokers to enable them to comply with the
requirements.
c. This reduces the chance of facility users moving into the street to smoke in an effort to comply
with requirements, which is a safety concern.
d. The exception should have limited, if any, impact on others with regard to second-hand
smoke.
3. Clarification that the smoking expansions apply only to City-owned or maintained sidewalks within the
Downtown Smoke-Free Zone or that are adjacent to City facilities and related premises. The existing
language applies to other sidewalks throughout the community that staff is recommending be excluded
from the Ordinance at this time.
Reduction of secondhand smoke exposure for citizens who choose not to smoke and promoting the health and
wellness of the community continue to be the primary reasons for the smoking expansions that were approved.
These revisions continue to support these goals while providing consistency in regulating retail tobacco shops
across the community, and providing options for citizens who do choose to smoke that will minimize impacts to
businesses and neighborhoods that border smoke-free areas, and will help increase the effectiveness of our
enforcement efforts by giving smokers a way to more reasonably comply with ordinance requirements.
For information purposes, the smoking expansions approved in February 2015 included a complete ban for the
following:
City Natural Areas, Parks, and Trails - implementation September 1, 2015
City-owned and operated facilities and their related grounds, including golf courses - implementation
September 1, 2015
Downtown Smoke-Free Zone - implementation January 1, 2016
City-approved special events - implementation January 1, 2016
There were no designated smoking areas approved in any of the areas listed.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
No additional costs are expected from these revisions.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
This work was done as part of the earlier efforts.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This work was done as part of the earlier efforts.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 015, 2015 (PDF)
2. Comcate Case 28952 from Aria Khosravi regarding Retail Tobacco Establishments (PDF)
8.1
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3509 : SR 098 Smoking)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 098, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO SMOKING IN PUBLIC AREAS
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 015, 2015, amended Chapter 12 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins (the “Code”) to prohibit smoking on City-owned property and in the downtown
area; and
WHEREAS, the Code provides strict regulations for retail tobacco establishments, which
allow the sampling of tobacco products in such establishments; and
WHEREAS, the general purpose of Ordinance No. 015, 2015, was to prohibit smoking
outdoors in the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 015, 2015, prohibited smoking in all establishments within
the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, City employees have expressed concern about time and safety concerns that
may result from smoking off-site during the work day; and
WHEREAS, an exception exists in the downtown area that allows people to smoke in an
enclosed vehicle; and
WHEREAS, City employees have requested that Council adopt a similar provision that
will allow people to smoke in an enclosed vehicle on City-owned property; and
WHEREAS, staff has also recommended other minor edits to improve certain language
in the Code as adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the health,
safety, and welfare of the residents of the City that Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins be amended to include the modifications of the smoking Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 12-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
City-owned property shall mean any real property open to the public that is City owned
and City maintained or leased from another and maintained by the City, including
properties designated by the City as a park, trail, open space, or natural area, and all
sidewalks abutting, or separated only by a parkway from, any of the foregoing. For
purposes of this definition, City-owned property shall not include public streets or
sidewalks abutting or separated only by a parkway from property not owned and
maintained by the City.
8.2
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Ordinance No. 098, 2015 (3509 : SR 098 Smoking)
- 2 -
. . .
Downtown Smoke-Free Zone shall mean within the area bounded by: the center of Mason
Street from the center of Maple Street to the center of Olive Street; the center of Olive
Street from the center of Mason Street to the center of Remington Street; the center of
Remington Street from the center of Olive Street to the center of Oak Street; the center of
Oak Street from the center of Remington Street to the center of Mathews Street; the
center of Mathews Street from the center of Oak Street to the center of Mountain
Avenue; the center of Mountain Avenue from the center of Mathews Street to the center
of Jefferson Street; the center of Jefferson Street from the center of Mountain Avenue to
the center of Maple Street; the center of Maple Street from the center of Jefferson Street
to the center of Mason Street. For purposes of this definition, the center of any given
street shall be deemed to be the midpoint between the outer boundaries of such street. For
streets running north to south or approximately north to south, the center runs north to
south or approximately north to south, respectively; for streets running east to west, the
center runs east to west or approximately east to west, respectively; the center of
Jefferson Street runs approximately southeast to northwest. A map showing the
approximate area of the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone dated February 27, 2015, is on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
. . .
Section 2. That Section 12-58.5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 12-58.5 Smoking prohibited on City-owned property
Smoking shall be prohibited on all City-owned property. Unless otherwise prohibited by
City Code, this section shall not apply to persons lawfully smoking entirely within an
enclosed privately owned motor vehicle.
Section 3. That Section 12-59.5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 12-59.5 Smoking prohibited in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone.
Smoking shall be prohibited in the Downtown Smoke-Free Zone. Unless otherwise
prohibited by City Code, this section shall not apply to any persons lawfully smoking in a
privately owned residence, or entirely within an enclosed privately owned motor vehicle,
or in a retail tobacco business.
8.2
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Ordinance No. 098, 2015 (3509 : SR 098 Smoking)
- 3 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
8.2
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Ordinance No. 098, 2015 (3509 : SR 098 Smoking)
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
SUBJECT
Postponement of Items Relating to the Kechter Farm Second Annexation and Zoning to October 6, 2015.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff requests postponement of Second Reading of the Kechter Farm Second Annexation and Zoning
Ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 099 and 100, 2015) to October 6, 2015 to allow time for Larimer County to
complete the entitlement process for Second Filing. The Larimer County Planning Department has indicated
that the Board of County Commissioners will not have taken final action in time for the City Council to adopt
the annexation and zoning on Second Reading on September 1, 2015. Under the Intergovernmental
Agreement with Larimer County, the City has agreed to not annex lands within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area
Plan until after final plan approval by the County. The postponement to October 6, 2015 will allow time for
Larimer County to complete its review process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map (PDF)
2. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
3. Ordinance No. 099, 2015 (PDF)
4. Ordinance No. 100, 2015 (PDF)
9
Packet Pg. 62
Site - Kechter
Farm Annexation
(Phase Two)
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Parcel 3
GODDARD
SCHOOL
KINARD CORE
KNOWLEDGE
MIDDLE SCHOOL
TRAUT CORE
KNOWLEDGE
FOSSIL RIDGE
HIGH SCHOOL
BACON
ELEMENTARY
REDEEMER EARLY
CHILDHOOD
CENTER
ZACH
ELEMENTARY
PRESTON
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
S Timberline Rd
Ziegler Rd
Kechter Rd
E Trilby Rd
E
H
armony Rd
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Kechter Farm (Phase Two)
Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT 1
Legend
Major Street Names
Annexation
City Limits
Growth Management Area
9.1
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Vicinity map (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Kechter Farm Second Filing Annexation and Zoning
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2015-073 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Kechter Farm
Second Filing Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2015, Annexing Property Known as the Kechter Farm
Second Filing Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2015, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Kechter Farm Second Filing
Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
The purpose of this item is to annex and zone 78.58 acres platted and approved in Larimer County as Kechter
Farm Second Filing. The Initiating Resolution was adopted on July 7, 2015. There are three parcels all
located on the west side of Ziegler Road, south of Kechter Road and north of Fossil Creek Reservoir. Trilby
Road bisects the site. The requested zoning for this annexation is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (37.48 acres) on Parcels One and Two, and U-E, Urban Estate (41.1 acres) on Parcel Three.
The property is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. In accordance with the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area with Larimer County, adopted in 1999, properties
within this sub-area are to receive their land use approval in the County and are then to be annexed prior to
the issuance of building permits.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and two Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Kechter Farm First Filing was annexed in May 2014. The Second Filing represents the full build-out potential
and is following the same procedures as the First Filing.
The IGA between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County regarding the Cooperative Planning Area
adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir (adopted in August of 1999) and the IGA between the City and County
regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development (adopted in June 2008) stipulate the following:
“The County may accept development applications for land located within any area that is part of a
“receiving area” established through an adopted sub-area plan for any Larimer County Transferable
ATTACHMENT 2
9.2
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 2
Density Units Program. At such time as the County requires a landowner in a receiving area to
request annexation to the City, the City will process the annexation petition such that the annexation, if
approved by the City, will be completed within thirty-five (35) days following the County’s approval of
the final plat.” (Section 5B).
This procedure results in the City annexing a County-approved subdivision. Kechter Farm Second Annexation
is following the same sequence and process that governed Kechter Farm First Annexation.
During the County’s review process for the overall Kechter Farm Subdivision, City staff reviewed and
commented on various aspects of the development. This process of County plan review, followed by City
annexation was the same process used for Westchase PUD, Kechter Crossing Subdivision and Fossil Lake
Subdivision.
Larimer County Transfer of Density Units
Kechter Farm is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and contains 286 acres (Attachment 5).
As part of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, Larimer County adopted the Transfer of Density Units for the
purpose of conserving environmentally sensitive lands (the sending area) and allowing a modified L-M-N level
of density (the receiving area) within the plan area. The overall land plan for Kechter Farm has played a key
role in implementing this program.
Of the total 286 acres, the area nearest the reservoir was designated as the sending area for TDUs. The area
north of the natural resource buffer was designated as the receiving area.
In December 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved the General Development Plan which
permanently protected over 116 of the 286 acres (41%) making the conservation of this land the last major
piece of the Fossil Creek Reservoir conservation effort called for in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
Contiguity
The subject property gains the required one-sixth contiguity to existing City limits from common boundaries in
the following manner:
Kechter Farm First Annexation (zoned L-M-N and annexed in May 2014);
Mail Creek Crossing Annexation (zoned L-M-N and annexed in January 2014);
Kinard Junior High School Annexation (zoned L-M-N and annexed in March 2007);
Westchase PUD (zoned L-M-N and U-E and annexed in December 2001).
As a result, 67% of the total perimeter is contiguous to the existing municipal boundary which exceeds the
required minimum (16.66%).
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: FA-1; Homestead Estates (County)
S: P-O-L; Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area
E: U-E; Fossil Creek Estates
E: L-M-N; Fossil Creek Estates
W: U-E; Westchase PUD (north of Trilby Road)
W: L-M-N; Westchase PUD (south of Trilby Road)
9.2
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 3
Kechter Farm General Development Plan First and Second Filings (286 acres) was approved in Larimer
County in December 2012.
Kechter Farm First Filing Preliminary Plat (88.21 acres) was approved in Larimer County in January 2014.
Kechter Farm First Filing Final Plat was approved in Larimer County on May 6, 2014
Kechter Farm First Filing was annexed by the City on May 16, 2014.
Kechter Farm Second Filing Final Plat is scheduled for consideration by Board of County Commissioners
prior to Second Reading of these Ordinances, scheduled for September 1, 2015.
The IGA requires that the City annex the parcel within 35 days of the final action of the Board of County
Commisioners. City and County Planning staffs are coordinating the entitlement schedule in such a
manner as to comply with the IGA. With City Council First and Second Readings scheduled for August 18
and September 1 respectively, the sequence and timing of the required by the IGA will be satisfied.
Enclave Area Reduced
Kechter Farm First Annexation created an enclave of approximately 180 acres located to the north and west.
The annexation of Mail Creek Crossing (January 2014) reduced this enclave to approximately 147 acres.
Kechter Farm Second Annexation neither enlarges nor decreases this enclave. These enclaves will become
eligible for involuntary annexation in May 2017.
Findings
1. The property meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to
the City of Fort Collins.
2. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and
the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth
Management Area.
3. The requested zoning, L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood on Parcels One and Two, and U-E,
Urban Estate on Parcel Three, is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan,
Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (Attachment 2).
4. The request is in conformance with Section 2.9, Amendment to the Zoning Map, of the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code.
5. On July 7, 2015, the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petition and
determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation
process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a City Council public hearing would
be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area.
6. The Annexation and Zoning of Kechter Farm Second follows the approval of the final development plan as
approved by Larimer County Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the Cooperative
Planning Area per the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. This is the same sequence of entitlement that
was followed for Kechter Farm First Annexation and allows Larimer County to implement its Transfer of
Density Units program.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts as a result of the proposed annexation and zoning.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its July 9, 2015 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the
annexation. Further, the Board recommended that Parcels One and Two be placed into the L-M-N, Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District and that Parcel Three be placed into the U-E, Urban Estate District.
9.2
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 4
Finally, the Board recommended that all three parcels be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. This unanimous action was taken as part of the Board’s consent agenda therefore, there are no
minutes.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
As with Kechter Farm First Annexation, the Second Annexation was included in larger Kechter Farm General
Development Plan for which there was significant public outreach including a neighborhood meeting and public
hearings before the Larimer County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map (PDF)
2. Structure Plan (PDF)
3. Zoning Map (PDF)
4. Enclave Area Map (PDF)
5. General Development Plan (PDF)
9.2
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 099, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ANNEXING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
KECHTER FARM SECOND ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Resolution 2015-061, finding substantial compliance and initiating
annexation proceedings for the Property (as described below), has heretofore been adopted by
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to
annex the Property to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby incorporates the findings of Resolution
2015-073 and further finds that it is in the best interests of the City to annex the Property to the
City.
Section 2. That the following described property (the Property”), to wit:
Parcel 1:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT S, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION
FILING 1. BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°39’17”E A DISTANCE OF 1445.97 FEET.
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. SAID CORNER
BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT S, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND
DIVISION FILING 1, AS RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER 20140024916 IN THE OFFICES OF
THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER;
THENCE ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT S, ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, N89°39'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1445.97
FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE KINARD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION, S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 547.39 FEET,
TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE KECHTER FARM ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID KECHTER FARM ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING
TWENTY-NINE (29) COURSES:
1. S89°39'17"W A DISTANCE OF 114.78 FEET;
2. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 62.00 FEET;
3. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 17.45 FEET;
9.3
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Ordinance No. 099, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 2 -
4. S44°58'17"W A DISTANCE OF 6.82 FEET;
5. S89°39'17"W A DISTANCE OF 202.56 FEET;
6. N45°01'43"W A DISTANCE OF 6.55 FEET;
7. N00°17'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1.28 FEET;
8. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 71.00 FEET;
9. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 1.93 FEET;
10. S44°58'17"W A DISTANCE OF 6.82 FEET;
11. S89°39'17"W A DISTANCE OF 202.56 FEET;
12. N45°01'43"W A DISTANCE OF 6.55 FEET;
13. N00°17'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1.17 FEET;
14. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 91.00 FEET;
15. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 2.04 FEET;
16. S44°58'17"W A DISTANCE OF 6.82 FEET;
17. S89°39'17"W A DISTANCE OF 202.56 FEET;
18. N45°01'43"W A DISTANCE OF 6.55 FEET;
19. N00°17'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1.28 FEET;
20. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 71.00 FEET;
21. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 1.90 FEET;
22. S44°54'01"W A DISTANCE OF 6.85 FEET;
23. N89°36'13"W A DISTANCE OF 202.42 FEET;
24. N44°29'40"W A DISTANCE OF 6.78 FEET;
25. N00°17'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1.83 FEET;
26. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 71.00 FEET;
27. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 1.18 FEET;
28. S45°30'20"W A DISTANCE OF 6.88 FEET;
29. N89°16'36"W A DISTANCE OF 116.49 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8;
THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE, N00°43'20"E A DISTANCE OF 562.71 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 816,849 SQUARE FEET OR 18.7523 ACRES.
Parcel 2:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT S, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION
FILING 1. BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°39’17”E A DISTANCE OF 1445.97 FEET.
BEGINNING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN;
THENCE ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 8, N00°43’20”E A DISTANCE OF 31.77 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE
KECHTER FARM ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID KECHTER FARM ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING
TWENTY-SIX (26) COURSES:
1. S87°51'05"E A DISTANCE OF 35.85 FEET;
2. S05°28'46"E A DISTANCE OF 46.86 FEET;
9.3
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Ordinance No. 099, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 3 -
3. S21°33'42"E A DISTANCE OF 62.75 FEET;
4. S25°03'19"E A DISTANCE OF 18.00 FEET;
5. S25°28'04"E A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET;
6. S34°03'21"E A DISTANCE OF 89.70 FEET;
7. S46°06'36"E A DISTANCE OF 85.22 FEET;
8. S58°02'45"E A DISTANCE OF 87.99 FEET;
9. S64°06'35"E A DISTANCE OF 308.81 FEET;
10. S66°54'29"E A DISTANCE OF 73.04 FEET;
11. S78°09'57"E A DISTANCE OF 71.60 FEET;
12. S89°49'26"E A DISTANCE OF 70.59 FEET;
13. N74°53'28"E A DISTANCE OF 96.45 FEET;
14. N61°28'24"E A DISTANCE OF 69.69 FEET;
15. N53°22'15"E A DISTANCE OF 69.69 FEET;
16. N39°52'00"E A DISTANCE OF 69.86 FEET;
17. S55°48'39"E A DISTANCE OF 131.53 FEET;
18. S32°35’48”W A DISTANCE OF 10.98 FEET;
19. S56°41'38"E A DISTANCE OF 171.79 FEET;
20. S54°49'16"E A DISTANCE OF 61.63 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE;
21. ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CHORD BEARS
S61°39’57”W A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1219.35 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1367.00 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52°58'26" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 1263.88 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-
TANGENT;
22. N45°58'29"W A DISTANCE OF 24.47 FEET;
23. S89°41'18"W A DISTANCE OF 45.49 FEET;
24. S00°18'42"E A DISTANCE OF 7.34 FEET;
25. S45°12'33"W A DISTANCE OF 14.01 FEET;
26. N89°16'11"W A DISTANCE OF 193.74 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8;
THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE N00°43'49"E A DISTANCE OF 1148.62 FEET;
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 815,667 SQUARE FEET OR 18.7251 ACRES.
Parcel 3:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT S, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION
FILING 1. BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°39’17”E A DISTANCE OF 1445.97 FEET.
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH,
RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN;
THENCE ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S00°43'49"W A
DISTANCE OF 1214.62 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE KECHTER FARM
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, S89°16'27"E A DISTANCE OF 51.92 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
9.3
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Ordinance No. 099, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 4 -
THENCE CONTINUING ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWENTY-SEVEN (27)
COURSES:
1. S89°16'05"E A DISTANCE OF 143.03 FEET;
2. S44°47'27"E A DISTANCE OF 14.27 FEET;
3. S00°18'42"E A DISTANCE OF 6.76 FEET;
4. N89°41'18"E A DISTANCE OF 53.00 FEET;
5. N00°18'42"W A DISTANCE OF 6.76 FEET;
6. N44°03'21"E A DISTANCE OF 14.30 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE;
7. ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CHORD BEARS N72°44’15”E
A CHORD DISTANCE OF 765.23 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1433.00 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 30°58'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 774.63 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT;
8. S32°44'55"E A DISTANCE OF 62.13 FEET;
9. S45°09'46"E A DISTANCE OF 111.92 FEET;
10. S51°29'52"E A DISTANCE OF 109.07 FEET;
11. S58°02'05"E A DISTANCE OF 109.07 FEET;
12. S63°13'21"E A DISTANCE OF 87.09 FEET;
13. S25°04'54"W A DISTANCE OF 63.27 FEET;
14. S03°57'47"E A DISTANCE OF 169.59 FEET;
15. S56°34'16"E A DISTANCE OF 182.04 FEET;
16. N74°00'16"E A DISTANCE OF 182.79 FEET;
17. N19°34'55"E A DISTANCE OF 144.16 FEET;
18. N07°14'48"W A DISTANCE OF 63.27 FEET;
19. N88°26'56"E A DISTANCE OF 109.07 FEET;
20. N81°54'52"E A DISTANCE OF 109.00 FEET;
21. N78°22'07"E A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET;
22. N82°34'51"E A DISTANCE OF 89.76 FEET;
23. S83°58'56"E A DISTANCE OF 97.74 FEET;
24. S80°44'59"E A DISTANCE OF 204.79 FEET;
25. S78°34'39"E A DISTANCE OF 53.00 FEET;
26. N11°25'21"E A DISTANCE OF 45.30 FEET;
27. S78°34'39"E A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT
U, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION FILING 1;
THENCE ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT U, THE FOLLOWING TWENTY-SIX (26) COURSES:
1. S11°25'21"W A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET;
2. S16°22'16"W A DISTANCE OF 144.25 FEET;
3. S28°48'27"W A DISTANCE OF 146.19 FEET;
4. S41°24'00"W A DISTANCE OF 146.19 FEET;
5. S52°49'36"W A DISTANCE OF 146.55 FEET;
6. S62°04'00"W A DISTANCE OF 41.54 FEET;
7. S70°08'26"W A DISTANCE OF 146.85 FEET;
8. S82°43'59"W A DISTANCE OF 146.85 FEET;
9. N84°40'28"W A DISTANCE OF 146.85 FEET;
10. N70°56'15"W A DISTANCE OF 145.94 FEET;
11. N65°14'00"W A DISTANCE OF 130.02 FEET;
12. N65°12'57"W A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET;
13. N67°45'31"W A DISTANCE OF 121.29 FEET;
9.3
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Ordinance No. 099, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 5 -
14. N80°12'34"W A DISTANCE OF 119.67 FEET;
15. S86°55'18"W A DISTANCE OF 119.34 FEET;
16. S83°23'03"W A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET;
17. S83°50'49"W A DISTANCE OF 170.59 FEET;
18. N83°50'28"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
19. N71°21'15"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
20. N58°52'02"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
21. N46°22'49"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
22. N33°53'36"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
23. N20°14'22"W A DISTANCE OF 146.41 FEET;
24. N10°05'12"W A DISTANCE OF 146.41 FEET;
25. N00°33'31"W A DISTANCE OF 133.21 FEET;
26. N00°18'42"W A DISTANCE OF 28.41 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 1,790,220 SQUARE FEET OR 41.0978 ACRES
is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the
Kechter Farm Second Annexation, which annexation shall become effective upon completion of
the conditions contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required
filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 3. That, in annexing the Property to the City, the City does not assume any
obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service
lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the Property hereby annexed
except as may be provided by ordinances of the City.
Section 4. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S.,
to the inclusion of the Property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
9.3
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Ordinance No. 099, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 6 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
9.3
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Ordinance No. 099, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 100, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED
IN THE KECHTER FARM SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes
procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 099, 2015, annexing certain
property as described therein and referred to therein as Kechter Farm Second Annexation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the
zoning of the Kechter Farm Second Annexation, and has determined that specifically defined
portions thereof as described below should be zoned as hereafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to
Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended
by including in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District that portion
of the property known as the Kechter Farm Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, particularly described below:
Parcel 1:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT S, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION
FILING 1. BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°39’17”E A DISTANCE OF 1445.97 FEET.
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. SAID CORNER
BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT S, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND
DIVISION FILING 1, AS RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER 20140024916 IN THE OFFICES OF
THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER;
THENCE ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT S, ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, N89°39'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1445.97
FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE KINARD JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
9.4
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Ordinance No. 100, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 2 -
THENCE ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION, S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 547.39 FEET,
TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE KECHTER FARM ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID KECHTER FARM ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING
TWENTY-NINE (29) COURSES:
1. S89°39'17"W A DISTANCE OF 114.78 FEET;
2. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 62.00 FEET;
3. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 17.45 FEET;
4. S44°58'17"W A DISTANCE OF 6.82 FEET;
5. S89°39'17"W A DISTANCE OF 202.56 FEET;
6. N45°01'43"W A DISTANCE OF 6.55 FEET;
7. N00°17'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1.28 FEET;
8. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 71.00 FEET;
9. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 1.93 FEET;
10. S44°58'17"W A DISTANCE OF 6.82 FEET;
11. S89°39'17"W A DISTANCE OF 202.56 FEET;
12. N45°01'43"W A DISTANCE OF 6.55 FEET;
13. N00°17'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1.17 FEET;
14. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 91.00 FEET;
15. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 2.04 FEET;
16. S44°58'17"W A DISTANCE OF 6.82 FEET;
17. S89°39'17"W A DISTANCE OF 202.56 FEET;
18. N45°01'43"W A DISTANCE OF 6.55 FEET;
19. N00°17'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1.28 FEET;
20. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 71.00 FEET;
21. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 1.90 FEET;
22. S44°54'01"W A DISTANCE OF 6.85 FEET;
23. N89°36'13"W A DISTANCE OF 202.42 FEET;
24. N44°29'40"W A DISTANCE OF 6.78 FEET;
25. N00°17'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1.83 FEET;
26. N89°42'43"W A DISTANCE OF 71.00 FEET;
27. S00°17'17"W A DISTANCE OF 1.18 FEET;
28. S45°30'20"W A DISTANCE OF 6.88 FEET;
29. N89°16'36"W A DISTANCE OF 116.49 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8;
THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE, N00°43'20"E A DISTANCE OF 562.71 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 816,849 SQUARE FEET OR 18.7523 ACRES.
Parcel 2:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
9.4
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Ordinance No. 100, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 3 -
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT S, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION
FILING 1. BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°39’17”E A DISTANCE OF 1445.97 FEET.
BEGINNING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN;
THENCE ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 8, N00°43’20”E A DISTANCE OF 31.77 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE
KECHTER FARM ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID KECHTER FARM ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING
TWENTY-SIX (26) COURSES:
1. S87°51'05"E A DISTANCE OF 35.85 FEET;
2. S05°28'46"E A DISTANCE OF 46.86 FEET;
3. S21°33'42"E A DISTANCE OF 62.75 FEET;
4. S25°03'19"E A DISTANCE OF 18.00 FEET;
5. S25°28'04"E A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET;
6. S34°03'21"E A DISTANCE OF 89.70 FEET;
7. S46°06'36"E A DISTANCE OF 85.22 FEET;
8. S58°02'45"E A DISTANCE OF 87.99 FEET;
9. S64°06'35"E A DISTANCE OF 308.81 FEET;
10. S66°54'29"E A DISTANCE OF 73.04 FEET;
11. S78°09'57"E A DISTANCE OF 71.60 FEET;
12. S89°49'26"E A DISTANCE OF 70.59 FEET;
13. N74°53'28"E A DISTANCE OF 96.45 FEET;
14. N61°28'24"E A DISTANCE OF 69.69 FEET;
15. N53°22'15"E A DISTANCE OF 69.69 FEET;
16. N39°52'00"E A DISTANCE OF 69.86 FEET;
17. S55°48'39"E A DISTANCE OF 131.53 FEET;
18. S32°35’48”W A DISTANCE OF 10.98 FEET;
19. S56°41'38"E A DISTANCE OF 171.79 FEET;
20. S54°49'16"E A DISTANCE OF 61.63 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE;
21. ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CHORD BEARS
S61°39’57”W A CHORD DISTANCE OF 1219.35 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1367.00 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52°58'26" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 1263.88 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-
TANGENT;
22. N45°58'29"W A DISTANCE OF 24.47 FEET;
23. S89°41'18"W A DISTANCE OF 45.49 FEET;
24. S00°18'42"E A DISTANCE OF 7.34 FEET;
25. S45°12'33"W A DISTANCE OF 14.01 FEET;
26. N89°16'11"W A DISTANCE OF 193.74 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8;
THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE N00°43'49"E A DISTANCE OF 1148.62 FEET;
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 815,667 SQUARE FEET OR 18.7251 ACRES.
Section 2. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to
Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended
9.4
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Ordinance No. 100, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 4 -
by including in the Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District that portion of the property known as the
Kechter Farm Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, particularly described
as:
Parcel 3:
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT S, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION
FILING 1. BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°39’17”E A DISTANCE OF 1445.97 FEET.
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH,
RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN;
THENCE ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S00°43'49"W A
DISTANCE OF 1214.62 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE KECHTER FARM
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;
THENCE ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, S89°16'27"E A DISTANCE OF 51.92 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWENTY-SEVEN (27)
COURSES:
1. S89°16'05"E A DISTANCE OF 143.03 FEET;
2. S44°47'27"E A DISTANCE OF 14.27 FEET;
3. S00°18'42"E A DISTANCE OF 6.76 FEET;
4. N89°41'18"E A DISTANCE OF 53.00 FEET;
5. N00°18'42"W A DISTANCE OF 6.76 FEET;
6. N44°03'21"E A DISTANCE OF 14.30 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE;
7. ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CHORD BEARS N72°44’15”E
A CHORD DISTANCE OF 765.23 FEET, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1433.00 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 30°58'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 774.63 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT;
8. S32°44'55"E A DISTANCE OF 62.13 FEET;
9. S45°09'46"E A DISTANCE OF 111.92 FEET;
10. S51°29'52"E A DISTANCE OF 109.07 FEET;
11. S58°02'05"E A DISTANCE OF 109.07 FEET;
12. S63°13'21"E A DISTANCE OF 87.09 FEET;
13. S25°04'54"W A DISTANCE OF 63.27 FEET;
14. S03°57'47"E A DISTANCE OF 169.59 FEET;
15. S56°34'16"E A DISTANCE OF 182.04 FEET;
16. N74°00'16"E A DISTANCE OF 182.79 FEET;
17. N19°34'55"E A DISTANCE OF 144.16 FEET;
18. N07°14'48"W A DISTANCE OF 63.27 FEET;
19. N88°26'56"E A DISTANCE OF 109.07 FEET;
20. N81°54'52"E A DISTANCE OF 109.00 FEET;
21. N78°22'07"E A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET;
22. N82°34'51"E A DISTANCE OF 89.76 FEET;
23. S83°58'56"E A DISTANCE OF 97.74 FEET;
9.4
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Ordinance No. 100, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 5 -
24. S80°44'59"E A DISTANCE OF 204.79 FEET;
25. S78°34'39"E A DISTANCE OF 53.00 FEET;
26. N11°25'21"E A DISTANCE OF 45.30 FEET;
27. S78°34'39"E A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT
U, KECHTER FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION FILING 1;
THENCE ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT U, THE FOLLOWING TWENTY-SIX (26) COURSES:
1. S11°25'21"W A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET;
2. S16°22'16"W A DISTANCE OF 144.25 FEET;
3. S28°48'27"W A DISTANCE OF 146.19 FEET;
4. S41°24'00"W A DISTANCE OF 146.19 FEET;
5. S52°49'36"W A DISTANCE OF 146.55 FEET;
6. S62°04'00"W A DISTANCE OF 41.54 FEET;
7. S70°08'26"W A DISTANCE OF 146.85 FEET;
8. S82°43'59"W A DISTANCE OF 146.85 FEET;
9. N84°40'28"W A DISTANCE OF 146.85 FEET;
10. N70°56'15"W A DISTANCE OF 145.94 FEET;
11. N65°14'00"W A DISTANCE OF 130.02 FEET;
12. N65°12'57"W A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET;
13. N67°45'31"W A DISTANCE OF 121.29 FEET;
14. N80°12'34"W A DISTANCE OF 119.67 FEET;
15. S86°55'18"W A DISTANCE OF 119.34 FEET;
16. S83°23'03"W A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET;
17. S83°50'49"W A DISTANCE OF 170.59 FEET;
18. N83°50'28"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
19. N71°21'15"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
20. N58°52'02"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
21. N46°22'49"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
22. N33°53'36"W A DISTANCE OF 146.71 FEET;
23. N20°14'22"W A DISTANCE OF 146.41 FEET;
24. N10°05'12"W A DISTANCE OF 146.41 FEET;
25. N00°33'31"W A DISTANCE OF 133.21 FEET;
26. N00°18'42"W A DISTANCE OF 28.41 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 1,790,220 SQUARE FEET OR 41.0978 ACRES
Section 3. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the
Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the
foregoing portions of the Kechter Farm Second Annexation are included in the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District.
Section 4. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend the
Zoning Map of the City in accordance with this Ordinance.
9.4
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Ordinance No. 100, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
- 6 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
9.4
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Ordinance No. 100, 2015 (3504 : SR 099 100 Postponement Kechter Farm Second Annexation)
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2015, Amending Ordinance No. 081, 2003, to Rename the Wiggins
House and Garage at 1009 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as the Wiggins/Taylor Property
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 101, 2015, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, renames the Landmark
property at 1009 West Mountain Avenue, currently known as the Wiggins House and Garage, to the
Wiggins/Taylor Property, in recognition of long-time owner Patricia Taylor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 101, 2015 (PDF)
10
Packet Pg. 80
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2015, Amending Ordinance No. 081, 2003, to Rename the Wiggins
House and Garage at 1009 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as the Wiggins/Taylor Property
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to rename the Landmark property at 1009 West Mountain Avenue, currently known
as the Wiggins House and Garage, to the Wiggins/Taylor Property, in recognition of long-time owner Patricia
Taylor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The owner, Patricia Taylor, has requested that the name of her Landmark property at 1009 West Mountain
Avenue be changed to reflect her long-time association with and preservation of the property. The property
was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No 018, 2003, as the Wiggins House and Garage.
The property received Landmark designation for its architectural significance. Constructed in 1925 for an
estimated cost of $3,500, the house is a well preserved specimen of Craftsman residential architecture, with
numerous distinctive features, including battered porch piers, a pergola, and roughcast pebbled "Kelly Stone"
wall finish.
In August 1974, the property was acquired by Patricia Dixon Taylor. Ms. Taylor has owned the property for
over four decades. During this time she has lovingly maintained the property, and has ensured its preservation
through having it officially recognized by the Fort Collins City Council as a Landmark.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no financial impacts to the City associated with this item.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its June 10, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously (9-0) to
recommend that City Council approve this change of name for this Landmark property.
ATTACHMENT 1
10.1
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3508 : SR 101 1009 Mountain Avenue Landmark
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. LPC Resolution No. 3, 2015 (PDF)
2. Letter from Property Owner (PDF)
3. photograph (PDF)
4. Ordinance No. 018, 2003 (PDF)
10.1
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3508 : SR 101 1009 Mountain Avenue Landmark
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 101, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 081, 2003, TO RENAME THE
WIGGINS HOUSE AND GARAGE AT 1009 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE,
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS THE WIGGINS/TAYLOR PROPERTY
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established
a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks
within the City; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Ordinance No. 081, 2003 on February 18, 2003 (the
“Designation Ordinance”), the City Council designated the property presently known as the
Wiggins House and Garage and located at 1009 West Mountain Avenue in Fort Collins and more
specifically described below (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution dated June 10, 2015, the Landmark Preservation Commission
(the “Commission”) determined that Patricia Taylor has a lengthy association with the history of
the Wiggins family and with the Landmark Property; and
WHEREAS, the Commission further determined that Ms. Taylor’s history and
association with the Property should be officially recognized by changing the name of the
Property from the Wiggins House and Garage to the Wiggins/Taylor Property; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the Property has requested such a change in name; and
WHEREAS, such a change in name will more accurately reflect the Property’s history;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and
desires to approve the name change and amend the Designation Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the City Council as
findings of fact.
Section 2. That the name of the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer
County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit:
Lot 5, Block 2, Washington Place Addition
is hereby changed from the “Wiggins House and Garage” to the “Wiggins/Taylor Property”, and
the Designation Ordinance is hereby amended to reflect the changed name.
10.2
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Ordinance No. 101, 2015 (3508 : SR 101 1009 Mountain Avenue Landmark Amendment)
- 2 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
10.2
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Ordinance No. 101, 2015 (3508 : SR 101 1009 Mountain Avenue Landmark Amendment)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2015, Designating the Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property, 1312 South
College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, designates the
Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property at 1312 South College Avenue as a Fort Collins landmark. The owner of the
property, MaOlPh LLC, is initiating this request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 102, 2015 (PDF)
11
Packet Pg. 85
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2015, Designating the Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property, 1312 South
College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner of the property, MaOlPh LLC, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the
Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property at 1312 South College Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property at 1312 South College Avenue qualifies for Fort Collins Landmark
designation under Designation Standards A, B, and C. Under Standard A, this property is eligible for the story
it tells of Fort Collins during the early 1920s, a time when wealth and social status was reflected in the
architecture of the era. This property is also eligible under Standard B for its association with prominent
individuals in Fort Collins history: L.C. Moore, Edwin A. Schlichter, and Harris Akin. Finally, the property is
additionally eligible for recognition under Standard C as an excellent example of Italian Renaissance
architecture, which was popular during the first three decades of the twentieth century.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Recognition of 1312 South College Avenue as a Fort Collins Landmark enables its owners to qualify for
federal, state and local financial incentive programs available only to designated properties. Additionally, based
upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the property would likely see an increase in value following
designation. Clarion Associates attributed this increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the
financial incentives; the perception that designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a
recognized historic landmark; and the assurance of predictability that design review offers.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. At
a public hearing held on September 10, 2014, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted to recommend
designation of this property under Designation Standard (C), for its architectural significance to the city. On
July 16, 2015, the contract purchaser acquired the property, and wishes to have the landmark designation
finalized.
ATTACHMENT 1
11.1
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3505 : SR 102 1312 S College Avenue Landmark)
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Map (PDF)
2. Landmark Designation Application (PDF)
3. Staff Report (PDF)
4. Photographs (PDF)
5. Special Warranty Deed (PDF)
6. LPC Resolution No. 7, 2014 (PDF)
11.1
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (w/o attachments) (3505 : SR 102 1312 S College Avenue Landmark)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 102, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DESIGNATING THE SCHLICHTER/AKIN/SMITH PROPERTY
1312 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established
a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks
within the City; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution dated September 10, 2014, the Landmark Preservation
Commission (the “Commission”) has determined that the Schlichter/Akin/Smith Property
located at 1312 South College Avenue in Fort Collins as more specifically described below (the
“Property”) is eligible for Landmark designation for its high degree of exterior integrity, and for
its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard A (Events) as contained in Section 14-
5(2)(a) of the City Code, B (Persons/Groups) as contained in Section 14-5(2)(b) of the City
Code, and under Landmark Standard C (Design/Construction) as contained in Section 14-5(2)(c)
of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that the Property meets the criteria
of a landmark as set forth in City Code Section 14-5 and is eligible for designation as a
landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that the Property be designated by the City
Council as a landmark; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the Property has consented to such landmark designation; and
WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the Property’s significance to the
community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and
desires to approve such recommendation and designate the Property as a landmark.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by the City Council as
findings of fact.
Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County,
Colorado, described as follows, to wit:
Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, L.C. Moore’s First Addition
be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Code.
11.2
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Ordinance No. 102, 2015 (3505 : SR 102 1312 S College Avenue Landmark)
- 2 -
Section 3. That the criteria in City Code Section 14-48 as they may from time to time
be amended, will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the
buildings and structures located upon the Property will be reviewed for compliance with City
Code Chapter 14, Article III.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
11.2
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Ordinance No. 102, 2015 (3505 : SR 102 1312 S College Avenue Landmark)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Martina Wilkinson, Civil Engineer
Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Traffic Code Amendments Regarding Accommodation of Low-speed Electric Vehicles and
Parking Regulations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2015, Amending Section 1410.1 of the Fort Collins Traffic
Code Allowing Low-Speed Electric Vehicles.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2015, Amending Section 1205 and 1205.5 of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code Amending Parking Restrictions.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2015, amend two sections of the Fort
Collins Traffic Code. The amendment to Section 1410.1 will permit low speed electric vehicles on certain City
streets. Section 1205 is proposed to be amended to permit parking configurations that will accommodate the
potential for parking-protected bike lanes and back-in angle parking.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 103, 2015 (PDF)
3. Ordinance No. 104, 2015 (PDF)
12
Packet Pg. 90
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Martina Wilkinson, Civil Engineer
Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Traffic Code Amendments Regarding Accommodation of Low-speed Electric Vehicles and
Parking Regulations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2015, Amending Section 1410.1 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code
Allowing Low-Speed Electric Vehicles.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2015, Amending Section 1205 and 1205.5 of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code Amending Parking Restrictions.
The purpose of this item is to amend several sections of the Fort Collins Traffic Code. The amendment to
Section 1410.1 will permit low speed electric vehicles on certain City streets. Section 1205 is proposed to be
amended to permit parking configurations that will accommodate the potential for parking-protected bike lanes
and back-in angle parking.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
There are two separate changes are proposed for the Fort Collins Traffic Code. The detailed text changes are
included in the ordinances.
A. Ordinance No. 103, 2015 - Section 1410.1 Low-speed electric vehicles.
Section 1410.1 previously prohibited the use of low-speed electric vehicles on City streets. Several
City departments, as well as Colorado State University, are interested in utilizing these types of
vehicles, and state law already permits their operation on certain streets. It is a local option for the
City of Fort Collins to authorize low speed vehicles within the City, and following a review by City staff,
staff recommends that the City Traffic Code be amended to be consistent with state law.
B. Ordinance No. 104, 2015 - Section 1205 Parking at curb or edge of roadway and Section 1205.5
Obedience to angle parking sign or marking
These sections in the Traffic Code currently require vehicles to park with their front wheel within 12
inches of the curb. There are several new and innovative treatments for parking and bike lanes that
the City would like to be able to pilot and/or implement, including parking protected bike lanes, and
back-in angle parking. The recommended changes in these sections will allow these treatments to be
considered and potentially implemented.
ATTACHMENT 1
12.1
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (3507 : SR 103 104 Traffic Code Amendments)
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 2
Staff will submit all the changes to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for approval pursuant to
statute. As the amendments are made to be consistent with state laws and/or are particular to the traffic needs
of Fort Collins, it is anticipated CDOT will approve the amendments.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The changes to Section 1410.1 allowing low-speed electric vehicles are not anticipated to have a city financial
impact.
The changes to Sections 1205 and 1205.5 allowing different parking configurations do not have any immediate
financial impact. Funding for projects that are implemented with new parking options will be identified on a
case by case basis.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
No boards or commissions were involved with these recommended changes.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The changes for low-speed electric vehicles are housekeeping changes with limited outreach.
The changes for parking are intended to allow the treatments to be considered. Outreach will occur with
specific projects once proposed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool - Low-speed Electric Vehicles (PDF)
2. Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool - Parking Changes (PDF)
12.1
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 18, 2015 (3507 : SR 103 104 Traffic Code Amendments)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 103, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 1410.1 OF THE FORT COLLINS
TRAFFIC CODE REGARDING LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC VEHICLES
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2003, by Ordinance No. 016, 2003, the City Council
adopted the Fort Collins Traffic Code (the “Traffic Code”); and
WHEREAS, City staff have been studying the advisability of recommending that low-
speed electric vehicles be permitted on certain City streets when public safety is not substantially
impaired; and
WHEREAS, state law permits the operation of low-speed electric vehicles on certain
state roadways and authorizes cities to regulate the operation of such vehicles on local streets,
providing such regulation is consistent with state law; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the Fort Collins Traffic Code be amended to
permit the operation of low-speed electric vehicles on certain City streets consistent with state
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that Section 1410.1 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1410.1. Low-speed electric vehicles.
(1) Every person driving a low-speed electric vehicle on a street where such
operation is permitted shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject
to all of the duties and penalties applicable to the driver of a motor vehicle
as set forth in this Traffic Code.
(2) No person shall drive a low-speed electric vehicle on a street unless:
(a) the street has a speed limit equal to or less than thirty-five miles per
hour, except that it may be operated to directly cross a street that
has a speed limit greater than thirty-five miles per hour at an at-
grade crossing to continue traveling along a street with a speed limit
equal to or less than thirty-five miles per hour;
(b) the low-speed electric vehicle conforms to applicable federal
manufacturing equipment standards;
(c) the low-speed electric vehicle is equipped with that equipment
required for such a motor vehicle by Title 42, Article 4, Part 2,
C.R.S.; and
12.2
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Ordinance No. 103, 2015 (3507 : SR 103 104 Traffic Code Amendments)
- 2 -
(d) the low-speed electric vehicle is registered and licensed as required
by this Traffic Code or the State of Colorado.
(3) No person shall drive a low-speed electric vehicle on a limited access
highway.
(4) No person shall drive a low-speed electric vehicle on a sidewalk, trail, or
public walkway unless otherwise authorized by this Traffic Code or the
City Code.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
12.2
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Ordinance No. 103, 2015 (3507 : SR 103 104 Traffic Code Amendments)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 104, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTIONS 1205 AND 1205.5 OF THE FORT COLLINS
TRAFFIC CODE REGARDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2003, by Ordinance No. 016, 2003, the City Council
adopted the Fort Collins Traffic Code (the “Traffic Code”); and
WHEREAS, amending the Traffic Code to permit parking-protected bicycle lanes
between the street curb and parked vehicles and back-in angle parking in designated areas will
enhance the safety of bicyclists as they use the City’s roadways; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Traffic Code amendments set forth
in this Ordinance are in the best interest of the City and are necessary for the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1205 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1205. Parking at curb or edge of roadway.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (3) of this Section, every
vehicle stopped or parked upon a two-way roadway shall be so stopped or
parked with the right-hand wheels parallel to and within twelve (12)
inches of the right-hand curb or as close as practicable to the right edge of
the right-hand shoulder.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (3) of this Section, every
vehicle stopped or parked upon a one-way roadway shall be so stopped or
parked parallel to the curb or edge of the roadway in the direction of
authorized traffic movement, with its right-hand wheels within twelve (12)
inches of the right-hand curb or as close as practicable to the right edge of
the right-hand shoulder, or with its left-hand wheels within twelve (12)
inches of the left-hand curb or as close as practicable to the left edge of the
left-hand shoulder.
(3) When official traffic control devices delineate parking spaces located
away from the curb or edge of roadway, every parked vehicle shall be
parked or stopped fully within the indicated spaces so as not to interfere
with the free movement of vehicular traffic or street maintenance.
12.3
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Ordinance No. 104, 2015 (3507 : SR 103 104 Traffic Code Amendments)
- 2 -
Section 2. That Section 1205.5 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1205.5. Obedience to angle parking sign or markings.
(1) On those streets which the City Traffic Engineer has approved and has
signed or marked for front-in angle parking, no person shall stop, stand or park a
vehicle other than at the angle to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated by
such signs or markings, and within lined markings, with the vehicle's appropriate
front tire within twelve (12) inches of adjacent to the correspondent curb or edge
of the roadway except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in
compliance with the directions of a police officer or other emergency services
personnel.
(2) On those streets which the City Traffic Engineer has approved and has
signed or marked for back-in angle parking, no person shall stop, stand or park a
vehicle other than at the angle to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated by
such signs or markings, and within lined markings, with the vehicle's appropriate
rear tire within twelve (12) inches of the correspondent curb or edge of the
roadway except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in
compliance with the directions of a police officer or other emergency services
personnel.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
August, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
12.3
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Ordinance No. 104, 2015 (3507 : SR 103 104 Traffic Code Amendments)
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Wendy Bricher, Financial Coordinator
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2015, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to be
Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related Activities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to return the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for public services and facilities
received from the Fort Collins Housing Authority in 2014 with respect to a HUD financed Public Housing
Program that provides low income rental units. The Authority paid the City of Fort Collins PILOT of $7,271 in
2014 under a previously approved Cooperation Agreement and requests that the City return the PILOT to fund
needed affordable housing related activities.
The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including remitting
the funds to the Authority if the Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The
Council has returned the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On December 16, 1971, the City and the Authority entered into a Cooperation Agreement which provided that
the Authority must make annual PILOT payments to the City for the public services and facilities furnished by
the City. In 1986, upon request of the Authority, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1986-177 which
relieved the Authority of its obligation to make the PILOT payments. Based on that resolution, the Authority did
not make PILOT payments from 1987 through 1990. The Authority also received a refund from the City of
PILOT payments for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986.
In 1992, the City Council approved Resolution No. 1992-093 reinstating the requirement that the Authority pay
the annual PILOT payment. The change was made to assure compliance with Department of Housing and
Urban Development regulations. Since that time, the City has returned the annual PILOT payments to the
Housing Authority.
Staff recommends that the 2014 PILOT payments of $7,271 be appropriated as unanticipated revenue in the
General Fund and remitted to the Authority in accordance with a letter agreement between the City and the
Authority requiring the Authority to use the funds for creating or maintaining affordable housing in a manner
consistent with the guidelines of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.
13
Packet Pg. 97
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 2
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The City received unanticipated revenue from the Fort Collins Housing Authority in the amount of $7,271 as
2014 payments for public services and facilities. The revenue was placed in the General Fund. This
Ordinance will return the funds to the Housing Authority to be used for affordable housing and related
activities.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Housing Authority Letter, June 24, 2015 (PDF)
13
Packet Pg. 98
ATTACHMENT 1
13.1
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Fort Collins Housing Authority Letter, June 24, 2015 (3377 : FCHA PILOT Payment)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 105, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND TO BE
REMITTED TO THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FUND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, the City has received a payment from the Fort Collins Housing Authority
(the “Authority”) of $7,271 as a payment in lieu of taxes (“PILOT”) for public services and
facilities under a Cooperation Agreement dated December 16, 1971, pertaining to a HUD
financed public housing program; and
WHEREAS, since at least 1992, the City has remitted such PILOT payments to the
Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the 2014 PILOT payments be appropriated
by the City Council for return to the Authority to fund much-needed affordable housing related
activities and to attend to the housing needs of low-income Fort Collins residents; and
WHEREAS, said payment of $7,271 was not projected as a revenue source in the 2014
City budget; and
WHEREAS, the City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in
accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if Council determines that
such remittal serves a valid public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the provision of affordable housing
serves an important public purpose and is an appropriate use of these funds; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of receiving these funds, the City will require the Authority to
sign a letter agreement obligating the Authority to spend the funds for creating or maintaining
affordable housing in a manner consistent with the guidelines of the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Authority PILOT
payment as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during
any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the General
Packet Pg. 100
- 2 -
Fund the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE DOLLARS
($7,271) to be remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to fund affordable housing and
related activities for Fort Collins residents consistent with the Federal Department of Housing
and Urban Development guidelines.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
September, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 101
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Wendy Bricher, Financial Coordinator
Carson Hamlin, Cable Television Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2015, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the
Purpose of Completing the Construction of a Public Television Studio for Fort Collins Public Access Network.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate funds from PEG reserves to be spent on additional improvements for
FC-PAN’s television studio in the City’s Carnegie Building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under its cable television franchise with the City, Comcast collects a monthly fee from all subscribers to be
used, by federal law, solely for capital costs related to public, educational and government access (PEG)
programming. The City in turn contracts with Fort Collins Public Access Network (FC-PAN), a non-profit
organization, to serve as the City’s designated public access television provider. The City designates a portion
of the PEG funds received from Comcast for public access television needs. These funds are to be spent on
capital improvements, such as studio facilities and equipment used to produce programming content, when
requested by FC-PAN. Such assets are purchased and owned by the City. Any funds not used in a given year
go back into the PEG reserves and are available for future purchases.
The City and FC-PAN are in the finishing stages of constructing a new public television studio located in the
basement of the Carnegie Building. FC-PAN has requested that $49,535 in existing PEG reserve funds be
appropriated and spent on completing the new facilities.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This request will appropriate funds from PEG Reserves (federally restricted) to be spent on the FC-PAN
television studio.
14
Packet Pg. 102
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 106, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND
FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC
TELEVISION STUDIO FOR FORT COLLINS PUBLIC ACCESS NETWORK
WHEREAS, pursuant to the cable television franchise agreement between Comcast and
the City of Fort Collins, Comcast collects a monthly fee from subscribers that, under federal law,
must be spent for capital equipment and infrastructure used to provide public, educational and
governmental (PEG) television programming; and
WHEREAS, the City receives the PEG funds from Comcast and designates a portion of
the funds to be used for providing public access television; and
WHEREAS, through a services agreement, the City has designated Fort Collins Public
Access Network, a 501(c)3 corporation (FC-PAN), as the City’s public access television
provider; and
WHEREAS, the City works with FC-PAN to identify capital needs and spends the PEG
funds on appropriate equipment and facilities to be owned by the City and used by FC-PAN to
provide public access television programming; and
WHEREAS, any funds not spent go back into the City’s PEG reserve account and are
available for future expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the City and FC-PAN are in the finishing stages of constructing a public
television studio located in the basement of the Carnegie Building at 200 Mathews Street, Fort
Collins; and
WHEREAS, funds are needed to complete the studio facilities; and
WHEREAS, restricted PEG reserves are available in the General Fund to pay for
completion of the project; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends appropriating from prior year reserves in the General
Fund $49,535 to be used for completion of the public television studio; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the
General Fund the sum of FORTY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE
DOLLARS ($49,535) to be used for completion of the public television studio.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
Packet Pg. 103
- 2 -
September, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 104
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Rick Bachand, Environmental Program Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2015, Amending Section 23-130 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Regarding the Disposition of Lost, Abandoned, or Other Unclaimed Property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to significantly reduce the volume of abandoned and unclaimed items left and
abandoned on City property. Section 23-130 of City Code sets forth a process by which lost, abandoned, or
other unclaimed property coming into the City’s possession may be sold, kept, or destroyed by the City.
Current City Code requires the City to store this property for not less than thirty (30) days and then publish
notice to afford the owner the opportunity to reclaim the property. City staff is finding an increasing volume of
abandoned and unclaimed items in deteriorated condition within City natural areas, parks, trails, road
underpasses and other public places. In addition to the unsafe condition this property presents to the public in
situ, it is also creating handling concerns and storage challenges to those involved. This Ordinance amending
Section 23 -130 sets forth a process by which abandoned items of no utility or value may be promptly removed
and destroyed following a 24-hour notification. Finally, this amendment also adds a 30 day appeals provision
to contest the disposal of personal property. Based on recent experience, staff believes the impact of this
Ordinance will be minor as the target is abandoned or unclaimed items, not property that can be associated
with an individual or property with real or marketable value.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City staff is seeing a significant increase in the volume of abandoned and unclaimed items left within City
natural areas, parks, trails, bridge underpasses and other public areas. This type of property typically includes
sleeping bags, clothing, backpacks, tents and other items. By virtue of the property’s exposure to the
elements, these articles more frequently than not become deteriorated to a condition upon which even the
initial owner no longer desires to retain ownership.
The resulting workload from the collection of such property is rapidly exceeding City staff’s ability to safely and
effectively handle the items as current City Code provision requires that the material be inventoried and logged
into Police Services’ property and evidence system for a thirty (30) day holding period followed by a ten (10)
day publication period. This handling, transport and storage is complicated when these items are soiled with
bodily fluids, saturated from precipitation, or contain broken glass, hypodermic needles, or other hazardous
material. Likewise, this material left uncollected presents a public safety risk and is incompatible with the City’s
responsibility of maintaining public property in a clean and safe condition.
This amendment to Section 23 -130 of City Code is intended to:
1. Reduce the volume of items left as unclaimed or abandoned on City property;
2. Set forth a method of notifying persons of the need to remove personal property from City property;
15
Packet Pg. 105
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 2
3. Provide reasonable and effective tools for City Staff to dispose of items that are soiled, deteriorated, or
otherwise of little or no marketable value;
4. Maintain City property and public spaces in a clean and safe condition;
5. Distinguish trash from property with little or no value so that trash can be disposed of without a
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The removal of abandoned or unclaimed items from City property has significant positive outcomes on City
property. Cleanup of this material will include the removal of hazardous waste associated with drug and
alcohol abuse, disposal of clothing, sleeping bags and other material with bodily waste, rodent droppings, and
other factors that raise human health considerations. Cleaned sites will improve aesthetics and safety for
lawful users of natural areas, parks, and trails. Finally, long-term reduction of deteriorated items throughout
our public spaces will reduce exposure of hazardous material to City cleanup crews.
A negative consequence of this rule would be an increase of waste generated to the landfill. However, staff
believes a net positive outcome due to appropriate handling in the landfill setting rather than exposed in the
natural environment.
SOCIAL IMPACTS
City staff believes the impact of this Ordinance will be minor as the target is abandoned or unclaimed items,
not property that can be associated with an individual or party with real value or marketable value. The most
significant impact will be to those who own property of real value or utility that is logged into Police Services’
property and evidence system and goes unclaimed after the 30 day holding period. This amendment provides
a 30 day appeals provision to allow citizens affected by the disposal of items to contest actions taken by the
City. Further, as to some of the citizens who will be affected, City staff is engaging in outreach and provides a
suite of support services for those who have difficulty maintaining temporary or permanent housing.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This will be a process improvement for City staff for Police Services staff as well as City Ranger Staff. This
ordinance amendment would reduce the task load in the property and evidence division of Police Services.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its May 13, 2015 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously in support the
motion to support changes to the ordinance amending Section 23-130 of the City Code related to the
Disposition of Lost, Abandoned or Other Unclaimed Property.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
City staff worked with the assistance of the Social Sustainability Department to seek feedback from the primary
service providers in the city, including the Fort Collins Homeless Coalition, Homeward 2020, Homeless Gear
and the Murphy Center.
In sum, Stakeholders expressed the following concerns:
1. The 24 hour notification period as a timeframe appeared short in duration. A hypothetical situation could
include an individual with a camp who would spend a cold night in a shelter but then return to the camp
once the weather improved. A longer notification period may also provide an individual with more time to
clean their own site.
2. Subjectivity as to what constitutes “utility” or “real value” of the property. Stakeholders urged to err on the
side of caution when determining if material is of value.
15
Packet Pg. 106
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 3
3. Existing protocol for reclaiming items of value at Police Services. Service providers suggest that their
constituency is reluctant to collect items at Police Services for fear of being charged for illegal camping or
other code violations while trying to reclaim their property.
4. Process for reclaiming property of value. Service providers expressed desire to participate in the effort
with the intent of collecting items for cleaning, recycling, and redistribution.
Staff response to Stakeholder feedback:
The 24 hour notification period is too short a timeframe.
Once abandoned property is tagged staff believes it sends a conflicting message to the owner if items
are allowed to stay. This is abandoned property, regardless of how long it stays on City property.
The shorter the notification period to remove the items the more routine it can be for staff who tagged
the camp to monitor and remove it themselves.
The longer property is left, the more likely it will get further damaged by weather/bugs/rodents, etc.
The longer items are left out the more potential for an innocent citizen to happen upon it and become
exposed to hazardous waste such as needles, glass, human waste, etc.
If property is not removed promptly by the owner there is a high likelihood that the owner has
abandoned it for newer property or moved on to another community.
Subjectivity as to what constitutes “utility or “real value” of the property.
Police Services and Ranger staff will have to use professional discretion to determine what “is” and
what “is not” of utility or real value relative to a homeless individual.
Police Services and Ranger staff will need to collect and process property of real value prior to
cleanup by City crews.
Existing protocol for reclaiming items of value at Police Services.
This amended Ordinance does not propose any changes to the collection and processing of property
that may have value or utility. At this time the only legal way to process such property is through the
property and evidence system.
Process for reclaiming property of value.
Input from local service providers is welcome as to property that has real value or utility; however,
property subject to this amendment and which has little or no value will be destroyed or disposed of by
the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Abandoned Property Notice (PDF)
2. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, May 13, 2015 (PDF)
15
Packet Pg. 107
NOTICE
FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS, PARKS, TRAILS
AND CITY OWNED PROPERTY
Sec. 23-130 - Disposition of lost, abandoned or other unclaimed property.
Sec. 17-181 – Illegal to camp within city limits
PLEASE REMOVE YOUR ITEMS NOW. ITEMS LEFT
BEYOND THE INDICATED “REMOVE BY” DATEWILL
BE CONSIDERED ABANDONED AND WILL BE
REMOVED WITH A POSSIBILITY OF DISPOSAL.
Posted date_____________ Remove by date_____________
If you have questions regarding this notice, please contact Fort Collins Police Services property
division (970) 221-6835 or Murphy Center for Hope, 242 Conifer St., (970) 494-9940.
ATTACHMENT 1
15.1
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Abandoned Property Notice (3473 : Abandoned Property)
ATTACHMENT 2
15.2
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, May 13, 2015 (3473 : Abandoned Property)
15.2
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, May 13, 2015 (3473 : Abandoned Property)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 107, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 23-130 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF LOST, ABANDONED OR OTHER
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Section 23-130 of the City Code currently sets forth a process by which lost,
abandoned, or other unclaimed property coming into the City’s possession may be sold, kept, or
destroyed by the City; and
WHEREAS, said City Code provision currently requires the City to store the lost,
abandoned, or other unclaimed property for not less than thirty (30) days and to thereafter
publish notice in an effort to afford the owner the opportunity to reclaim the property; and
WHEREAS, while this current City Code provision is effective in ensuring that property
of obvious value or utility is returned to its owner, City staff has reported that other items of lost,
abandoned, or unclaimed property of less obvious value and utility found upon and within City
natural areas, parks, trails, and other City properties is creating handling and storage challenges
for City employees and volunteers who are responsible for maintaining those City properties for
the intended public use; and
WHEREAS, some types of lost, abandoned, or unclaimed property, such as sleeping
bags, blankets, clothing, tents, backpacks, personal hygiene items, and other camping related
items are often found in wet, soiled, contaminated, or deteriorated condition which has caused
them to be of little or no apparent value or utility; and
WHEREAS, the presence of such personal property detracts from the lawful uses of the
City property, whether for the lawful physical use of the City property or for its aesthetic value;
presents health and safety concerns to those using or maintaining the City property in that such
personal property can be a source of disease and infestation; and presents handling and storage
concerns once it is removed from the City property, both from a space and infestation standpoint
in the storage area; and
WHEREAS, while in original condition, these items of personal property would be
considered to be of some value or utility, the exposure to the outside elements and the other
circumstances of care and use render such items of little or no value or utility; and
WHEREAS, the City is responsible for maintaining its public property in a clean, safe,
and obstruction-free manner; and
WHEREAS, the workload resulting from the seizure of such property currently exceeds
City staff’s capacity to effectively handle such items because the current City Code provisions
require that they be inventoried and logged into Police Services’ property and evidence system
for a thirty (30) day holding period and ten (10) day publication period; and
Packet Pg. 111
- 2 -
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, City staff has proposed that the City Code be
amended to allow for the destruction of such lost, abandoned, or other unclaimed property of
little or no apparent value or utility twenty-four (24) hours after posting notice at the location
where the property is found; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will result in: (i) a reasonable and effective method of
notifying persons of the need to remove personal property from City property when they are not
with the property at the time it is discovered, (ii) adequate time for the property owner to move
the property to a lawful location, (iii) notice that unremoved items of little apparent value or
utility will be destroyed, (iv) an opportunity for a post deprivation hearing after the items of little
apparent value or utility have been destroyed to contest the destruction; (v) notice that
unremoved items of apparent value or utility will be removed and stored, and (vi) notice of how
the owner may reclaim items of value or utility that are removed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance will continue to recognize the need to reasonably protect the
personal property rights of all citizens while balancing those rights with the rights of all citizens
to make lawful use of and experience the enjoyment of City property and the legitimate needs of
the City related to handling and storage of such property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals and findings.
Section 2. That Section 23-117 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of a new definition “Trash” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Trash shall mean material that is worthless, useless, or constitutes litter, and
includes, but is not limited to, used food containers, soiled food, plastic or paper
bags, destroyed objects, broken pieces of objects, debris, pieces of paper dropped
on the ground, and similar detritus.
Section 3. That Section 23-130 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 23-130. Disposition of lost, abandoned or other unclaimed property.
Except as otherwise specifically provided for by law, or ordinance, or Subsections (4)
through (8) below, any property seized or otherwise obtained by the City and not sold or
destroyed as perishable, hazardous or illegal property and which property has not been
claimed by or surrendered to the rightful owner may be disposed of in the following
manner:
(1) All such property must first be retained for a period of no less than thirty
(30) days from the date that possession was acquired by the City;
Packet Pg. 112
- 3 -
(2) After the expiration of such period of time and as soon thereafter as is
practicable, the Purchasing Agent must cause to be published once in a newspaper
of general circulation in the City, or advertise via electronic media, a general
description of the articles of property to be disposed of, which notice must contain
the following information:
a. That a detailed list of each and all articles of such property is
available and may be obtained from Purchasing, including the address and
the hours during which such list may be obtained;
b. That if such property is not claimed by the rightful owner within
ten (10) calendar days from the date of the publication, such property will
become the property of the City to be disposed of by public auction or
otherwise, and if by public auction provide the date, place and location of
any such public auction.
(3) If within ten (10) days from the publication of the notice, no claim for
such property described in the notice shall have been made by the rightful owner,
such property shall become the property of the City and shall be disposed of in the
following manner:
a. Any property which was delivered to the City, the possession or
use of which is not illegal or dangerous, may be returned to the person
who delivered the same to the City. The City shall thereupon relinquish
any claim of ownership to such property and shall thereafter be relieved of
any liability to the original owner of such property or any other person.
b. Any other such property may, in the discretion of the Purchasing
Agent, be retained and used by the City in the administration of City
affairs or for use in City or community events or programs, so long as the
use and distribution of such property is in accordance with the Purchasing
Agent's established policies and guidelines approved by the City Manager.
c. All other property shall be sold at public auction, including an
auction via electronic media in the manner and upon the terms described
in the above notice, with the proceeds of any such sale or sales to be paid
to the Financial Officer to be placed in the general fund of the City after
deducting the cost of storage, advertising and selling.
d. Any unclaimed property which is of little or no marketable value
may be destroyed.
(4) Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions to the contrary, the
disposition of firearms or other weapons shall be governed by the following
additional provisions:
Packet Pg. 113
- 4 -
a. Firearms and other weapons shall be disposed of at the sole
discretion of the Chief of Police, who may:
1. Authorize sale or destruction; or
2. Authorize retention for the purpose of training members of
Police Services in the safe handling and operation of those
weapons. Any firearm so retained shall be rendered inoperable.
b. Sales of firearms shall be restricted to licensed dealers or licensed
collectors (licensed under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1988).
(5) Notwithstanding any of the forgoing provisions to the contrary, lost,
abandoned, or unclaimed personal property of little or no apparent value or utility,
as reasonably determined by a peace officer or specially commissioned officer of
the City, that is found upon and within a City natural area, park, trail, or on other
City property, may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of immediately if the
conditions of subsections (a) and (b) are both met:
a. It has been determined that:
1. No person claiming ownership of the property is within the
immediate vicinity of such property; or
2. A person claiming ownership of the property is within the
immediate vicinity of such property, and refuses to immediately
remove all of his or her property; or
3. Identifying contact information is readily apparent at the
site of the property and the officer has attempted to, but has not
been successful in, contacting the property owner to obtain
removal of the property.
b. Notice in English and Spanish, has been posted at the site of the
property not less than twenty-four (24) hours before removal,
stating the following:
1. That the property must be removed not later than the date
and time posted (twenty-four hours from posting); and
2. That unremoved items of little apparent value or utility will
be destroyed or otherwise disposed of; and
3. That unremoved items of apparent significant value or
utility will be removed and stored; and
Packet Pg. 114
- 5 -
4. That the owner may contact the City at given phone
numbers and/or locations to ask questions or reclaim items of value
or utility that are removed by the City; and
5. The citation to this City Code provision permitting the
destruction or disposal of the property; or
(6) If the material is reasonably determined by a peace officer or specially
commissioned officer of the City to constitute trash, it will be destroyed or
disposed of without notice or hearing.
(7) In making the determination regarding value or utility of the personal
property as described in Subsection (5) above, the officer shall consider the
following factors if applicable:
a. The apparent condition of the property, including, but not limited
to, whether it is damp, soiled, moldy, infested, or in a state of substantial
disrepair, and its apparent ability to serve its intended purpose in its
current condition; and
b. The material of which the property is made or constructed; and
c. Whether the property would have significant marketable value in
its current condition; and
d. The degree to which the property is protected from or exposed to
the elements of nature and therefore susceptible to damage or
deterioration; and
e. Whether the property could reasonably appear to have personal
value to the owner for sentimental or business purposes, such as photos,
documents of identification, letters, or other written materials; and
f. Any other factors apparent to the officer which would have an
impact on its value or utility.
(8) Administrative review of the destruction or disposal of any property under
Subsection (5) and review of any request for reasonable compensation in
connection with the same shall be as provided in this Subsection.
a. To request a hearing to review the decision regarding the
destruction or disposal of property under Subsection (5) and to request
reasonable compensation, the owner of the property must notify, either
orally or in writing, the Safety, Security and Risk Management
Department within thirty (30) days of destruction or disposal.
Packet Pg. 115
- 6 -
b. Except as agreed by the requesting party, any requested hearing
must take place within thirty (30) days of receipt by the City of the request
for hearing. The hearing officer may be an independent contractor to the
City or any employee or officer of the City appointed as the hearing
officer by the Director of the Safety, Security and Risk Management
Department, so long as such appointee was not involved in the removal,
destruction, or disposal of the property at issue.
c. The hearing decision may be appealed to the City Manager
pursuant to the appeals procedure set forth in Article VI of Chapter 2 of
this Code. The City Manager’s decision will be final.
d. A request for a hearing by said property owner as provided in this
Section shall not constitute a written notice of injury as defined in §24-10-
109, Colorado Revised Statutes.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st
day of September, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of
September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 116
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Kelly DiMartino, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2015, Amending Sections of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Pertaining to City Service Areas.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Service Area definitions in City Code to reflect structural adjustments
needed to clarify organization roles, and enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and propose ways to enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. This Ordinance proposes changes to City Code to align
Service Area definitions and associated functions with a desired internal organizational structure. It also
adjusts Division titles to more clearly articulate the functions of these Offices. These changes impact existing
service area definitions, which require corresponding changes to provisions of the City Code.
Proposed changes include:
Article V of the City Code defines Administrative Organization Divisions to include Division 2-
Executive, Legislative and Judicial Offices. This Ordinance changes the name of Division 2 to
"Executive, Legal and Judicial Offices"
Naming the Office of the City Attorney and corresponding services as "Legal”
Naming the Municipal Court and corresponding services as "Judicial".
Additionally, the Ordinance revises Service Area definitions. It removes management information (Information
technology) and legislative services from the Community Services (Sec. 2-502) service area. Information
technology services are added to the Employee & Communication Services (Sec. 2-505) service area and the
service area title is renamed to "Information and Employee Services". These changes consolidate internally
facing services within one service area.
Finally, the Ordinance adds language to the Financial Services service area provision to make it consistent
with language found in other service area descriptions. The proposed Ordinance does not change the number
of service areas and the basic organization structure remains the same.
16
Packet Pg. 117
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 108, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO CITY SERVICE AREAS
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 2 of the of the City Charter provides that the
administrative branch of the City government shall be composed of the offices, service areas and
agencies established by ordinance upon report and recommendation of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, Article XIII of the City Charter defines “service area” as a major city
administrative unit designated as a service area by the City Council by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Article V of Chapter 2 of the City Code describes the administrative
organization of the City, including service areas and offices established by the City Council
pursuant to recommendations of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and his executive leadership team continue to examine
and consider ways to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization; and
WHEREAS, portions of Article V of Chapter 2 need to be amended to reflect the
proposed new administrative organization of the City government; and
WHEREAS, such changes will result in the restructuring of two existing service areas;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended that the title of Division 2 of Article 5
be changed to refer to “legal” instead of “legislative” and to change titles of offices described in
in Division 2 of Article V to identify the functions of such offices; and
WHEREAS, additional revisions are necessary to edit and create consistency in existing
language ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the organizational changes recommended by
the City Manager are in the best interests of the City and will further enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of City operations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the title of Division 2, Article V, Chapter 2 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Division 2 - Executive, Legislative Legal and Judicial Offices
Packet Pg. 118
- 2 -
Section 2. That the titles of offices described in Division 2, Article 5, Chapter 2 of
the Code of City of Fort Collins in Sections 2-491, 2-492, and 2-493 are hereby amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 2-491. Executive - Office of the city manager; duties of the city manager.
Sec. 2-492. Legal - Office of the city attorney; duties of the city attorney.
Sec. 2-493. Judicial - Municipal court; duties of the municipal judge.
Section 3. That Section 2-501 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-501. - Financial services; duties of director.
Financial Services is hereby created. Financial Services shall be in the charge of a Chief
Financial Officer who shall be directly responsible to the City Manager for the functions
and duties of the Financial Officer as provided in Article V, Part III, Section 22 of the
Charter, and who shall have control and supervision over such agencies, service units,
departments, offices or persons as may be deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
Section 4. That Section 2-502 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-502. - Community and operations services.
Community and Operations Services is hereby created. Community and Operations
Services shall be in the charge of a Director who shall be directly responsible to the City
Manager for the functions and duties necessary to provide cultural, parks, natural areas,
and recreation services, management information services (information technology and
network systems); operations services; and legislative services, and who shall have
control and supervision over such agencies, service units, departments, offices or persons
as may be deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
Section 5. That Section 2-504 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-504. - Utility services; duties of director.
Utility Services shall be and is hereby created. Utility Services shall be in the charge of a
Director who shall be directly responsible to the City Manager for the functions and
duties of Utility Services, including, without a limitation, the functions and duties
necessary to provide for the design, construction, reconstruction, addition, repair,
replacement, operation and maintenance of the City's electric, water, wastewater and
stormwater utility services, and who shall have control and supervision over such
agencies, service units, departments, divisions, offices or persons assigned by the City
Manager.
Packet Pg. 119
- 3 -
Section 6. That Section 2-505 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-505. – Information and eEmployee and communication services.
Information and Employee and Communication Services is hereby created. Information
and Employee and Communication Services shall be in the charge of a Director who shall
be directly responsible to the City Manager for the functions and duties necessary to
provide communications, management information public involvement and human
resources services to the City, and who shall have control and supervision over such
agencies, service units, departments, offices or persons as may be deemed appropriate by
the City Manager.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
September, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 120
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2015, Extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Which Amended the Land
Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District Through March 9,
2016.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider a 6 month extension to the Planned Development Overlay District
(PDOD) Pilot Process as the current pilot will expire on September 9, 2015. A request has been received by a
prospective applicant within the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) boundary to extend the pilot for
an additional six months.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A request has been received by a prospective applicant within the Planned Development Overlay District
(PDOD) boundary to extend the pilot for an additional six months.
To address the challenges of infill and redevelopment, staff worked collaboratively in 2011-2012 with the
Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) to develop the PDOD, a unique zoning mechanism that blends the concepts
of Planned Unit Developments and performance-based zoning. The PDOD provides flexibility on certain
development regulations in the Land Use Code without having to use the existing Addition of a Permitted Use
or Modification processes. In return for this flexibility, projects must achieve at least 60 points on a
supplemental performance matrix that is designed to reward projects for going beyond minimum standards.
The PDOD has a defined boundary, which was drawn to be consistent with the City’s targeted infill and
redevelopment areas and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District (Attachment 1). One final
characteristic to note is that all PDOD projects are processed as a Type 2 application.
Being an untested concept for the City, the PDOD was proposed first as a pilot to allow for real-world test
cases. The pilot was unanimously recommended by P&Z and ultimately adopted by City Council on February
26, 2013; it provided a six-month window where PDOD submittals could be accepted, but the number of
applications accepted was capped at five. The pilot began immediately after adoption and was set to expire on
September 9, 2013. According to the PDOD Ordinance, City Council had the option to extend the pilot “in the
event that, during the six-month term of its existence, there have been insufficient development proposals
presented to the City within the boundaries of the PDOD map to adequately inform the City Council as to the
viability of the District”.
During citizen participation at the August 14, 2014 P&Z Hearing, three individuals spoke on behalf of the same
potential project and requested that the pilot be extended. After discussion, the Board made a formal
recommendation that Council extend the pilot.
17
Packet Pg. 121
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 2
On September 16, 2014, Council adopted Ordinance No. 116, 2014, extending the PDOD Overlay District for a
period of one year.
There have not been any PDOD submittals to date; only one potential project has expressed interest in
participating in the pilot, and this same prospective applicant has recently expressed that an additional six
month extension is necessary to meet their anticipated development plan application submittal date.
The conditions of the pilot district as established by the original pilot ordinance and subsequent amendments
apply to the requested 6-month extension:
Only projects within the defined boundary area are eligible to use the PDOD.
Up to five PDOD submittals will be accepted within the six-month pilot extension.
City staff will collect data on any PDOD projects that submit, and with help from the citizen taskforce,
evaluate how well the PDOD is working and report back to City Council.
Council will continue to have the option to extend the pilot should insufficient projects submit during the
six-month timeframe.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 13, 2015 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously (6-0) recommended on its
consent agenda that the six-month PDOD Pilot extension be approved.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PDOD Boundary map (PDF)
17
Packet Pg. 122
ATTACHMENT 1
17.1
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: PDOD Boundary map (3488 : PDOD Extension)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 109, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 024, 2013, WHICH AMENDED THE
LAND USE CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A TEMPORARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
THROUGH MARCH 9, 2016
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2013, the City Council adopted on second reading
Ordinance No. 024, 2013, amending the Land Use Code by the addition of a temporary Planned
Development Overlay Zone District (“PDOD”); and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 024, 2013, provides that, at the end of the pilot program,
City staff will evaluate the program and report the outcomes to the City Council and, based on
staff's report, the City Council will determine whether the PDOD should be continued, amended
or terminated; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 116, 2014,
extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013 to September 9, 2015; and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, no applications have been
filed with the City for the processing of a development proposal under the PDOD and, therefore,
no report has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the
PDOD be extended for six additional months; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to
extend the PDOD adopted by Ordinance No. 024, 2013, for six additional months.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Ordinance No. 024, 2013, amending the Land Use Code by the
addition of a PDOD shall remain in effect until March 9, 2016, whereupon it shall terminate and
be of no further force and effect unless extended by ordinance of the City Council.
Section 2. That Section 4.29 (A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(2) Applicability. Any property located within the PDOD (Figure 22) shall be
eligible to develop according to the standards set forth in subsection (D) at
the option of the developer. This Division shall be applicable only to an
application for approval of a detailed development plan which has been
filed with the City on or before September 9, 2015March 9, 2016, unless
said deadline has been extended by subsequent ordinance of the City
Council. No more than five (5) applications shall be received and
Packet Pg. 124
- 2 -
accepted for processing during the effective term of this ordinance, which
term ends on September 9, 2015March 9, 2016; and the Director may
determine to close the acceptance of applications prior to September 9,
2015March 9, 2016, if necessary in order to properly and adequately
process and administer the applications received.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
September, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 125
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2015, Amending the Land Use Code Pertaining to Seasonal Overflow
Shelters and Homeless Shelters.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to add two new uses, Seasonal Overflow Shelters and Homeless Shelters, amend
Article Four to add these new uses to various appropriate zone districts and amend Article Three to add
supplemental regulations and review criteria for Seasonal Overflow Shelters only.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Problem Statement
Currently, the Land Use Code lacks a land use, Seasonal Overflow Shelters. There are two existing Homeless
Shelters that have been operating long term in Fort Collins and when these shelters are full during winter, an
overflow shelter is needed for life safety. Since a distinction needs to be made between the two existing
Homeless Shelters and Seasonal Overflow Shelters, two new definitions are offered.
During the winter months in Fort Collins, these two permanent year-round homeless shelters frequently run out
of beds and turn people away. For the past several winters, the City of Fort Collins has worked with Catholic
Charities and local churches (Saint Joseph’s and Community of Christ Church) to operate an overflow
homeless shelter. Each winter, the overflow shelter has targeted different populations. This past winter,
Community of Christ Church operated an overflow shelter for women only. Over the previous winter, this
seasonal overflow shelter was in use every night except one since opening in the fall of 2014 with no
complaints from neighbors.
City Council adopted an emergency ordinance beginning with the onset of inclement weather in 2014 to allow
overnight homeless shelters because such use is not a permitted use in the Land Use Code. Nor is “seasonal
overflow shelter” a defined term in the Land Use Code.
Winter overflow shelter is an anticipated regularly occurring need and shelters will likely see an increased
demand for their services. The issue with having to pass an ordinance annually is timing as neither staff or
City Council can predict when the weather will turn cold. An annual ordinance is a reactive measure that
requires sufficient lead time in order to be placed on Council’s agenda and prevents shelters from operating
when temperatures dip. By adding a definition for “seasonal overflow shelter” to Article Five, and assigning the
use to the appropriate zone districts as a Basic Development Review in non-residential zones and as a Type
18
Packet Pg. 126
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 2
One in three residential zones, the City would no longer have to pass an annual ordinance to allow this
service.
The proposed revisions will allow the City, places of worship and other non-profit organizations to provide more
timely and predictable overflow shelter service to those in the community that need it most. The accompanying
supplementary regulations in Article Three will provide criteria by which to review a Seasonal Overflow Shelter
as a Basic Development Review, or a Type One Project Development Plan, require a neighborhood meeting
and ensure that impacts, if any, are mitigated.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to define two new uses and add these uses to various appropriate zone districts. For
Seasonal Homeless Shelters, placement into three residential zones is recommended, along arterials only. In
addition, new supplemental regulations would be added to Section 3.8 to ensure that operations associated
with Seasonal Overflow Shelters are compatible with surrounding uses.
The selection of the various zone districts is strategically designed to allow locations that are either near
services or provide opportunities for willing partners to open up their facilities and on a citywide basis primarily
along arterial streets.
Public Outreach
Staff is keenly aware that public outreach is an important component in allowing Seasonal Overflow Shelters in
the community. Consequently, one of the proposed standards requires that the City convene a neighborhood
meeting. The standard states:
“The City will convene a neighborhood meeting for each application for approval of a seasonal
overflow shelter preceding each operating season that the shelter is functioning.”
It is important to note that the neighborhood meeting must be held annually if the facility is to be used in
consecutive years or for each year the facility is in use. This requirement is specifically intended to allow for
citizen feedback on all aspects of the previous year’s performance. The standard notification procedure is
established in Section 2.2.6 of the Land Use Code. This requires that the notification area for a neighborhood
meeting is at least 800 feet and staff has the discretion to enlarge this area if necessary. The property is also
posted with a sign to notify renters. Finally, as with all projects that governed by the Basic Development
Review (BDR) or Administrative Hearing (Type One) processes, there is an established appeal procedure.
Selecting an Operator
With the requirement that the operator have shelter management experience, to the extent that staff does not
have a prior relationship with a potential operator, staff would be able to conduct a background check, examine
any history of zoning and nuisance complaints and any building code violations associated with past
experience. Using these tools would be part of staff’s standard operating procedure in evaluating the
management capability of any potential operator.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no financial impacts associated with this Land Use Code revision.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 13, 2015 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6 - 0 to recommend approval of this
item.
18
Packet Pg. 127
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 3
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff conducted two meetings both of which were advertised by press releases. One meeting was held at 215
Mason Street and one was held at the Summitview Church, 1601 West Drake Road. In addition, online
information was posted on the Social Sustainability website. Summaries of these meetings are attached
(Attachment 1).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Meeting summaries, June 25 and July 1, 2015 (PDF)
2. Zoning Matrix (PDF)
3. Letters in support of the proposed amendment (PDF)
4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 13, 2015 (draft) (PDF)
18
Packet Pg. 128
ATTACHMENT 1
18.1
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Public Meeting summaries, June 25 and July 1, 2015 (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
18.1
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Public Meeting summaries, June 25 and July 1, 2015 (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
18.1
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Public Meeting summaries, June 25 and July 1, 2015 (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
ATTACHMENT 2
18.2
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Zoning Matrix (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
ATTACHMENT 3
18.3
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Letters in support of the proposed amendment (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
18.3
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Letters in support of the proposed amendment (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
18.3
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Letters in support of the proposed amendment (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
18.3
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Letters in support of the proposed amendment (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2015
Page 1
Discussion Agenda:
1. Land Use Code Revisions – Items related to siting and regulating homeless shelters
and seasonal overflow shelters
Project: Land Use Code Revisions – Items related to siting and regulating homeless
shelters and seasonal overflow shelters
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding a
variety of Land Use Code (LUC) revisions that address the siting and regulation of Homeless
Shelters and Seasonal Overflow Shelters.
Recommendation: Approval
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Chief Planner Shepard made a brief presentation of this item, specifying how each of the
primary definitions (“homeless” and “seasonal overflow”) should be interpreted.
Public Input
Guy Mendt, 460 Linden Center Drive, is the Director for Catholic Charities in Larimer County
and operates the Mission Shelter along with other offsite winter shelters for the past 2 years.
He commented on the professional staff and management of these shelters and the fact that
there has been minimal neighborhood impact and feedback.
Board Questions and Staff Response
Member Hobbs thanked staff for their work on this item; he feels the overall situation has
improved greatly, and he recognizes what an important service it is. Chair Carpenter agreed
and thanked staff for getting this item resolved in a timely manner. Member Hart asked to clarify
what would be specifically amended in the LUC. Chief Planner Shepard detailed which section
would be amended. Deputy City Attorney Eckman recommended adoption of the proposed
Ordinance
Board Deliberation
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City
Council approval of the ordinances to the Land Use Code detailed in attachment 6 of the
packet that address the siting and regulation of homeless shelters and seasonal overflow
shelters. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0.
ATTACHMENT 4
18.4
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 13, 2015 (draft) (3477 : Seasonal Overflow Shelters)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 110, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO
SEASONAL OVERFLOW SHELTERS AND HOMELESS SHELTERS
WHEREAS, during the winter months, the City’s two permanent year-round homeless
shelters have difficulty in supplying beds and accommodation for the homeless in severe
weather; and
WHEREAS, in the past, City staff has worked with various local organizations to provide
seasonal wintertime shelter for those who cannot be accommodated in the City’s homeless
shelters and City staff has reacted to the onset of cold weather by requesting that the City
Council adopt emergency ordinances to exempt the seasonal shelters from the Land Use Code
since the Land Use Code implicitly prohibits them; and
WHEREAS, in order to avoid the necessity to react to impending wintertime extreme
temperatures, the City Council has requested that the staff explore opportunities for a permanent
remedy for the overflow shelter excess demand situation by amending the Land Use Code to
permit such shelters in certain zone districts and under specific conditions designed to protect the
adjacent neighborhoods and in order that the City may proactively address seasonal overflow
shelter needs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Land Use Code should include
definitions for both “Seasonal Overflow Shelters” and “Homeless Shelters” and provide specific
standards and criteria for the establishment of Seasonal Overflow Shelters; and
WHEREAS, after substantial public outreach and upon the favorable recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Board, the City Council has determined that the proposed regulations
are in the best interests of the City and should be adopted into the Land Use Code for the
placement and regulation of Seasonal Overflow Shelters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 3.8.25 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.8.25 Permitted Uses: Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of Permitted Uses
(A) If, after June 25, 1999 (the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Section),
active operations are not carried on in a permitted use during a period of twelve (12)
consecutive months, or with respect to seasonal overflow shelters sixty (60)
consecutive months, the building, other structure or tract of land where such
permitted use previously existed shall thereafter be re-occupied and used only after
the building or other structure, as well as the tract of land upon which such building
or other structure is located, have, to the extent reasonably feasible, been brought into
Packet Pg. 138
- 2 -
compliance with the applicable general development standards contained in Article 3
and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Code as determined
by the Director. This requirement shall not apply to any permitted use conducted in a
building that was less than ten (10) years old at the time that active operations ceased.
Intent to resume active operations shall not affect the foregoing.
. . .
Section 2. That Article 3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of
a new Section 3.8.33 which reads in its entirety as follows:
3.8.33 Seasonal Overflow Shelters
(A) Applicability. These standards shall apply to all seasonal overflow shelters.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow for the siting and approval of
seasonal overflow shelters while helping to ensure that such shelters are
compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods.
(C) Standards.
(1) General Standards. Seasonal overflow shelters shall be allowed as a
permitted use, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
(a) Occupancy limit. No more than fifty (50) persons may be housed
at any one seasonal overflow shelter.
(b) Operations. An organization with prior homeless shelter
management experience must be designated as the operator
responsible for managing the seasonal overflow shelter.
(c) Operating agreement. An operating agreement must be completed
between the City, the operator and the owner of the real property
upon which the seasonal overflow shelter is located, delineating
the roles of the parties, and, without limitation, shall include
provisions pertaining to parking, hours of operation, site cleanup,
loitering, number of staff and designated contact persons for each
party. The operating agreement shall be executed by all parties
prior to the approval of a seasonal overflow shelter and must be
executed preceding each operating season that the shelter is
functioning.
(d) Transportation. If the seasonal overflow shelter is more than two
(2) miles from a homeless shelter, then transit to and from the
seasonal overflow shelter and the homeless shelter (or other
Packet Pg. 139
- 3 -
locations designated in the Operating Agreement) shall be
provided by the operator of the seasonal overflow shelter.
(e) Neighborhood meeting. The City shall require a neighborhood
meeting for each application for approval of a seasonal overflow
shelter and preceding each operating season that the shelter is
functioning.
(f) Limit. There shall be no more than three (3) seasonal overflow
shelters operating in the City at any given time.
(g) Compliance with other standards. The property upon which the
seasonal overflow shelter is located must continue to comply with
the standards of this Code, at least to the extent of its original
compliance (so as to preclude any greater deviation from the
standards of this Code by reason of a seasonal overflow shelter
being located thereon).
Section 3. That Section 4.4(B)(2)(b) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Low
Density Residential District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 4 which
reads in its entirety as follows:
4. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 4. That Section 4.4(D) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Low Density
Residential District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph (3) which reads in its
entirety as follows:
(3) Seasonal overflow shelters. Seasonal overflow shelters may be
allowed in this zone district only on parcels that abut an arterial
street.
Section 5. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(b) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Low
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new
subparagraph 8 which reads in its entirety as follows:
8. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 6. That Section 4.5(D) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph (7)
which reads in its entirety as follows:
(7) Seasonal overflow shelters. Seasonal overflow shelters may be
allowed in this zone district only on parcels that abut an arterial
street.
Packet Pg. 140
- 4 -
Section 7. That Section 4.6(B)(2)(b) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new
subparagraph 6 which reads in its entirety as follows:
6. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 8. That Section 4.6(D) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Medium Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph (4)
which reads in its entirety as follows:
(4) Seasonal overflow shelters. Seasonal overflow shelters may be
allowed in this zone district only on parcels that abut an arterial
street.
Section 9. That Section 4.9(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code, regarding the
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new
subparagraph 4 which reads in its entirety as follows:
4. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 10. That Section 4.10(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the High
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new
subparagraph 2 which reads in its entirety as follows:
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 11. That Section 4.16(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the
Downtown District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2 which reads in
its entirety as follows:
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 12. That the table contained Section 4.16(B)(2) of the Land Use Code,
regarding the Downtown District, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center
B. INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Homeless shelters (excluding seasonal overflow shelters) Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
. . .
Section 13. That Section 4.17(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the River
Downtown Redevelopment District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2
which reads in its entirety as follows:
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Packet Pg. 141
- 5 -
Section 14. That Section 4.17(B)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code, regarding the River
Downtown Redevelopment District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2
which reads in its entirety as follows:
2. Homeless shelters (excluding seasonal overflow shelters).
Section 15. That Section 4.18(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the
Community Commercial District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2
which reads in its entirety as follows:
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 16. That Section 4.18(B)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code, regarding the
Community Commercial District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 4
which reads in its entirety as follows:
4. Homeless shelters (excluding seasonal overflow shelters).
Section 17. That Section 4.19(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the
Community Commercial – North College District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new
subparagraph 2 which reads in its entirety as follows:
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 18. That Section 4.20(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the
Community Commercial – Poudre River District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new
subparagraph 2 which reads in its entirety as follows:
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 19. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B)(2) of the Land Use Code,
regarding the General Commercial District, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Land Use I-25/SH 392 (CAC)
General Commercial District
(C-G)
A. RESIDENTIAL
. . . . . . . . .
B. INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC
. . . . . . . . .
Seasonal overflow shelters Not permitted BDR
Homeless shelters (excluding seasonal overflow
shelters) Not permitted Type 2
. . . . . . . . .
Section 20. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Service
Commercial District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2 which reads in
its entirety as follows:
Packet Pg. 142
- 6 -
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 21. That Section 4.22(B)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Service
Commercial District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2 which reads in
its entirety as follows:
2. Homeless shelters (excluding seasonal overflow shelters).
Section 22. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2) of the Land Use Code,
regarding the Limited Commercial District, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Land Use Riverside Area All Other Areas
A. RESIDENTIAL
. . . . . . . . .
B. INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC
. . . . . . . . .
Seasonal overflow shelters BDR BDR
. . . . . . . . .
Section 23. That Section 4.26(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Harmony
Corridor District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2 which reads in its
entirety as follows:
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 24. That Section 4.26(D)(2) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Harmony
Corridor District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (t) which reads in its
entirety as follows:
(t) Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 25. That Section 4.27(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code, regarding the
Employment District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 2 which reads in
its entirety as follows:
2. Seasonal overflow shelters.
Section 26. That Section 4.27(B)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code, regarding the
Employment District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 8 which reads
in its entirety as follows:
8. Homeless shelters (excluding seasonal overflow shelters).
Section 27. That Section 4.27(D)(2) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Employment
District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (z) which reads in its entirety
as follows:
(z) Homeless shelters (including seasonal overflow shelters).
Packet Pg. 143
- 7 -
Section 28. That Section 4.28(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code, regarding the Industrial
District, is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 7 which reads in its entirety as
follows:
7. Homeless shelters (excluding seasonal overflow shelters).
Section 29. That the definition of “Dwelling” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land
Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Dwelling shall mean a building used exclusively for residential occupancy and for
permitted accessory uses, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings and
multi-family dwellings. The term dwelling shall not include hotels, motels, homeless
shelters, seasonal overflow shelters, tents or other structures designed or used primarily
for temporary occupancy. Any dwelling shall be deemed to be a principal building.
Section 30. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Homeless shelters” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Homeless shelters shall mean a fully enclosed building other than a hotel, motel, or
lodging establishment that is suitable for habitation and that provides residency only for
homeless persons at no charge at any time during the year.
Section 31. That the definition of “Hotel/motel/lodging establishment” contained in
Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Hotel/motel/lodging establishment shall mean a building other than a homeless shelter or
seasonal overflow shelter intended and used for occupancy as a temporary abode for
individuals who are lodged with or without meals, in which there are five (5) or more
guest rooms.
Section 32. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Seasonal overflow shelters” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Seasonal overflow shelters shall mean a homeless shelter that allows homeless persons to
stay on its premises overnight from the beginning of November through the end of April,
unless, because of inclement weather, specific and limited exceptions to such seasonal
limitations are granted by the Director.
Packet Pg. 144
- 8 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
September, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 145
Agenda Item 19
Item # 19 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist III
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Acquisition of Property at 4200 County Road 30.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2015-080 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of
Loveland to Acquire and Cooperate Regarding a Parcel of Land and Water Rights at 4200 County Road
30 Within the Fort Collins – Loveland Community Separator.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2015, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Right of First Offer and Right
of First Refusal to the City of Loveland for Property at 4200 County Road 30.
The purpose of this item is to seek Council approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Loveland
outlining the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to a proposed 113-acre acquisition in the Fort Collins-
Loveland Community Separator and approval of the conveyance of a Right of First Offer and Right of First
Refusal on the same parcel to Loveland. The City of Loveland’s Water & Power Department is purchasing 50
Units of Colorado Big Thompson Project (CBT) water historically associated with the land. In addition,
Loveland’s Parks and Recreation Department will contribute funds towards the land. In total, Loveland will
contribute $1.5M and Fort Collins will contribute $1.5M towards the purchase price of $3M.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Natural Areas Department has been working for 20 years in accordance with the 1995 Plan for The
Region between Fort Collins and Loveland to create a community separator by conserving agricultural lands
and open spaces. To date, approximately 5,800 acres of land has been conserved in the separator area; in
cooperation with and in partnership with Loveland and Larimer County. (Attachment 4)
Natural Areas proposes to partner with Loveland on the purchase of a 113-acre property and associated water
rights located at 4300 County Road 30. Natural Areas will contribute $1.5 million to acquire the land and the
ditch company water rights associated with the land (comprising 4 shares of the Louden Irrigating Canal &
Reservoir Company and 4 corresponding shares of the Louden Extension Canal and Reservoir Company
(together, “4 Louden Shares”)). Loveland will contribute $1.5 million to acquire the 50 CBT Units historically
associated with the land (which Fort Collins would have difficulties in acquiring because Fort Collins already
owns the maximum number of units allowed under current policies of the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District) and will contribute towards the purchase of the land. Fort Collins will hold the deed to the
land exclusively and own the 4 Louden Shares; and Loveland will own the 50 CBT Units outright. Although
Loveland’s ultimate long-term use of the CBT Units will be for municipal supply, Loveland has agreed to lease
19
Packet Pg. 146
Agenda Item 19
Item # 19 Page 2
back the 50 CBT Units to irrigate the parcel. The lease will continue as long as the site remains as irrigated
farm land, either owned by Fort Collins or subsequent owner of the land with a conservation easement
conserving the land for irrigated farming, and as long as there is no drought or other reason that would require
municipal use.
Staff explored partnering with Larimer County for this acquisition. After much discussion, it was determined
that there were even higher priority acquisitions for Fort Collins and Larimer County to partner on. These
potential projects are good candidates for leveraging local contributions with GOCO grants.
The long term use of the 113 acres has not been determined. There are at least three potential uses that
would allow the property to serve as a community separator: (1) the land could be leased out for irrigated or
dryland farming; (2) the land could be sold with a conservation easement removing development rights and
requiring it to remain in farming; and (3) the land could be restored to native vegetation and potentially opened
up to the public by constructing appropriate trails and parking. For the foreseeable future Natural Areas plans
to keep the land in irrigated agriculture assuming a tenant can be found.
As outlined in the IGA, Fort Collins will own, manage and maintain the property. If Fort Collins decides to sell
the property with a conservation easement preserving it for agricultural purposes, Fort Collins will receive the
entire proceeds from the sale in exchange for co-holding and monitoring the conservation easement and
Loveland will co-hold the conservation easement.
During negotiation of the IGA, Loveland asked the City to grant it the first right to buy the property. The Right
of First Offer and Right of First Refusal (Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 111, 2015,) grants Loveland these rights
relative to the purchase of the property in the unlikely event that Fort Collins decided to sell the land without a
conservation easement; also if sold in fee Loveland would either receive 22.5% of the proceeds and Fort
Collins would receive 77.5% of the proceeds or Loveland could chose to purchase the property for 77.5% of
the agreed upon price.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The total purchase price for the 113 acres of land and the associated water rights is $3,000,000. Fort Collins
Natural Areas is contributing $1.5 million to purchase the land and 4 Louden Shares. These funds are already
appropriated and available to spend. Loveland is contributing $1.5 million: $1.1 million to purchase the 50
CBT Units and a $400,000 contribution to the purchase of the land.
Fort Collins will hold the deed and be fully responsible for costs of managing, maintaining and potentially
developing trails and parking on the land.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 12, 2015 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB) unanimously
recommended Council approve the IGA with Loveland and grant Loveland the Right of First Offer and Right of
First Refusal.
Loveland staff presented this proposed land purchase and partnership to its Open Lands Board on August 12,
where it received Board approval and will present the IGA to the Loveland City Council on September 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Loveland Parks and Recreation Commitment Letter, July 30, 2015 (PDF)
2. Loveland Water and Power Commitment Letter, July 31, 2015 (PDF)
3. 4200 CR 30 Vicinity Map (PDF)
4. Fort Collins-Loveland Community Separator Map (PDF)
5. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, August 12, 2015 (draft) (PDF)
19
Packet Pg. 147
ATTACHMENT 1
19.1
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Loveland Parks and Recreation Commitment Letter, July 30, 2015 (3428 : IGA with Loveland to Acquire 4200 CRD 30)
ATTACHMENT 2
19.2
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Loveland Water and Power Commitment Letter, July 31, 2015 (3428 : IGA with Loveland to Acquire 4200 CRD 30)
4200 County Road 30
Vicinity Map
P o n d s
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
N
e
l
s
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C r e e k
R e s e
r
voi r
nds
C
hannel
P o n d s
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
N
e
l
s
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
C r e e k
R e s e
r
voi r
nds
C
hannel
4200 CR 30 property
±
Ziegler Road
Existing Natural Areas property
S. County Rd 9
Carpenter Rd.
E. County Rd. 30
Highway 392
S. County Rd 5
E. County Rd. 32E
B o y d
L a k e
F
o
ssil
C
r
e
e
k
S
w i f t
P
M
a
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
P
o
r
t
n
e
r
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Mail Creek Ditch
D o n a t h
L a k e
F
o
s
s
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
D u c k
L a k e
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
I s l a n d L a k e
M a r i n e
A n d
S p o r t s P o n d
F
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2015
Excerpt
CRD 30 Land Purchase Partnership and Intergovernmental Agreement – John Stokes
John Stokes, Director of Natural Areas Department presented the proposed partnership
purchase of 113 acres north of CRD 30 and 50 Units of CBT water; and the terms of an IGA
with Loveland. NAD is seeking a recommendation to authorize the execution of an IGA as
well as an ordinance for right of first refusal. The price of the property is $3M and about half
of that value is in the water. We were having problem because the CBT Units are difficult for
us to acquire because the City of Fort Collins is at its CBT cap, creating a lot of challenges.
Loveland, as a partner on the acquisition, would acquire the CBT Units and then lease the
CBT Units back to us and subsequent owners for irrigation of this land. Our intention is to
keep the land in farming. Other options are to restore the area to native grassland and
construct trails and/or tie it into the regional trail. We have a lot of options at this point.
Loveland wants to do a ten year renewable lease. Their purchase of the CBT Units is a
backup drought water supply. Natural Areas is proposing the acquisition of 113 acres of land
and associated ditch company water rights in partnership with the City of Loveland. The City
of Loveland’s Water & Power Department is purchasing the 50 units of Colorado Big
Thompson Project (CBT) water historically associated with the land and their Parks and
Recreation Department is contributing funds to conserve the 113 acres of land in the Fort
Collins – Loveland Community Separator. Loveland will contribute $1.5M and Fort Collins
will contribute $1.5M towards the total purchase price of $3M.
Natural Areas will own, manage and maintain this property. If Fort Collins decides to sell the
property with a conservation easement preserving it for agricultural purposes Fort Collins will
receive the proceeds from the sale in exchange for co- holding and monitoring the
conservation easement. If for some reason Fort Collins decides to sell the land without a
conservation easement; Loveland will receive 22.5% of the proceeds and Fort Collins will
receive 77.5% of the proceeds. Loveland agrees to lease the CBT water to whoever is
farming this land as long as there is no drought or other reasons requiring Loveland to need
the water for municipal use.
Discussion
Some board members were concerned what Loveland might do if there was indeed an official
drought and how they would determine if it’s a drought or not.
John explained the agreement would tie in nicely with our community separator objectives but
he didn’t feel the property would remain as a farming property for long.
Gail asked if we use it as irrigated farm does Loveland still have control of the water. John
indicated that Loveland can withhold the water in a drought situation, but that if we didn’t
have the water we would have to foul the property. We have Louden shares but that’s not
enough to irrigate the entire property. Trudy asked if it was specified what constitutes a
drought or is it up to someone on Council when they want to pull that water. John wasn’t sure
how they determined that and said ultimately the long term prognosis on this property is that
it won’t stay in farming. Even if a portion stayed in farming we could use our Louden shares.
Raymond wanted to know how the regional trail system would tie in and John demonstrated,
on the map, the new trail around Fossil Creek and where it connects to the trail system.
ATTACHMENT 5
19.5
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, August 12, 2015 (draft) (3428 : IGA with Loveland to Acquire 4200 CRD 30)
John explained that if Fort Collins decided to sell this property in fee, without a conservation
easement; Loveland has requested the Right of First Offer and the Right of First Refusal, to
give them the first chance to purchase the property. John indicated we would likely never sell
without a conservation easement. John explained that if Loveland did want to buy it; but
considered the asking price too high, the property could be put it on the market and if a buyer
made an offer lower than the original asking price, Loveland would have the right to outbid
the buyer. If the roles were reversed we would want the same arrangement. This property is
going to be really well protected over the next 20 years.
We are going to City Council on September 1, with a Resolution approving the IGA and an
Ordinance approving the Right of First Offer and Right of First Refusal.
Marcia Mallory-Patton made a motion that City Council approve a resolution
authorizing the execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Loveland
to acquire the County Road 30-113 acre parcel and water rights within the Fort Collins-
Loveland Community Separator and ordinance right of first right of refusal to purchase
for the City of Loveland. Raymond Watts seconded the motion. Motion was
unanimously approved.
19.5
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, August 12, 2015 (draft) (3428 : IGA with Loveland to Acquire 4200 CRD 30)
- 1 -
RESOLUTION 2015-080
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LOVELAND TO ACQUIRE AND COOPERATE
REGARDING A PARCEL OF LAND AND WATER RIGHTS AT
4200 COUNTY ROAD 30 WITHIN THE FORT COLLINS – LOVELAND
COMMUNITY SEPARATOR
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, in cooperation with
Larimer County and the City of Loveland, has been working for 20 years to create a community
separator between Fort Collins and Loveland by conserving agricultural lands and open spaces;
and
WHEREAS, for the last several months, the City has been negotiating to purchase a 113-
acre parcel of agricultural land and associated water interests at 4200 County Road 30 (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City would have difficulty acquiring the Colorado-Big Thompson
Project (CBT) units associated with the Property because of the number of CBT units the City
already owns; and
WHEREAS, the City of Loveland (“Loveland”) has agreed to partner with the City on
this acquisition, with Loveland acquiring the CBT units and the City taking title to the land and
remaining water rights; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement setting out the terms of the
arrangement between the City and Loveland for acquisition of the Property as well as agreed
upon cooperation in the future regarding the use of the associated water rights and other terms
and conditions related to future management of the Property, dated August 19, 2015, is attached
as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference (the “IGA”); and
WHEREAS, the total purchase price for the Property and water interests is $3,000,000;
and
WHEREAS, under the IGA, Loveland will provide $1,100,000 for purchase of the CBT
units and $400,000 towards the purchase of the land, and the City will provide $1,500,000 for the
purchase of the land and the remaining water interests; and
WHEREAS, Loveland has also agreed to lease the CBT units back for use on the
Property by the City, its tenants, or future owners of the Property who buy the Property subject
to a conservation easement, as long as there is not drought or other reasons that would require
Loveland to use the CBT units for municipal purposes; and
Packet Pg. 154
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the annual rental price for the CBT units would be the full open rate
municipal assessment cost per unit as set by the board of the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, plus five percent for administrative costs; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board considered the IGA at its
regular meeting on August 12, 2015 and recommended that City Council approve the IGA; and
WHEREAS, Section 29-1-203 of the Colorado Revised Statutes allows governments to
cooperate or contract with one another to provide any function, service or facility lawfully
authorized to each of the cooperating or contracting units; and
WHEREAS, under Section 1-22 of the City code, intergovernmental agreements and
other cooperative arrangements between the City and other governmental entities are to be
submitted to the City Council for review, unless they fit within one of the exceptions that permit
authorization by the City Manager.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into the Intergovernmental
Agreement between the City and the City of Loveland in substantially the form attached hereto
as Exhibit “A”, with such modifications or additional terms and conditions as the City Manager,
in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the
interests of the City or to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of September, A.D. 2015.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 155
DRAFT 8-19-15
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Purchase and Ownership of Property and Water Interests at 4200 E. County Road 30,
and Ongoing Cooperation
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of September, 2015 (the
“Effective Date”), by and THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal
corporation (“Fort Collins”) and THE CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO, a municipal
corporation (“Loveland”).
RECITALS:
A. The Fort Collins Natural Areas Department wishes to acquire approximately 113
acres of irrigated agricultural land more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached and
incorporated by reference (the “Property”) as an open space “separator” between developed
lands in Loveland and Fort Collins.
B. The Property includes four shares in the Louden Irrigating Canal and Reservoir
Company and Louden Extension Canal and Reservoir Company (“Louden”), and 50 Units of
Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) water that Fort Collins cannot own because of the extent
of Fort Collins’s existing CBT holdings. The water interests are more particularly described on
Exhibit A.
C. Loveland would like to acquire the CBT Units for its water portfolio, and is
willing to lease the water back to Fort Collins and subsequent owners or lease holders for
continued irrigation of the Property.
D. The Colorado Constitution, Article XIV, Section §18 and §29-1-201, C.R.S., et
seq. provide for and encourage political subdivisions of the State of Colorado to make the most
efficient and effective use of their powers and responsibilities by cooperating and contracting
with each other.
E. Section 29-1-203, C.R.S., as amended, authorizes any political subdivisions or
agencies of the State of Colorado to cooperate or contract with one another to provide any
function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each of the cooperating or contracting entities,
including the sharing of costs, imposition of taxes, or incurring of debt.
F. The parties wish to cooperate on the purchase of the Property and associated
water interests, and are entering into this Agreement to document their respective rights and
obligations related to the acquisition, ownership, management and maintenance, and future
disposition of the Property.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein,
the parties agree as follows:
EXHIBIT A
1
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Exhibit A (3435 : IGA with Loveland to Aquire 4700 CR 30 - RES)
2
1. Purchase of the Property.
a. The purchase price of the Property, including all water rights, shall be Three
Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00). Subject to any necessary approvals by the
parties’ City Councils, the parties agree to provide the following amounts towards
the purchase price:
i. Loveland - $1,500,000
ii. Fort Collins Natural Areas - $1,500,000
b. Both parties will sign a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the sellers of the
Property, Roberta A. LeMaster, Sandra K. Wortley, and Shelley L. Skogen
(“Sellers”), in a form reasonably acceptable to all parties.
c. Loveland will work with the Sellers and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District (“Northern”) to obtain Northern’s approval of the transfer of the CBT
Units and complete the necessary paperwork for such transfer.
d. At closing on the purchase of the Property, Fort Collins will take title to the
Property, the Louden shares and all other associated rights and appurtenances,
except the CBT Units, which will be assigned to Loveland.
e. The parties agree that the purchase price of the CBT Units at closing shall be
$1,100,000 ($22,000 per Unit). The purchase price for the Louden shares shall
be $120,000. The purchase price for the land and other remaining rights and
appurtenances shall be $1,780,000 ($15,752 per acre), with $400,000 of the land
price (22.5%) provided by Loveland and $1,380,000 (77.5%) provided by Fort
Collins.
f. Fort Collins is responsible for any due diligence regarding the condition of and
title to the Property, including obtaining a title commitment, any environmental
investigations, surveys or review of existing surveys, and inspection of the
Property. Fort Collins will also arrange for payment of any earnest money deposit
to Sellers.
2. Lease of CBT Units to Fort Collins.
a. After finalizing the purchase of the CBT Units from Sellers and obtaining
approval of the transfer from Northern, Loveland agrees to lease back the fifty
(50) CBT Units to Fort Collins for use on the Property by Fort Collins, its tenants,
or future owners of the Property who acquire the Property subject to a
conservation easement. This lease is conditioned on the continued use of the CBT
units for irrigation on the Property, and if this condition is not met, the lease shall
terminate. In exchange for the use of the water, Fort Collins shall pay Loveland
the full open rate municipal assessment cost per unit as set by Northern’s Board,
plus 5% for administrative costs, to be paid annually. Loveland will send an
1
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Exhibit A (3435 : IGA with Loveland to Aquire 4700 CR 30 - RES)
3
invoice no later than April 30
th
, and Fort Collins will have thirty (30) days to
submit payment to Loveland, by May 30
th
each year the lease is renewed.
b. The lease will continue for ten (10) years and may be renewed by Fort Collins for
additional ten (10) year terms upon advance written notice to Loveland. The water
may be leased to Fort Collins for the Property until such time as Loveland needs
the water for municipal use and can no longer lease the water.
c. In the event Loveland has an urgent need for water, as determined in the sole
discretion of Loveland, for reasons including, but not limited to drought,
Loveland may terminate the lease. Loveland will endeavor to give thirty (30)
days’ notice of such termination, but shall not be required to do so. In the event of
such termination, Fort Collins shall be liable to pay Loveland for irrigation water
received to the effective date of termination. Loveland shall be liable to reimburse
Fort Collins any irrigation water previously paid for, but not delivered based upon
the rate established in the lease.
3. Management and Disposition of the Property.
a. As owner of the Property, Fort Collins shall be responsible for management and
maintenance of the Property and Loveland will have no responsibility or liability
of any kind whatsoever for the management and maintenance of the Property.
Except as otherwise agreed by the parties, including but not limited to a right of
notice and first offer or first refusal regarding sale of the Property that may be
conveyed by separate agreement, Loveland’s permission shall not be required for
any future leasing or disposition of the Property.
b. If at any time Fort Collins sells any interest in the Property or any portion of the
Property, including easements but not leasehold interests, the proceeds of such
disposition shall be divided between Fort Collins and Loveland in accordance
with the percentage of each party’s contribution to the land purchase as described
in paragraph 1.e above to be used for open space/natural areas purposes.
However, if Fort Collins sells the Property to a third party but retains a
conservation easement on the Property, Fort Collins and Loveland will co-hold
the conservation easement and Fort Collins will be entitled to the full proceeds of
such sale in exchange for Fort Collins monitoring and managing the conservation
easement.
4. Additional Terms and Conditions.
a. Governmental Immunity. Each party acknowledges and agrees that both
parties are governmental entities of the State of Colorado whose liability in
tort is at all times strictly limited and controlled by the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act, CRS 24-10-101, et seq., as now or hereafter
amended, and that nothing herein is intended as a waiver of such immunity.
Without waiving such immunity, each party shall be solely responsible, to the
1
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Exhibit A (3435 : IGA with Loveland to Aquire 4700 CR 30 - RES)
4
fullest extent authorized by law, for its own negligence and the negligence of
its employees, authorized volunteers and agents acting within the scope of
their authority under this Agreement.
b. Binding Effect, Assignment and Delegation. This Agreement shall be
binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns.
Neither party shall assign any of the rights nor delegate any of the duties
created by this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party.
c. Relationship of Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall imply any
partnership, joint venture, or other association between Fort Collins and
Loveland. Neither party shall use the other’s name or logo to suggest co-
sponsorship or endorsement of any activity without the other’s prior written
approval
d. Interpretation. This document and the Purchase and Sale Agreement
represent the entire agreement of the parties and are deemed prepared by both
parties.
e. Laws. Performance of this Agreement is subject to the constitution and laws
of the State of Colorado and the parties’ respective Municipal Charters.
f. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is determined by any court to be
unenforceable, the other terms of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in
full force and effect, provided, however, that if the severance of any such
provision materially alters the rights or obligations of the parties, the parties
shall engage in good faith negotiations in order to adopt mutually agreeable
amendments to this Agreement as may be necessary to restore the parties as
closely as possible to the initially agreed upon relative rights and obligations.
g. Remedies. In the event of any default in or breach of this Agreement or any
of its terms or conditions by a party hereto or any successor in interest to such
party that remains uncured after notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure,
the non-defaulting party shall have all remedies, at law or in equity, to which
it may be entitled. In the event a party defaults in any of the obligations of
this Agreement, the defaulting party will pay all reasonable costs of enforcing
this Agreement, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
h. Notices. All notices which may be given to the parties shall be in writing and
sent by registered or certified mail or by overnight commercial courier to the
following addresses:
Fort Collins:
City of Fort Collins
Attn: City Manager
300 LaPorte Ave.
1
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Exhibit A (3435 : IGA with Loveland to Aquire 4700 CR 30 - RES)
5
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Loveland:
City of Loveland
Attn: Parks and Recreation Open Lands
500 E. Third St.
Loveland, CO 80538
i. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. Signatures may be
delivered by electronic copy. Electronic signatures are binding on the parties
as if they were originals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the
date and year written above.
[Signature pages follow.]
1
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Exhibit A (3435 : IGA with Loveland to Aquire 4700 CR 30 - RES)
6
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
a Municipal Corporation
By:
Wade O. Troxell, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
1
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Exhibit A (3435 : IGA with Loveland to Aquire 4700 CR 30 - RES)
7
THE CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO
a Municipal Corporation
By:
Cecil Gutierrez, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
1
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Exhibit A (3435 : IGA with Loveland to Aquire 4700 CR 30 - RES)
8
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
The W1/2 of the SW1/4 and the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 22, Township 6 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the right of way for County Road as established and/or used;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM those parcels described in Deeds recorded December 11,
1985, at Reception No. 85062821 and August 20, 1991, at Reception No. 91039306.
(Street Address: 4200 East County Road 30, Fort Collins, Colorado)
Water Interests
Fifty (50) units of Colorado Big Thompson Project, represented by currently identified in:
(1) Contract ID 1559, Class D for 35 Units, Board Approved and Effective Date May 8, 1987;
(2) Contract ID 2530, Class D for 5 Units, Board Approved and Effective Date January 8, 1999;
and (3) Contract ID 2738, Class D for 10 Units, Board Approved and Effective Date June 14,
2002.
All right, title, interest and obligation in and to the stock, water rights, and other property
interests represented by Stock Certificate No. 3563 for four (4) shares of stock of the Louden
Irrigating Canal and Reservoir Company.
All right, title, interest and obligation in and to the stock, water rights, and other property
interests represented by Stock Certificate No. 275 for four (4) shares of stock of the Louden
Extension Canal and Reservoir Company.
1
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Exhibit A (3435 : IGA with Loveland to Aquire 4700 CR 30 - RES)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 111, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A RIGHT OF FIRST
OFFER AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO THE CITY OF
LOVELAND FOR PROPERTY AT 4200 COUNTY ROAD 30
WHEREAS, the City’s Natural Areas Department and the City of Loveland (“Loveland”)
have been negotiating to acquire an agricultural property and associated water interests at 4200
County Road 30 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, by separate resolution the City Council is considering a proposed
intergovernmental agreement between the City and Loveland regarding the purchase and future
management of the Property (the “IGA”); and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the IGA Loveland would provide $1,100,000 to purchase
the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) units associated with the property and $400,000
towards purchase of the land, and the City would provide $1,5000,000 for the purchase of the
land and remaining water interests; and
WHEREAS, the City would own and manage the Property, and Loveland would own the
CBT units and lease them back to the City for irrigation of the Property; and
WHEREAS, in the process of negotiating the terms of the IGA Loveland asked that the
City grant it a right of first offer and right of first refusal on the Property, so that if the City ever
opted to sell all or any portion of the Property (except leases or easements) Loveland would have
the opportunity to purchase the Property first; and
WHEREAS, a proposed Right of First Offer and Right of First Refusal dated August 19,
2015, is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” (the “ROFO/ROFR”); and
WHEREAS, if approved, the ROFO/ROFR would be conveyed to Loveland when the
City takes title to the Property at closing; and
WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that Loveland not be required to pay the City
additional consideration for the ROFO/ROFR because of the public benefit provided by the
collaboration between the City and Loveland to purchase and manage the Property; Loveland’s
investment in the Property; the shared interest of the City and Loveland in preserving the
Property as a community separator; and the difficulty in calculating a fair market value for a
right of first refusal; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell,
convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the
City, provided that the City Council finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in
the best interests of the City; and
Packet Pg. 164
- 2 -
WHEREAS, Section 23-411 of the City Code requires that the conveyance of a property
interest by the City be for fair market value unless the City Council determines that the sale
serves a bona fide public purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the
ROFO/ROFR to Loveland as provided herein is in the best interests of the City.
Section 2. That the City Council additionally finds that conveyance of the
ROFO/ROFR to Loveland without additional compensation serves a bona fide public purpose
because:
(a) Loveland is making a significant contribution to the purchase of the Property, the
intended use of which supports the general welfare, benefits a significant segment
of the citizens of the City, and supports the City’s plan to create community
separators; and
(b) Conveyance of the ROFO/ROFR for less than fair market value will not result in
a direct financial benefit to any private person or entity, and will not interfere with
current City projects or work programs, hinder workload schedules, or divert
resources needed for primary City functions or responsibilities.
Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Right of First Offer
and Right of First Refusal in substantially the form attached as Exhibit “A”, with such
modifications or additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the
City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City,
including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Property, as
long as such changes do not materially change the character of the interests to be conveyed.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
September, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 165
- 3 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 166
DRAFT 8-19-15
RIGHT OF FIRST OFFER AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
4200 County Road 30
THIS RIGHT OF FIRST OFFER AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL (“Agreement”) is
made and entered into this _______ day of ____________, 2015 (“Effective Date”), by and
between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (“Fort
Collins”) and THE CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (“Loveland”).
RECITALS
A. Fort Collins is the owner of a parcel of real property as more particularly described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”).
B. The Property and associated water interests were purchased by Fort Collins and
Loveland in accordance with an Intergovernmental Agreement between the parties dated September
____, 2015 (the “IGA”).
C. Fort Collins has agreed to grant to Loveland a right of first offer and a right of first
refusal to purchase the Property, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions of the IGA, and for the
further consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and adequacy of which are hereby confessed and acknowledged by Fort Collins, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Term. All rights and interests created and set forth in this Agreement shall remain in
existence and shall constitute a valid encumbrance upon the Property; except that such rights and
interests shall be extinguished by the occurrence of any one or more of the following events:
(a) a sale of the entire Property to Loveland, its successor in interest or assignee,
upon compliance by Fort Collins with all of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement; or
(b) a sale of the entire Property to any person other than Loveland or its
successor in interest or assignee, pursuant to and upon compliance by Fort Collins
with all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2. Applicability/Exclusions. The right of first offer and right of first refusal described
in this Agreement shall apply to all transactions involving a conveyance of title to the Property, or
any portion thereof, including but not limited to a purchase, an exchange, or any other transfer of
interest in the Property for consideration, other than leases, easements and rights of way.
EXHIBIT A
1
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Exhibit A (3491 : IGA with Loveland - ROFR for 4200 CR 30 ORD)
DRAFT 8-19-15
3. Right of First Offer.
(a) If at any time during the Term Fort Collins decides to offer for sale all or any
interest in the Property (the “Sale Property”), Fort Collins shall submit a contract
offering to sell the Sale Property to Loveland at the price (“Sale Price”) and on the
terms set forth in the proposed contract (the “Sale Offer”). The Sale Price shall be
stated as Fort Collins’s asking price for the Sale Property (“Asking Price”) less
twenty two and 5/10 percent (22.5%) in accordance with Loveland’s contribution to
the land purchase as described in the IGA.
(b) Loveland shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of the Sale Offer (the “Offer
Period”) within which to accept the Sale Offer. Acceptance shall be made, if at all, by
Loveland executing the Sale Offer and returning an executed copy to Fort Collins
within the Offer Period.
(c) If Loveland accepts the Sale Offer, Fort Collins and Loveland shall proceed to
close the sale and purchase of the Sale Property on the terms and conditions set forth
in the Sale Offer, along with such other terms and conditions as the parties may agree
to in writing. Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in the Sale Offer, such closing shall occur within sixty (60) days,
but not sooner than thirty (30) days, after the date of acceptance by Loveland of the
Sale Offer, at a time and place mutually acceptable to Fort Collins and Loveland.
(d) If Loveland does not accept the Sale Offer within the Offer Period, then for a
period of two (2) years after the date the Sale Offer was given to Loveland (the “Sale
Period”), Fort Collins shall have the right to sell the Sale Property at a price not less
than 90% of the Asking Price set forth in the Sale Offer, on terms and provisions
materially similar to those set forth in the Sale Offer. On expiration of the Sale
Period Fort Collins may not sell the Sale Property without once again offering the
Sale Property to Loveland pursuant to the foregoing right of first offer.
(e) Upon the closing of the sale pursuant to the terms of subsection (d),
Loveland’s rights under this paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 below shall automatically
terminate as to the Sale Property, without need for further action by any party.
(g) If, during the Sale Period, Fort Collins desires to sell the Sale Property at a
price less than 90% of the Asking Price set forth in the Sale Offer, or on terms
materially different from the terms set forth in the Sale Offer, then Fort Collins shall
once again offer the Sale Property to Loveland in the manner set forth above, which
offer shall remain open for thirty (30) days.
(h) The right of first refusal hereinafter set forth shall not apply to any offer
received by Fort Collins during the Sale Period so long as the offer is at a price at
1
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Exhibit A (3491 : IGA with Loveland - ROFR for 4200 CR 30 ORD)
DRAFT 8-19-15
least 90% of the Asking Price and on terms which are not materially different from
the term set forth in the Sale Offer.
4. Right of First Refusal.
(a) If during the Applicable Term Fort Collins receives a bona fide written offer
to purchase (“the Purchase Offer”) all or any portion of Fort Collins's interest in the
Property (“the Purchase Property”), which Fort Collins is willing to accept, Fort
Collins shall deliver to Loveland a copy of the Purchase Offer signed by the
purchaser and shall indicate to Loveland, in writing, that Fort Collins is ready,
willing and able to accept the Purchase Offer.
(b) Loveland shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of the Purchase Offer (the
“Offer Period”) within which to notify Fort Collins in writing that Loveland will
purchase the Purchase Property at the price and on the terms and provisions set forth
in the Purchase Offer, which notice shall be accompanied by cash or certified funds
payable to Fort Collins in the amount of the earnest money deposit, if any, required
by the terms of the Purchase Offer.
(c) If Loveland notifies Fort Collins of Loveland's intent to acquire the Purchase
Property on the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Offer, then Fort Collins
and Loveland shall, within fifteen (15) days after such notice, execute an agreement
of purchase and sale at the price, less twenty two and 5/10 percent (22.5%) in
accordance with Loveland’s contribution to the land purchase as described in the
IGA, and on the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Offer, along with such
other terms and conditions as the parties may agree in writing. Notwithstanding the
foregoing and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Purchase
Offer, such closing shall occur within sixty (60) days, but not sooner than thirty (30)
days, after execution of the purchase and sale agreement, at a time and place
mutually acceptable to Fort Collins and Loveland.
(d) If Loveland fails to notify Fort Collins of Loveland's intent to acquire the
Purchase Property within the Offer Period, then Fort Collins may sell the Purchase
Property in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Offer, and Loveland shall have
no further right to purchase the Purchase Property pursuant to the terms of this right
of first refusal or the foregoing right of first offer. Loveland’s failure to exercise its
right to purchase with respect to any transfer of less than all of the Property shall not
be deemed a waiver of such right with respect to that part of the Property owned by
Fort Collins after such transfer.
(e) If Fort Collins does not sell the Purchase Property pursuant to the Purchase
Offer, then the right of first refusal shall not be deemed waived or cancelled but shall
remain in full force and effect. Upon receipt of any subsequent Purchase Offer, Fort
Collins shall once again offer the Purchase Property to Loveland in the same manner
1
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Exhibit A (3491 : IGA with Loveland - ROFR for 4200 CR 30 ORD)
DRAFT 8-19-15
as hereinabove provided, and Loveland shall have an additional thirty (30) days
within which to accept such subsequent Purchase Offer.
5. Disposition of Sale Proceeds. If Loveland declines to purchase the Property or
portions of the Property pursuant to its rights listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 above and Fort Collins
sells such interest in the Property or any portion of the Property to a third party, the proceeds of such
disposition shall be divided between Fort Collins and Loveland in accordance with paragraphs 3.b
and 1.e of the IGA.
6. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given by any party pursuant to this
Contract shall be in writing and may be personally delivered; mailed, certified mail, return receipt
requested; sent by telephone facsimile with a hard copy sent by regular mail; or sent by a nationally
recognized, receipted, overnight delivery service. Any such notice shall be deemed given when
personally delivered; if mailed, three (3) delivery days after deposit in the United States mail,
postage prepaid; if sent by telephone facsimile on the day sent if sent on a business day during
normal business hours of the recipient (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) or on the next business day if sent at
any other time; or if sent by overnight delivery service, one (1) business day after deposit in the
custody of the delivery service. The addresses and telephone numbers for the mailing, transmitting,
or delivering of notices shall be as follows:
If to Loveland, to:
Parks and Recreation
Open Lands Manager
500 E. Third Street, Suite 200
Loveland, CO 80537
With a copy to:
City Attorney’s Office
500 E. Third St.
Loveland, CO 80537
If to Fort Collins, to:
City of Fort Collins
Attn: City Manager
300 LaPorte Ave.
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
With a copy to:
City of Fort Collins
1
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Exhibit A (3491 : IGA with Loveland - ROFR for 4200 CR 30 ORD)
DRAFT 8-19-15
Attn: Real Estate Services
300 LaPorte Ave.
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Notice of a change of address of any party shall be given in the same manner as all other notices as
hereinabove provided.
7. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by Loveland without the prior
written consent of Fort Collins.
8. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
9. Notice to Buyers. Loveland shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the real
property records of Larimer County, Colorado, promptly upon execution and delivery of the same.
Fort Collins shall further provide actual notice of the terms of this Agreement to any party seeking
to acquire any interest in or rights to the Property.
10. Remedies. In the event of default by Fort Collins in the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, Loveland shall have the right to an action for specific
performance or damages, or both. In the event of any litigation arising out of this Agreement, the
court shall award to the party that substantially prevails in such litigation, all costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
[Signature pages follow]
1
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Exhibit A (3491 : IGA with Loveland - ROFR for 4200 CR 30 ORD)
DRAFT 8-19-15
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
a Municipal Corporation
Date: By:
Wade O. Troxell, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF ____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
__________________ , 2015, by Wade O. Troxell as Mayor of the City of Fort Collins.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
______________ ____
Notary Public
1
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Exhibit A (3491 : IGA with Loveland - ROFR for 4200 CR 30 ORD)
DRAFT 8-19-15
THE CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO
a Municipal Corporation
Date: By:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
1
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Exhibit A (3491 : IGA with Loveland - ROFR for 4200 CR 30 ORD)
DRAFT 8-19-15
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
The W1/2 of the SW1/4 and the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 22, Township 6 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the right of way for County Road as established and/or used;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM those parcels described in Deeds recorded December 11, 1985,
at Reception No. 85062821 and August 20, 1991, at Reception No. 91039306.
(Street Address: 4200 East County Road 30, Fort Collins, Colorado)
1
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Exhibit A (3491 : IGA with Loveland - ROFR for 4200 CR 30 ORD)
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Jason Holland, City Planner
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2015, Amending the Zoning Map of the City by Changing the Zoning
Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Salud Family Health Center Rezoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to rezone 22.8 acres located at 1830 Laporte Avenue (formerly occupied by Forney
Industries) from Transition (T) to Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) and Limited Commercial (C-
L), in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The property was annexed and zoned in October 2012 as the Forney Annexation and was placed in the (T)
Transition zone at that time, as the previous owner was uncertain what zoning designations would be
proposed with future development of the site. The T zone is a holding zone for properties where there are no
specific or imminent plans for development. No additional development is permitted in the T zone unless
approved by City Council. It is typically used to allow property owners and/or the City to consider zoning
alternatives while the property is held in the T zone.
This rezoning request places the property from the T zone into two zoning categories: (a) 12.6 acres within the
(L-M-N) Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone district; and (b) 10.2 acres within the (C-L) Limited
Commercial zone district.
The policy guidance for these zoning designations is described in the Northwest Subarea Plan. The Limited
Commercial portion of the property follows the boundary of the existing commercial buildings on the site and is
consistent with the recommendations of the Northwest Subarea Plan, which designates this location as Limited
Commercial to accommodate existing commercial activities and to encourage reinvestment and
redevelopment within the commercial areas, placing an emphasis on uses and activities that are beneficial to
and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. The intent of L-M-N portion to the north is to provide a
transition between the existing surrounding neighborhoods to the north and the proposed Limited Commercial
zoning to the south.
These zoning designations provided by the Northwest Subarea Plan are reflected in City Plan through the City
Structure Plan Map. Typically, requests to rezone property out of the T zone into zone districts that are in
accordance with the City Structure Plan are routine procedural matters.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct financial or economic impacts resulting from the requested rezoning.
20
Packet Pg. 175
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 2
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 13, 2015 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to support a
recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed rezoning. The recommendation was part of the
Planning and Zoning Board Consent Calendar and was not discussed.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
No neighborhood meeting was required for this rezoning. No known controversy or neighborhood impacts are
involved with the rezoning. Any subsequent development applications are required to comply with Land Use
Code standards for public involvement in development review.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map (PDF)
2. Proposed Zoning (PDF)
3. Existing Zoning (PDF)
4. Proposed Zoning Boundary Map (PDF)
5. List of Permitted Uses in the C-L District (PDF)
6. List of Permitted Uses in the L-M-N District (PDF)
20
Packet Pg. 176
Poudre Sr High
Lincoln Middle School
Lab - Polaris
Psd Support Services
Irish Elementary
Putnam Elementary
Poudre Community Academy
Colorado State University
Oakwood School
Childrens House Montessori School
City Park
City Park Nine Golf Course
Grandview Cemetery
Sheldon Lake
MapleSt
W Oak St
Irish Dr
Crestmore Pl
Orchard Pl
Cherry St
Shel
d
o
n
D
r
Scott Ave
Hanna St
Pearl St
S Br
y
a
n
A
v
e
Jackson Ave
Lyons St
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
D
r
Sky
l
i
n
e
Dr
Liberty Dr
Cook Dr
Elm St
City Park Ave
Gallup Rd
Aztec Dr
PUTNAM ELEMENTARY
OAKWOOD SCHOOL
LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRANDVIEW CEMETERY
CITY PARK
CITY PARK NINE GOLF COURSE
Larimer County Canal #2
New Mercer Canal
New Mercer Canal
NCL
T
POL
RL
LMN
LMN
LMN LMN
LMN
UE
RL
W VINE DR
LAPORTE AVE
N TAFT HILL RD
W MOUNTAIN AVE
W OAK ST
MAPLE ST
LYONS ST
ELM ST
S TAFT HILL RD
CHERRY ST
N BRYAN AVE
N FREY AVE
FREY AVE
GRANDVIEW AVE
PENNSYLVANIA ST
RICHARDS PL
COLLINS CT
LYONS ST
LYONS ST
Salud Family Health, 1830 LaPorte Avenue
±
1 inch = 600 feet
Proposed Zoning for:
Legend
City Zoning
ZONE
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density
Public Open Lands
Limited Commercial
Site
Boundary
L-M-N
C-L
Note: All unshaded map areas
are currently in the County and
will be zoned if annexed
into the City
ATTACHMENT 2
20.2
PUTNAM ELEMENTARY
OAKWOOD SCHOOL
LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL
CITY PARK
GRANDVIEW CEMETERY
CITY PARK NINE GOLF COURSE
Larimer County Canal #2
New Mercer Canal
New Mercer Canal
POL
NCL
T
RL
LMN
LMN
LMN LMN
LMN
UE
RL
LAPORTE AVE
N TAFT HILL RD
W MOUNTAIN AVE
W OAK ST
MAPLE ST
LYONS ST
ELM ST
S TAFT HILL RD
CHERRY ST
N BRYAN AVE
N FREY AVE
FREY AVE
CLOVER LN
GRANDVIEW AVE
PENNSYLVANIA ST
RICHARDS PL
N MCKINLEY AVE
LYONS ST
LYONS ST
Salud Family Health, 1830 LaPorte Avenue
±
1 inch = 600 feet
Existing Zoning Map
Legend
City Zoning
ZONE
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density
Public Open Lands
Transition Zone District
Site
Boundary
Transition
Zone Dist.
Note: All unshaded map areas
are currently in the County and
will be zoned if annexed
into the City
W. Vine Dr.
ATTACHMENT 3
TRACT D
OWNER: CITY OF FORT COLLINS
UNINCORPORATED LARIMER COUNTY OWNER: JACOR BROADCASTING
OF COLORADO INC
LOT 2, 1ST REPLAT
SCHMIDTBERGER SUB
LOT 1, 1ST REPLAT
SCHMIDTBERGER SUB
LILAC
APARTMENTS
REVISED
OWNER: JACOR
BROADCASTING OF
COLORADO INC
EKBLAD ADDITION
OWNER: GAYLORD
PROPERTIES
UNINCORPORATED
LARIMER COUNTY
OWNER: 1760 WEST
LAPORTE AVE LLC
OWNER: ECKERT
WILLIAMS S
FREY ANNEXATION
GRANDVIEW CEMETERY
ANNEXATION
S89°24'33"E 1320.17'
N89°14'49"W 330.72'
N00°42'46"E 656.12'
S00°23'46"W 377.97'
N89°14'44"W 285.00'
S00°23'46"W 472.81'
N87°54'20"W 249.40'
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
N00°38'54"E 435.71'
25' UTILITY EASEMENT
(REC. NO. 20120012756)
TRACT A TRACT E
TRACT B
TRACT C
OWNER: 1760 WEST
LAPORTE AVE LLC
POWER LINE EASEMENT
(BOOK 1599 PAGE 612)
10' POWER LINE EASEMENT
(BOOK 1599 PAGE 612)
WEST LAPORTE AVENUE
(PUBLIC R.O.W. VARIES)
BASIS OF BEARINGS
SOUTH LINE OF NORTHWEST 1/4
SECTION 10
POINT OF BEGINNING
PARCEL 1
W 1/16 CORNER
0(&.552!5/5
3HUPLWWHG8VHVLQWKH &/
20.5
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: List of Permitted Uses in the C-L District (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
20.5
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: List of Permitted Uses in the C-L District (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
8/-6?
";'? 7?
3HUPLWWHG8VHVLQWKH/RZ'HQVLW\0L[HG8VH1HLJKERUKRRG'LVWULFW
20.6
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: List of Permitted Uses in the L-M-N District (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
20.6
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: List of Permitted Uses in the L-M-N District (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
20.6
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: List of Permitted Uses in the L-M-N District (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 112, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN
AS THE SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the
rezoning of the property that is the subject of this Ordinance, and has determined that said
property should be rezoned as hereafter provided; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within
the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed
rezoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from the Transition (“T”) Zone District, to
the Limited Commercial (“C-L”) Zone District, for the following described property in the City
known as the Salud Family Health Center Rezoning:
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range
69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and
being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 as bearing North 89°
14' 44" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 10, said point being POINT OF BEGINNING 1; thence, North 00° 38' 54"
East, 435.71 feet; thence, North 00° 38' 53" East, 163.32 feet; thence, South 76° 32' 17"
East, 39.76 feet; thence, South 68° 48' 16" East, 30.68 feet; thence, South 62° 17' 03"
East, 2.34 feet; thence, North 27° 34' 06" East, 386.65 feet; thence, South 62° 25' 54"
East, 458.15 feet; thence, North 90° 00' 00" East, 53.71 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46"
West, 472.81 feet; thence, North 87° 54' 20" West, 249.40 feet; thence, South 07° 37' 19"
Packet Pg. 188
- 2 -
East, 72.44 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 86.39 feet; thence, North 00° 23' 46"
East, 21.00 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 83.00 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46"
West, 50.00 feet; thence, North 89°14' 30" West, 85.50 feet; thence, South 00° 45' 13"
West, 150.00 feet to the South line of the Northwest Quarter; thence along said South
line, North 89° 14' 44" West, 215.00 feet to Point of Beginning 1.
The above described tract of land contains 442,729 square feet or 10.164 acres, more or
less.
Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from the Transition (“T”) Zone District, to
the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District, for the following described
property in the City known as the Salud Family Health Centers Rezoning:
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range
69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and
being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 as bearing North 89°
14' 44" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 10; thence, North 00° 38' 54" East, 435.71 feet to POINT OF
BEGINNING 2; thence, North 89° 14' 49" West, 330.72 feet; thence, North 00° 42' 46"
East, 656.12 feet; thence, South 89° 24' 33" East, 1320.17 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46"
West, 377.97 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 285.00 feet; thence, North 90° 00' 00"
West, 53.71 feet; thence, North 62° 25' 54" West, 458.15 feet; thence, South 27° 34' 06"
West, 386.65 feet; thence, North 62° 17' 03" West, 2.34 feet; thence, North 68° 48' 16"
West, 30.68 feet; thence, North 76° 32' 17" West, 39.76 feet; thence, South 00° 38' 53"
West, 163.32 feet to Point of Beginning 2.
The above described tract of land contains 551,179 square feet or 12.653 acres, more or
less.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Packet Pg. 189
- 3 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
September, A.D., 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of September, A.D.
2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 190
Agenda Item 21
Item # 21 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Seth Lorson, City Planner
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
SUBJECT
Resolution 2015-081 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding the Appeal of the
Administrative Hearing Officer Marcus McAskin Decision Approving the River Modern Project Development
Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 20, 2015, Max D. Oesterle et al. filed a Notice of Appeal on grounds that the Decision Maker failed to
properly interpret and apply certain provisions of the Land Use Code.
On August 18, 2015, City Council voted 7-0 on the motion that the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly
interpret and apply certain provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.4.1(E)(2), 3.5.1(B), (C),
(D), and (E), and added conditions to the project’s approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On June 25, 2015, an Administrative Hearing Officer considered the application for the River Modern Project
Development Plan. The Hearing Officer issued a decision to approve the Project Development Plan with
requested Modifications of Standard subject to conditions.
On July 20, 2015, Max Oesterle et al. filed a Notice of Appeal on grounds that the Decision Maker failed to
properly interpret and apply certain provisions of the Land Use Code. Specifically cited were sections of the
Land Use Code pertaining to the proposed stormwater quality basin in the Spring Creek Buffer (3.4.1(E)(2)),
and the compatibility of the proposed structures within the context of the existing neighborhood (3.5.1).
On August 18, 2015, City Council considered these allegations and testimony from the appellants and
applicants. City Council found that the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret and apply the code by
approving the stormwater quality basin within the Spring Creek buffer as permitted by the Land Use Code. City
Council also found that the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret and apply the code by approving the
structures and deeming them compatible with the existing neighborhood. However, City Council did add
conditions to improve compliance with the privacy considerations of Land Use Code Section 3.5.1(D), to
require, in addition to the conditions required by the Hearing Officer:
1. removal of the high balcony on the west side of building number 1; and
2. that the Applicant, working with staff, enhances the landscaping plan for the Project to increase the
number of columnar trees along the east and west property boundaries by 25% from the number shown in
the Project Development Plan approved by the Hearing Officer.
21
Packet Pg. 191
- 1 -
RESOLUTION 2015-081
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
MARCUS MCASKIN DECISION APPROVING THE RIVER MODERN PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2015, Administrative Hearing Officer Marcus McAskin (the
“Hearing Officer”) issued a decision approving the River Modern Project Development Plan (the
“Decision”), subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Appeal of the Decision was filed with the City Clerk by Max
Oesterle, Pamela Oesterle, Kendra Bartley, Gerald Bartley and Shen Gruber (referred to
individually as “Appellant” or collectively as “Appellants”); and
WHEREAS, the Appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and
apply certain relevant provisions of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered the Appeal, reviewed the record
on appeal, and heard presentations from the Appellants and other parties-in-interest (the
“Council Hearing”); and
WHEREAS, after discussion, the City Council found and concluded based on the
evidence in the record and presented at the hearing that: (1) the Hearing Officer did not fail to
properly interpret and apply the Land Use Code or City Code; (2) the Decision should be
modified by the addition of two conditions requiring the Applicant to remove a balcony on the
west side of Building No. 1 and to work with City staff to enhance the landscaping by increasing
the number of trees to be planted; and (3) except as to the addition of two conditions as stated,
the Appeal is without merit and is denied; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-55(g) provides that no later than the date of its regular
meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in
support of its decision on the Appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-55(g) of the City Code, the City Council hereby
makes and adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions:
1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal conform
to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code.
2. That based on the evidence in the record and presented at the Council Hearing,
the recitals set forth above are adopted as findings of fact.
Packet Pg. 192
- 2 -
3. That based on the evidence in the record and presented at the Council Hearing the
Decision is hereby modified by the addition of the following conditions:
a. In order to improve compliance with the privacy considerations of Land
Use Code Section 3.5.1(D), the River Modern Project Development Plan
shall be required to remove the high balcony on the west side of Building
No. 1; and
b. For the same reason of privacy considerations, the Applicant shall work
with City staff to enhance the landscape plan for the project to increase the
number of columnar trees along the east and west property boundaries by
25% from the number shown in the Project Development Plan approved
by the Hearing Officer.
4. That the relevant sections of the City Code and Land Use Code were properly
interpreted and applied by the Hearing Officer and that, except as modified in this Resolution,
the Appeal is found to be without merit and is denied.
5. That adoption of this Resolution shall constitute the final action of the City
Council in accordance with city Code Section 2-55(g).
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of September, A.D. 2015.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 193
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
Resolution 2015-082 Directing the City Manager to Submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the City's
Comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Integrated Supply
Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review, and to consider endorsement by resolution, comments directed to the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (SDEIS) for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). Please note that this Agenda Item
Summary and the attached comments to the Corps are intended to protect the interests of the City by
identifying the City’s concerns with NISP and the SDEIS. The comments are further intended to create a
record that establishes a firm foundation for the City’s participation in future administrative, legal, and informal
processes associated with NISP in order to address direct impacts in Fort Collins and to the City.
As noted for Council’s July 28 Work Session, staff believes certain areas of the SDEIS represent a significant
improvement over the 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Common Technical Platform
(CTP) required by the Corps for the hydrological modeling underlying the SDEIS has provided valuable
baseline information to its analysts and reviewers. Furthermore, the CTP is being used in the City’s EIS
process for the Halligan Water Supply Project. Based on the CTP, the impacts analysis of the SDEIS has
been strengthened in certain key areas. In addition, the SDEIS includes a conceptual mitigation plan put
forward by Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern) that provides an overview of how
Northern has initially proposed to deal with some of the unavoidable impacts of NISP. The City welcomes
Northern beginning the conversations around mitigation.
Notwithstanding these valuable improvements and potential benefits, as summarized below, staff continues to
have numerous significant and fundamental concerns with respect to NISP’s impacts to the City and the failure
of the SDEIS to adequately or accurately describe all of the impacts. The concerns include:
The absence of a critical water quality and stream temperature report that quantifies the water quality
impacts. Many of the potential impacts to Fort Collins hinge on the report’s findings.
The inclusion of a no-action alternative that is not bona fide; this improperly skews the entire analysis
in favor of the preferred alternative.
The potential for water quality degradation that could affect source water and wastewater treatment
facilities.
Flawed analyses and conclusions related to the project’s reduction of peak flows which are likely to
harm the environment and potentially increase flood risk.
In general, flawed analyses and conclusions regarding long-term degradation of habitat.
A failure to analyze an alternative that would avoid most negative impacts to Fort Collins.
A conceptual mitigation plan that is premature and inadequate because the impacts of the project have
not yet been correctly described.
A conceptual mitigation plan that includes an augmentation flow that, as currently described, is not
likely to be allowed under Colorado water law and administration.
Significant negative impacts to the recreation values of the River.
22
Packet Pg. 194
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 2
Where possible, the City’s comments include suggestions for how to improve the analysis or resolve the City’s
concerns.
Please note that the comments provided on NISP to the Corps could lead to potentially significant delays and
increased costs to the City’s Halligan Water Supply Project, since changes to the analysis of NISP as a result
of these and other comments will likely be required for both projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has drafted a resolution for Council consideration that expresses support for the NISP participants in their
quest to acquire water supplies. Given, however, continued fundamental concerns with respect to the
shortcomings of the SDEIS as well as demonstrable threats to the City’s interests, the resolution expresses the
City’s inability to support NISP as currently described in the SDEIS and expresses support for further
improvement of the SDEIS and, ultimately, the conceptual mitigation plan.
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Introduction
The Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) is a municipal water supply project designed and sponsored by
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern) and fifteen municipalities and water districts,
including the Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD), a municipal water provider serving a portion of
Fort Collins. As discussed by staff at the May 12 and July 28 Work Sessions, NISP would involve substantial
diversions of water from the Poudre River. The preferred alternative for NISP (as well as three additional
alternatives) would divert water from the Poudre River below the canyon mouth and above Fort Collins,
thereby reducing flows through town. Under the preferred alternative, water from these upstream diversions
would be stored in Glade Reservoir northwest of Fort Collins. Comments on the SDEIS are due on or before
September 3.
In 2008, City Council endorsed a set of comprehensive comments to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) regarding the NISP Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Those comments can be found
at: <http://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/> Council also adopted a resolution 2008-082, stating that it opposed
NISP as it was described at the time.
The Corps decided to perform a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) which
describes the proponents’ preferred alternative (as well as three additional alternatives). It was published on
June 19. The SDEIS is a federally-required detailed review of the environmental impacts of the proposed
project alternatives. The Corps must issue a permit before the project may proceed to construction.
Staff and a consultant team have reviewed the SDEIS and prepared the comments attached as Exhibit A to
Resolution 2015-082 for Council consideration. Staff focused most of its efforts on the alternative preferred by
Northern (which has two variations).
Previous Council Direction and Staff’s Recommendation
At the May 12 and July 28 Work Sessions staff presented background on NISP as well as staff’s proposed
approach to commenting on the SDEIS, which Council approved. The approach to the current SDEIS is
similar to the City’s approach to commenting on the original DEIS in 2008, such that the City is examining and
preparing comments on various “themes” or topics that are directly relevant to the City’s interests, including
investments and policy decisions. Pursuant to Council direction, staff has thus taken an analytical and data-
driven objective approach, and not taken an approach based on a position either for or against the project. In
addition, although a primary purpose of any review process is to provide a critique, staff also has made
recommendations as to how the SDEIS could be improved to address the City’s concerns.
22
Packet Pg. 195
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 3
In developing the recommended resolution, staff considered several key factors and options. Factors
considered include:
NISP will provide water for a portion of Fort Collins and for other communities in the region.
Comments the City makes regarding NISP have the potential to affect and delay the Halligan Water
Supply Project.
Staff and the consultant team continue to believe that there are serious shortcomings in the SDEIS.
Staff and the consultant team continue to believe that NISP has the potential to cause significant harm
to the City’s interests.
The need to protect the interests of the City and to create a record that establishes a firm foundation
for the City’s participation in future administrative, legal, and informal processes related to NISP.
Staff considered several options for the recommended resolution that included:
Complete support
Conditional support
Neutrality
Conditional opposition
Absolute opposition
In the end, staff concluded that the City’s interests were best served by adopting a position of conditional
opposition due to the shortcomings of the impacts analysis, the anticipated harms to Fort Collins, and the
inadequacies of the conceptual mitigation plan. The draft resolution thus states:
“That the City Council cannot support NISP as it is currently described and proposed in the
DEIS and SDEIS, with the understanding that the City Council may reach a different
conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP that addresses the City’s fundamental
concerns expressed in the City’s comments to the DEIS and comments to the SDEIS.”
Please note: the comments of the City team focus primarily on the preferred alternative. There are two
versions of the preferred alternative. The major distinction is the potential in one version for delivery of water
into Horsetooth Reservoir from Glade Reservoir.
Context for Consideration of NISP
Poudre River
The Poudre River is the main source of water for a large area of northeastern Colorado. For over 150 years,
water has been diverted for agricultural, residential, and commercial uses. The Poudre River is a remarkably
successful example of a river that effectively delivers water for these needs. In addition to the economic
achievements represented by diversions of water from the stream, significant environmental needs or values
also have been achieved; for example, the Wild and Scenic designation of much of the canyon reach of the
River provides long-term protection for this beautiful area. Moreover, Fort Collins has taken many actions to
enhance the River corridor in and around the City, including its trail and Parks system, as well as restoring and
actively managing its natural areas for high value wildlife habitat.
In spite of these valuable conservation efforts, however, maintenance of the environmental and ecosystem
service values of the River below the canyon mouth has been modest when compared to diversions and
development. The Poudre River literally dries up at certain times of the year in Fort Collins because of
upstream diversions; and furthermore, its flows through town have been reduced by approximately two-thirds
of historical, pre-water development flows. NISP would reduce flows by an additional 21% as measured at the
Lincoln Street Gage in downtown Fort Collins. These significant flow reductions are damaging to the long-term
health of the River because flows are the single-most important factor in sustaining habitat as well as a river
channel that can handle flood events, among other values.
22
Packet Pg. 196
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 4
As northern Colorado continues to grow, there will be additional pressure on the Poudre River to be the water
source for the new residents, businesses, and other uses. The SDEIS notes that the ultimate additional
demand in the NISP service area (which includes portions of Boulder, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties)
thru 2060 are predicted to range from approximately 100,000 to 140,000 acre feet per year (these amounts are
in addition to the NISP firm yield of 40,000 acre feet). The SDEIS predicts that the NISP supply will only meet
the demands of participants until 2030, when new supplies will be needed. Thus, although only a portion of
this ultimate supply need will be developed from the Poudre, NISP water providers will continue to purchase
agricultural water rights and change them for new uses and to file for new water rights, which could further
deplete the River through Fort Collins. Thus, if Fort Collins and the region are to be successful in achieving a
Poudre River recognizable as a functional river with clean swimmable waters, abundant vegetation, wildlife,
and protection from flood flows - there will need to be regional discussions, agreements, and collaborations.
Moreover, watershed services and the environment should be an integral part of the water supply and storage
conversation.
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
The Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) is a municipal water provider serving portions of southern
Fort Collins, as well as lands outside of the City’s growth management area. FCLWD is one of the NISP
participants. In addition to FCLWD’s other water rights, if approved and constructed, NISP would provide the
FCLWD with 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of firm yield per year. Based on information provided by FCLWD, the
demand increase within the City’s growth management area served by FCLWD is approximately 1,400 AF
through 2040. Thus, while there are various concerns regarding NISP for the City, as described below, NISP
also offers benefits to certain Fort Collins residents.
Halligan Project
The City of Fort Collins Utilities is currently pursuing a permit from the Corps for the Halligan Water Supply
Project. Pursuant to the Corps’ direction, the City is using the same CTP models as NISP to have a baseline
understanding of hydrological and resource affects. The City’s preferred alternative is the enlargement of
Halligan Reservoir. The Corps has selected the enlargement of Glade Reservoir as a potential alternative to
Halligan. The NISP SDEIS, however, does not analyze the potential enlargement of Glade Reservoir as an
alternative to Halligan. This option will be presented in the DEIS for the Halligan Water Supply Project
scheduled to be released in the summer of 2016.
Staff recognizes that the City’s comments on NISP may affect the Halligan project and have considered
potential impacts to the Halligan project in the development of these NISP comments. However, in order to
have meaningful comments on the NISP project that protect the City’s other interests, many of those
comments request additional analyses that may be required of both projects. Even though the impacts of
enlarging Halligan are expected to be significantly less than NISP, the changes requested in the City’s
comments have the potential to result in the current Halligan Water Supply Project analyses needing to be
redone, which has the potential to lead to significant delays and additional costs (given the Corps’ CTP
requires the same analysis and modeling for all Poudre River projects). The City would like to work with the
Corps and Northern in addressing these comments quickly to minimize potential delays to the permit process
for both projects.
Comments Regarding the NISP SDEIS
The Need to Develop a Legitimate No-Action Alternative
The SDEIS analyzes four alternatives that would supply 40,000 acre feet annually to the NISP participants.
The Corps is required to develop a no-action alternative that examines what would happen in the absence of a
federally-approved or permitted project. To be considered a legitimate alternative, the no-action alternative
cannot depend on a federal permit.
The no-action alternative examined by the Corps appears to require a federal Clean Water Act permit. This
22
Packet Pg. 197
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 5
matters to Fort Collins because the no-action alternative is a baseline for measuring and comparing the
impacts of the preferred alternative. Without a true no-action alternative, there is no accurate baseline for
measuring the impacts of the preferred alternative. Furthermore, because the Corps includes Cactus Hill
Reservoir in the no-action alternative, as well as two other alternatives, it prevents the Corps and the public
from meaningfully analyzing alternatives to the proposed action (which includes Glade Reservoir and Galeton
Reservoir).
Proposed Modified Alternative 4
Staff has investigated a modified Alternative 4 for NISP that would meet the NISP participants’ water needs
while providing more water for 23 miles of the Poudre River, including the section of river through Fort Collins.
Similar to other alternatives considered in the SDEIS, the modified Alternative 4 is a storage project and would
entail construction of Cactus Hill Reservoir, but unlike other alternatives, most diversions to Cactus Hill
Reservoir would occur downstream of Fort Collins. As a result, many of the concerns expressed in the City’s
comments on NISP, such as decreased flows through town, harm to wetlands and riparian areas, and adverse
impacts to City and environmental resources, largely would be avoided. Importantly, the modified Alternative 4
would impact fewer wetlands than other alternatives analyzed in the SDEIS, which is an important
consideration for the Corps in selecting which alternative to permit. The modified Alternative 4 does not
alleviate all of Fort Collins’ concerns, since relative to other alternatives in the SDEIS it would result in greater
pumping and greenhouse gas emissions. It would also entail increased pumping costs, although the capital
costs are thought to be comparable to other SDEIS alternatives. Nevertheless, based upon its cursory review,
staff believes that the modified Alternative 4 is practicable and cost effective and that it should be analyzed by
the Corps. Ultimately, based on the outcome of further Corps analysis, the City might wish to consider
endorsing modified Alternative 4 as long as there was appropriate mitigation.
Water Quality - Source Water
Maintaining or improving water quality is of paramount importance to the City. Water quality can be defined by
its physical, chemical, biological, and aesthetic attributes, which are not only important for the protection of
public health, but also the environment.
The City’s concerns about potential negative impacts of NISP operations on the quality of drinking water
supplies are twofold. The first is related to the potential conveyance of NISP water from Glade Reservoir
through the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (PVP). Currently, the PVP delivers Poudre River water to the City’s
treatment plant via the Munroe Canal, which is situated upstream of the proposed Glade diversion point and is
of high quality. Fort Collins Utilities shares use of the PVP with the Tri-Districts (FCLWD, the East Larimer
County Water District, and the North Weld County Water District). As proposed, Northern will convey water
from Glade Reservoir into the PVP for delivery to the Tri-Districts’ Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (SCFP) for use
by the Fort Collins Loveland Water District and other NISP participants. If Glade Reservoir water is of poorer
quality, which is expected due to the size and composition of the project, the quality of the City’s water supplies
obtained through the PVP will be degraded and may require additional treatment costs associated with total
organic carbon (TOC) and solids removal. The City wants this potential impact to be addressed and mitigated.
Secondly, the City has serious concerns about the combined effects of Glade water deliveries through a
proposed Glade to Horsetooth pipeline and the significant (up to 300%) increase in hydraulic residence time in
Horsetooth Reservoir from approximately three years to about seven years. Those two changes create a
strong potential for significant water quality degradation in Horsetooth Reservoir. Long residence times are
associated with increases in algal production and changes in species composition. In turn, these changes can
potentially result in higher TOC concentrations as well as the production of cyanotoxins, which can pose public
health concerns, and elevated levels of nuisance taste and odor compounds. These types of water quality
changes present the potential for very large financial impacts on the City should treatment facility upgrades be
required. However, the reservoir CE-QUAL-W2 model results presented in the SDEIS did not include
simulations of the increase in hydraulic residence time, and therefore, the City was unable to evaluate the
overall likelihood or expected magnitude of impacts that would result from the proposed NISP operations on
water quality in the Horsetooth Reservoir. A complete evaluation of all proposed changes in reservoir
operations under the preferred Alternative 2-Reclamation Option is needed.
22
Packet Pg. 198
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 6
Water Quality - Wastewater
Various chemical constituents and temperature are key components of water quality. A fundamental gap in
the SDEIS is the lack of a quantitative water quality and temperature model of the Poudre River. The SDEIS
acknowledges that these critically important components are missing and indicates that they will be provided in
the Final EIS, on which the City may not have the opportunity to comment, or on which the City’s ability to
comment would be limited. While the SDEIS indicates that water quality and temperatures changes are likely,
it does not provide quantitative information that would allow the City or others to understand the potential
impacts to its facilities or their operation. This is a serious shortcoming. (Please note that unlike the impact
analyses in the SDEIS, it will be possible for the City to review in advance the methods proposed by Northern
to model water quality and temperature impacts to the Poudre. Northern has extended an invitation to the City
to do so. The State of Colorado also will review the model.)
Flow reductions impact many of the issues that the SDEIS explores and the NISP preferred alternative
substantially reduces flows through Fort Collins. For example, currently the total amount of water on an
average annual basis that flows in the canyon prior to diversion is approximately 280,000 acre feet (AF). By
the time the River flows under the Lincoln Street Bridge in Fort Collins after upstream diversions, those flows
have been reduced to about 108,000 AF on average. If NISP is built, flows at the Lincoln Street Bridge will
likely be further reduced to an average of 85,000 AF, or a 21% reduction from current levels. Although NISP
diversions may occur in other months (including late summer and early fall), most of its diverted water will be
taken during periods of high flows in the months of May, June, and July. Monthly streamflows in average
years at the Fort Collins Lincoln Avenue Stream Gage in May, June, and July are respectively calculated to be
reduced by approximately 66%, 25%, and 54%.
Diversions of Poudre River water for NISP will affect water quality in the Poudre River below the canyon mouth
to points downstream where the City discharges treated wastewater. Degradation of water quality in the River
as it flows through town could create very difficult issues related to the City’s wastewater discharge permits as
well as the need to potentially provide expensive upgrades to both treatment plants. The River through town
already exceeds some water quality standards or is very close to exceedances (violations) of those
parameters. Thus, what may appear to be modest changes in quality, such as seemingly small increases in
water temperature, can have significant impacts to both compliance with stream standards and the bottom line
of Fort Collins.
Lower flows are problematic for the City’s wastewater treatment plants which operate under strict water quality
permit limit conditions. NISP diversions at the canyon mouth will result in flow reductions downstream at the
Mulberry and Drake wastewater treatment facilities. As noted above, the lack of a quantitative water quality
and temperature modelling information means that the City is unable to determine if lower flows would, in turn,
potentially lead to increasingly stringent effluent limits for Mulberry and Drake and that could cost the City
significant amounts of money to remediate. While the mitigation plan for NISP includes a proposal to augment
flows to 10 cubic feet per second (CFS) from November 1 through April 1 (and potentially September) through
a portion of town, that flow is proposed to be re-diverted into the Timnath Reservoir Inlet (next to Nix Farm)
before it reaches the permitted Drake discharge to the Poudre River. Because of its planned diversion at the
Timnath Inlet, the proposed augmentation flow does not address low flows or dry ups in the lower portion of
the River in Fort Collins.
Water Quality - Natural Environment
Diversions of Poudre River water for NISP will affect water quality in the Poudre River below the canyon mouth
through Fort Collins where the City has invested substantially to improve the natural environment. Water
quality is fundamental to the health of the fishery as well as other biological attributes of the River. The
reduced flows and impacts to water quality affecting the City’s wastewater discharges also directly affect these
attributes.
22
Packet Pg. 199
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 7
Operations
The conceptual mitigation plan for NISP’s preferred alternative features a fall and winter augmentation release
from Glade Reservoir to maintain a minimum of 10 CFS at certain locations. However, no other alternative
includes augmentation releases. As a result, when impacts among alternatives are compared in the SDEIS,
the preferred alternative shows fewer negative impacts than the other alternatives that do not include
augmentation releases. This comparison may not be valid. Staff recommends that winter augmentation flows
be incorporated in other alternatives besides the proposed action.
The City’s comments note that most of the water rights Northern proposes to use for the augmentation
program are not adjudicated or permitted for this use. The augmentation program could thus potentially not
operate to address impacts. Thus, the City recommends that any approval of NISP should require that all
water rights proposed for use in the augmentation program be confirmed to lawfully be available for such use.
The SDEIS states that water released from Glade Reservoir for the proposed augmentation program will be
returned to Glade Reservoir, and that the “method of exchange to return the water to Glade Reservoir would
be determined between the SDEIS and FEIS.” More information on the method by with augmentation releases
will be re-delivered to Glade Reservoir is needed to properly assess impacts (it is possible that re-delivery
would further deplete Poudre River flows at other times of the year).
The SDEIS mentions that the NISP participants Eaton, Severance, and Windsor would receive water from
NISP via a direct connection between Glade Reservoir and Soldier Canyon Filter Plant, but the method for
such deliveries is not explained. If a new pipeline is required to make these releases, the SDEIS should
evaluate the pipeline’s impacts. If deliveries will be made through existing infrastructure (e.g., the PVP), City
wants potential impacts to be addressed and mitigated.
Storm Water and Hydraulic Comments
Flushing flows are critical to a variety of River health indicators including transport of sediment, turnover of the
bed, and debris mobility. Because most of NISP’s water is diverted during the peaking flows of May, June, and
July it has the potential to reduce the ability of the River to provide regular flushing flows. As noted earlier,
monthly streamflows in average years at the Fort Collins Lincoln Avenue Stream Gage in May, June and July
are respectively calculated to be reduced by approximately 66%, 25%, and 54%.
Moving sediment through the system and the Fort Collins reach cleans the bed for fish spawning and insects
and prevents large-scale sediment deposition and potential channel encroachment. Reducing flushing flows
may have impacts to the ability of the Poudre River to convey storm water and flooding flows through town
without causing damage.
The SDEIS makes a finding that very large flows of up to 10,000 CFS are needed to effectively move material
through Fort Collins. However, the City’s Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model and associated hydraulic
science indicates that flushing flows of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 CFS rejuvenate the River bed. This is an
important difference since diversion to Glade Reservoir can divert approximately 1,000 CFS from the River.
NISP would reduce the frequency of 3,000 CFS flushing flows from 6.5 years to 13 years. To meet the life-
cycle needs of aquatic life, a 3,000 CFS flushing flow ideally would occur every 3 years.
As noted elsewhere in this AIS the conceptual mitigation plan included in the SDEIS addresses low fall and
winter flows. Unfortunately, however, the mitigation plan includes no provision to address the reduction of
peaking flows.
Please note that these comments in particular may affect or delay the permitting process for the Halligan
Water Supply and Storage Project. If the Corps believes that the City’s comments regarding the flushing flow
analysis in the SDEIS are correct and deserve further analysis, it also could be required of the Halligan project.
In spite of this potential, staff agrees that the flushing flow issue is too important to be ignored; in fact, flushing
flows are essential to many of the criticisms the City has of the project on environmental grounds.
22
Packet Pg. 200
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 8
Fish
The Poudre River through Fort Collins supports cold water trout fisheries as well as native warm water fishes.
These fisheries are valued by the community for their recreational importance and their role in conserving
native plains fish populations. As noted in the storm water and hydraulic comments above, fish and aquatic
insects rely on peak or “flushing flows” to maintain clean, mobile and diverse riverbed necessary to support
their life cycle needs. The reduction of flushing flows is likely to affect the fisheries because this habitat
maintenance occurs less frequently.
More regular, continuous base flows (as opposed to peak flows) support fish through dilution of nutrients,
chemical pollutants and temperature moderation. The proposed augmentation flow to maintain a minimum of
10CFS proposed by the SDEIS would represent an improvement over current low flow conditions in certain
locations, especially those prone to extreme low flows and dry ups. It is, however, important to note that base
flows for fish in the winter months of 20 to 35 CFS are more suitable for supporting trout survival.
The SDEIS utilizes an industry-standard “2-D” habitat analysis to understand fish habitat availability.
Unfortunately, the data analysis from the 2-D modeling utilizes a nonstandard and greatly oversimplified
averaging approach. This unusual interpretation of the data ignores valuable details in the data and precludes
opportunities to properly understand effects on various species (which is the intended application of the
model).
The potential impact of NISP to the fisheries should be adequately and properly evaluated using accepted and
transparent techniques commonly utilized for the 2-D analytical approach. Staff believes this approach is
appropriate not only because it is the standard, but because it was recently used for one of the other major
water projects and EIS’s in the state, Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project. It also was recently utilized for
development of an instream flow report on the Colorado River.
Riparian and Wetland Vegetation
The ribbon of vegetation along the River, often called the riparian forest or cottonwood woodlands, provides
critical habitat for wildlife, filters excessive nutrients or pollutants from the waterways, reduces erosion and,
constitutes a valuable recreational amenity. The Poudre River recreational trail alone attracts approximately
half a million visitors per year. In addition to forest, riparian habitats are typically a mosaic of shrublands,
wetlands, and meadows.
The City’s 2008 comments to the DEIS expressed concern over inadequate analysis regarding potential
impacts to wetland and riparian vegetation. The SDEIS includes a series of new analyses including impacts to
groundwater, wetlands, cottonwood regeneration as well as overall habitat and long-term trends. Staff has
extensive concerns regarding the interpretation of the analyses and the overall conclusions.
While the SDEIS concludes that there will be little to no impact to wetlands and riparian areas, staff believes
that the analyses are inadequate to draw accurate conclusions. In general, staff’s experience and research on
the Poudre (including the science behind the Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model) supports the view
that the lower flows associated with NISP will significantly narrow the riparian zone and lead to the loss of
wetlands.
For example, a close relationship exists between River flows and the quality and extent of riparian habitat. In
particular, moderately high flows that extend beyond the River banks saturate soils and maintain shallow
groundwater levels. The NISP project will reduce the frequency of these moderately high flows and is the
focus of staff’s review related to the riparian corridor.
Also of concern, the SDEIS applied an unconventional and biologically unsupported approach for
understanding potential wetlands loss. The approach is not sensitive enough to predict subtle yet significant
changes that could lead to complete shifts in habitat type.
22
Packet Pg. 201
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 9
With respect to riparian areas, the SDEIS applies the Corps hydrology standard for wetlands (and specifically
an inundation requirement of 50% of all years) to cottonwood woodlands. This application of a wetland
standard to riparian forest constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of this habitat type in a number of
ways. Yet this misunderstanding is used as the basis for predicting no adverse impact to cottonwood
woodlands along the Poudre.
Air Quality and Climate Change
NISP would involve pumping substantial amounts of water under the preferred and all alternatives. The
storage of water under NISP would thus consume large amounts of electricity and thereby result in increased
discharges of emissions to the air, including greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The
recreational use of Glade Reservoir will also result in increased emissions from vehicular traffic. The additional
sources of air pollution will occur in a region that already does not comply with ozone standards
(nonattainment area). The resulting impacts include further harm to human health and the environment from
regional ozone pollution and regulatory restrictions on economic growth (limits on air permits). In general, staff
has a variety of concerns regarding the adequacy of the analysis of these issues in the SDEIS.
It should be noted that the Modified Alternative 4 discussed above would require additional pumping and
associated emission impacts. However, given that the proposed Modified Alternative 4 will have far fewer
aquatic impacts than other SDEIS alternatives, the increased greenhouse gas emissions associated with
larger pumping inputs may be justified, especially given that increased greenhouse gas emissions could be
avoided, minimized, or mitigated by the use of renewable energy sources.
Recreation
The Poudre is a major recreational attraction in Fort Collins, attracting approximately 500,000 visitor days a
year. Over many decades Fort Collins has spent tens of millions of dollars beautifying, acquiring land,
building recreation amenities, and restoration natural habitat. Fort Collins owns three parks on the River and
over 1,800 acres of natural areas. In 2014, City Council adopted a Downtown Poudre River Master Plan that
describes a vision for continuing to improve the most heavily visited reach of the River from Shields Street to
Mulberry.
In general, staff believes that NISP will undermine the Fort Collins community’s connection to the river by
reducing flows, impairing water quality and diminishing riparian habitat.
An increasingly popular activity on the Poudre is summertime boating (kayaking, canoeing) and tubing. The
SDEIS acknowledges moderate to major adverse effects on boating recreation in Fort Collins. With the NISP
preferred alternative of constructing Glade Reservoir, the SDEIS determines that boatable days will be
reduced by 35% from 54 days to 35 days annually. The SDEIS describes boatable days as those days with
150 CFS or more. Based on personal communication with boaters in the community, 150 CFS is regarded the
minimum necessary flow for a watercraft. Tubers can float the river with flows of around 100 CFS; flows lower
than 100 CFS will not support tubing or boating. According to an analysis commissioned by staff, in dryer
periods such as the late 1980s and early 1990s, NISP could reduce boatable days by 50% or more.
Clearly the project will have negative impacts to the potential season length at the proposed kayak park in Fort
Collins; however, the City’s kayaking consultant notes that Front Range kayaking facilities regularly experience
seasonal highs and lows and the boating community is accustomed to these fluctuations. Also, given that the
hydrology on the River has been carefully modeled through the CTP process, the designers would take into
account these lower flows and build the facilities to maximize their benefit.
The SDEIS notes that there would be flatwater recreation available on Glade Reservoir with extensive access
and describes it as potential offset to the loss of recreation on the River in town. Staff, however, does not
believe that recreation at Glade is substitute for the user experience along the Poudre in town. The City’s
comments recommend that the Corps require NISP to provide compensatory mitigation to offset recreation
losses in Fort Collins.
22
Packet Pg. 202
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 10
General Comments
The overall narrative of the SDEIS is that, regardless of NISP, ongoing degradation of the health of the Poudre
River is inevitable and irreversible. Staff, however, does not agree. Instead, the health of the Poudre River can
be stabilized, maintained, and improved through deliberate, thoughtful, and strategic actions similar to those
the City has been taking.
For example, the SDEIS describes a declining trajectory for riparian vegetation and forests (the SDEIS
acknowledges NISP may accelerate the negative trajectory but does not quantify the trend). The SDEIS
attributes the ongoing decline to an existing flow regime that no longer supports critical riparian processes. In
contrast, however, City research and observations attribute this declining trend primarily to physical constraints
imposed on the urban floodplain as well as an altered forest composition. Furthermore, staff believes that that
with current flows, or otherwise deliberately managed high and low flows; the departure away from a
biologically thriving river is not a foregone conclusion. The window of opportunity for maintaining desired
amenities such as a world class fishery, a spectrum of River related recreation opportunities and an
aesthetically pleasing river is still open.
To support this perspective, the City will be including in its comments to the Corps the Poudre River
Ecosystem Response Model (ERM) as well as the Poudre River Health Assessment Framework (RHAF). The
City ran the ERM model with new NISP hydrology. The model runs confirm that NISP is likely to have impacts
greater than those described in the SDEIS. Fort Collins does not intend the ERM and RHAF or their results to
replace or supersede the various in-depth studies undertaken as part of the SDEIS. They will be provided,
however, to help the Corps understand what indicators are critical to river health (from the City’s perspective)
and to frame the relative scale of NISP impacts and provide guidance as to how NISP might avoid, minimize,
or mitigate those impacts. Staff hopes this guidance will influence the Corps as well as the State of Colorado
in their respective mitigation planning efforts.
With respect to mitigation for the project, staff believes that it is premature to consider mitigation since many of
the project’s impacts have not yet been correctly analyzed or described. Moreover, NISP is required to avoid
and minimize its impacts before mitigation can even be considered.
In the event, however, that NISP is permitted, staff believes that any mitigation plan imposed by the Corps, or
by the State of Colorado through its Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan, must be commensurate to the impacts of
the project. Staff suggests that achieving that goal will require an investment that represents at least 10% of
the project’s total cost. Ten percent of total cost would be an amount that ranges from $50,000,000 to
$90,000,000 (see table 2-12 page 2-61 SDEIS).
While that may seem like a large figure it is important to note that the relative cost of an acre foot of water from
NISP is low compared to the current water market. For example, if NISP costs $800,000,000 to build, an acre
foot of firm yield will cost $20,000. This is far less than the $50,000 it costs to obtain an acre foot of firm yield
from the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) project which is considered to be the “gold standard” in the
marketplace. Thus, adding another 10% for a total price of $22,000 per acre foot would still mean NISP water
is 56% less expensive than CBT.
Finally, an overarching question that has not yet been addressed is to what extent does NISP close the
window of opportunity for improving overall River health with environmental maintenance flows (both low and
high) along with other management actions. Further, to what extent could NISP ensure that appropriate
management actions are taken to sustain the future health of the River? In general, the proposed mitigation
plan falls far short of what would be needed to alleviate the harms that NISP will cause or to improve the River
from its current overall condition.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
NISP has the potential to significantly impact the City’s finances, especially with respect to drinking water
treatment processes and the well-established high water quality expectations of City customers. This is
particularly true if lower quality water from Glade Reservoir is delivered into Horsetooth Reservoir (the
22
Packet Pg. 203
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 11
preferred alternative includes two options, one option includes delivery from Glade to Horsetooth, the other
does not). Costs for remediating this lower quality source water could be in the many tens of millions of
dollars. Without quantitative information it is not clear from the SDEIS whether adverse water quality impacts
will occur; thus the City’s comments recommend that the analysis related to the Glade to Horsetooth delivery
be substantially improved.
In addition, because quantitative water quality and temperature analyses have not been completed for the
Poudre, it is not clear whether or not there will be in-stream water quality impacts that would require the City to
undertake improvements to its wastewater treatment plants. Again, if there are impacts to water quality that
would require additional treatment by the City, the costs could be very significant.
Other potential financial impacts are related to the loss of recreation use on the river by boaters and potential
losses related to aesthetic degradation of the river environment. The SDEIS considers these losses negligible
or minor. However, based on a study commissioned by Fort Collins in 2008 (“Estimating Benefits of
Maintaining Peak Instream Flows”, Dr. John Loomis) a reduction in peak flow of 50% would reduce visitation to
the river by approximately 33%.
The SDEIS describes a very large range of financial value associated with visits to the Poudre River trail and
visits to Natural Areas along the river. Figures for visits to Natural Areas range from ~$2 million to ~$14
million annually. The median value is $8 million. At 500,000 visitors a year, that works out to $16 per visitor.
Although it is not known how many visitors are present during May, June and July a safe assumption is that at
least one-quarter of total annual visitors (~125,000) are present during these months. Thus, a reduction of
33% of these visitors (~42,000) at $16 a visit would represent an approximately $670,000 annual loss. While
these figures may contain a significant margin of error, they conservatively suggest that there would be
significant economic losses related to flow depletions.
Lastly, there is a potential negative financial impact to that portion of the City served by Fort Collins Loveland
Water District if NISP is not approved. The cost of an acre foot of firm yield of NISP water is estimated to be
approximately $20,000. That is far less than an acre foot of CBT water which, as noted above, is considered
the “gold standard” for water sources. An acre foot of CBT firm yield costs approximately $50,000, or $30,000
per acre foot more than NISP. The total amount of water that would serve the City from Glade is roughly
estimated to be approximately 1,400 acre feet. If that water were to be supplied by CBT, which may be
difficult considering the growing scarcity of CBT available for purchase, the total difference in price could be as
much as $42,000,000 (1,400 acre feet X $30,000).
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Informational presentations were shared with the four Boards identified below; recommendations were not
requested.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff held two Council work sessions on this item on May 12 and July 28. Staff attended the Army Corps open
house on July 22. Staff made presentations to the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Water Board, the
Planning and Zoning Board and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. Staff appeared on Cross
Currents to discuss the project with advocates and opponents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map and Participant Boundaries (PDF)
2. Work Session Summary, May 12, 2015 (PDF)
3. Work Session Summary, July 28, 2015 (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
22
Packet Pg. 204
ATTACHMENT 1
22.1
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Location map and Participant Boundaries (3486 : NISP Comments)
22.1
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Location map and Participant Boundaries (3486 : NISP Comments)
ATTACHMENT 2
22.2
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Work Session Summary, May 12, 2015 (3486 : NISP Comments)
ATTACHMENT 3
22.3
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Work Session Summary, July 28, 2015 (3486 : NISP Comments)
1
September 1, 2015
The Northern Integrated Supply Project
Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
ATTACHMENT 4
22.4
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
2
Purpose of the Agenda Item
• A final review of City comments on the NISP SDEIS
• Consideration of a resolution that expresses:
– Support for additional water supply for project participants
– Continued concern regarding the potential harms to Fort
Collins and the inadequacies of the EIS and conceptual
mitigation plan
– An inability to support the project at this time based on the
City’s concerns
22.4
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
3
Recommendation Options
• A full range of options were considered:
– Complete support
– Conditional support
– Neutrality
– Conditional Opposition
– Absolute Opposition
22.4
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
4
Factors
• The need to protect the City’s interests and create
a record for the future SDEIS processes
• Our comments may affect or delay Halligan
• The project provides water to a portion of Fort
Collins
• The likely harms to Fort Collins from NISP
22.4
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
5
Factors
• It is impossible to correctly understand what the
impacts of the project are until the impacts
analysis is completed and improved
• Further, it is impossible to develop an adequate
mitigation plan
22.4
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
6
Process and Role of Fort Collins
• Fort Collins has influence through its comments,
but the Corps is the ultimate decision maker
• The process still includes:
– A Final EIS
– A Record of Decision (or ROD)
– State Water Quality Certification
– A State Wildlife Mitigation Plan
22.4
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
7
Recommended Approach
Conditional Opposition
“That the City Council cannot support NISP as it is
described and proposed in the DEIS and SDEIS, with the
understanding that the City Council may reach a
different conclusion with respect to a future variant of
NISP that addresses the City’s fundamental concerns
expressed in the City’s comments to the DEIS and
comments to the SDEIS.”
22.4
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
8
Water Quality
• Water Quality
– Source Water
– Wastewater
22.4
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
9
Water Quality
• Lack of a quantitative temperature and water
quality model
• Required to complete the EIS process
• Required to complete state certification
• Required for Fort Collins to understand full
impacts to infrastructure and river health
22.4
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
10
Flushing Flows
SDEIS concludes that “moderate” flows are not important
City believes that moderate peaking flows are crucial for river health
The SDEIS includes no flushing flow mitigation
22.4
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
11
Flushing Flows
• Please note that the City’s comments regarding
flushing flows may require additional work related
to Halligan
• However, given the importance of this issue staff
believes this comment should be submitted to the
Corps
22.4
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
12
Augmentation for Winter Low Flow
• Key component of Conceptual Mitigation Plan
• Due to water rights issues, no guarantee that the
flow can be provided
22.4
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
13
Riparian Vegetation and Wetlands
22.4
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
14
No-Action Alternative
• The no-action alternative contemplates the
construction of a very large reservoir and dry up
of irrigated agriculture
• A legitimate no-action alternative cannot require a
federal permit
• The no-action alternative appears to require a
federal permit
22.4
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
15
No-Action Alternative
• A legitimate no-action alternative is needed as a
baseline to compare the impacts of the preferred
alternative
22.4
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
16
Modified Alternative 4
22.4
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
17
Recreation
• In general, staff is concerned that reduced flows
will harm the community’s overall recreation and
visitor experience
• SDEIS predicts a loss of one-third of boatable
days
• Staff has noted potential financial harms to Fort
Collins
22.4
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
18
Mitigation
• Too soon to determine
• As described – not yet adequate
• Important to influence as process goes forward
22.4
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
19
Financial Considerations
• Glade to Horsetooth water transfer could cause
significant impacts on the order of tens of millions
of dollars for additional source water treatment
• Lower water quality in Poudre could cause
significant impacts related to wastewater
• Loss of recreation and diminishment of visitor
experience could cause significant impacts
22.4
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
20
Fort Collins Loveland Water District
• Estimated demand increase of approximately
1,400 AF in the GMA
• If NISP not permitted, costs could be far greater
• For example: CBT equivalent could increase
costs by roughly $40,000,000
22.4
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
21
Financial Considerations - Mitigation
• As noted – it’s premature to develop a mitigation
plan or costs
• When it is developed, however, staff believes that
at least 10% of the project cost should be devoted
to mitigation
• $50 to $90 million
• Adds a reasonable cost to a NISP acre foot of
water ($20k to $22k)
22.4
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
22
Final Thoughts
• Narrative of SDEIS is one of inevitable decline
• Is a regional vision for Poudre River health possible?
22.4
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3486 : NISP Comments)
- 1 -
RESOLUTION 2015-082
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT TO THE U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS THE CITY’S COMMENTS ON THE
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“District”) is pursuing
the Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”), a water storage and supply project that would
divert significant amounts of water from the Cache la Poudre River upstream of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, to move forward with the necessary federal permitting for NISP, the District
is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) to complete an environmental
impact review process, conducted in this case by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) as
the permitting agency under the federal Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS, as part of the review process, on April 30, 2008, the Corps issued a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”), and the City timely submitted comments to the DEIS
on September 10, 2008, pursuant to Resolution 2008-002; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the Corps issued a supplemental draft Environmental
Impact Statement (“SDEIS”), and pursuant to a subsequent extension of time, provided for
submission of public comment up to September 3, 2015; and
WHEREAS, at the May 12, 2015, City Council work session, City staff presented
background on NISP as well as staff’s proposed analytical and data-driven objective approach to
commenting on the SDEIS, which approach City Council endorsed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the direction of City Council, City staff, working with the
assistance of outside technical experts, undertook a thorough and detailed technical analysis of
the SDEIS primarily as it pertains to the NISP proposed action and its direct impacts in Fort
Collins and to the City; and
WHEREAS, at the July 28, 2015, City Council work session, City staff presented
preliminary analyses and findings related to staff’s review of the SDEIS; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to express its support for other communities, including
participants in NISP, in their quest to acquire reliable water supplies without significantly
adversely affecting other communities and the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that the SDEIS is deficient under NEPA and the
federal Clean Water Act in various respects, including in its analysis of potential impacts to the
City, as set forth in the City’s comments to the SDEIS; and
WHEREAS, staff has concluded the project will be harmful to Fort Collins based on a
Packet Pg. 231
- 2 -
thorough review of the impacts described by the SDEIS as well as the impacts that staff expects
from the project; and
WHEREAS, in view of the significance of the impacts that NISP would have on the City
and the Fort Collins community, it is in the City’s best interest to comment on the SDEIS, to
continue to participate in these proceedings, and to monitor the responses to the comments of the
City and others.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council cannot support NISP as it is currently described and
proposed in the SDEIS, with the understanding that the City Council may reach a different
conclusion with respect to a future variant of NISP that addresses the City’s fundamental
concerns expressed in the City’s comments to the DEIS and comments to the SDEIS.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to submit to the
Corps formal comments to the SDEIS that are substantially similar with those attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, in accordance with the deadline for such
submission.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of September, A.D. 2015.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 232
Comments on Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the
Northern Integrated Supply Project
Dated: September 3, 2015
EXHIBIT A
1
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 2 of 108
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................ 7
SECTION 1: INCORPORATION OF FORT COLLINS’ COMMENTS TO DEIS .......... 11
SECTION 2: VALIDITY OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................... 12
2.1 The No Action Alternative Violates NEPA and Renders Its Alternatives Analysis
Invalid .......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 The Proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir Requires a Section 404 Permit Under the CWA,
and Therefore, Is an Action Under NEPA ............................................................................... 12
2.1.2 The Failure To Consider A Legitimate No Action Alternative Renders Its
Alternatives Analysis Deficient under NEPA and the CWA ................................................... 13
SECTION 3: FAILURE TO CONDUCT ANALYSES ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, FAILURE TO FULLY ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND
UNCERTAINTY REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................. 15
3.1 The Failure To Conduct and Disclose Analyses On Certain Environmental Impacts In
The SDEIS Violates NEPA and the CWA ................................................................................ 15
3.1.1 A Hard Look at the Environmental Impact of NISP Has Not Been Taken Due to a
Failure to Complete All Necessary Evaluations ...................................................................... 15
3.1.2 The Failure to Conduct All Relevant Studies Violates NEPA’s Requirement That The
Public Is Fully Informed Of NISP’s Environmental Effects.................................................... 16
3.1.3 There Is Insufficient Information to Determine Compliance With Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines and the CWA’s Public Interest Review ................................................................. 17
3.2 Failure to Fully Address Cumulative Impacts Under NEPA and the CWA ............... 18
3.3 Uncertainty Regarding Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 18
SECTION 4: PROPOSED MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 4 ................................................. 20
4.1 The Corps Should Consider Fort Collins’ Proposed Modified Alternative 4 .............. 20
4.1.1 Summary of Alternative 4 in the SDEIS .................................................................... 20
4.1.2 Summary of Fort Collins’ Proposed Modified Alternative 4 ..................................... 21
4.1.3 Other Considerations for Modified Alternative 4 ...................................................... 23
1
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 3 of 108
SECTION 5: WATER QUALITY COMMENTS .................................................................. 25
5.1 Comments Regarding Incomplete Analyses Related to Water Quality ....................... 26
5.1.1 No Analysis of Antidegradation Regulations and Mulberry and Drake WRFs ......... 26
5.1.2 No Analysis of Chlorophyll ....................................................................................... 26
5.1.3 No Quantitative Analysis of Temperature ................................................................. 27
5.1.4 No Quantitative Analysis of Water Quality Effects Below Glade Reservoir ............ 27
5.1.5 Water Quality Monitoring Is Not Mitigation ............................................................. 28
5.2 Comments Regarding Impacts to Source Water Quality for the FCWTF .................. 29
5.2.1 Changes to Hydraulic Residence Time in Horsetooth Reservoir ............................... 29
5.3 Comments Regarding Impacts to the Poudre River and Wastewater Dischargers .... 36
5.3.1 Augmentation Program and Wastewater Discharges ................................................. 36
5.3.2 Use of Cottonwood Trees to Reduce Increase in Water Temperatures ..................... 36
5.3.3 Trichloroethylene Plume at Glade Reservoir Forebay ............................................... 37
5.4 Resources for Section 5 ..................................................................................................... 38
SECTION 6: OPERATIONAL COMMENTS ....................................................................... 39
6.1 Inclusion of the Augmentation Program in Alternative 2 Only .................................... 39
6.2 Inclusion of Reclamation Option in Alternative 2 Only ................................................ 40
6.3 Augmentation Program Concerns ................................................................................... 41
6.3.1 Use of Water that Has Been Diverted to Storage ....................................................... 42
6.3.2 Proposed Use of the Grey Mountain Water Right for Replacement and/or
Recreational Uses ..................................................................................................................... 42
6.3.3 Proposed Re-Use and Successive Use of Water Attributable to the Grey Mountain
Water Right .............................................................................................................................. 44
6.3.4 No Analysis of Substitutions and Exchanges on Augmentation Program Flows ...... 45
6.3.5 No Analysis of the Ability of the District to Deliver Flows in the Augmentation
Program Past All Intervening Headgates ................................................................................. 46
6.3.6 Augmentation Program During Times of Drought .................................................... 46
6.3.7 No Analysis of Subsequent Exchanges Using Augmentation Program Flows .......... 47
6.4 Impacts on the PVP ........................................................................................................... 47
6.5 How Deliveries to NISP Participants are to be Made .................................................... 48
1
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 4 of 108
6.6 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 6 ............................................................................................... 48
SECTION 7: CHANNEL STRUCTURE, STORM WATER, FLOODPLAIN, AND
HYDRAULIC COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 49
7.1 No Analysis of Costs and Flooding Risks in Fort Collins .............................................. 49
7.2 Lack of Support for Conclusions of Minor Impacts ...................................................... 50
7.3 Incorrect Analysis of Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport ........................... 53
7.4 Incorrect Data on Grain Size ............................................................................................ 54
7.5 Augmentation Program’s Ability to Maintain the Environment .................................. 55
7.6 Need to Address Flooding and Storm Water Issues ....................................................... 56
7.7 Resources for Section 7 ..................................................................................................... 57
SECTION 8: AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMENTS .......................... 59
8.1 Comments Regarding Incomplete Analysis Related to Air Quality ............................. 59
8.1.1 No Analysis of Impacts from Increased Traffic .............................................................. 59
8.1.2 Analysis Missing Numerous Air Pollution Sources ........................................................ 61
8.1.3 Inadequate Air Quality Analysis May Lead to Violation of NAAQS For Ozone ..... 64
8.1.4 Determination of Air Quality Impacts and Their Significance Did Not Consider
Requirements of All Air Quality Regulations .......................................................................... 65
8.2 Comments Regarding Incomplete Analysis Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions ... 66
8.2.1 Analysis Missing Numerous Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources ............................. 66
8.2.2 Claimed Minor Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................ 68
8.3 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................ 69
8.4 Fugitive Dust Emission Control Plan and Additional Mitigation Measures for Vehicle
Emissions ..................................................................................................................................... 69
8.5 Resources for Section 8 ..................................................................................................... 70
SECTION 9: RECREATION AND AESTHETICS COMMENTS ...................................... 71
9.1 Impacts to Boating ............................................................................................................. 71
1
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 5 of 108
9.2 Impacts to Recreational Experiences ............................................................................... 72
9.3 Aesthetic Impacts ............................................................................................................... 73
9.4 Mitigation of Visual Impacts ............................................................................................ 73
9.5 Augmentation Program and Mitigation .......................................................................... 74
9.6 Resources for Section 9 ..................................................................................................... 75
SECTION 10: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES COMMENTS............................................... 76
10.1 The Poudre River Is Not on an Inevitable Downward Trajectory as Claimed in the
SDEIS, and the Ecological Response Model and River Health Assessment Framework Can
Be Used as Tools .......................................................................................................................... 76
10.2 Comments Regarding Cottonwood Establishment .................................................... 79
10.2.1 Inappropriate Assumption that Cottonwood Forests Are in Decline ......................... 79
10.2.2 Inappropriate Analysis Based on Future Conditions.................................................. 80
10.2.3 Inappropriate Conclusion That Current Flows Are the Primary Limitation .............. 80
10.2.4 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding the Crossing of a Biological Threshold ......... 81
10.2.5 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding Green Ash ...................................................... 81
10.2.6 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding Cottonwood Recruitment .............................. 82
10.2.7 Inaccuracies Regarding Cottonwood Recruitment and Moderate Flow Events ........ 82
10.2.8 Disregard of Non-Major Recruitment Events ............................................................ 83
10.3 Comments Regarding Aquatics and Fisheries ........................................................... 84
10.3.1 Lack of Temperature Analysis ................................................................................... 84
10.3.2 Approach to Impacts on Aquatic Biological Resources............................................. 85
10.4 Comments Regarding Analyses of Wetlands and Riparian Areas ........................... 86
10.4.1 Lack of Defined and Objective Standards.................................................................. 86
10.4.2 Inconsistent Identification of Acres of Effected Wetlands ........................................ 87
10.4.3 Inconsistencies in the Riparian and Wetland Analyses .............................................. 87
10.4.4 Failure to Adequately Consider Long-Term Changes Resulting from NISP............... 89
10.5 Comments Regarding Ground Water Analyses and Issues ...................................... 89
10.5.1 Inaccurate Assumptions about Ground and Surface Water Interactions.................... 89
10.5.2 Shortcomings in the Data Used for the Ground Water Analysis ............................... 90
10.5.3 Misinterpretation of Data ........................................................................................... 92
1
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 6 of 108
10.6 Comments Regarding Analyses of Poudre River Wetlands ..................................... 93
10.6.1 Inappropriate Assumption of Changes in River Stage of 0.5 Feet or Less ................ 93
10.6.2 Inappropriate Assumption of Changes of a Duration of 10% or Less ....................... 95
10.6.3 Inappropriate Assumption Regarding a Shift in Wetland Vegetation........................ 97
10.6.4 Failure to Consider Permanent Shift in Poudre River Flows ........................................ 97
10.6.5 Inappropriate Reliance on CDOW Mapping .............................................................. 98
10.6.6 Failure to Identify the Data Source for the Acres of Wetlands Impacted .................. 98
10.7 Comments Regarding Effects to Riparian Habitats and Ecological Processes ....... 99
10.7.2 Inappropriate Exclusion of Certain Riparian Forests ................................................. 99
10.7.3 Incorrect Conclusions of Impacts to Riparian Forests ............................................. 100
10.7.4 Incorrect Conclusions Regarding Impacts of Recent Flooding on Riparian Forests 100
10.7.5 Incorrect Conclusions Regarding the Response of Cottonwoods to the Diversion of
Peak Flows ............................................................................................................................. 102
10.7.6 Failure to Analyze Ecological Services ................................................................... 103
10.8 Comments Regarding Wildlife Analyses .................................................................. 105
10.8.1 Inadequate Analyses of Impacts to Wildlife ............................................................ 105
10.8.2 No Basis for Assertion of Adaption of Species........................................................ 106
10.9 Comments Regarding Cumulative Effects, Avoidance, Minimization, and
Mitigation................................................................................................................................... 106
10.9.1 Complete Analysis Is Needed .................................................................................. 106
10.9.2 Current Proposal Omits Certain Needed Elements .................................................. 106
10.10 Resources for Section 10 ............................................................................................. 107
1
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 7 of 108
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins (“Fort Collins”) respectfully files and submits to the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) these comments to the Supplemental Draft Supplemental
Impact Statement, dated June 2015 and issued on June 19, 2015 (“SDEIS”), and its associated
technical reports and related documents, regarding the Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP”
or “Project”), for which the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“Northern” or
“District”) is the applicant. Reference materials are identified in the comments and the majority of
such reference materials are being provided to the Corps in electronic format. These reference
materials should be considered to be a part of these comments. Fort Collins reserves all rights to
provide additional and supplemental comments on the SDEIS and/or NISP, as may be appropriate.
To the extent permitted by the short comment period, Fort Collins has completed a thorough,
scientific review of the SDEIS by expert City staff and consultants summarized in Appendix A.
Several of Fort Collins’ concerns regarding the original NISP draft environmental impact statement
(“DEIS”) remain. The SDEIS has also created new issues under National Environmental Policy Act,
42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370h (“NEPA”), and the rules and regulations and guidelines thereunder, the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1387 (“CWA”), and the rules and regulations and guidelines
thereunder, and other relevant legal requirements, as discussed herein. In short, the SDEIS remains
inadequate for the Corps to discharge its obligations under these requirements, including its selection
of the least environmental damaging practicable alternative (“LEDPA”) for the Project. See 40
C.F.R. § 230.10(a) (“[N]o discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the
aquatic ecosystem …”).
If a Section 404 permit under the CWA is awarded for the Project, substantial compensatory
mitigation will be needed, in addition to any avoidance and minimization measures. It is Fort
Collins’ understanding that mitigation for NISP will be finalized with any Record of Decision
(“ROD”), and that avoidance and minimization measures may be finalized before the ROD. As
discussed further herein, Fort Collins notes that, at this point, the District’s plans in these respects,
which are summarized in Appendix F, are conceptual and offer limited information on specific
measures. Appendix F indicates the intent of the District to recognize and react constructively to
impairment of interests other than those of the District and the NISP participants, to be cooperative
and responsive, and to participate in all reasonable efforts to address impairments to resources or
interests caused by NISP. Where the document does not define specific limits or features of these
commitments, however, it is of limited use except as a statement of general intent. Clarification on
these efforts is required by NEPA and the CWA. As the entity most impacted by the Project, Fort
Collins would welcome the opportunity to participate in mitigation-related discussion and efforts.
Fort Collins’ comments on the SDEIS provided herein are organized by general topic area.
In general, the comments begin with broader, more conceptual concerns regarding the SDEIS and
the Project, and thereafter turn to more specific issues. The following is a brief summary of the
subsequent sections of these comments.
1
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 8 of 108
SECTION 1: Incorporation of Fort Collins Comments to DEIS. The comments included
herein are a supplement and in addition to the previous comments made to the original DEIS for the
Project. Several issues raised in the DEIS have not been adequately addressed.
SECTION 2: Validity of the No Action Alternative. The SDEIS includes consideration of
a “no action” Alternative 1, which purportedly would not require federal action. However,
Alternative 1 is developed around the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir that, based on the information
provided, appears to require an individual Section 404 permit under the CWA. If the proposed
Cactus Hill Reservoir requires a Section 404 permit, then under NEPA, the Corps must revise its
alternatives analysis in a new SDEIS to develop a new, true “no action” alternative that can serve as
the baseline for analyzing the proposed action’s environmental impact. In violation of NEPA and
the CWA, the SDEIS’s current “no action” alternative skews the analysis to reduce identified
impacts, thereby altering the selection of the LEDPA. If the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir would
not, in fact, require a Section 404 permit under the CWA, the SDEIS must expressly set forth why no
such permit is needed.
SECTION 3: Failure to Conduct Analyses on All Environmental Impacts, Failure to
Fully Address Cumulative Impacts, and Uncertainty Regarding Mitigation Measures. The
SDEIS defers several key analyses of impacts to a later date, namely, quantitative water quality
analyses. The failure to provide these analyses violates NEPA and such analyses must be provided
to Fort Collins and other stakeholders for review before any determination on the Project can be
made. The SDEIS also does not fully describe how the cumulative impacts from NISP, Fort Collins’
Halligan Water Supply Project, and Greeley’s project to enlarge Milton Seaman Reservoir will be
assessed to each project. Additionally, the SDEIS’s proposed measures to mitigate the
environmental impacts of each alternative are vague and the effectiveness of the mitigation has not
been adequately documented at this point in the process.
SECTION 4: Proposed Modified Alternative 4. Fort Collins has investigated a modified
Alternative 4 for NISP that would meet the NISP Participant’s purpose and need while
simultaneously maintaining relatively more water in the Poudre River through Fort Collins than all
other action alternatives presented in the SDEIS. Such additional flows through Fort Collins would
address many of the concerns identified in these comments. The modified Alternative 4 is
contemplated to operate in such a way as to significantly reduce NISP diversions upstream of Fort
Collins as compared to Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred action), as well as Alternatives 3 and 4,
resulting in relatively more stream flows and relatively fewer impacts to aquatic and riparian
resources along a 23 mile reach of river through Fort Collins than the other alternatives considered in
the SDEIS. The Corps should consider and fully analyze this modified Alternative 4 in its analysis
and consideration of NISP.
SECTION 5: Water Quality Comments. The SDEIS was issued without several
quantitative analyses that would have allowed Fort Collins to meaningfully analyze possible effects
on its interests related to the quality of water Fort Collins treats, as well as the quality of water in the
Poudre River. To comply with NEPA’s “hard look” standard and the Section 404 Guidelines,
additional analyses must be performed and the Corps must address the specific deficiencies
discussed in these comments.
1
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 9 of 108
SECTION 6: Operational Comments. The SDEIS’s description of Alternative 2 (the
District’s preferred alternative) includes a proposed flow augmentation program, and certain
descriptions of other NISP operations, such as deliveries to NISP Participants. However, the
proposed flow augmentation program is only proposed with Alternative 2, which unjustifiably skews
the analysis towards the selection of Alternative 2 as the LEDPA. Both NEPA and Section 404
require equal treatment of all alternatives. Also, as proposed in the SDEIS, the proposed flow
augmentation program appears to be premised on various incorrect assumptions and errors and raises
various concerns regarding its operations that could undermine its ability to meet its goals to address
the impacts to Fort Collins. The SDEIS also lacks needed analysis and specificity on various aspects
of the proposed operations regarding Alternative 2.
SECTION 7: Channel Structure, Storm Water, Floodplain, and Hydraulic Comments.
While the SDEIS is an improvement over the DEIS, the stream morphology and sediment transport
analysis in the SDEIS contain several flaws such that the analysis cannot be used to meaningfully
analyze NISP’s impacts on Fort Collins in the areas of drainage, storm water, and floodplain
impacts. The SDEIS also contains assertions and conclusions that that lack factual bases and are
arbitrary, including assertions regarding flushing flows. Revised analyses and considerations are
required in order to correctly and meaningfully evaluate the impacts. The mitigation measures
outlined in Appendix F do not properly evaluate or estimate the amount of sediment that will
accumulate within the river through Fort Collins due to the reduced flow from the Project. This
amount of sediment needs to be properly quantified and assigned a mitigation cost.
SECTION 8: Air Quality and Climate Change Comments. Fort Collins is concerned with
the adequacy of the air quality and climate change analysis in the SDEIS, as well as the impacts of
the proposed action. In general, the SDEIS does not fully analyze these impacts, which are
understated throughout the document. The Corps has failed to take a hard look at the impacts under
NEPA, and the lack of analysis prevents Fort Collins and other stakeholders from meaningfully
analyzing these effects. To comply with NEPA and the Clean Air Act conformity regulations, the
Corps must conduct revised and additional analyses. The Corps must conduct such analyses and
present them for public review and comment in a draft general conformity analysis. Neither the
DEIS nor the SDEIS provide a conformity analysis under 40 C.F.R. Part 93, despite the
acknowledgement in the SDEIS that it is necessary.
SECTION 9: Recreation and Aesthetics Comments. The SDEIS identifies significant, but
does not adequately analyze, impacts on boating opportunities and recreational experiences in Fort
Collins. The SDEIS does not provide a full and complete evaluation of the aesthetics impacts from
NISP. NEPA requires that the Corps further evaluate and provide additional information on those
impacts so that Fort Collins and other stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate them.
SECTION 10: Biological Resources Comments. The SDEIS’s unproven assertion that the
Poudre River is on a trajectory of inevitable decline is contradicted by the facts. Neither NEPA nor
the CWA allow agencies to disregard the impacts of proposed actions by assuming that
environmental resources will be lost regardless. The Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model and
the Poudre River Health Assessment Framework can serve as effective guideposts and decision
1
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 10 of 108
support tools as NISP. The SDEIS fails to include a quantitative temperature analysis, as noted
above, which is needed to meaningfully analyze the impacts from NISP on aquatics and fisheries.
The SDEIS also relies on oversimplifications and includes assertions that are not based on defined
metrics. The SDEIS does not properly assess impacts to the Poudre River’s wetlands and riparian
areas (including its ground water component). The SDEIS further includes various incorrect
assumptions, errors, and inappropriate conclusions, all of which result in under-quantification of the
identified impacts of NISP on the Poudre River’s wetlands and riparian areas. The SDEIS analyses
of impacts to wildlife are inadequate because they are based on the flawed analysis for the Riparian
and Wetlands sections of the SDEIS. The Corps must revise these so that Fort Collins and other
stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate the impacts.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 11 of 108
SECTION 1: INCORPORATION OF FORT COLLINS’ COMMENTS TO DEIS
Fort Collins hereby incorporates by reference its comments on the original DEIS for NISP,
including comments on the regulatory framework, which Fort Collins provided on September 10,
2008 (“2008 Comments”). The original DEIS contained flaws that rendered it insufficient under
NEPA and the rules and regulations and guidelines thereunder, the CWA, and the rules and
regulations and guidelines thereunder, and other relevant legal requirements.
The Corps has addressed some of the comments made by Fort Collins and other stakeholders.
However, the SDEIS remains inadequate for the Corps to discharge its obligations under these
requirements. Among flaws that carry over from the DEIS and identified in Fort Collins’ DEIS
comments are:
• Lack of compliance with the CWA requirement to analyze, avoid, and minimize
impacts associated with NISP. See 2008 Comments at 13-17.
• Failure to provide adequate analysis (including modeling of water quality and other
effects) at the DEIS stage. See 2008 Comments at 17-22. As discussed below, the
SDEIS fails to provide the quantitative analyses of impacts it must provide.
• Failure to properly study and address effects of Total Organic Carbon (“TOC”) levels
in Horsetooth Reservoir. See 2008 Comments at 23-25.
• Flawed and incomplete analysis of the effects of the alternatives on lost peak flows
and resulting impacts. See 2008 Comments at 26-28.
• Vague and insufficient avoidance, minimization, and mitigation planning and
commitments. See 2008 Comments at 30-36.
These continuing flaws render the SDEIS inadequate and in violation of NEPA, the CWA, and other
relevant legal requirements. As discussed below, the SDEIS also contains new flaws and
inadequacies under those laws.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 12 of 108
SECTION 2: VALIDITY OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
2.1 THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE VIOLATES NEPA AND RENDERS ITS ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS INVALID
The SDEIS’s alternative analysis is flawed and violates NEPA. The analysis of alternatives
under NEPA is “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v.
Bureau of Land Mgmt., 531 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). In the
SDEIS, the Corps must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to
that action. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). An integral component of the alternatives analysis is the Corps’
consideration of a no action alternative that serves as “a baseline for measuring the effects of the
proposed action.” Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. United States Forest Serv., 765 F.3d 1264,
1269–1270 (10th Cir. 2014). The no action alternative is a measuring stick that highlights the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and allows them to be compared to the proposed
action’s benefit. Without a true no action alternative, there is no accurate baseline for measuring the
effects of proposed action in the SDEIS. Thus, the current alternatives analysis for NISP is
fundamentally flawed. To comply with NEPA, the alternatives analysis must be revised to include a
true no action alternative that accurately serves as the baseline for its NEPA analysis.
2.1.1 The Proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir Requires a Section 404 Permit Under the
CWA, and Therefore, Is an Action Under NEPA
Alternative 1 is developed around the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir as a “no action”
alternative. See SDEIS at 2-16. However, based on the information in the SDEIS and associated
reports, Cactus Hill Reservoir requires a Section 404 permit under the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, and
is an action that would therefore be subject to NEPA review. The treatment of Alternative 1 in the
SDEIS as a no action alternative is thus improper and in violation of NEPA.
According to the SDEIS, the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir component of the no action
alternative would be a major construction project that will impact, among other things, 31.8 acres of
wetlands, including 1.4 acres of wetlands impacted by fill discharges and 30.4 acres of wetlands that
would be inundated by reservoir. See NISP Vegetation and Wetland Resources Technical Report at
13–14. Based on this information, Cactus Hill Reservoir would require an individual Section 404
permit and Alternative 1 is therefore an “action” under NEPA.
It is well-established that, under NEPA, the issuance of a Section 404 permit is an “action.”
See, e.g., Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434, 444 (9th Cir. 1996) (“If a federal permit is a prerequisite
for a project with adverse impact on the environment, issuance of that permit does constitute major
federal action and the federal agency involved must conduct an EA and possibly an EIS before
granting it.”). See also Stewart v. Potts, 996 F. Supp. 668, 672 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (stating that
issuance of a Section 404 permit by the Corps is deemed to be a “major Federal action” to which
NEPA’s mandates apply ). See also, e.g., Daniel R. Mandelker, NEPA Law & Litig. § 8:19 (2d ed.
2014) (explaining that “[f]ederal permits” are “typical examples” of major federal action triggering
NEPA). Based on the information in the SDEIS and the various technical reports, the treatment of
1
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 13 of 108
Cactus Hill Reservoir as a no action alternative—when the project would require a 404 permit and
NEPA analysis—is arbitrary and capricious and violates NEPA.
If it is the Corps’ position that Cactus Hill Reservoir would not require a Section 404 permit,
then the Corps must provide a comprehensive explanation and factual basis for this conclusion—
including a delineation of the wetlands on the proposed site of Cactus Hill Reservoir under the
Corps’ new “waters of the United States rule,” 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015), and a
demonstration why an individual Section 404 permit is unnecessary. The justification would be
especially important here, because the Corps’ entire alternatives analysis hinges on measuring the
impacts of the proposed action against a major construction project with significant wetlands
impacts.
The information provided in the SDEIS indicates that the estimated wetland impact caused
by the Cactus Hill project would not fall within nationwide permits. For instance, Cactus Hill
Reservoir’s impacts exceed the Nationwide Permit 18’s threshold requirements for minor discharges.
77 Fed. Reg. 10184 at 10202 (Feb. 21, 2012). Also, given that the Corps estimates that Cactus Hill
Reservoir would impact 257 acres of wetlands and other waters (SDEIS at S-45), the Project would
cause more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment and
would require an individual permit. See 33 U.S.C. 1344(e). See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 10288.
As further example, the level of wetland impacts, both in terms of fill discharges (1.4 acres)
and reservoir inundation (30.4 acres), for construction of Cactus Hill Reservoir for the no action
alternative is more than the amount Fort Collins preliminarily estimated as being impacted from the
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, an action for which the Corps is requiring an individual Section
404 permit.
2.1.2 The Failure To Consider A Legitimate No Action Alternative Renders Its
Alternatives Analysis Deficient under NEPA and the CWA
The use of Cactus Hill Reservoir as the no action alternative skews its entire analysis of
alternatives, in violation of NEPA. The no action alternative is intended to “provide a baseline
against which the action alternative” is evaluated.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States
DOI, 623 F.3d 633, 642 (9th Cir. 2010). Without “[accurate baseline] data, an agency cannot
carefully consider information about significant environment impacts … resulting in an arbitrary and
capricious decision.” N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067,1085 (9th
Cir. 2011). See also Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)
(holding an agency’s no action alternative in its NEPA analysis invalid because it improperly
defined the baseline); Openlands v. Dept. of Transport., No. 13 C 4950 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2015)
1
(“The flawed ‘no build’ analysis also dooms the ROD and EIS’analysis of the direct effects of the
proposed Corridor”; same with indirect impacts).
1https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5946396167037980773&q=ILLIANA&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_ylo=20
15 (last visited August 6, 2015).
1
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 14 of 108
The SDEIS tables comparing alternatives illustrate the problem with treating Cactus Hill
Reservoir as a no action alternative instead of action alternative. In its comparison of alternatives,
the SDEIS arbitrarily and simultaneously treats Cactus Hill Reservoir as both the no action
alternative and as part Alternatives 3 and 4. SDEIS at 2-17, Table 2-3. See also id. 2-61. A “no
action alternative in an EIS is meaningless if it assumes the existence of the very plan being
proposed.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Scarlett, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1105 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
Because Cactus Hill Reservoir is an action that would have significant impacts requiring the Corps’
review, it cannot serve as baseline against which the Corps’ can compare the preferred alternative
(Alternative 2). The consideration of Cactus Hill Reservoir’s impacts as a consequence of no action,
including environmental effects and financial costs, artificially reduces the significant impacts of the
proposed action. This in turn precludes a meaningful alternative analysis and makes it “impossible
to accurately isolate and assess the environmental impacts of the [proposed action].” N.C. Wildlife
Fed’n v. N.C. DOT, 677 F.3d 596, 602 (4th Cir. 2012).
The no action alternative cannot include a project that requires a Corps permit and is an
action under NEPA. The treatment of Cactus Hill Reservoir distorts the alternatives analysis and
prevents the Corps, other agencies, and the public from “objectively evaluat[ing] all reasonable
alternatives” to the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). Further, in arbitrarily treating the
Reservoir as both a no action alternative and as a major component of the Alternatives 3 and 4, the
District fails to satisfy Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines’ high burden imposed on projects that are not
water dependent. Because the proposed action is not water dependent, the District must overcome
presumption that practicable alternatives that do not involve impacting wetlands are available. See
40 CFR § 230.10(a)(3). To satisfy the Guidelines, the District must “clearly demonstrate” no
practicable alternatives are available. Id. In treating Cactus Hill Reservoir as the no action
alternative, the District has failed to rebut that presumption.
To comply with NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must conduct a reevaluation of the
alternatives and present that information in a revised or second supplemental DEIS. And that
analysis must include a true no action alternative that will serve as the baseline for an accurate and
informed alternatives analysis.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 15 of 108
SECTION 3: FAILURE TO CONDUCT ANALYSES ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, FAILURE TO FULLY ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND
UNCERTAINTY REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT AND DISCLOSE ANALYSES ON CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS IN THE SDEIS VIOLATES NEPA AND THE CWA
Like the DEIS, the SDEIS defers critical environmental impact analyses to the final
environmental impact statement (“FEIS”) rather than providing them at the DEIS stage. For
example, the SDEIS provides only incomplete and vague qualitative analysis of critical impact
categories like water quality, as discussed further below. See SDEIS at 4-85 (“Results of Phase II
water quality modeling will be presented in the FEIS”) (emphasis added). Additional examples of
such deferrals are included in the specific comments below, such as in Section 6.3.7 of these
comments (No Analysis of Subsequent Exchanges Using Augmentation Program Flows). In
deferring key analyses to a later date, the Corps violates NEPA’s mandate that an agency timely
“consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action” and “inform the
public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.”
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). The SDEIS
falls far short of satisfying either objective by failing to include in the SDEIS analyses of issues that
are central to the evaluation of the proposed action.
CEQ regulations governing implementation of NEPA state that a draft impact statement
“must fulfill and satisfy to the fullest extent possible the requirements established for final
statements in [§ 4332(2)(C) of NEPA].” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9 (emphasis added). Moreover, the
regulations require that an insufficiently detailed DEIS be supplemented or revised: “if a draft
statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate
a revised draft of the appropriate portion.” Id. (emphasis added). See also N. Buckhead Civic Ass’n
v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1540 (11th Cir. 1990) (it must be ensured that environmental effects will
not be “overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or
the die otherwise cast.”). To comply with NEPA, the missing analyses must be conducted and
included in a revised or second supplemental DEIS. Without that information, the Corps, other state
and federal agencies, and the public cannot conduct a fully informed evaluation of NISP and its
LEDPA.
3.1.1 A Hard Look at the Environmental Impact of NISP Has Not Been Taken Due to a
Failure to Complete All Necessary Evaluations
NEPA “prohibits uninformed agency action.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council,
490 U.S. 332, 351, (1989). In preparing the SDEIS, a “hard look” at the environmental
consequences of the proposed action and its impacts must be taken. The primary function of this
detailed statement is to ensure “a fully informed and well-considered decision.” Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). The
“hallmarks of a ‘hard look’ are thorough investigation into environmental impacts and forthright
acknowledgement of potential environmental harms.” Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Dep’t of Navy, 422
F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir. 2005). Contrary to the principle that “accurate scientific analysis” is
1
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 16 of 108
“essential to implementing NEPA,” Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1259 (S.D.
Fla. 2009), the SDEIS has substantial gaps that are claimed will be filled in later. Delaying
environmental review that should be included in the SDEIS violates NEPA.
For example, in the SDEIS, only the qualitative analysis of water quality impacts is
provided—stating, without explanation, that the quantitative analysis would be provided in the FEIS.
See SDEIS at 4-85. The SDEIS indicates that modeling will be conducted to “facilitate the [CWA
Section ] 401 permitting process” in “coordination with the [Water Quality Control Division
(“WQCD”)] and the EPA using WQCD protocols.” Id. at 4-153. However, the obligation to
analyze and present impacts at the draft EIS stage is independent under NEPA. No sufficient reason
is provided as to why this modeling cannot be completed and included in the SDEIS, or another draft
document. WQCD Section 401 protocols are not needed to provide quantitative analysis of impacts
in the SDEIS. The CWA Section 401 certification is a wholly separate federal process from the
NEPA. It neither supplements the EIS, nor remedies flaw in the NEPA process stemming from the
failure to provide the public with all relevant information on the impacts of NISP.
The incomplete analysis on water quality effects in the SDEIS undermines both the intent
and expressed requirements of the NEPA. As stated above, NEPA is intended to ensure “accurate
scientific analysis” and adequate public involvement. It prevents agencies from making decisions
without timely and adequately analyzing the environmental impacts of a project. Thus, NEPA
expressly mandates that if there is “incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable
significant adverse impacts [that] is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall
costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental
impact statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. And that information should be provided in the draft EIS.
See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9. Here, the fact that plans exist to conduct the requisite water quality
modeling at a later date demonstrate that the information is necessary and available; the analyses just
need to be prepared. The failure to conduct water quality modeling and other relevant studies and
include that information in the SDEIS violates NEPA.
3.1.2 The Failure to Conduct All Relevant Studies Violates NEPA’s Requirement That
The Public Is Fully Informed Of NISP’s Environmental Effects
By deferring certain scientific analyses to a later date, the SDEIS does not satisfy NEPA’s
requirement that agencies “will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information
concerning significant environmental impacts, and that the relevant information will be made
available to the larger [public] audience.” N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. Dept. of
Transport., 545 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Because all relevant scientific analyses have not
been conducted, the SDEIS is incomplete. In violation of NEPA, this lack of information prevents
the “public and other government agencies [from] react[ing] to the effects of a proposed action at a
meaningful time.” Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989). Stated
another way, Fort Collins and others are not fully informed about the impacts of NISP, and cannot
conduct meaningful review of the proposed action, if the SDEIS itself has not fully evaluated NISP.
Where, as here, the relevant information and scientific analyses are not available to the public
for comment, the “[SDEIS] process cannot serve its larger informational role, and the public is
1
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 17 of 108
deprived of [its] opportunity to play a role in the decision-making process.” N. Plains, 668 F.3d at
1085. As the Ninth Circuit states in Pacific Rivers Council v. United States Forest Service:
The scope of its analysis of environmental consequences in [the] EIS must be
appropriate to the action in question. NEPA is not designed to postpone analysis of
an environmental consequence to the last possible moment. Rather, it is designed to
require such analysis as soon as it can reasonably be done.
668 F.3d 609, 623 (9th Cir. 2012). Given the scope, complexity, and many environmental impacts
of NISP, and the substantial and varied interests in the project, the Corps must fully assess and
provide all relevant information on the impacts before making a decision. The failure to complete all
the relevant studies and include them in the SDEIS is in violation of NEPA.
This is especially the case where Fort Collins made very clear in its comments on the DEIS
how important water quality and riparian health are to Fort Collins, and Fort Collins informed the
Corps that the analyses in the DEIS were vague and qualitative. The DEIS and SDEIS do not
accomplish their purpose when they defer real analysis of some of the most critical issues needed for
informed decision making.
3.1.3 There Is Insufficient Information to Determine Compliance With Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines and the CWA’s Public Interest Review
The failure to conduct all necessary environmental analyses also violates the CWA. Under
the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, a “permit cannot be issued if the proposed discharge will result in
significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystem or if there is insufficient information to make a
reasonable judgment as to whether the discharge will result in significant degradation. 40 C.F.R.
§§230.12(a)(3)(ii), (iv).” Utahns for Better Transportation v. USDOT, 305 F.3d 1152, 1191 (10th
Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). The failure to adequately consider (and expose to public scrutiny) the
impacts associated with the proposed action is arbitrary and capricious under both NEPA and the
CWA. Id. at 1192.
The inadequacies of the SDEIS demonstrate that Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines have not been
complied with. To determine whether a proposed discharge will result in significant degradation, the
404(b)(1) Guidelines require detailed factual determinations regarding the effects of the discharge on
the aquatic ecosystem. Id. at §230.10(c). See also id. § 230.11. Discharges which result in
“significant degradation to waters of the United States” are also prohibited. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(c).
Under the public interest review, a permit for NISP may not be issued if it is determined that doing
so would be contrary to the public interest based on a “careful weighing” of the probable impacts of
the project. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a). A “careful weighing” of environmental effects requires more
information—including relevant quantitative analyses—than what is included in the SDEIS. Based
on the current information in the SDEIS, the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and CWA’s public
interest review cannot be complied with.
1
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 18 of 108
3.2 FAILURE TO FULLY ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS UNDER NEPA AND THE CWA
The SDEIS describes the cumulative impacts of NISP with the addition of Fort Collins’
Halligan Water Supply Project (“Halligan Project”), which includes the proposed enlargement of
Halligan Reservoir, and the City of Greeley’s proposed enlargement of Milton Seaman Reservoir.
However, the SDEIS fails to disclose how the cumulative impacts will be evaluated with respect to
each project. Of particular concern, as discussed below, is how responsibility for cumulative
impacts from all three projects will be assessed to each project. As discussed above, such a deferral
is not appropriate. See Kern v. United States BLM, 284 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that
it was not “appropriate to defer consideration of cumulative impacts to a future date when
meaningful consideration can be given now”).
Fort Collins is concerned that much of the assimilative capacity of the Poudre River to absorb
certain impacts will be first apportioned to NISP because NISP is in an advanced stage of NEPA and
CWA permitting relative to Fort Collins’ and Greeley’s respective projects. If true, Fort Collins is
concerned that this approach would leave less assimilative capacity in the Poudre River for later
analysis of the Halligan Project, which may lead to an exaggeration of streamflow impacts of the
Halligan Project relative to an analysis in which the impacts of the Halligan Project are considered
before the impacts of the NISP. This is especially concerning given that the streamflow impacts of
the Halligan Project are expected to far less than NISP given the relative size difference between the
two projects. For instance, the preferred alternative of the Halligan Project is the enlargement of
Halligan Reservoir, which would be an increase of only 8,125 acre feet, which is significantly less
than the volumes of all four NISP alternatives.
The SDEIS should provide information as to how the Corps intends to allocate assimilative
capacity and all other cumulative streamflow impacts among the various Poudre River projects
undergoing simultaneous NEPA and CWA permitting. Additional issues associated with cumulative
impacts are discussed below.
3.3 UNCERTAINTY REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES
It is Fort Collins’ understanding that mitigation for NISP will be finalized with any Record of
Decision (“ROD”), and that avoidance and minimization measures may be finalized before the ROD.
As discussed further herein, Fort Collins notes that, at this point, the District’s plans in these
respects, which are summarized in Appendix F, are conceptual and offer limited information on
specific measures. Appendix F indicates the intent of the District to recognize and react
constructively to impairment of interests other than those of the District and the NISP participants, to
be cooperative and responsive, and to participate in all reasonable efforts to address impairments to
resources or interests caused by NISP. Where the document does not define specific limits or
features of these commitments, however, it is of limited use except as a statement of general intent.
See Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 17 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding an agency may rely on
mitigation measures only when “the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is supported by
substantial evidence”); 40 C.F.R. § 230.75(d) (reliance on mitigation to be reasonable, the Corps’
mitigation measures must “have been demonstrated to be effective in circumstances similar to those
under consideration.”). Clarification on these efforts is required by NEPA and the CWA.
1
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 19 of 108
As the entity most impacted by the Project, Fort Collins would welcome the opportunity to
participate in mitigation-related discussion and efforts. After a complete assessment of the
alternatives, Fort Collins urges that the proposed mitigation measures be demonstrated to be
effective in minimizing the impacts of the proposed action.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 20 of 108
SECTION 4: PROPOSED MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 4
4.1 THE CORPS SHOULD CONSIDER FORT COLLINS’ PROPOSED MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 4
Fort Collins investigated a modified Alternative 4 for NISP (“Modified Alternative 4”) that
would meet the NISP Participant’s purpose and need while simultaneously maintaining relatively
more water in the Poudre River through Fort Collins than all other action alternatives presented in
the SDEIS. Such additional flows through Fort Collins would address many of the concerns
addressed in these comments.
The Modified Alternative 4 is proposed to operate in such a way as to significantly reduce
NISP diversions upstream of Fort Collins as compared to Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred
action), as well as Alternatives 3 and 4, resulting in relatively more stream flows and relatively fewer
impacts to aquatic and riparian resources along a 23 mile reach of river through Fort Collins than the
other action alternatives considered in the SDEIS. This Modified Alternative 4 is expected to entail
costs comparable with other alternatives and would also result in fewer wetlands impacts than all
other alternatives described in the SDEIS. Hence, Modified Alternative 4 is a practicable alternative
with fewer environmentally damaging impacts than those alternatives considered in SDEIS, and
consequently should be evaluated by the Corps in its NEPA and CWA Section 404 analysis. Under
NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must take a hard look at this proposed alternative. 40 C.F.R. §
1502.14(a); id. at § 230.10(a). The Corps should consider and, if shown to be practicable, choose
Modified Alterative 4 as the least damaging practicable alternative. Id.
4.1.1 Summary of Alternative 4 in the SDEIS
Alternative 4 features Cactus Hill Reservoir with multiple diversion points. Alternative 4
functions similarly to both Alternatives 2 and 3, except that rather than all diversions occurring at the
Poudre Valley Canal headgate upstream of Fort Collins, a portion of diversions are made
downstream of Fort Collins at the New Cache Canal headgate. Specifically, Alternative 4 calls for
all New Cache direct flow exchange water associated with the South Platte Water Conservation
Project (“SPWCP”) to be diverted at the New Cache Canal rather than the Poudre Valley Canal as is
common between Alternatives 2 and 3. This modification results in more flow maintained in a 23
mile stretch of river, including the reach passing through Fort Collins, than Alternatives 2 and 3. For
example, Alternative 4 results in flow reductions in June at the Canyon Gage that are 17% less than
Alternative 2 and 31% than Alternative 3. See Water Resources Technical Report, Section 8.1.
The SDEIS does not explain why Alternative 4 only considers diversions of New Cache
direct flow exchange water to Cactus Hill Reservoir at the New Cache Canal headgate rather than
multiple other water sources associated with NISP. SDEIS Section 2.2.7.5 indicates that the SPWCP
exchanges using the New Cache Canal and Larimer and Weld Canal were evaluated for downstream
diversions in various ratios, and that Alternative 4 was configured after “specialists in fisheries,
stream morphology, and water quality … concluded the scenario reflected in Alternative 4 provided
the most environmental benefit.” The SDEIS does not indicate that either the Grey Mountain Water
Right or the SPWCP reservoir exchanges associated with Terry Lake, Big Windsor Reservoir, and
Timnath Reservoir were considered for downstream diversion.
1
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 21 of 108
Diversions for Alterative 4 under the SPWCP exchanges at the New Cache Canal only
represent 20-30% of the total Poudre River diversions for the Project (depending on alternative and
run). For example, in Run 5a, such diversions at the New Cache Canal represent some 12,000 acre
feet of the 42,000 acre feet of diversions. See Run 5a final Post-Poudre Basin Network Processor,
file 5aPPP_20121004_FINAL.xls.
4.1.2 Summary of Fort Collins’ Proposed Modified Alternative 4
Alternative 4 could be formulated to deplete less flow in the Poudre River through Fort
Collins if other sources of water for the Project were delivered to Cactus Hill Reservoir via the New
Cache Canal or the Larimer and Weld Canal with pump stations to Cactus Hill Reservoir. The
Modified Alternative 4 entails the following concepts as summarized below.
Modified Alternative 4 is proposed to include the same general structural components as
Alternative 4 (i.e., Cactus Hill Reservoir, Galeton Reservoir, distribution pipeline network, use of
Big Windsor Reservoir as a forebay, etc.), with the following three primary exceptions:
(1) expansion and lining of the Poudre Valley Canal would not be needed nor occur; (2) pump
stations from the New Cache Canal and Big Windsor Reservoir to Cactus Hill Reservoir would be
expanded, and (3) an advanced water treatment plant, as formulated for the No Action Alternative,
may be needed.
Under Modified Alternative 4, the Poudre Valley Canal would still be used to fill Cactus Hill
Reservoir, but would function similarly to that proposed in the No Action Alternative and would not
require expansion or lining. As a result of not lining the Poudre Valley Canal, Modified
Alternative 4 would result in 47 fewer acres of wetlands downslope of the Poudre Valley Canal that
could suffer permanently altered hydrologic support and 92 fewer acres of other waters that would
be permanently filled as compared to Alternative 4. See SDEIS Summary, Section S.7.6. As a
result, the Modified Alternative 4 would result in fewer wetland effects (34 acres) as opposed to the
Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred action) (65 acres). See SDEIS Summary, Table S-8.
Under the Modified Alternative 4, diversions under the Grey Mountain Water Right to
Cactus Hill Reservoir of up to 200 to 250 cfs would occur via the Poudre Valley Canal. This flow
rate is proposed as it is the existing capacity of the Poudre Valley Canal and is equivalent to the rate
of Poudre Valley Canal diversions proposed for the No Action Alternative. Above this amount, any
Grey Mountain Water Right diversions to Cactus Hill Reservoir would be made at the New Cache
Canal with the water thereafter pumped to Cactus Hill Reservoir.
2
2 Fort Collins acknowledges that this would require approval of a change of water right for the Grey Mountain Water
Right by the District Court, Water Division 1. See, e.g., C.R.S. 37-92-305(3)(a). However, Fort Collins notes that the
point of diversion for the Grey Mountain Water Right would be moved, in part, downstream (not upstream), and that,
based on Fort Collins’ current understanding, the contemplated draft of the Grey Mountain Water Right would not be
expected to change. See Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. City of Aspen, 568 P.2d 45, 193 Colo. 478 (Colo. 1977);
City of Thornton v. Clear Creek Water Users Alliance, 859 P.2d 1348 (Colo. 1993). Such a change would thus not be
anticipated to adversely affect the Grey Mountain Water Right. Provided that such a proposed change of water right
1
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 22 of 108
Based on Grey Mountain Water Right yields from Run 5a modeling and assuming a 200 cfs
inflow capacity to Cactus Hill Reservoir from the Poudre Valley Canal, Modified Alternative 4
would result in approximately half of Grey Mountain Water Right yields being diverted each at the
Poudre Valley Canal and the New Cache Canal. See Run 5a final Post-Poudre Basin Network
Processor, file 5aPPP_20121004_FINAL.xls. Again using Run 5a modeling, it is estimated that
overall, diversions to storage at the Poudre Valley Canal would be approximately 15-20% of the
amount anticipated under Alternative 2. Additional modeling would be needed to determine
specifics, but it is logical that the reduced Poudre Valley Canal diversions would thus translate to
substantially more flow in the Poudre River downstream of the Poudre Valley Canal as compared to
Alternative 2. This would substantially reduce the impacts to water quality, riparian health, wetlands
and other impacts downstream of the Poudre Valley Canal relative to Alternative 2, as discussed in
the 2008 Comments and these comments. It is assumed that diverting some water through the
Poudre Valley Canal is needed to improve water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir, and is reasonable
considering that expanding and relining the Poudre Valley Canal would not be necessary for
Modified Alternative 4. Additional study by the Corps would be needed on the amount and timing
of Poudre Valley Canal diversions under the modified alternative as these diversions would have the
benefit of improving water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir, but the detriment of depleting Poudre
River stream flow.
The Modified Alternative 4 further proposes that a majority of Poudre River diversions
associated with the SPWCP would be made at the New Cache Canal headgate rather than at the
Poudre Valley Canal. The Modified Alternative 4 proposes that all New Cache direct flow exchange
water and all exchange water associated with Terry Lake and Timnath Reservoir be diverted at the
New Cache headgate for delivery to Cactus Hill Reservoir. In order to reduce pumping and improve
water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir, it is likely desirable to make some diversions under the
SPWCP exchanges at the Larimer and Weld Canal headgate for delivery to Big Windsor Reservoir
with subsequent pumping to Cactus Hill Reservoir. Therefore, under Modified Alternative 4, it is
conceptually assumed that 50% of the Larimer and Weld direct flow exchange water and 50% of Big
Windsor Reservoir exchanges under the SPWCP would be diverted at the New Cache Canal
headgate. Additional study by the Corps would be needed to determine the exact ratio of Larimer
and Weld diversions at each diversion location under the modified alternative weighing
improvements to water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir with the detriments of depleting a longer
reach of the Poudre River.
By diverting SPWCP exchange water further downstream at the New Cache Canal,
additional flow will be maintained in the Poudre River between the originally proposed diversion
point and the New Cache Canal. In the case of Larimer and Weld direct flow exchange water and
SPWCP reservoir exchanges associated with Terry Lake, Big Windsor Reservoir, and Timnath
Reservoir, by diverting this water further downstream flows would be improved between the current
diversion locations and New Cache headgate above baseline conditions. As such, Modified
were shown to not adversely affect Fort Collins’ water rights, Fort Collins would likely not oppose such a change of the
Grey Mountain Water Right.
1
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 23 of 108
Alternative 4 could even improve flows in places and times through Fort Collins above what is
observed in the current baseline without any mitigation or augmentation flows.
The diversions to Cactus Hill Reservoir detailed above would result in far fewer flow impacts
along a 23 mile reach of the Poudre River than any other action alternative examined in the SDEIS.
Consequently, the Modified Alternative 4 would not require a flow augmentation program similar to
that proposed by the District for Alternative 2.
4.1.3 Other Considerations for Modified Alternative 4
Under the Modified Alternative 4, water quality in Cactus Hill Reservoir is preliminarily
predicted to be comparable to the water quality predicted in Cactus Hill Reservoir for the No Action
Alternative, but worse than predicted for either Glade Reservoir for Alternative 2 or Cactus Hill
Reservoir for Alternatives 3 and 4, especially in terms of total dissolved solids (“TDS”). Using
water quality data from the SDEIS (SDEIS Tables 4-32, 4-37, and 4-39) and predicted relative flow
contributions by diversion location, the TDS conceptually predicted for Cactus Hill Reservoir in the
Modified Alternative 4 is 350-400 mg/L, which is below the 500 mg/L maximum containment limit
and the 400 mg/L upper limit goal used for developing the No Action Alternative in the SDEIS. See
page 4 of Technical Appendix: NISP No Action Alternative Evaluation. However, with such high
TDS it is assumed (similarly to the No Action Alternative) that NISP Participants would construct
advanced water treatment facilities.
Diversions at the New Cache Canal headgate are downstream of wastewater treatment plant
discharges, which raise certain water quality concerns both for users of Cactus Hill Reservoir and
wastewater effluent dischargers. It is likely that the Modified Alternative 4 would lead to a Total
Maximum Daily Load process for nutrients associated with wastewater discharges, such as those
made by Fort Collins, above diversions to Cactus Hill Reservoir at the New Cache Canal.
Under the Modified Alternative 4, annual pumping inputs would be greater than any other
alternative in the SDEIS due to the relatively larger pumping head required to fill Cactus Hill
Reservoir from the New Cache Canal. However, pumping costs are not so large as to preclude the
viability of Modified Alternative 4. For example, and as a worst case scenario, it is conceptually
estimated that if all inflows to Cactus Hill Reservoir were taken at the New Cache Canal the total
energy requirement would be roughly 80,000,000 to 85,000,000 KW-hr. This amount may be
compared to 64,400,000 KW-hr for Alternative 4 and 48,100,000 KW-hr for Alternative 2 under the
Reclamation Action Option or 61,300,000 for Alternative 2 under the No Reclamation Action
Option. See SDEIS Summary, Table S-10. Diverting all inflows to Cactus Hill Reservoir at the
New Cache Canal exceeds that which is proposed for Modified Alternative 4, but was analyzed as a
worst case scenario for illustrative purposes. Under this worst case scenario, total annual pumping
power costs for Modified Alternative 4 are expected to be, at a maximum, roughly $6,000,000, as
opposed to $4,511,000 for Alternative 4, $4,291,000 for Alternative 2 without Reclamation Action,
and $2,663,000 for Alternative 2 with Reclamation Action (from SDEIS Table 2-12). Worst case
energy and cost estimates for Modified Alternative 4 were developed with available information
summarized SDEIS data and are conceptual in nature. Given that Modified Alternative 4 would
likely have significantly less environmental impact than the SDEIS alternatives, including fewer
1
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 24 of 108
wetlands and streamflow impacts along a vital 23 mile reach of Poudre River, it remains a
practicable alternative in light of the approximated higher pumping costs. Further, the difference in
pumping costs between Modified Alternative 4 and the other alternatives is small relative to the
overall costs of the proposed action.
Because of the increased pumping inputs required for Modified Alternative 4, greenhouse gas
emissions associated with pumping are anticipated to be greater than any other SDEIS alternative,
which may exacerbate NISP’s climate change impacts, which are discussed in Section 8 of these
comments. Nevertheless, given that the proposed Modified Alternative 4 will have far fewer aquatic
impacts than other SDEIS alternatives, including fewer impacted wetlands and fewer streamflow
impacts along a vital 23 mile reach of Poudre River, the increased greenhouse gas emissions
associated with larger pumping inputs may be justified, especially given that increased greenhouse
gas emissions could be avoided, minimized, or mitigated, for example, by the use of renewable
energy sources or by employing other climate change mitigation methods.
Total capital costs for Modified Alternative 4 are expected to be comparable to Alternative 4
costs provided in the SDEIS. Although additional costs are required for upgrading the New Cache
Canal pumping facilities and potentially for advanced water treatment, large cost savings are realized
from not having to expand and line a 30 mile section of the Poudre Valley Canal. Using costs
provided in the SDEIS (SDEIS Table 2-12), it is conceptually predicted that the Modified
Alternative 4 would have a capital cost of roughly $700,000,000. This amount is 38% more than the
Alternative 2 with Reclamation Action, but only 6% more than Alternative 2 without Reclamation
Action. Furthermore, mitigation costs will likely be less for Modified Alternative 4 than other
alternatives given that the environment impacts will be less. Cost estimates for the Modified
Alternative 4 were developed with summarized SDEIS data and are conceptual in nature.
Accordingly, Fort Collins urges the Corps to satisfy its legal obligation under NEPA and to take a
hard look at Modified Alternative 4.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 25 of 108
SECTION 5: WATER QUALITY COMMENTS
The SDEIS describes three major water quality impacts of interest to Fort Collins, as
discussed in detail below: (1) degradation of raw source water quality delivered to the Fort Collins
Water Treatment Facility (“FCWTF”); (2) degraded water quality or flow regime changes on Poudre
River Segments 10a, 10b, and 11; and (3) degraded water quality or flow regime changes on the
wastewater discharge permits issued for Fort Collins’ two water reclamation facilities (“Drake
WRF” and “Mulberry WRF”).
The SDEIS was also issued without several quantitative analyses that are necessary for the
Corps to take a hard look at water quality impacts required NEPA and the CWA. Without this
information, the Corps cannot make a “fully informed and well-considered decision.” Vermont
Yankee, 435 U.S. at 558. Also, the lack of analyses prevents Fort Collins from meaningfully
understanding the possible effects on its interests. To comply with NEPA, the Corps must analyze
the antidegradation regulations for the Drake and Mulberry WRFs and conduct temperature
modeling and water quality modeling for the Poudre River.
The FCWTF currently receives water from two sources: Horsetooth Reservoir (by direct
connection) and Poudre River water routed through the Fort Collins Pipeline and Pleasant Valley
Pipeline (“PVP”). The PVP is a pipeline (separate from the Fort Collins Pipeline) that runs from the
Munroe Canal to the FCWTF. Fort Collins also shares use of the PVP with other entities, including
the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, which uses the PVP to deliver water to the Soldier Canyon
Treatment Plant. Under Alternative 2 with the Reclamation Action Option, both raw water sources
would be affected adversely. Residence times in Horsetooth Reservoir would be substantially
increased resulting in poorer water quality in Horsetooth Reservoir. As discussed below, Glade
Reservoir water may be of lower quality than Poudre River water due to long hydraulic residence
times in that reservoir, and would be delivered through the PVP to the Soldier Canyon Treatment
Plant, adversely affecting Fort Collins’ Poudre River water run through the PVP. It is reasonably
foreseeable that both changes would require Fort Collins to perform increased water treatment that
will be costly for Fort Collins to install and operate.
Alternative 2 will affect the Poudre River by diversions into Glade Reservoir decreasing
flushing flows and Glade Reservoir releases back to the river during the warm months changing
water quality. Flushing flows remove algal biomass and excess sediment from the river bottom.
Reduction of these high flows could lead to development of large algal mats and island formation.
Glade Reservoir water has the potential to be higher in certain water quality constituents (TOC, iron,
manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus) than water currently released from Horsetooth Reservoir to the
Poudre River. It is reasonably foreseeable that increases in regulated constituents in the river
upstream of Fort Collins’ permitted discharge points would lead to exceedances of standards in the
river and exceedances of effluent limits in the mixed flow downstream of the discharge point. For
the downstream mixed flow, reductions in river flow combined with upstream increases in regulated
constituents will make exceedances of standards more likely.
1
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 26 of 108
5.1 COMMENTS REGARDING INCOMPLETE ANALYSES RELATED TO WATER QUALITY
5.1.1 No Analysis of Antidegradation Regulations and Mulberry and Drake WRFs
SDEIS Section 4.3.10 401, Certification Process and Antidegradation Review
Statement: “The WQCC is responsible for issuing Water Quality Certifications under Section 401 of the
CWA for projects or actions that are applicable to the provisions of the Colorado 401 Certification Regulation
(WQCC Regulation #82: 5 CCR 1002-82). […] The 401 certification process is a permitting requirement
separate from NEPA compliance. 401 certification and antidegradation review will be required for any
permitted alternative prior to construction. To facilitate the 401 permitting process, additional water quality
modeling will be conducted for the FEIS in coordination with the WQCD and the EPA using WQCD protocols.
The intent of this effort is to use the results of the water quality analysis conducted for 401 certification in the
FEIS and thus, minimize any duplication of effort.”
Comment: The SDEIS does not address the effects of NISP on Mulberry and Drake WRF facilities’
compliance with antidegradation regulations, which are based on maintenance of historical water
quality and not solely on water quality standards. Fort Collins thus cannot meaningfully analyze
NISP’s effects in this respect.
Proposal/Recommendation: NEPA and the CWA require that the Corps address indirect effects of
the proposed action. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). See also id. § 230.11(h) (requiring consideration of
“secondary effects”). Further, the Corps’ guidelines prohibit a discharge that causes or contributes
to violations of any state water quality standards. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(b)(1). Thus, the Corps
must conduct additional studies and analyses should be performed in these proceedings with respect
to the compliance of Mulberry and Drake WRF facilities with antidegradation regulations.
5.1.2 No Analysis of Chlorophyll
SDEIS Section 4.4.3.1.1, Poudre River, Flows and Flooding
Statement: “Laporte Reach. Flood flows are predicted to be reduced. […]Fort Collins and Upper Timnath
Reaches. There is a predicted 20% to 35% reduction in flow duration at or above 1,000 cfs, as well as a 20% to
40% reduction in the duration of flows in the interval from 140 cfs to 1,000 cfs. […] For the 26-year period of
record, 23 flushing events under Current Conditions lasting for 325 days in total would become 16 flushing
events under Alternative 2 lasting for 222 days in total.”
Comment: Amounts of attached algae in streams (measured as chlorophyll) are currently regulated
by the State of Colorado under Section 31.17 of Regulation 31 of the Water Quality Control
Commission, 5 CCR 1002-31, under interim values, and the use of these interim values will be used
in the adoption of water quality standards prior to May 31, 2022. Flow velocity exercises strong
control over chlorophyll accumulation in stream channels. The SDEIS does not assess the impact of
reduction of flow volumes and flow velocities on chlorophyll development. Fort Collins thus cannot
judge and meaningfully analyze the effects on Fort Collins.
1
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 27 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must analyze all NISP alternatives’ impact on chlorophyll
accumulation. This is essential both for NEPA and the CWA prohibition on fills that would cause or
exacerbate any violation of water quality standards.
5.1.3 No Quantitative Analysis of Temperature
SDEIS Section S.1.2.2, Planned Activities After SDEIS Issuance
Statement: “Before FEIS issuance, or issuance of a Record of Decision as noted, the Corps anticipates
completing the following activities: […] Complete Phase II water quality and stream temperature modeling in
coordination with the WQCD and the EPA using WQCD protocols.”
Comment: The SDEIS states that temperatures within the Poudre River will be higher as a result of
the operation of NISP, but does not offer quantitative projections that would allow Fort Collins to
meaningfully analyze the likelihood that specific stream sections now in compliance with State
standards for temperature for protection of aquatic life will become noncompliant as a result of the
project.
Proposal/Recommendation: As discussed above, an “accurate scientific analysis . . . and public
scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. The Corps’ deferring analyses
violates NEPA’s requirement that agencies “will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed
information concerning significant environmental impacts, and that the relevant information will be
made available to the larger [public] audience.” N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network, 545 F.3d at 1153.
Without temperature data, Fort Collins and other stakeholders cannot meaningfully review
temperature impacts. Thus, the Corps must supplement or revise the SDEIS to include a quantitative
analysis of temperature for all alternatives, and the Corps should afford Fort Collins and others an
opportunity to review and comment on that information. Because this is a critical water quality
attribute, appropriate analysis is necessary to comply with the CWA. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(b).
5.1.4 No Quantitative Analysis of Water Quality Effects Below Glade Reservoir
SDEIS Section S.7.2, Surface Water Quality
Statement: Table S-6. Potential for exceedance of water quality standards.
*Water Quality Standard already being exceeded under current conditions.
1
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 28 of 108
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 4.4.1, Glade Reservoir Water Quality Enlargement (FW-06)
Statement: “Northern Water proposes to evaluate an increase in Glade storage to as much as 192,500 acre-feet
to allow for operational flexibility during the late summer period. This would include the following tasks to be
completed between the SDEIS and FEIS, so that the Corps permit decision can include a potential water quality
enlargement of Glade Reservoir:
• Verification through the use of full CTP hydrology and modeling that an increase in storage can off-set the lack
of diversion during late summer while still meeting full project yield.
• Integration of the detailed water quality modeling with the refined configuration and determination of
potential operational strategies for mitigation of effects or environmental enhancement, including the
evaluation of temperature thresholds above which NISP diversions may be curtailed.
• Validation by the third party contractor that no significant adverse environmental consequences are caused by
either the enlargement of Glade or the change in inflow pattern.”
Comment: The SDEIS forecasts adverse water quality effects of NISP on the Poudre River below
the point of diversion for Glade Reservoir but omits quantitative predictions, which are stated to be
given only in the FEIS. Therefore, Fort Collins and other affected parties cannot judge or
meaningfully analyze whether impairments will lead to new violations of water quality standards as
reflected in 303(d) listing of impaired waters by the State of Colorado. Details regarding the
proposal to enlarge the capacity of Glade Reservoir to accommodate water quality needs are not
given. The changes in stream flows and associated resource impacts from enlarging Glade Reservoir
must be fully described and analyzed.
Proposal/Recommendation: As stated above, NEPA requires that the Corps conduct a quantitative
analysis of water quality impacts below Glade Reservoir and provide that information in the SDEIS
to Fort Collins and other stakeholders. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.22, 1502.9. This analysis is also
essential for compliance with the Corps’ obligation to avoid causing or exacerbating violations of
water quality standards. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(b).
5.1.5 Water Quality Monitoring Is Not Mitigation
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 4.4.3.2, Water Quality Monitoring
Statement: “Additional water quality monitoring would be performed to more fully characterize and
understand the effects of NISP operations on Poudre River water quality before and after NISP project
components are built and implemented, and to meet the water quality commitments of this Conceptual
Mitigation Plan. […] Initial data collection […]Long-term monitoring […] The final sites, parameter list, and
frequency for the initial data collection effort will be determined between the SDEIS and FEIS based on the
analyses and modeling being conducted for the FEIS and State 401 water quality certification process.”
Comment: The only specific action item in the mitigation plan addressing water quality impacts is a
water quality monitoring program. Monitoring, without potential actions based on the monitoring,
does not compensate for or mitigate unavoidable impacts. The conceptual mitigation plan fails, at
this point, to address important water quality issues in Segment 11, where dilution water quantity
and quality are critical to compliance with water quality standards and antidegradation rules. Water
quality maintenance in this reach requires commitments to minimum flows sufficient to insure
adequate dilution of wastewater effluent. Low flow augmentation commitments are based on
availability of water at the point of augmentation and not through the downstream reaches. This
1
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 29 of 108
problem needs to be addressed explicitly with reference to the two wastewater treatment plants for
the City (Mulberry and Drake WRFs).
Proposal/Recommendation: As stated above, the SDEIS water quality assessment lacks key
quantitative analyses. Under NEPA and the CWA, proposed mitigation measures dependent on
incomplete environmental impact analyses fail. Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition v. United States Army
Corps of Eng’rs, 479 F. Supp. 2d 607, 627 (S.D. W. Va. 2007). Stated another way, the Corps’
purported mitigation in the form of monitoring is inherently inadequate because it is based on only a
portion of the required water quality analyses. Any mitigation for NISP should directly address the
impacts discussed herein.
5.2 COMMENTS REGARDING IMPACTS TO SOURCE WATER QUALITY FOR THE FCWTF
5.2.1 Changes to Hydraulic Residence Time in Horsetooth Reservoir
SDEIS, Sections 2, 3, and 4
Statement: Page 2-41: “Horsetooth Reservoir releases an average of nearly 60,000 AF to the Poudre River
each year.”
Statement: Page 3-27: “C-BT deliveries to the Poudre River from Horsetooth Reservoir via the Hansen
Supply Canal averaged nearly 75,700 AFY for the period including WY 1952-2009 (CDM Smith, DiNatale, and
Hydros 2011).”
Statement: Page 4-41: “In addition to these releases to the Poudre River and the Poudre Valley Canal,
Glade Reservoir under the Reclamation Action Option would release an average of 10,500 AFY for direct
delivery to the water treatment facilities for Participants FCLWD, Evans, Eaton, Severance, and Windsor (see
the 2014 Operations Report, Section 5.1.1.1). Potential pumping from Glade Reservoir to Horsetooth Reservoir
(see Section 4.2.3.3.3) would average about 400 AFY (averaged over 56 years).”
Statement: Page 4-46: “Horsetooth Reservoir releases averaged 51,300 AFY, with 49,500 AFY released to
the Poudre River and 1,800 AFY delivered to the Poudre Valley Canal via the Windsor Extension. Under NISP
Alternative 2 with the Reclamation Action Option, Horsetooth Reservoir releases would be reduced to 21,900
AFY (20,200 AFY to the river and 1,700 AFY via the Windsor Extension).”
Comment: The planned decreases in the release of water from Horsetooth Reservoir (from 51,300 to
21,900 acre feet per year) will lead to a substantial increase in hydraulic residence time for water in
Horsetooth Reservoir. Under operational scenarios proposed in this SDEIS, the historical average
residence time of 2-3 years could become about 7 years. Increased residence time for reservoirs in
Colorado often is associated with increased algal biomass and change in algal community
composition in the upper mixed layer of the reservoir during water column stratification season. See
Northern Water, 2014 Water Quality Stakeholders Meeting: 2013 Three Lakes Water Quality and
Operations, or Why Did Shadow Mountain Turn Green, dated March 4, 2014. An increase in algal
production and changes in community composition in Horsetooth Reservoir could potentially result
in increases in TOC concentrations, more frequent occurrence of elevated concentrations of taste and
odor compounds such as geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (MIB), as well as an increased likelihood
of cyanotoxin production. Each of these issues poses significant concern for the FCWTF and would
1
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 30 of 108
potentially require new and/or costly monitoring and treatment solutions that are currently not
required, including the use of powdered or granular activated carbon.
As described in Fort Collins’ comment regarding SDEIS Section 4.3.4.5 Effects on Water
Treatment Plant Operations, the proposed increase in hydraulic residence time in Horsetooth
Reservoir was not included in the modeled scenarios for the SDEIS. As such, it is not possible to
evaluate the combined effects of increased hydraulic residence time and possible inflows from Glade
Reservoir on algal abundance or TOC concentrations, or to estimate the likelihood of algal
metabolites production like geosmin, MIB or cyanotoxins. Without this information, the FCWTF
remains vulnerable to unexpected and substantial costs associated with new or enhanced treatment
costs.
The City has identified ozone/advanced oxidation as the water treatment solution needed to
manage regular occurrence of cyanotoxins and/or taste and odor compounds like geosmin and MIB
in the Horsetooth raw water supply. See CH2M. 2015. Technical Memorandum: Revised Costs for
Impacts to Water Treatment Operations Resulting from NISP Operations. August 6, 2015 (“Costs
Report”). Capital costs associated with this type of advanced treatment are estimated at $26.9
million, in 2015 dollars, with an annual operating cost of $703,000. Likewise, the ozone/advanced
oxidation is the treatment solution proposed for managing persistent taste and odors issues, with the
same capital and annual operating costs.
Additionally, the use of granulated activated carbon may be required in the event that
concentrations of TOC in Horsetooth Reservoir increase to 5-6 mg/L on a consistent basis and
enhanced coagulation fail to reduce TOC to needed levels. The capital costs associated with a new
organics removal facility are $72.9 million and annual costs of $2.5 million, in 2015 dollars. See
Costs Report. Although the application of granular activated carbon is not considered necessary
under the scenario of a 0.5 mg/L increase in average TOC concentrations, as reported in the SDEIS,
such measures may become necessary in the event that the proposed changes in hydraulic residence
time result in TOC concentrations consistently above 5-6 mg/L. As stated previously, the
information presented in the SDEIS is currently not adequate for addressing this likelihood.
Longer hydraulic residence time also can lead to greater extremes of hypolimnetic oxygen
loss, which facilitates the release of dissolved iron and manganese from bottom sediments (Dortch
1997). Dissolved iron and manganese precipitate when oxygenated upon release from the
hypolimnion. The precipitate forms particles and coatings that interfere with water treatment. Taste
and odor problems may also be caused by anoxic water even after aeration. These issues related to
prolonged hypolimnetic oxygen depletion would likely result in additional treatment costs from
increased chemical usage specifically, pre-oxidation with chlorine dioxide to manage manganese and
iron issues at an estimated peak daily cost of $2,109, or a weekly cost of $14,765, and/or the use of
powdered activated carbon (PAC) to remove taste and odor compounds. See Costs Report.
Proposal/Recommendation: If, due to NISP, TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir reach a
level that the FCWTF cannot treat without installing additional treatment facilities, Northern should
pay for installation and operation of a pretreatment facility to remove some TOC from raw source
water before it enters the FCWTF. If taste and odor compounds or cyanotoxin concentrations reach
1
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 31 of 108
a problematic level, Northern should deliver treatable water to the FCWTF that can be used until the
water quality in Horsetooth Reservoir reaches a treatable status. In addition, if Horsetooth water
quality is degraded to the point that it is not usable for more than 6 months, Northern should pay for
constant forced destratification. Mixing could reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses that would
normally be released from the reservoir during stratification.
The CWA requires the Corps to take hard look at the potential negative changes in the water
quality of Horsetooth Reservoir caused by the proposed action. Specifically, the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines prohibit any discharge that would cause or contribute to “significant degradation of the
waters” or “violations of any applicable State water quality standard . . . .” 40 C.F.R.§ 230.10(b)(1),
(c). These impacts include “secondary effects” caused by the project including the impacts
discussed above. 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(h). Additionally, NEPA requires the Corps to address
“reasonably foreseeable” impacts and emphasizes the importance of taking a hard look at uncertain
effects:
[I]n the ordinary course of business, people do make judgments based upon
reasonably foreseeable occurrences. . . . The agency has the responsibility to make an
informed judgment, and to estimate future impacts on that basis, especially if trends
are ascertainable . . . . The agency cannot ignore these uncertain but probable, effects
of its decisions.
46 Fed. Reg. at 18031. Given the potentially significant impacts on water quality in Horsetooth
Reservoir, and the potential costs that would be incurred by Fort Collins to address those impacts,
the Corps must assess the potential impacts and mitigation measures discussed above.
5.2.2 Hydraulic Residence Time in Glade Reservoir and the PVP
SDEIS Section 2.5.4.1, Glade Reservoir
Statement: “The modeled hydraulic residence time (the length of time diverted water would remain in the
reservoir) would be 4.6 years.”
Comment: Under operating conditions described in the SDEIS, Glade Reservoir will experience
long hydraulic residence times. The water quality effects of long residence times in Glade Reservoir
are expected to be similar to those described above for Horsetooth Reservoir. As such, Glade
Reservoir water has the potential to be higher in certain water quality constituents (TOC, iron,
manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus) than water currently released from Horsetooth Reservoir to the
Poudre River. Increases in regulated constituents in the river upstream of Fort Collins’ permitted
discharge points could lead to exceedances of standards in the river and exceedances of effluent
limits in the mixed flow downstream of the discharge point. For the downstream mixed flow,
reductions in river flow combined with upstream increases in regulated constituents will make
exceedances of standards more likely. Furthermore, Glade Reservoir water delivered through the
PVP to the Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant may adversely affect Fort Collins’ Poudre River water
running through the PVP.
1
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 32 of 108
Water storage in Glade Reservoir will lead to differential water quality conditions in the
upper and lower portions of the water column during the season of water column stratification. A
multiple outlet structure will be available for Glade Reservoir so that selective water withdrawal is
possible. This measure may not be sufficient, however, to protect the quality of waters released from
the reservoir because of the simultaneous occurrence of impairment of the upper water column (high
temperature, algae) and lower water column (iron, manganese, organics) during the season of
stratification. Release of water from points below the epilimnion of Glade Reservoir during the
summer for purposes of maintaining low temperature or avoiding algal biomass in the epilimnion are
complicated by the likely presence of substantial concentrations in the release water of dissolved
iron and manganese that will precipitate as oxides and hydroxides upon entering the river. (Dortch
1997, Smith 1982). It can be assumed that the engineered release structure will reoxygenate the
water, but the problem of chemical precipitation is not dealt with in the mitigation plan.
Proposal/Recommendation The mitigation for Alternative 2 must include commitment to and
measures ensuring constant destratification of Glade Reservoir in the event that water quality
problems resulting from stratification are observed or expected. Mixing could reduce the amount of
greenhouse gasses that would normally be released from the reservoir during stratification.
5.2.3 Glade Reservoir Forebay Water Quality Issues
SDEIS Section 2.5.4.1, Glade Reservoir
Statement: “A forebay and pump station would also be constructed southwest of the reservoir.”
Comment: The SDEIS describes the building of a forebay in front of the dam, but not the operation
of the forebay. Under certain operational scenarios, it is reasonably foreseeable that water could be
released directly from the forebay into the PVP and/or the Poudre River. The forebay is a small
waterbody that is hydrologically separated from Glade Reservoir. The quality of the water in the
forebay will vary greatly based on factors such as hydraulic residence time, degree of drawdown,
and quality of source water. Waters of the forebay may be subject to warming, wind generated
turbidity, or algal blooms to a degree that would not be expected in Glade Reservoir. As a result,
downstream uses could be impaired if water is released directly to the river from the forebay.
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, the Corps must include permit conditions
prohibiting any release of forebay water directly into the PVP or the Poudre River under any
conditions. If the Corps does not prohibit releases, then it must adequately assess the potential
impact releases of the forebay water.
5.2.4 Glade Reservoir Water Quality During the Initial Fill
SDEIS Section 4.3.4.1.1, Projected Reservoir Water Quality, Glade Reservoir
Statement: “Water quality during initial reservoir filling would be affected by the release of nutrients and
organic matter in the soil. During this period water quality may be impaired by high suspended solids, elevated
nutrient concentrations, and potentially high concentrations of algae (Lewis 2003).”
1
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 33 of 108
Comment: The SDEIS recognizes that Glade Reservoir, when in the filling phase, may show water
quality problems that are associated with early stabilization of the reservoir. The SDEIS commits to
withholding water in the reservoir from use for a specific period of time to allow for stabilization of
reservoir water quality.
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as a permit condition that
the District commit to measures for extending the withholding period as necessary to prevent
impairment of downstream waters to a degree that would not be expected over the long term, i.e., the
startup period during which waters are withheld should not be defined by elapsed time, but rather by
water quality conditions in the reservoir.
5.2.5 Use of the PVP to Deliver Water From Glade Reservoir
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.1, Avoid Munroe Canal Diversions (FW-01)
Statement: “The original Draft EIS considered using the Munroe Canal for two operations associated with
NISP. […] The exchange has been eliminated in the SDEIS analysis, and replaced with a new pipeline directly
from Glade Reservoir to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District) and a new
pipeline directly from Glade Reservoir to the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (for Eaton, Severance and
Windsor).”
Comment: The proposed use of the PVP to convey deliveries of water from Glade Reservoir creates
potential water quality issues, as described above.
Proposal/Recommendation: Due to potential degradation of water quality caused by Alternative 2,
these releases should be made through a second pipeline rather than through the PVP, so that all
water moved through the PVP originates from the Poudre River upstream of the Glade Reservoir
release point. This would allow FCWTF to receive raw water supply of appropriate quality for
treatment when Horsetooth Reservoir and Glade Reservoir are not a suitable source for drinking
water supply. The Corps must also consider the alternative of constructing a pre-treatment facility
for releases from Glade Reservoir into the PVP to maintain the existing water quality parameters.
5.2.6 Analysis of TOC Levels in Horsetooth Reservoir
SDEIS Section 4.3.4.5, Effects on Water Treatment Plant Operations, Pages 4-117 and 4-118
Statement: “The Horsetooth Reservoir water quality model (Hydros 2013) was used to evaluate changes in
TOC concentrations for the Reclamation Action Option (ERO and Tetra Tech 2015). The model was used to
estimate changes in TOC concentrations in the Soldier Canyon outflow, which would be the raw water supply
to the Fort Collins and Tri-Districts WTPs.”
“The model results for the Reclamation Action Option with and without a pipeline from Glade Reservoir to
Horsetooth Reservoir are provided in Table 4-35.
“Table 4-35 shows that for the Soldier Canyon Outflow, which supplies Horsetooth Reservoir water to the Fort
Collins and Tri Districts WTPs, average TOC concentrations are predicted to be higher under the Reclamation
Action Option for the maximum pipeline volume. However, even for the highest average predicted TOC
1
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 34 of 108
concentration of 3.52 mg/L in the Soldier Canyon outflow, this would be only 3.5% higher than the baseline
average TOC concentration of 3.40 mg/L.”
Hydros Consulting, dated June 4, 2013, “Transmittal of Horsetooth Reservoir Model
Simulation Results for NISP
Statement: “The Horsetooth Reservoir model is a dynamic, two‐dimensional hydrodynamic and water‐quality
model developed in the CE‐QUAL‐W2 (version 3.6) modeling framework. […] The model was calibrated and
validated for the period January 2005 through September 2010.
“To allow for simulation of NISP scenarios which include pipeline inflow into Satanka Bay (located at the
north end of the reservoir), the original Horsetooth model was modified slightly. Specifically, detail was added
to the bathymetric representation of Satanka Bay to create a distinct model branch at this location to allow for
inflows. []Bathymetric modifications were purposefully conducted to maintain the area‐elevation‐volume
relationships of the original model. Simulation of observed conditions for the January 2005 through September
2010 period was performed with the modified model and compared to the same‐period simulation from the
original model. Differences in the water quality and hydrodynamics between the two runs were negligible.
“The simulation of observed conditions with the modified model (described above) for the full calibration and
validation period (January 2005 through September 2010) served as the ‘baseline’ run against which all NISP
scenario runs are compared in the results files provided to ERO Resources. All NISP scenarios for the
Horsetooth Model runs were developed to simulate the same January 2005 through September 2010 time‐
period with varying inflows, outflows, and Satanka Bay pipeline water‐quality assumptions. As such, for all
runs, the same meteorology and Hansen Feeder Canal inflow concentrations were applied.”
Comment: The conceptual approach described within the SDEIS regarding the quantification of the
impact on TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir resulting from the transfer of water from
Glade Reservoir is generally sound. However, a review of the modeling and resulting analysis
suggest that the presented data and analysis are flawed and misleading, and inappropriately minimize
the impact of Glade Reservoir water on expected TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir,
which is a source of treated water for Fort Collins.
Per the documentation provided for the SDEIS and referenced as “Hydros, 2013” and “ERO
and Tetra Tech 2015,” a baseline CE-QUAL-W2 model (“baseline model”) of Horsetooth Reservoir
was developed and used to determine water quality impacts associated with the possible introduction
of water from Glade Reservoir into Horsetooth Reservoir. The documentation of the model (from
Hydros, 2013) suggests that the baseline model at times accurately reproduces measured TOC
concentrations observed near the surface and reservoir bottom adjacent to the Solider Canyon Dam
outlet. There are other times, however, where the baseline model continuously under predicted TOC
concentrations at certain locations. Specifically, the baseline model under predicted observations
made during the summers of 2005, 2006, and 2007 near the reservoir surface adjacent to Solider
Canyon Dam. In 2005, the difference between modeled and observed TOC values appears to exceed
1 mg/L (or nearly 33% of the modeled value). Improved agreement is obtained near the bottom of
Solider Canyon Dam (when compared to agreement at the surface). However, the baseline model
also under predicts (by 0.5 mg/L or 16% of modeled value) TOC concentrations during the summer
of 2005 and 2006. The amount of these under predictions is significant in terms of concentrations
and percentages of modeled values.
1
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 35 of 108
The magnitude of the under predictions of TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir
range from 0.5 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L. By comparison, the modeled average TOC concentration increase
from the introduction of Glade Reservoir water into Horsetooth Reservoir is 3.5% or 0.12 mg/L.
Because the modeled average TOC concentration increase is much smaller than the under prediction
errors in modeled TOC concentrations, the modeled average TOC concentration increase is not
believable or reliable.
In addition, average TOC concentrations should not be utilized to assess the impact of
introducing Glade Reservoir water into Horsetooth Reservoir, as doing so masks any large increase
event(s) that may occur in the specific water that is introduced into the City’s system because such
large increase event(s) are not identified in the average value. These large increase events are not
evident in the results provided within the SDEIS, and would dictate any alternations needed to water
treatment systems before Horsetooth Reservoir water that has been mixed with Glade Reservoir
water could be utilized by Fort Collins.
Aside from concerns regarding the accuracy of the baseline model discussed above, Fort
Collins has concerns regarding the modified model used to simulate Glade Reservoir inflows into
Horsetooth Reservoir. For this discussion, this modified model is referred to as the “proposed-
conditions model.”
Per the documentation referenced above, the proposed-conditions model is similar to the
baseline model discussed above except that it includes model cells representing Satanka Bay, and
incorporates inflows from Glade Reservoir into Satanka Bay. Per the proposed-conditions model
documentation, the impact of introducing Glade Reservoir water into Horsetooth Reservoir via
Satanka Bay was determined by comparing computed Soldier Canyon outflow TOC concentrations
from the proposed-conditions and baseline models, using the same January 2005 through September
2010 time period over which the baseline model was calibrated and validated.
This analysis approach is flawed and misleading. It is inappropriate to model the impacts of
periodically introducing Glade Reservoir water into Horsetooth Reservoir without also altering the
modeled inflows and outflows of water in Horsetooth Reservoir that are expected under Alternative
2, as described in the SDEIS. The results of the comparison of the baseline and proposed-conditions
models presented in the SDEIS were generated without reducing the inflows and outflows in
Horsetooth Reservoir as expected, but rather, with the exact inflows and outflows observed from
2005 to 2010. As the proposed-conditions model is not fully simulating the conditions to be
expected under Alternative 2, the proposed-conditions model results cannot be utilized to assess
TOC concentrations to be expected under Alternative 2. The SDEIS does not adequately present
results showing how Horsetooth Reservoir TOC concentrations would differ as a result of
Alternative 2.
Proposal/Recommendation: The modeling effort should be revised, as discussed above, to provide
sufficient confidence as to the accuracy of the predicted TOC concentrations in Horsetooth Reservoir
under the District’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2) where water is delivered from Glade
Reservoir into Horsetooth Reservoir. Specifically, the under predictions errors in the baseline model
should be addressed; average TOC concentrations alone should not be used to evaluate impacts, and
1
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 36 of 108
instead, event TOC increases should be considered in evaluating impacts; and the proposed-
conditions model should incorporate the modeled inflows and outflows of water in Horsetooth
Reservoir that are expected under Alternative 2.
5.3 COMMENTS REGARDING IMPACTS TO THE POUDRE RIVER AND WASTEWATER
DISCHARGERS
5.3.1 Augmentation Program and Wastewater Discharges
SDEIS Section 2.5.6, Flow Augmentation
Statement: “The District proposes to include a flow augmentation program to improve Poudre River
streamflows, primarily during winter months when flows are low and NISP would generally not be diverting, in
Alternative 2 (both the Reclamation Action Option and the No Reclamation Action Option). […]A method of
exchange to return the water to Glade Reservoir would be determined between the SDEIS and FEIS.”
Comment: Diversions of water under NISP will decrease flows in the Poudre River downstream of
the Poudre Valley Canal headgate, including at the permitted points of discharge for the Fort Collins
Mulberry WRF and the Drake WRF. The SDEIS offers augmentation of flow just below the
Larimer & Weld Canal headgate in cool months (1 November – 30 April) and in September as a
means of offsetting decreased flows. Augmentation would extend downstream to the headgate of the
Timnath Inlet, including past the location of the Mulberry WRF point of discharge. While the
augmentation amount (to maintain a minimum of 10 cfs) is specified for the augmentation point just
below the Larimer & Weld Canal, the expected augmentation flows reaching the downstream point
of discharge for the Mulberry WRF are not specified, and may be lower than current flows, which
would cause increasingly stringent effluent limits for Mulberry WRF, with attendant compliance
costs. In addition, termination of augmentation at the Timnath Inlet headgate, which is upstream of
the Drake WRF, will reduce the amount of dilution flow available at the Drake WRF. The
augmentation is not secure for all months or for dry years and does not have a defined beneficial
effect downstream at the discharge points for the wastewater treatment facilities of Fort Collins.
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as a permit condition a
requirement that Northern ensures that river flows immediately above the permitted point of
discharge for the Mulberry WRF do not drop below 10 cfs, as measured by a continuous data logger
at that location, and ensures that river flows immediately above the permitted point of discharge for
the Drake WRF do not drop below 2 cfs, as measured by a continuous data logger at that location.
5.3.2 Use of Cottonwood Trees to Reduce Increase in Water Temperatures
SDEIS Appendix F, Section: 4.3.2, Channel and Habitat Improvements
Statement: “Channel improvements in this reach would seek to narrow and deepen the current channel to be
more consistent with current and future low-flow conditions and increase riparian vegetation, including larger
plains cottonwoods that would shade the river channel. The effectiveness of these proposed improvements to
cool water temperature would be verified during the detailed water quality modeling.”
Comment: The reach of the Poudre River between the Poudre Valley Canal and the Hansen Supply
Canal inflow is identified for mitigation through physical habitat improvement. Temperature, which
1
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 37 of 108
is regulated by the State for water quality protection, is one of the objectives for mitigation. As
discussed above, water temperature in this cool water reach is expected to increase due to reduced
flows, although the extent of temperature changes has not been analyzed by the Corps. The stated
mechanism for mitigation of temperature in this cool water reach is the creation of new riparian
shading.
There are a few apparent flaws with this approach. First, this reach of the river is above the
natural extent of plains cottonwoods which decrease in frequency as one moves upstream through
the Fort Collins reach. Upstream of Fort Collins, the forests are dominated by narrowleaf
cottonwood. Second, if part of the mitigation approach is to deepen the current channel, the bank
topography will need to be adjusted to maintain river-floodplain connectivity. Without a link
between the channel and the floodplain, periodic peak flows cannot support the establishment and
survival of cottonwoods. Last, while shading is an important component of maintaining cooler
temperatures, there will be a lag time (on the scale of multiple decades) before the trees provide this
function. So, at minimum, in the interim, the Corps must require another plan to improve water
temperatures. Further, without an assessment of the degree to which water temperature would
change, there is no basis for assessing how adequate cottonwood shading would be in mitigating the
impact.
The proposal to grow trees and then study the effectiveness through water monitoring after
permitting represents a flaw prevalent throughout the SDEIS, i.e., inappropriately deferring analysis
when meaningful consideration should take place now. See Kern, 284 F.3d at 1075. NEPA
prohibits “postpone[ing] analysis of an environmental consequence to the last possible moment.”
Pacific Rivers Council, 668 F.3d at 623. Further, the proposal to grow trees, without any analysis of
the effectiveness of that measure, falls far short of NEPA’s requirement that mitigation measures
must be “reasonably complete.” See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352. It also fails to meet the
requirements to avoid violation or exacerbation of water quality standards. See 40 C.F.R. §
230.10(b)(1).
Proposal/Recommendation: The District should propose and the Corps should require a more
realistic program to reduce increased water temperatures resulting from NISP.
5.3.3 Trichloroethylene Plume at Glade Reservoir Forebay
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.4.1, Trichloroethylene Plume at Glade Reservoir Forebay
Statement: “Trichloroethylene contaminated ground water is present beneath the northwest corner of the
proposed forebay …The Corps and Northern Water would develop an agreement prior to construction of the
forebay that determines the respective responsibilities of the Corps and Northern Water for implementing these
mitigation measures.”
Comment: Since 2008, significant progress in remediating the TCE-contaminated groundwater
plume at Missile Site 13. Efforts include installation of six additional monitoring wells, installation
of 54 injection wells, subsequent oxidative treatments, and testing groundwater samples for the
chemicals of concern. The Corps and its consultant, Tidewater, Inc., are reporting success with
oxidative treatments in reducing contaminant levels in the plume (Corps 2014a).
1
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 38 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as conditions of a permit
a firm commitment and clear definition of respective responsibilities of the Corps and Northern to
the continue remediation efforts at Site 13 until repeat testing of the monitoring wells shows that the
chemicals of concern in groundwater do not exceed the federal maximum contaminant level.
5.4 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 5
• CH2M. 2015. Technical Memorandum: Revised Costs for Impacts to Water Treatment
Operations Resulting from NISP Operations. August 6, 2015.
• Dortch, Mark S. 1997. Water Quality Considerations in Reservoir Management. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
• Northern Water. 2013. Three Lakes Water Quality and Operations … or why did Shadow
Mountain turn green. Water Quality Stakeholders Meeting. March 4, 2014
• Smith, Steven B. 1982. Effects of Water Released from Stratified and Unstratified
Reservoirs on the Downstream Water Quality. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings,
Vol 36.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2014. Final Decision Document for F.E. Warren Air
Force Base, Former Atlas “E” Missile Site 13, LaPorte, Colorado. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Omaha District. September 24.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps 2014a). 2014. Proposed Plan. Final. Groundwater
Remediation at Former Atlas “E” Missile Site 13. July 2014.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Assessing Chemical Constituents in Reservoir
Tailwaters. Technical Report W-97-1. August 1997.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 39 of 108
SECTION 6: Operational Comments
The SDEIS’s description of Alternative 2 includes a proposed flow augmentation program
(“Augmentation Program”) and certain descriptions of other operations, such as deliveries to NISP
Participants. However, the Augmentation Program is flawed, includes incorrect assumptions, and
raises significant concerns regarding its operations that preclude the ability to rely on the use of the
Augmentation Program as minimization or mitigation. The SDEIS also lacks needed analysis and
specificity on various aspects of the proposed operations regarding Alternative 2.
6.1 INCLUSION OF THE AUGMENTATION PROGRAM IN ALTERNATIVE 2 ONLY
SDEIS Section 2.5.1, Introduction/Abstract
Statement: “Augmenting flows in the Poudre River by releases from a designated 3,600-AF release pool in
Glade Reservoir with a target of maintaining a 10-cfs flow below the Larimer-Weld Canal headgate in
November through April and September 1 through September 30.”
SDEIS Section 2.5.6, Flow Augmentation
Statement: “The District proposes to include a flow augmentation program to improve Poudre River
streamflows, primarily during winter months when flows are low and NISP would generally not be diverting, in
Alternative 2 (both the Reclamation Action Option and the No Reclamation Action Option).”
SDEIS Section 2.2.7.4, Winter Flow Augmentation in Alternatives 3 and 4
Statement: “Infrastructure associated with a Reclamation Action Option was eliminated for Alternatives 3
and 4. There would be no pipeline to deliver water from Cactus Hill Reservoir to an upstream location near
the diversion for Greeley’s Bellvue Filter Plant or the Hansen Supply Canal outlet. Therefore, Alternatives 3
and 4 would not include a flow augmentation program analogous to the proposed for Alternative 2…”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.4, Low Flow Augmentation Release (FW-04)
Statement: “To further improve the cold water fishery on the Poudre River from the canyon mouth through
Fort Collins, Northern Water would integrate a flow augmentation program that would release water from
Glade Reservoir to improve Poudre River streamflow from the canyon mouth through Fort Collins.”
Comments: Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred alternative) includes the Augmentation Program,
which includes fall and winter releases from Glade Reservoir. No alternative other than
Alternative 2 includes proposals analogous or similar to the Augmentation Program. The
alternatives other than Alternative 2 thus lack the proposed avoidance and minimization enjoyed by
Alternative 2. The SDEIS contains no analysis to explain why the other alternatives cannot contain
proposals analogous or similar to the Augmentation Program. When impacts among alternatives are
compared in the SDEIS, Alternative 2 consequently shows fewer negative impacts than other
alternatives. This appears to inappropriately skew the analysis of impacts in favor of Alternative 2.
Due to the selective inclusion of the Augmentation Program in Alternative 2, the SDEIS thus fails to
properly analyze the various alternatives. In violation of NEPA and the CWA, the Corps has not
“objectively evaluate[d] [the] reasonable alternatives” to the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. §
1502.14(a).
1
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 40 of 108
The SDEIS justifies the omission of an Augmentation Program for Alternatives 3 and 4 by
pointing to the lack of a pipeline between the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir and the Poudre River.
The SDEIS is unclear as to why such a pipeline could not be constructed to allow augmentation
releases. Moreover, the Alternatives 3 and 4 could be formulated to include a Reclamation Action
Option, which would then necessitate inclusion of a pipeline between Cactus Hill Reservoir and the
Poudre River. As further explained in the comment on SDEIS Section 2.2.7.3 below, including a
Reclamation Action Option as part of Alternatives 3 and 4 is reasonable considering the large
amount of infrastructure required to deliver water from Cactus Hill Reservoir to Participants under a
No Reclamation Action Option. Were a pipeline constructed between Cactus Hill Reservoir and the
Poudre River pursuant to a Reclamation Action Option, augmentation releases could be provided by
the alternative. To the extent that the Augmentation Program is avoidance and minimization, such
proposals are necessary.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps inclusion of the Augmentation Program in Alternative 2
only is arbitrary and demands further explanation. To comply with NEPA’s requirement that it
“rigorously explore and objectively” evaluate all alternatives, the Corps must assess Alternatives 3
and 4 with proposals analogous or similar to the Augmentation Program. See 40 C.F.R. §
1502.14(a).
6.2 INCLUSION OF RECLAMATION OPTION IN ALTERNATIVE 2 ONLY
SDEIS Section 2.2.7.3, Reclamation Action Option in Alternatives 3 and 4
Statement: “The Corps determined delivery of water by exchange, conveyance and/or storage using C-BT
Project infrastructure was not practicable due to the location of the Cactus Hill Reservoir in Alternatives 3 and
4. […] The Corps therefore eliminated the Reclamation Action Option for Alternatives 3 and 4 from detailed
analysis in the SDEIS.”
Comment: The SDEIS eliminates a Reclamation Action Option from Alternatives 3 and 4 citing the
difficulties in conveying water from Cactus Hill Reservoir at a distance of 30 miles back to Poudre
River. No other justification for eliminating a Reclamation Action Option from Alternatives 3 and 4
is provided. In eliminating the Reclamation Action Option from Alternatives 3 and 4, the SDEIS
does not provide a proper comparison of the two action alternatives with the proposed action
(Alternative 2), particularly on the basis of project cost.
Despite dismissing the Reclamation Action Option out of concerns with pipeline distance and
pumping inputs, Alternatives 3 and 4 propose pipeline routes in excess of 30 miles with multiple
pumping stations to deliver water from Cactus Hill Reservoir to Participants, at a cost of
$144,536,000 (SDEIS Table 2-12). As proposed in the comment above regarding SDEIS
Appendix F, Section 3.2.4, constructing a pipeline between Cactus Hill Reservoir and the Poudre
River would allow for releases from Cactus Hill Reservoir to be made back to the Poudre River, and
would make practicable the Reclamation Action Option as well as the proposed Augmentation
Program. Extending such a pipeline to Horsetooth Reservoir, similar to that proposed for
Alternative 2, may be necessary to fully execute the Reclamation Action Option. Such a pipeline
would raise water quality issues as discussed elsewhere in Fort Collins’ comments. A Reclamation
Action Option made available by constructing a pipeline between Cactus Hill Reservoir and the
1
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 41 of 108
Poudre River would eliminate the need to construct the expansive distribution network proposed in
Alternatives 3 and 4. As a result, it is possible that the Reclamation Action Option for Alternatives 3
and 4 would not result in a substantial capital cost relative to the total capital cost for the alternatives.
However, in order to properly compare costs between the Reclamation Action and No Reclamation
Action Options for Alternatives 3 and 4, the Corps should disclose a comparative cost analysis.
Proposal/Recommendation: As stated above, to comply with NEPA’s requirement that it
“rigorously explore and objectively” evaluate all alternatives, the Corps should assess Alternatives 3
and 4 with a Reclamation Action Option. The Corps must also conduct comparative cost analyses,
as discussed above.
6.3 AUGMENTATION PROGRAM CONCERNS
SDEIS Section 2.5.6, Flow Augmentation
Statement: “Water that is reduced to storage becomes the personal property of the District. The District
intends to exercise its statutory right to release stored water for delivery downstream for a decreed beneficial
use and to inform the state and division engineers that the water released from storage is to be shepherded
downstream to a specified diversion point without being diverted by others, as required by Colorado law
(Colorado Revised Status [CRS] 37-87-103)[…] For NEPA analyses, it was assumed that the flows would be
re-diverted at the Timnath Reservoir (also known as Cache la Poudre Reservoir) inlet canal headgate […] A
method of exchange to return the water to Glade Reservoir would be determined between the SDEIS and
FEIS.”
SDEIS Section 2.5.9.1, Sources of Water for Initial Fill of NISP Storage Reservoirs
Statement: “Until operations of the SPWCP commenced, Glade Reservoir would be wholly dependent on the
Grey Mountain water right.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.4, Low Flow Augmentation Release (FW-04)
Statement: “The following provides information on the low flow augmentation release program: … the
average annual release to maintain this flow is not increased, and the other aspects of the program are not
materially different from those proposed herein.”
Comment: The Augmentation Program lacks the certainty needed to ensure that it will operate as
claimed to achieve its goals, and that the intended avoidance and minimization will be accomplished.
As discussed below, this lack of certainty creates the likelihood of legal challenges to the
Augmentation Program, and/or a determination by the Colorado State and Division Engineers that
Augmentation Program cannot be administered and/or is not lawful. Because of these uncertainties,
the Corps cannot rely on the Augmentation Program as currently proposed to make the required
findings under Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Problems with the Augmentation Program would
cause Fort Collins to bear more impacts than determined by the Corps in the SDEIS, with limited
recourse to resolve such issues. The following are specific issues regarding the Augmentation
Program and proposals to address such issues.
1
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 42 of 108
6.3.1 Use of Water that Has Been Diverted to Storage
Comment: The SDEIS statements that “[w]ater that is reduced to storage becomes the personal
property of the District” and that “[w]ater which is stored in Glade Reservoir would become the
property of Northern Water” are not correct under Colorado law, as the Colorado Supreme Court
explained in Bijou Irrigation Dist. v. Empire Club, 804 P.2d 175, 184 & n.15 (Colo. 1991). The
Court explained that “[a]lthough we have stated that water once diverted becomes the personal
property of the appropriator … this somewhat overstates the scope of the right.” Id. (citation
omitted). “[W]ater diverted by exercise of a storage right must ultimately be applied to the
beneficial use for which the water was appropriated.” Id. at 184 n.15 (citations omitted).
Under Colorado law, the District only has the right to use the water it has diverted, into
storage or otherwise, pursuant to the terms and conditions of its water rights. Id. See also, e.g.,
Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 54 (Colo. 1999). This legal
error renders invalid the SDEIS analysis of the Augmentation Program, as discussed further below.
Proposal/Recommendation: If NISP is approved, the Corps must require as a condition of the
permit that all water rights proposed for use in the Augmentation Program be confirmed to be
lawfully available for such proposed use pursuant to the terms and conditions of the subject water
right decrees, Colorado law, and current administrative practices of the Colorado State and Division
Engineers.
6.3.2 Proposed Use of the Grey Mountain Water Right for Replacement and/or
Recreational Uses
Comment: The District proposes in the SDEIS to use water attributable to its Grey Mountain Water
Right in the Augmentation Program by delivering water attributable to that water right to the Poudre
River and re-diverting the water at the Timnath Inlet Canal headgate for further use. The Grey
Mountain Water Right was originally confirmed as a conditional water right in the decree entered in
Case No. 1980CW355, District Court, Water Division 1, with the decreed uses being irrigation,
municipal, domestic, industrial, and production of electrical power and energy. See 80CW335
Decree at ¶3.I.
A decree continuing the conditional Grey Mountain Water Right was entered in Case No.
1989CW122, District Court, Water Division 1 (which had been consolidated with Case Nos.
1985CW206, 1985CW207, 1985CW208, 1985CW209, and 1985CW210). 85CW206 et a. Decree at
¶4 (identifying Case No. 1989CW122 and the Grey Mountain Water Right) and ¶18 (diligence
finding). The decreed uses in that case are the same as stated in Case No. 1980CW355. Id. at ¶4.C.
A decree continuing the conditional Grey Mountain Water Right was entered in Case No.
2001CW197, District Court, Water Division 1. The decreed uses in that case are the same as stated
in Case No. 1980CW355 and Case No. 1989CW122. 01CW197 Decree at ¶7.F.
The Grey Mountain Water Right was changed in Case No. 2003CW405, District Court,
Water Division 1, to add Glade Reservoir as an alternate place of storage and to add three alternate
points of diversion; no changes to the decreed uses of the Grey Mountain Water Right were
1
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 43 of 108
approved in that case. 03CW405 Decree at ¶¶4, 7.A. The decreed uses in that case are the same as
stated in Case No. 1980CW355, Case No. 1989CW122, and Case No. 2001CW197. 03CW405
Decree at ¶6.b.e. There have been no other changes of the Grey Mountain Water Right. The Grey
Mountain Water Right has not been decreed for reuse or successive use.
The most recent decree continuing the conditional Grey Mountain Water Right was entered
in Case No. 2011CW242, District Court, Water Division 1, and identifies the decreed uses of the
water right as irrigation, municipal, domestic, replacement, recreation, industrial, and production of
electrical power and energy. 11CW242 Decree at ¶7.1.7. In that case as in previous diligence cases
(Case No. 89CW122 and Case No. 2001CW197), the District only invoked the Court’s jurisdiction
to seek findings of reasonable diligence and to continue the conditional Grey Mountain Water Right
for another diligence period. See C.R.S. §37-92-301(4)(a)(I); Dallas Creek Water Co. v. Huey, 933
P.2d 27, 36-37 (Colo. 1997). The Court had no jurisdiction in Case No. 2011CW242to change the
uses of the Grey Mountain Water Right, including no jurisdiction to add new uses to the Grey
Mountain Water Right. See C.R.S. 37-92-302; Matter of Application for Water Rights v. Columbine
Assoc., 993 P.2d 483, 489 (Colo. 2000).
The only potentially currently decreed uses of the Grey Mountain Water Right that could
relate to the Augmentation Program are replacement and recreation. However, as discussed above,
any replacement or recreation use of the Grey Mountain Water Right is not a lawful use of that water
right because the Court had no jurisdiction to add such new uses. Such jurisdictional defects can be
raised at any time. E.g., id. at 488. To the extent that the use of the Grey Mountain Water Right’s
proposed use in the Augmentation Program is replacement or recreation use, such proposed use may
not be administered by the Colorado State and Division Engineers and is vulnerable to a legal
challenge, unless the water right is changed in proceedings before the District Court, Water
Division 1. C.R.S. §37-92-305(3)(a).
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as a condition of the
permit that the Grey Mountain Water Right may not be included in the Augmentation Program
unless and until the District receives judicial approval for a change of use of the Grey Mountain
Water Right pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-305(3)(a), or temporary approval from the State Engineer for
a change of use of the Grey Mountain Water Right pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-308 or successor
statutes, such that the Grey Mountain Water Right can be used in the Augmentation Program.
Provided that such a proposed change of water right were shown to not adversely affect Fort Collins’
water rights, Fort Collins would likely not oppose such a change of the Grey Mountain Water Right.
If the Corps must rely on the Augmentation Program to make its LEDPA and other findings, then no
action under a permit shall be allowed unless and until the District receives such approvals.
The District could also include other water rights in the Augmentation Program that are
currently legally available for the appropriate uses. The District’s water rights decreed in Case No.
1992CW130, District Court, Water Division 1, may be such water rights. However, to the extent
that such water rights are not or will not be available when needed under the Augmentation Program,
any approval of NISP must require the District to acquire ownership of, or the right to use other
water rights and to dedicate them to the Augmentation Program. For instance, various senior water
rights have been previously changed for various new uses and decreed for storage in Glade
1
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 44 of 108
Reservoir, which may be a source of water rights for the Augmentation Program. Other water rights
are used to import water into the Poudre River Basin, which may be a source of water rights for the
Augmentation Program. Further, water diverted during “free river” conditions, when there is no
downstream call, could be attributed to a junior and undecreed “free river” water right (and not the
Grey Mountain Water Right) and may be available for use in the Augmentation Program.
The above concerns regarding the uses of the Grey Mountain Water Right would also be
addressed if the District were simply relinquishing water from storage to the stream or if the water
were being delivered in the Poudre River stream channel for re-diversion (directly or by exchange)
for a decreed beneficial use downstream, both assuming that the water so relinquished would reach
the desired location(s), as discussed further below.
Whichever other water rights are used, or however the Augmentation Program may be re-
formulated, any approval of NISP must require the District to identify and substantiate the legal and
physical availability of water under such water rights for use in the Augmentation Program to
guarantee that the proposed Augmentation Program will be achievable.
6.3.3 Proposed Re-Use and Successive Use of Water Attributable to the Grey Mountain
Water Right
Comment: Even if the Grey Mountain Water Right can be used for replacement or recreation use in
the Augmentation Program, its proposed reuse and successive use, as described in the SDEIS, is in
violation of the decrees confirming the water right. Water attributable to a tributary water right, like
the Grey Mountain Water Right, that has not been delivered into an unconnected stream system can
only be used once, unless it is decreed for reuse and successive use. WSSC v. Curtis, 733 P.2d 680
(Colo. 1987). See also Denver v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co., 506 P.2d 144, 146-47, 179 Colo. 47,
52 (1972) (defining reuse and successive use). If not decreed for reuse or successive use and not
delivered into an unconnected stream system, the return flows from the first use of the water can
only be re-diverted under a separate water right. Santa Fe Trail, 990 P.2d at 54.
The Grey Mountain Water Right is not decreed for reuse or successive use and water
attributable to the water right will only be used within the South Platte River basin, which includes
the Poudre River basin. Therefore, once water attributable to the Grey Mountain Water Right is
used the first time, such as delivering it to the Poudre River for replacement or recreation use in the
Augmentation Program, the District has no right to reuse and re-divert it under the Grey Mountain
Water Right. The District can instead only re-divert the water under a separate water right.
However, no such other water right is identified in the SDEIS.
Proposal/Recommendation: If the Corps approves NISP, it must require as a permit condition that
water attributable to the Grey Mountain Water Right may not be reused or successively used under
the Augmentation Program, or otherwise, unless and until the District receives judicial approval for a
change of use of the Grey Mountain Water Right pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-305(3)(a), or temporary
approval from the State Engineer for a change of use of the Grey Mountain Water Right pursuant to
C.R.S. §37-92-308 or successor statutes, such that water attributable to the Grey Mountain Water
Right can be reused and successively used. Provided that such a proposed change of water right
1
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 45 of 108
were shown to not adversely affect Fort Collins’ water rights, Fort Collins would likely not oppose
such a change of the Grey Mountain Water Right.
To the extent that the District intends to re-divert water used in the Augmentation Program,
the District could include other water rights in the Augmentation Program that are legally available
for reuse and successive use. The District’s water rights decreed in Case No. 1992CW130, District
Court, Water Division 1, may be such water rights. However, to the extent that such water rights are
not or will not be available when needed under the Augmentation Program, any approval of NISP
must require the District to acquire ownership of, or the right to use other water rights and to
dedicate them to the Augmentation Program. For instance, various senior water rights have been
previously changed for reuse. Other water rights are used to import water into the Poudre River
Basin, which may be a source of reusable water. Further, water diverted during “free river”
conditions when there is no downstream call could be attributed to a junior “free river” water right
(and not the Grey Mountain Water Right) and may be available for reuse and successive use.
Whichever other water rights are used or however the Augmentation Program may be re-
formulated, the Corps must require the District to identify and substantiate the legal and physical
availability of water under such water rights for reuse and successive use in the Augmentation
Program to guarantee that the proposed Augmentation Program will be achievable.
6.3.4 No Analysis of Substitutions and Exchanges on Augmentation Program Flows
Comment: The SDEIS statements that CRS §37-87-103 entitles the District to use the natural
stream for the delivery of water without others using such water are incorrect. Other water users
may divert such water provided that they deliver a substitute supply above the point of re-diversion.
E.g., C.R.S. §37-92-305(5); Empire Lodge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1153-55
(Colo. 2001). As described in the SDEIS, the District currently lacks a legal mechanism to ensure
that water proposed to be delivered from Glade Reservoir to the Timnath Inlet Canal headgate is
protected from intervening diversions, substitutions, and exchanges. Section 3.2.5 of Appendix F of
the SDEIS confirms the District’s current inability to protect such flows. The SDEIS contains no
analysis of how the District will ensure that such deliveries of water will actually remain in the
Poudre River to avoid and minimize the reduction of flows.
Proposal/Recommendation: To comply with NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must require an
analysis be performed to demonstrate that deliveries of water under the Augmentation Program will
actually remain in the Poudre River to avoid and minimize the reduction of flows. The Corps must
require additional measuring stations to establish that deliveries of water under the Augmentation
Program are not diverted and substituted. To the extent that the Augmentation Program constitutes
mitigation, under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the Corps’ mitigation must “have been
demonstrated to be effective in circumstances similar to those under consideration.” 40 C.F.R. §
230.75(d). See Kentucky Riverkeeper v. Rowlette, 714 F.3d 402, 412 (6th Cir. 2013) (The Corps’
“mere listing of mitigation measures and processes, without any analysis, cannot support a
cumulative impacts determination.”). Any approval of NISP must require a high level of certainty
that the water delivered to the stream under the Augmentation Program will actually reach its
intended destination so as to guarantee that the proposed Augmentation Program will be achievable.
1
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 46 of 108
In violation of NEPA and the CWA, the SDEIS fails to demonstrate that the Augmentation Program
would be viable and effective to meet its goals. See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352.
6.3.5 No Analysis of the Ability of the District to Deliver Flows in the Augmentation
Program Past All Intervening Headgates
Comment: The SDEIS indicates that water in the Augmentation Program would be delivered to the
Poudre River “via a pipeline to the river upstream of the Larimer County Canal headgate.” This
would mean that the Colorado State and Division Engineers would need to shepherd such water past
the following diversion structures to reach the Timnath Inlet Canal headgate: (1) the diversion
structures for the Larimer County Canal headgate; (2) the diversion structures for Watson Lake;
(3) the diversion structures for the Jackson Ditch (a.k.a Dry Creek Ditch); (4) the shared the
diversion structures for the New Mercer Ditch, Larimer County No. 2 Ditch, Little Cache la Poudre
Ditch, and Taylor and Gill Ditch; (5) the diversion structures for the Arthur Ditch; (6) the diversion
structures for the Larimer and Weld Canal; and (7) the diversion structures for the Lake Canal. The
majority of these diversion structures lack necessary measurement structures to ensure that water can
be shepherded past them, especially during periods of low flow or when the ditch is diverting the
entire flow of the river.
While the NISP Proposed Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Appendix F, Section 4.4.3) provides
for multi-objective retrofits for three of the above diversion structures (the Watson Lake, Terry Lake,
and Larimer and Weld diversions) that may allow for streamflow monitoring, other diversions listed
above will not have associated streamflow monitoring, and thus cannot be ensured to bypass flows
attributable to the Augmentation Program. The SDEIS contains no analysis of how the District will
ensure that such deliveries of water in the Poudre River will actually reach the desired downstream
location.
Proposal/Recommendation: An analysis should be performed to establish that deliveries of water
under the Augmentation Program will be delivered past all intervening headgates so as to guarantee
that the proposed Augmentation Program will be achievable.
6.3.6 Augmentation Program During Times of Drought
Comment: The SDEIS indicates that releases of water under the Augmentation Program may not
occur under extreme drought conditions when Glade Reservoir storage contents are less than 30% of
capacity. According to Figure 3.15 of the SDEIS Operations Plan Report, Glade Reservoir would
drop below 30 percent of capacity (or 51,000 acre-feet of the proposed 170,000 acre-feet) in the late
1950s, the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s conditions– indicating that the Augmentation Program may
not occur three times during the study period of 1950 through 2005. However, a comparison of pre-
and post-augmentation flows (assessed through PPP and final flow data provided by the Corps)
indicates the augmentation flows occurred during these same years and were thus included in the
impacts analysis, which therefore improved environmental outcomes. It is likely that such drought
conditions will coincide with low flows in the Poudre River, including flows less than 10 cfs below
the Larimer and Weld Canal headgate. However, by its own proposed terms and conditions the
Augmentation Program would not operate when most needed. The failure of the Augmentation
1
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 47 of 108
Program to address the effects of diversions to Glade Reservoir when the effects are being most
intensely experienced undermines the purposes of the Augmentation Program.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must require that the Augmentation Program operate at all
times, including during extreme drought years when augmentation flows are needed the most, in
order to address impacts, as claimed.
6.3.7 No Analysis of Subsequent Exchanges Using Augmentation Program Flows
Comment: The SDEIS states that water released from Glade Reservoir for the Augmentation
Program will be returned to Glade Reservoir, possibly through the use of exchanges. However, the
actual method of exchange to return the water to Glade Reservoir is not specified in the SDEIS.
The SDEIS fails to explain how such exchanges would occur under the subject water right
decrees. For example, the decree entered in Case No. 1992CW130, District Court, Water Division 1,
approved certain conditional appropriative rights of exchange, with findings of diligence for those
conditional exchanges having been entered in Case No. 2011CW241, District Court, Water
Division 1. The sources of water for those exchanges are (1) water diverted under the SPWCP water
rights confirmed in Case No. 1992CW130 and (2) water from other reusable sources, provided that
such use is allowed by another decree and is agreed to by the sources’ owners. As discussed above,
water attributable to the Grey Mountain Water Right is not currently legally available for use as a
source of water for these exchanges. The SDEIS contains no analysis of these aspects of these
unspecified exchanges.
Exchanging augmentation releases back to Glade Reservoir has the potential to reduce
Poudre River streamflows along the 12 mile reach through Fort Collins between the proposed
augmentation release point and the Timnath Inlet Canal headgate, and may result in impacts to the
Poudre River’s aquatic environment, which are discussed elsewhere in these comments.
Proposal/Recommendation: To comply with NEPA and the CWA, the SDEIS must clearly
describe the method and frequency of which these exchanges will be conducted, and should consider
and quantify the environmental impacts with associated streamflow depletions from the exchanges.
6.4 IMPACTS ON THE PVP
SDEIS Section 2.5.5.2.1, Deliveries to Participants / Reclamation Action Option
Statement: “Fort-Collins-Loveland Water District (3,000 AFY) would use its own capacity in the existing
Pleasant Valley Pipeline by direct connection from Glade Reservoir.”
Comment: Alternative 2 (the District’s preferred alternative) includes a direct connection between
Glade Reservoir and the PVP. Fort Collins and the Tri-Districts (the East Larimer County Water
District, the Fort-Collins-Loveland Water District, and the North Weld County Water District) share
use of the PVP to deliver water to Fort Collins’ and the Tri-Districts’ respective water treatment
facilities. As discussed in other sections of these comments, the water released from Glade
Reservoir will be of a lower quality than other water that has historically been delivered through the
1
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 48 of 108
PVP. As one example, water released from Glade Reservoir may have high levels of TOC.
Releases high in TOC from Glade Reservoir to the PVP will degrade the quality of raw water to Fort
Collins treatment plant and necessitate more intensive treatment, as discussed below.
Unless the quality of water released from Glade Reservoir and delivered to the PVP is
acceptable to Fort Collins, Fort Collins may exercise its rights to withhold approval of such use of
the PVP pursuant to Paragraph 3.a of the Allotment Contract with the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, acting by and Through the Pleasant Valley Pipeline Water Activity Enterprise
and the City of Fort Collins Water Utility Enterprise for Capacity in the Pleasant Valley Pipeline,
dated February 28, 2003.
Proposal/Recommendation: The measures and alternative analysis required in Section 5.2.5 of
these comments apply here as well. The Corps must also analyze how Alternative 2 would work
without this connection.
6.5 HOW DELIVERIES TO NISP PARTICIPANTS ARE TO BE MADE
SDEIS Section 2.5.5.2.1. Deliveries to Participants / Reclamation Action Option
Statement: “Eaton, Severance, and Windsor (5,900 AFY) would be by direct pipeline connection from Glade
Reservoir to the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.1, Avoid Munroe Canal Diversions (FW-01)
Statement: “The original Draft EIS considered using the Munroe Canal for two operations associated with
NISP. […] The exchange has been eliminated in the SDEIS analysis, and replaced with a new pipeline directly
from Glade Reservoir to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District) and a new
pipeline directly from Glade Reservoir to the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (for Eaton, Severance and
Windsor).”
Comment: The SDEIS mentions that the NISP participants of Eaton, Severance, and Windsor would
receive water via a direct connection between Glade Reservoir to Soldier Canyon Filter Plant.
However, the Corps must provide additional information regarding the pipeline(s), including, but not
limited to, its route(s), what land(s) would be disturbed by its construction and use, how the
proposed pipeline(s) would be constructed and operated, the socioeconomic impacts of such
pipeline(s), and whether environmentally sensitive or affected areas would be involved. To comply
with NEPA and the CWA, the SDEIS must evaluate the impacts of the pipeline(s). If the deliveries
are proposed to be made through the PVP, Fort Collins’ comments and proposals/recommendations
above apply.
6.6 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 6
• Decrees, District Court, Water Division 1: Case No. 1980CW335; Consol. Case Nos.
1985CW206, 1985CW207, 1985CW208, 1985CW209, 1985CW210, 1989CW122; Case No.
2001CW197; Case No. 1992CW130; Case No. 2003CW405; Case No. 2011CW242.
1
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 49 of 108
SECTION 7: CHANNEL STRUCTURE, STORM WATER, FLOODPLAIN, AND
HYDRAULIC COMMENTS
Fort Collins is located in the Poudre River basin, and thus, the Poudre River is the primary
conduit for drainage, storm water, flood waters, and other flows. As discussed herein, NISP’s
alterations to, among other things, stream morphology and sediment transport, will adversely affect
Fort Collins’ use of the Poudre River for these services.
The City of Fort Collins’ Strategic Plan recognizes the importance of the Poudre River to
environmental health, community safety, recreation and economic health. Strategic Objective 4.1
call for Fort Collins to improve and protect wildlife habitat and the ecosystems of the Poudre River
and other urban streams. This plan also recognizes that the Poudre River has multiple and, at times,
competing demands from various users, while at the same time being a natural amenity and
ecosystem to be carefully nurtured and maintained. The plan thus directs that, given multiple
stresses on the ecology of the Poudre River, there will be a need for local and regional investments if
river health is to be maintained and/or improved. The plan also identifies that a healthy Poudre
River supports the economy of downtown Fort Collins.
The stream morphology and sediment transport analysis in the SDEIS contain some
important analyses that were originally omitted from the DEIS. However, these analyses and the
conclusions drawn from them are fundamentally flawed because the sediment transport modeling
underpinning the new analyses is incorrect, as discussed below. Thus, without further and
independent evaluation of hydraulic modeling by the Corps, the impacts of the proposed action
cannot be determined.
In addition to errors in the modeling, the SDEIS fails to properly analyze likely extent of
channel changes, sediment deposition, and other impacts to habitat quality that are not well
supported by the analyses and evidence provided in the SDEIS. These fundamental flaws in the
sediment transport analyses result in underestimation of NISP impacts to various river characteristics
including channel capacity to convey floods, aesthetics, and physical habitat for aquatic life.
7.1 NO ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND FLOODING RISKS IN FORT COLLINS
SDEIS Section 3.4.2.4, Morphologic and Sediment Transport Conditions Upstream of I-25
Statement: “Stream morphology in the upstream reaches from the canyon through Fort Collins to the vicinity
of I-25 is flood-dominated morphology. […] Deposition and vegetation encroachment will continue in discrete
areas – probably at a similar rate to the current unless some unpredicted intrinsic threshold is reached or some
other change occurs such as an invasion of reed canary grass or a substantial increase in sediment supply from
upstream sources.”
Comment: The SDEIS fails to address how much additional sediment is expected to accumulate in
the Fort Collins reach of the Poudre River following construction of NISP. This information is
needed to assess the cost of damages to Fort Collins on an annual basis to determine proper
compensatory mitigation. Based on historic sediment removal projects in Fort Collins, the cost to
1
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 50 of 108
remove sediment from the river can vary from $20 to $80 per ton depending on location, hauling
distance, equipment used, and type of material.
The SDEIS geomorphic analysis fails to properly assess the potential for decreased flood
conveyance capacity and increased flood depths associated with channel aggradation, narrowing, and
vegetation encroachment within Fort Collins. This is a point that must be addressed with regard to
public safety and potential costs to Fort Collins. Fort Collins has an interest in maintaining a healthy
and functional river system which retains an open channel capable of transporting storm water and
flood flows. The process of sediment deposition without the process of sediment flushing through
scouring and erosion will lead to vegetation encroachment and subsequent channel constriction.
These changes will significantly change the Poudre River’s function as a conveyor of flood water
and result in flow obstruction, increased flood stages and possibly greater flood damage in the future.
The SDEIS’s characterization that the Poudre River transitions from a sediment “supply
limited” to sediment “transport limited” system at its crossing of I-25 is a generalization that fails to
address the impacts of NISP on specific reaches of the Poudre River throughout Fort Collins. More
detailed analysis and mitigation actions for specific reaches within Fort Collins should be developed
prior to approval of NISP. Reduction of runoff peak flows will likely increase sedimentation within
Fort Collins, thereby exacerbating flooding risk.
Proposal/Recommendation: Under NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must take a hard look at the
additional sediment accumulation and associated impacts in the Fort Collins reach of the Poudre
River that may be caused by the proposed action. It must also determine and document the
mitigation measures that would adequately address those impacts. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.11. As
stated above, unless these measures are properly identified and addressed, the Corps “has not met its
legal obligation and any proposed mitigation measures dependent upon an incomplete environmental
impact analysis necessarily fail . . . .” Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition, 479 F.Supp.2d at 627.
7.2 LACK OF SUPPORT FOR CONCLUSIONS OF MINOR IMPACTS
SDEIS Section 4.4.3.1.1, Poudre River Flows and Flooding
Statement: “Widespread 20% to 35% predicted reductions in flows around the 1% to 5% flow range may
have an impact on channel forming discharges and channel morphology.”
SDEIS Section 4.4.3.1.1, Poudre River Sediment Transport
Statement: “Under Alternative 2, it is possible that the reduced incidence of flows around the current 1- and
2-year flood level would increase the likelihood that colonizing vegetation can become established before it is
scoured out by subsequent high flows. Channel contraction can then be driven by vegetation in the absence of
abundant sediment.”
SDEIS Section 4.4.7.1, Impact Summary Poudre River, Table 4-53, Page 4-173
Statement: “Effects of Alternative 2 on geomorphology and sediment transport may result in a detectable
change that is considered to be minor in the reaches upstream of I-25. Downstream of I-25 Alternative 2
effects may result in a clear detectable change that is considered to be moderate.”
1
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 51 of 108
Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport Cache La Poudre River Mainstem, Final Project
Effects Report, Section 1.5.1, Trajectory Upstream of I-25, Page 1-8
Statement: “Despite the relative stability of the existing condition, there is still a propensity to aggradation,
constrained in the current condition by the limited availability of incoming sediment compared to the ability of
the channel to transport it. Deposition and vegetation encroachment will continue in discrete areas – probably
at a similar rate to the current…”
Comment: The SDEIS generally underestimates the likelihood of sediment deposition, vegetation
encroachment, channel shrinking, and lost flood conveyance through Fort Collins. On this issue, the
SDEIS contains numerous examples of conclusions that run contrary to presented data and analyses
with respect to the current trajectory and likely response of the river channel in Fort Collins. There
also are numerous examples of the SDEIS contradicting itself. Under NEPA and the CWA, the
Corps’ explanation is not “satisfactory” if the “explanation for its decision . . . runs counter to the
evidence before” it. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983).
As one example, the Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport Cache La Poudre River
Mainstem, Final Project Effects Report, dated August 15, 2014 (“Effects Report”), at pages 1-7,
states that “[u]pstream of I-25 the river channel is larger and steeper but there is also a strong
aggradational tendency associated with reduced flows.” Yet the report ultimately concludes that the
river through Fort Collins will remain “supply limited” and unresponsive relative to downstream
reaches because there is not enough sediment supply to cause any more than “minor” aggradation.
In contrast, the Poudre River downstream of I-25 is deemed “transport limited” and more at risk,
owing to its relatively high sediment supply (e.g., Table 4-53, p. 4-172 of main SDEIS document).
As another example, the SDEIS identifies widespread 20% to 35% reductions in flows, as
quoted above, early in Section 4 of the SDEIS. SDEIS, Section 4.4.3.1.1 at 4-157. However, by the
end of Section 4 in the SDEIS, this impact is marginalized on the basis of a supply limited condition
upstream of I-25. A supply limited condition does exist upstream of I-25 that does not preclude
episodes of high sediment loading, such as after a wildfire or slope instability somewhere in the
watershed. Nevertheless, the reduction of high flows by NISP will clearly impact the ability of the
channel to flush excess sediment through Fort Collins when these events do occur. More
specifically, the SDEIS concluded that “[f]or the 26-year period of record, 23 flushing events under
Current Conditions lasting for 325 days in total would become 16 flushing events under Alternative
2 lasting for 222 days in total.” SDEIS, Section 4.4.3, page 4-158. This reduced flushing potential
under NISP will impact channel conditions, particularly after high sediment producing events,
resulting in changes in channel morphology. And yet the discussion in this section concludes with a
statement that the effects of Alternative 2 on geomorphology and sediment transport is “minor in the
reaches upstream of I-25.” (Table 4-53, page 4-173).
As one further example, the SDEIS identifies the possibility that reduced flows will increase
vegetation and channel contraction, as quote above, early in Section 4. SDEIS, Section 4.4.3.1.2 at
4-160. However, by the end of Section 4 this possible impact is largely overlooked given the
conclusion of “minor” impacts (Table 4-53, page 4-173). With the substantially reduced flow
conditions under NISP, vegetation encroachment will occur on sand and gravel bars that were
1
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 52 of 108
previously more frequently inundated. The supply limited condition upstream of I-25 may reduce
the potential of fluvial sediment deposits on exposed bars that would facilitate vegetation
encroachment, however, some sediments will still accumulate (including Aeolian sediment) and
vegetation encroachment will occur in the Fort Collins reach under NISP.
The above conclusions from the SDEIS are not supported by evidence or general principles
of stream morphology. First, aggradation or deposition of sand and fine sediment depends on the
supply of sediment relative to the capacity of the river to transport the supplied sediment, not just the
supply of sediment. If capacity to move sediment is sufficiently reduced, a “supply limited” channel
will shift to transport limitation and sediment accumulation will accelerate. Second, the vast
majority of the sand and coarse sediment load that is supplied to the Timnath and Windsor reaches of
the Poudre first flows through Fort Collins. Third, Alternative 2 would decrease the sediment
transport capacity of the river through Fort Collins to a level below that of the currently found in the
Timnath reach that extends four miles downstream of I-25. The tables below summarize modeling
results compiled from the Effects Report to compare current conditions in Timnath and Windsor
with Alternative 2 conditions in Fort Collins.
Excerpt from Table 3.2 Exceedance Probability Discharge, Alternative 2 vs Current Conditions
(Effects Report p 3-5):
Location Node CTP Scenario Exceedance Flow (cfs)
Fort Collins 17 Alt 2 1% flow 2023
Fort Collins 20 Alt 2 1% flow 2037
Fort Collins 23 Alt 2 1% flow 2089
Timnath 32 Current 1% flow 2200
Timnath 34 Current 1% flow 2297
Windsor 35 Current 1% flow 2358
Fort Collins 17 Alt 2 2% flow 1348
Fort Collins 20 Alt 2 2% flow 1316
Fort Collins 23 Alt 2 2% flow 1285
Timnath 32 Current 2% flow 1603
Timnath 34 Current 2% flow 1674
Windsor 35 Current 2% flow 1711
Excerpt from Table 3.11 Reach Averaged Sediment Transport Potential using SIAM – Alternative
2 vs Current Conditions (Effects Report p 3-32):
Difference between Current average transport of sand and gravel in Fort
Collins as compared to Current in Timnath 15%
Difference between Current average sand transport in Fort Collins as
compared to Current in Timnath 18%
Difference between Alt 2 average transport of sand and gravel in Fort
Collins as compared to Current in Timnath -10%
Difference between Alt 2 average sand transport in Fort Collins as
compared to Current in Timnath
-12%
1
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 53 of 108
Note: Data in the table above compares 6 out of 7 SIAM reaches in Fort Collins (omitted outlier reach FC 3) with
Timnath A reach which extends 4 miles below I-25.
These SIAM modeling results indicate that Alternative 2 would reduce sediment transport
capacity of the Poudre River in Fort Collins to levels below the transport capacity currently
witnessed in Timnath. The Poudre River in Timnath immediately below I-25 is described in the
Stream Morphology and Sediment Transport Cache la Poudre River Mainstem Baseline Report,
dated May 2013 (“Baseline Report”), as being dominated by fine sediment deposition which
reinforces vegetation encroachment and loss of channel flood conveyance. (Note that the SIAM
analysis still uses the Meyer-Peter Mueller transport equation which underestimates differences in
sediment transport capacity for river bed particles near the threshold of motion). Ultimately, the
SDEIS presents no meaningful evidence to support the conjecture that the Poudre River in Fort
Collins will sustain only “minor” aggradation, and remain supply limited given reductions of
sediment transport capacity of approximately 30-35% in some reaches (Table 7.12 on p. 7-33 in the
Effects Report). Instead, the SIAM hydraulic modeling results indicate that the Poudre River in Fort
Collins is on the cusp of shifting to a flow and sediment regime similar to current conditions in
Timnath downstream of I-25.
The SDEIS only addresses the risk of lost flood conveyance downstream of I-25 (SDEIS
main report p. 4-159). This implies that effects in Fort Collins will be negligible despite increased
risk of sediment accumulation, channel shrinking, woody vegetation encroachment, and increased
potential of debris impacts to flood conveyance at bridges and other hydraulic structures. This
implicit conclusion is not supported with any empirical or modeling evidence in the SDEIS
documentation. Although Alternative 2 will likely result in increased vegetation encroachment and
reduce channel conveyance capacity in the absence of periodic channel maintenance flows, it would
not reduce the magnitude of the most extreme flow events delivered to the Fort Collins river segment
(e.g., 50-100+ year floods). This means that 100 year and larger flood stages could appreciably
increase and create a public safety and cost issue for Fort Collins. Additional analysis is needed to
address the risk of lost flood conveyance in Fort Collins.
Proposal/Recommendation: NEPA requires an “accurate scientific analysis.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1.
“For this reason, agencies are under an affirmative mandate to ‘insure the professional integrity,
including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements . . .
.” Envtl. Defense v. Corps of Engineers, 515 F. Supp. 2d 69, 78 (D.D.C. 2007). To address these
deficiencies, the Corps must conduct further analyses in a revised DEIS or supplement to the SDEIS.
Under NEPA and the CWA, the Corps “must articulate why it has made its decision with sufficient
clarity that others affected by the decision and the Courts can understand it.” Crutchfield v. United
States Army Corps of Engineers, 154 F. Supp. 2d 878, 899 (E.D. Va. 2001).
7.3 INCORRECT ANALYSIS OF STREAM MORPHOLOGY AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
Effects Report, Section 3.6.2, Spells Analysis at Representative Cross Sections for Flows that
Initiate Motion of Bed Material, Page 3-9
Statement: “The spells analysis suggests that the time between occurrences of bed material motion is not
generally increased under Alternative 2, so to the extent that colonization of vegetation is dependent on the
existence of a stable substrate, no significant change in the rate or extent of new colonization is expected.”
1
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 54 of 108
Comment: SDEIS analyses of sediment mobilization use inappropriate methods to estimate the
flows at which river bed flushing and rejuvenation occur. The equation from Ackers and White
(1973; p.6-10 of Baseline Report), which was not intended for this application nor calibrated for the
prevailing grain sizes in the Poudre River in Fort Collins, is used to adjust shear stress output from
HEC-RAS modeling. This erroneous application of shear stress “partitioning” biases the results
such that it appears that there is little sediment flushing occurring under baseline conditions, and
ultimately masks the net reduction in sediment flushing that occurs under Alternative 2.
To investigate this bias, Fort Collins re-ran the HEC-RAS model used in the SDEIS analyses
and computed four standard estimates of shear stress using main channel shear, hydraulic depth and
friction slope, maximum depth and friction slope, and a well-known standard relationship for
estimating grain shear in gravel bed rivers. All these accepted methods result in significantly greater
sediment flushing and mobilization potential compared to values reported in the SDEIS. See
Bledsoe, B. P and D.W. Baker (2015). Technical Memorandum: Calculation of Flushing Flows in
the Cache La Poudre River.
This one source of bias in shear stress estimates produces errors averaging 52% with some
errors exceeding 80% at the SDEIS “representative” cross-sections that were selected in the Fort
Collins reach. Furthermore, the selection of single “representative” cross-sections to represent
several thousand feet of river channel in the SDEIS is not explained and justified. Based on analysis
of HEC-RAS model outputs, some of these sections appear to not be representative of reach wide
conditions due to their hydraulic characteristics proximity hydraulics structures (see for example the
“representative” cross-section at station 231,351 which is located immediately upstream of a bridge
in Fort Collins).
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must conduct additional studies using appropriate
methodologies to address the deficiencies described above, specifically with respect to using
standard estimates of shear stress using main channel shear, hydraulic depth and friction slope,
maximum depth and friction slope, and a well-known standard relationship for estimating grain
shear in gravel bed rivers, as opposed to using the equation from Ackers and White identified above.
7.4 INCORRECT DATA ON GRAIN SIZE
Effects Report, Section 3.6.2, Spells Analysis at Representative Cross Sections for Flows
that Initiate Motion of Bed Material,Ppage 3-9
Statement: “The spells analysis suggests that the time between occurrences of bed material motion is not
generally increased under Alternative 2, so to the extent that colonization of vegetation is dependent on the
existence of a stable substrate, no significant change in the rate or extent of new colonization is expected.”
Comment: The grain size data that were chosen to estimate NISP effects on river bed flushing and
mobility are biased toward the coarsest material relative to data obtained through more intensive
substrate monitoring conducted by Colorado State University (“CSU”). By utilizing the coarsest
available grain size data (collected using sampling methods that yield less accurate estimates than
the CSU samples), the SDEIS analyses are further biased (in conjunction with the first point in the
1
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 55 of 108
paragraph above) toward underestimation of differences in how often and effectively the river bed is
cleaned by current flows versus Alternative 2 flows.
The CSU grain size data were provided to the Corps and NISP consultants and are
acknowledged and reported in the Baseline Report (Figure 3.8, p. 3-13 of Baseline Report).
However, these data do not appear in subsequent grain size plots and analyses. As a result of the
combined influence of underestimated shear stresses and selection of very coarse grain sizes, as
described in the previous comment, the SDEIS generally contends that extreme flows are required
for river bed cleaning in Fort Collins. By contrast, standard methods indicate that sediment can be
flushed and the river bed rejuvenated with flows of 2,000 to 3,500 cfs at most locations. Bledsoe, B.
P and D.W. Baker (2015). Technical Memorandum: Calculation of Flushing Flows in the Cache La
Poudre River. This is important because Alterative 2 can divert 1,000 cfs. This amount of flow
diversion would be the difference between flushing and not flushing the river bed in many years.
These errors propagate through all the other analyses of physical-biological linkages (e.g., modeling
future trout habitat or the risk of algae proliferations).
The lack of bed mobility has broad implications to the Poudre River ecosystem as discussed
throughout the comments herein.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must conduct additional studies using appropriate
methodologies to address the deficiencies described above, specifically with respect to the use of
CSU grain size data and the determination of flushing flows.
7.5 AUGMENTATION PROGRAM’S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE ENVIRONMENT
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.2.4, Low Flow Augmentation Release (FW-04)
Statement: “To further improve the cold water fishery on the Poudre River from the canyon mouth through
Fort Collins, Northern Water would integrate a flow augmentation program that would release water from
Glade Reservoir to improve Poudre River streamflow from the canyon mouth through Fort Collins.”
Comment: The Augmentation Program is narrowly conceived. An extensive body of science is
clear that a range of flows from low to high is necessary for maintenance of the environment. At
present, the plan only proposes the maintenance (at most times) of 10 cfs.
There is no proposal for impacts to flushing flows, which might include periodic larger flow
releases, and/or releases after a major sediment producing event in the watershed such as wildfire or
landslide activity. High flows are essential to reduce adverse impacts that will occur from sediment
deposition, channel narrowing from vegetation encroachment, and reduced biological functioning of
the river through Fort Collins.
Although the proposed Augmentation Program is welcome, 10 cfs is not sufficient for its
purposes. According to widely accepted instream flow methods such as Colorado Water
Conservation Board’s R2CROSS approach, 10 cfs is substantially below flow levels required to
maintain the environment to a reasonable degree. Dr. Kevin Bestgen, a fisheries expert at CSU, has
several years of trout monitoring data collected from the Poudre River in Fort Collins that support at
1
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 56 of 108
least a 20 to 30 cfs base flow in fall/winter. (Fort Collins’ Ecological Response Model is informed
with this information, and its purpose is to identify probable ecological responses to a range of
potential future changing conditions related to streamflows and important secondary factors affecting
the river system. It defines clear quantitative targets for low and high flows that are a necessary part
of the conversation on mitigation.)
Flushing/bypass flows for mobilizing coarse substrates would reduce the extent of fine
sediment deposition and accumulated algae, as well as decrease the likelihood that physical habitat
will continue to degrade to a level that produces additional, detectable biological impacts. In the
absence of flushing flows, existing physical habitat will be negatively affected in the future as the
river channel and its substrate characteristics (e.g., extent of interstices clogged with fine sediment,
amount of algae) evolve with ongoing changes in water management.
The Augmentation Program ignores the fact that the above-described response will occur
irrespective of base flows because such low flows are incapable of rejuvenating the river bed to
maintain habitats required by trout and aquatic insects.
As currently formulated, the Augmentation Program would not avoid or minimize the
diversions under the Project which occur during periods of high flows thereby reducing flushing
flows. The Augmentation Program would instead maintain certain flows during periods of low
flows. It appears that the Augmentation Program was conceived to mitigate and compensate for
certain effects of NISP at low flow, and not to avoid and minimize its critical effects on flushing
flows.
Proposal/Recommendation: NEPA requires that the Corps conduct further analyses to address the
deficiencies described above, specifically with respect to the ability of the Augmentation Program to
maintain the environment with only the maintenance of 10 cfs (at mot times) and no flushing flows.
Further, under NEPA and the CWA, the Corps must require measures to minimize the impacts to
flushing flows. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20. See also 40 C.F.R. § 230.10. The Corps must require
clarification and substantiation of the assertion that the Augmentation Program is avoidance and
minimization, as opposed to mitigation.
7.6 NEED TO ADDRESS FLOODING AND STORM WATER ISSUES
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 4.3.1, Stream Channel and Habitat Improvement Plan (AG-01)
Statement: “Northern Water would provide funding for a stream channel and habitat improvement plan for
the Poudre River from the Poudre Valley Canal to its mouth at the South Platte River. The stream channel and
habitat improvement plan would address and mitigate Poudre River water related resources, including aquatic,
stream morphology, water quality, riparian and special status species. […] NISP commits to spending up to
$1.0 million to develop the stream channel habitat and improvement plan. This funding is in addition to other
commitment made in this Conceptual Mitigation Plan.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Appendix A, Table A-1
Statement: “Item No. AG-03 Implement and fund Poudre River Adaptive Management Program ($5 million
+ $50,000/yr for 20 years).”
1
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 57 of 108
Comment: Channel contraction and vegetation encroachment from NISP will likely have significant
adverse effects on base flood elevations and the resulting extent of flood inundations during large
recurrence interval floods such as, the 100- and 500-year flood events. Fort Collins review of the
SDEIS indicates a high probability that the capacity of the Poudre River channel to convey
floodwater will be materially reduced under the NISP proposed action; therefore, new river
modeling, planning and prevention measures will need to be put in place to ensure the safety of the
citizens of Fort Collins. Unless addressed at this time, subsequent costs of designing, constructing
and maintaining additional flood protection facilities or modifying existing structures would be
borne by the citizens of Fort Collins. The mitigation plan states that NISP commits to spending up
to $1.0 million to develop the stream channel and habitat improvement plan. As noted above,
additional evaluation is needed before approval of the Project in order to better understand possible
impacts to the floodplain and determine mitigation alternatives as well as costs and funding for the
mitigation.
The District proposes to develop the stream channel habitat and improvement plan.
However, the adequacy of such a program is entirely speculative at this time. Because the Corps has
not adequately addressed the effects of sedimentation in Fort Collins, the extent of the need for
mitigation is uncertain. Further, details of that plan are unknown at this time and the $1.0 million
budget’s adequacy is arbitrary and capricious without further information. Further, there is no
certainty that the any of the recommendations from that plan will be funded and implemented.
With the actual mitigation activities being uncertain, the proposed mitigation activity of
funding the “Poudre River Adaptive Management Program” for an amount ranging from $5-6
million ignores the potential for more significant mitigation actions and caps the amount provided
and the time frame for the mitigation program.
Proposal/Recommendation: In the SDEIS, the Corps must ensure that environmental effects will
not be “overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or
the die otherwise cast.” Skinner, 903 F.2d at 1540. As discussed above, NEPA and the CWA
require that the Corps provide in the SDEIS additional information on the stream channel habitat and
improvement plan. If the Corps approves NISP, it should require as condition of the permit that the
District fund any recommendations from the plan and adequate mitigation.
7.7 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 7
• Bledsoe, B. P and D.W. Baker (2015). Technical Memorandum: Calculation of Flushing
Flows in the Cache La Poudre River.
• Buffington, J. M. and D. R. Montgomery (1999) Effects of sediment supply on surface
textures of gravel-bed rivers. Water Resources Research, 35(11), 3523-30 pp.
• City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan, 2015-2016.
• Espegren, G.D. (1998). Evaluation of the Standards and Methods Used for Quantifying
Instream Flows in Colorado. Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver, CO, November,
47 pp.
1
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 58 of 108
• Milhous, R. T. (2000). Numerical modeling of flushing flows in gravel-bed rivers. In: P. C.
Klingeman, R. L. Beschta, P. D. Komar, and J. B. Bradley (Eds.), Gravel-bed Rivers in the
Environment, Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, pp. 579–608.
• Milhous, R. T. (2007). An adaptive assessment of the flushing flow needs of the lower
Poudre River, Colorado: First evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Rocky Mountain
Hydrologic Research Center Conference, Wild Basin Lodge, Allenspark, CO, September 28.
• Milhous, R. T. (2009). An adaptive assessment of the flushing flow needs of the lower
Poudre River, Colorado: First evaluation. In: J. A. Ramirez (Ed.), Proc. Hydrology Days
2009, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 46–56.
• Nehring, R.B. (1979). Evaluation of Instream Flow Methods and Determination of Water
Quantity Needs for Streams in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort
Collins, CO, September, 144 pp.
• Shanahan J.O., D.W. Baker, B.P. Bledsoe, N.L. Poff, D.M. Merritt, K.R. Bestgen, G.T.
Auble, B.C. Kondratieff, J.G. Stokes, M. Lorie and J.S. Sanderson (2014) An Ecological
Response Model for the Cache la Poudre River through Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins
Natural Areas Department, Fort Collins, CO. 93 pp + appendices.
• Waters, T. F. (1995) Sediment in streams - Sources, biological effects, and control. Vol
Monograph 7 American Fisheries Society
• Whiting, P. J. (2002) Streamflow necessary for environmental maintenance. Annual Review
of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 30(1), 181-206 pp.
• Wilcock, P. R., J. Pitlick and Y. Cui (2009) Sediment transport primer: Estimating bed-
material transport in gravel-bed rivers. RMRS-GTR-226, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 78 pp.
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 59 of 108
SECTION 8: AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMENTS
Fort Collins has various concerns related to air quality and climate change impacts and issues
in the SDEIS. Climate change is of significant importance to Fort Collins, as noted in Fort Collins
Climate Action Plan. See http://www.fcgov.com/climateprotection. As discussed in detail below,
the SDEIS does not include all sources of air pollution or greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) and does not
evaluate whether all federal, state, and local air quality regulations and rules will be met as a result
of implementation of the Project. The Corps’ assessment of the air quality and climate change
impacts is not a mere formality. The SDEIS must provide a “full and fair discussion” of those
indirect impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. This “comprehensive ‘hard look’ mandated by Congress and
required by statute must be timely, and it must be taken objectively and in good faith, not as a
exercise in form over substance, and not as a subterfuge designed to rationalize a decision already
made.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, the conformity regulations
promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act create separate procedural and substantive requirements
that the Corps must meet. See 40 C.F.R. Part 93 (conformity regulations). However, the SDEIS
defers such analysis to an uncertain point in the future.
In violation of NEPA and the Clean Air Act, the SDEIS does not fully analyze these impacts.
Because of the Corps’ inadequate assessment, the air quality and climate change impacts are
understated. Additionally, Fort Collins and other stakeholders cannot fully or meaningfully analyze
these impacts and their effects. Revised and additional analyses are required.
8.1 COMMENTS REGARDING INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
8.1.1 No Analysis of Impacts from Increased Traffic
SDEIS Section 3.14.4.1, North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council,
Page 3-177
Statement: “A project must come from a conforming transportation plan and improvement program (40 CFR
93.115) before a conformity determination can be made for it. The design and concept for the proposed project
must be adequately defined and must remain consistent with the project’s definition in the conforming RTP and
TIP. If the project changes in concept or design during the planning process, or if it was not originally included
in the RTP and TIP, the regional conformity analysis would need to be revisited before the project can
proceed.”
Comment: The air quality analysis for the realignment of U.S. 287 did not account for the estimated
439,300 annual visitor day increase for recreational use at Glade Reservoir and its long-term impact
on vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) in the ozone nonattainment area. It is important that this traffic
volume increase be communicated to the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization,
the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the
Environment, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Upper Front Range
Transportation Planning Region because it will alter the results of the air quality evaluation and the
regional ozone conformity analysis.
1
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 60 of 108
NFRMPO’s conformity analysis depends on a detailed traffic analysis conducted for the
entire area covered by the MPO. This includes assigning employment and traffic generators to each
of the traffic analysis zones (“TAZs”) covered by the model, including the TAZ in which the
proposed Glade Reservoir is located. There is no indication in NFRMPO’s RTP and conformity
analyses for 2035 or 2040 that any of the recreational traffic for the proposed Glade Reservoir has
been included. See e.g., NFRMPO, Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (2008);
North Front Range Land Use Allocation Model (June 17, 2015).
The modeling of emissons associated with the recreational VMT should also make
adjustments to the vehicle mix to reflect the trucks hauling boats and campers which will increase
future air emissions and further impact ozone level predictions. If the assumption is that this
represents a shift of visitor days from Horsetooth Reservoir or other reservoir/lakes, then the annual
economic benefit from recreation at Glade Reservoir of $13.2 million in SDEIS Section 5.20.2.3.1
needs to be modified. Further, the analysis should also account for increased VMT associated with
longer trip lengths to Glade. Per 40 C.F.R. § 93.156(b), the ozone conformity determination must be
prepared and made available to the public for review and comment before it is finalized.
Proposal/Recommendation: The VMT estimates need to be revised to include increased traffic to
Glade Reservoir and this information should be transmitted to all appropriate agencies listed above.
Fort Collins and other stakeholders must be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on this
information. 40 C.F.R. § 93.156(b). A regional ozone conformity determination needs to be
conducted only after all air quality impacts from this project have been quantified and included in
the conformity determination, and this information must be provided to Fort Collins pursuant to the
Clean Air Act.
SDEIS Section 4.13.3.1.1, Glade Reservoir, Page 4-331
Statement: “Changes in traffic volumes from reservoir construction would be similar to the effects of
constructing the Cactus Hill Reservoir described in the No Action Alternative.”
Comment: The description of construction traffic for the Cactus Hill Reservoir in Section 4.13.2.1
for the No Action Alternative states that construction traffic and heavy vehicles necessary for site
development would likely remain on-site for the duration of construction and would not contribute to
daily traffic. The construction phase of Glade Reservoir is estimated to be 5 years, and during this
time, movement of heavy vehicles for removal of construction and demolition waste would be
expected. These activities were not included in the 2013 Air Quality Analysis Memo (GEI 2013) as
part of the modeling effort although these emissions will likely contribute to increases in ozone in
the nonattainment area.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must revise or supplement the SDEIS to include additional
analyses of the priority pollutants for movement of construction and demolition waste to address the
deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 4.14.1, Methods, Page 4-337
Statement: “The realignment of U.S. 287 was included in the STIP for regional ozone conformity
determinations by NFRMPO as discussed in Section 3.14.4.1.”
1
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 61 of 108
Comment: The estimated 439,300 annual visitor day increase for recreation at Glade Reservoir and
its long-term impact on VMT in the region have not been considered in the conformity analyses for
any conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) by NFRMPO. As a result, the emissions associated with these vehicle trips must be included
in the general conformity analysis.
Proposal/Recommendation: The RTP and TIP must include increased vehicle traffic and the
regional ozone conformity determination by NFRMPO should be revisited due to the absence of this
data. Further, the general conformity analysis to be developed by the Corps must include the
emissions from these vehicle trips if they have not been modeled in the NFRMPO conformity
analysis approved by FHWA.
SDEIS Section 4.14.3.1.1, Glade Reservoir, Page 4-339
Statement: “The reduced vehicle emissions from a shorter U.S. 287 may be somewhat tempered by steeper
grades associated with a portion of the proposed realignment.”
Comment: The increased traffic associated with recreational use at Glade Reservoir will include
trucks, hauling boats, and campers, that when considered in VMT modeling, will increase, not
decrease, vehicle emissions. Vehicle emissions would significantly increase resulting from the large
VMT increase for recreation; the resulting air quality impacts will include long-term direct and
indirect effects; and impact is expected to be at least moderate because the effects would result in
clearly detectable change with measurable effects.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must account for all of the vehicle emissions associated
with new recreational trips in its general conformity analysis. The modeling to support this general
conformity analysis must include appropriate emissions factors to reflect the vehicle mix associated
with boat hauling, campers and other recreational vehicles. Aside from the general conformity
analysis, the Corps must disclose the traffic and emissions impacts of this recreational traffic in a
revised SDEIS to comply with NEPA.
8.1.2 Analysis Missing Numerous Air Pollution Sources
SDEIS Section 4.14.1, Methods, Page 4-336
Statement: “Air quality can potentially be affected by short-term direct effects associated with construction of
the alternatives (e.g., emissions from construction equipment, workers’ vehicles, delivery vehicles, and fugitive
dust) or by long-term indirect effects such as changes to transportation (e.g., the realignment of U.S. 287) or
from project operations (e.g., emissions associated with pumping).”
Comment: The SDEIS air quality analysis, including the supporting analysis (2013 GEI), omitted
numerous long-term sources of emissions of criteria pollutants and particulates and did not consider
any human health or environmental impacts from air toxics. The following significant sources of air
emissions were missing from the air quality analysis, such that the analysis underestimates emissions
and air quality impacts:
1
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 62 of 108
• Criteria pollutant and particulate emissions associated with large VMT increases for
recreation at Glade Reservoir.
• Criteria pollutant emissions associated with the new recreational activities at Glade the Corps
seeks to claim credit for in its recreational and economic analyses, including boats, jet skis,
generators and other sources of non-road mobile source emissions. The emissions of these
off-road sources can often be quite high, because they have not been subject to as stringent
emissions regulations as on-road vehicles.
• Criteria pollutant emissions associated with pumping during long-term Project operations
(e.g., NOx ozone precursors).
• Air toxics sources:
o VMT increase for recreation to Glade Reservoir and potential for long-term human
health impacts.
o Construction emissions direct health impacts on local residents.
o Construction emissions indirect impacts such as deposition of air toxics onto soils and
surface waters where they are taken up by plants and ingested by animals and eventually
magnified up through the food chain.
• Emissions from vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions from proposed mitigation plan
activities such as:
o Channel and habitat improvements (Appendix F, Section 4.3.2, Page 68).
o Revegetation efforts to support establishment of native wetland and riparian species on
exposed sediment (Appendix F, Section 4.3.4, Page 79).
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS, as
well as its draft and final general conformity analyses, additional quantitative analyses of air quality
sources to address the deficiencies described above. The conformity analysis must account for the
criteria pollutant emissions identified in the first three bullets above.
SDEIS Section 4.14.1, Methods, Page 4-336
Statement: “The assessment of predicted effects on air quality is presented in detail in the 2013 Air Quality
Analysis Memo (GEI 2013).”
Comment: The Air Quality Analysis Memo (GEI 2013) presents an incomplete analysis of air
quality impacts from NISP for the following reasons:
• The evaluation does not look at the total of all direct and indirect emissions to determine
exceedance of the general conformity de minimis thresholds in 40 CFR § 93.153.
o Only short-term emissions from construction activities were considered for compliance
with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”).
• The evaluation of air quality impacts from U.S. 287 realignment does not consider the
significant long-term change in VMT expected due to travel to access the new recreation at
Glade Reservoir.
• It does not include emissions associated with recreational sources at Glade Reservoir and
emissions associated with the electricity necessary for pumping in all alternatives.
• A comprehensive air quality analysis would quantify and evaluate the impacts of additional
pollutants beyond the six criteria air pollutants addressed in the SDEIS. The Clean Air Act
1
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 63 of 108
also regulates hazardous and other air pollutants that can impact human health and the
environment.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS, and
the general conformity analyses, additional evaluations of these air quality impacts to address the
deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 4.14.6, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Page 4-342
Statement: “During the general conformity process, the CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division (APCD)
would review NISP to determine if NISP conformed to the SIP for NOx. During its conformity analysis, the
APCD would determine if the Project’s estimated emissions are included in the state’s emission inventory.”
Comment: The analysis of air quality impacts (GEI 2013) did not consider long-term emissions of
NOx, SO2, CO, and particulates associated with the annual electricity requirement of 61,302,050
kWh for pumping for Alternative 2 with no reclamation and 48,135,987 kWh annually for pumping
for Alternative 2 with reclamation in determining NAAQS compliance.
Estimated NOx emissions for pumping would be 74 tons/year for pumping for Alternative 2
with no reclamation and 58 tons/year for pumping for Alternative 2 with the Reclamation Option.
These estimates were calculated using the 2014 regional marginal emissions factors and need to be
included during the ozone conformity analysis to determine compliance with NAAQS.
Proposal/Recommendation: Additional analyses of priority pollutants from these vehicle
emissions should be completed to address the deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 4.14.6, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Page 4-342
Statement: “Unavoidable long-term non-construction related impacts on air quality may occur periodically
associated with the exposed shorelines of reservoirs that may cause fugitive dust emissions.”
Comment: The SDEIS and supporting air quality analysis (GEIS 2013) only estimate fugitive dust
emissions from construction activities and do not attempt to estimate fugitive dust emissions from
exposed shorelines at Glade Reservoir. NISP hydrologic modeling on Glade Reservoir water levels
and is available to estimate frequency and extent of reservoir draw down from which an estimate of
fugitive dust emissions can and must be developed. These data are needed to determine the
significance of impacts from fugitive dust.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS, and
its general conformity analysis, additional analyses of priority pollutants from these missions to
address the deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 5.14.2, District’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), Page 5-237
Statement: “Most direct effects on air quality would occur with the construction of Glade and Galeton
Reservoirs and associated facilities and the realignment of U.S. 287.”
1
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 64 of 108
Comment: Long-term direct impacts from NOx from increased VMT and a shift in vehicle mix
resulting from recreation at Glade Reservoir, as well as the emissions from boats, jet skis and other
recreational equipment, were not evaluated. Also missing was a quantitative analysis of long-term
direct effects of fugitive dust resulting from low water levels in Glade Reservoir during drought
periods, and an analysis of direct impacts from air toxics. These are considered direct effects
according to Section 4.1.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects, of the SDEIS because they occur at the
same time and place as the activity and impact a large number of recreational users.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
8.1.3 Inadequate Air Quality Analysis May Lead to Violation of NAAQS For Ozone
SDEIS Section 4.14, Air Quality, Page 4-336
Statement: “The marginal nonattainment designation does not impose any new planning requirements on
Colorado at this time; however, the nonattainment area must meet the standard before 2015 or new
requirements may be imposed.”
Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) lowered the 8-hour ozone standard from
0.084 ppm to 0.075 ppm in 2008. In 2010, EPA reconsidered the 2008 standard and proposed a
further tightening of this standard to a range between 0.060-0.070 ppm with several subsequent
delays in implementation to date. Regardless of where within the range EPA sets the new ozone
standard, meeting it will require unprecedented efforts for Colorado according to the Ozone State
Implementation Planning 2010 Progress Report to the Governor. This report also states that ozone
State Implementation Plan (SIP) planning is presently the Regional Air Quality Council’s highest
priority. Stringent requirements from stationary sources, transportation, and other source categories
are expected and should be considered likely requirements for implementation of NISP.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS a
regional ozone conformity analysis taking into account the lowering of ozone standards since the
original NAAQS analysis. A lower ozone standard will increase the chances of NAAQS
noncompliance.
SDEIS Section 4.14.3.1.1, Glade Reservoir, Page 4-339
Statement: “NFRMPO determined that a regional ozone conformity analysis was not needed because the new
route would be shorter than the existing alignment.”
Comment: The impact of increased VMT and changes in the vehicle mix from Glade Reservoir
recreational users were not included in any regional ozone conformity determination by the North
Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization. Therefore, the realignment of U.S. 287 was not
adequately defined. 40 C.F.R. § 93.115 requires the regional conformity analysis to be revisited
before the Project can proceed.
Proposal/Recommendation: The regional ozone conformity analysis needs to be revised to
include all air pollutant sources.
1
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 65 of 108
SDEIS Section 5.14.5, Climate Change, Page 5-238
Statement: “Given the predictions of increased levels of ground-level ozone in already-polluted areas due to
climate change, short-term construction emissions from any of the alternatives could contribute to short-term
ozone exceedances when combined with other emissions in the area. This would be a moderate cumulative
effect because the effect would be short-term associated with construction and short-term meteorological
events.”
Comment: This analysis did not factor in the long-term increases in VOCs and NOx associated with
increased VMT for recreation at Glade Reservoir, emissions from recreational equipment, and for
operational pumping of water. These emissions would occur throughout the life of the Project and
thus would be long-term. Frequent exceedances of ozone standards are anticipated when long-term
NISP emissions are combined with other regional emissions, higher ozone levels from increased
temperatures due to climate change, and expected lowered ozone standards. The cumulative impacts
likely qualify as major impacts defined as effects that would be readily apparent with substantial
consequences (e.g., frequent ozone exceedances in the nonattainment area).
Further, the conformity rules prohibit even short-term violations or exacerbation of the
conformity rules. The Corps will need to demonstrate conformity consistent with the criteria of the
general conformity rule. The SDEIS defers this analysis to some unknown point in the future.
Proposal/Recommendation: The regional ozone conformity analysis needs to be revised to include
all air pollutant sources.
8.1.4 Determination of Air Quality Impacts and Their Significance Did Not Consider
Requirements of All Air Quality Regulations
SDEIS Section 4.14.7, Impact Summary, Page 4-344
Statement: “During construction, all alternatives would have estimated average annual emissions of NOx
greater than the conformity de minimis level of 100 tons/year for the ozone nonattainment area.”
Comment: An evaluation of air quality impacts should be based on meeting all regulatory
requirements of the Clean Air Act, not just meeting NAAQS. The Corps must consider the following
factors to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local air quality regulations:
1) If the effects would cause an air quality standard to be violated;
2) Activities or emissions that would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of O3 in the nonattainment area;
3) Activities that expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
4) Fugitive dust emissions from demolition activities that could impair visibility in a
Federal Class I area located within 100 km of the proposed activities such as Rocky
Mountain National Park (Clean Air Act, Section 169A); and
5) Activities or emissions that would be inconsistent with Colorado’s Revised Regional
Haze Plan (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”)
2011).
1
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 66 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above. Specifically, the above criteria
should be added to the SDEIS for determining air quality impacts and their significance.
SDEIS Section 5.14.2, District’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), Page 5-237
Statement: “The increases in emissions are considered a minor cumulative effect because they would be
short-term and the alternative would need to undergo a general conformity analysis that would consider other
regional contributions to ensure that the region remains in compliance with NAAQs.”
Comment: The air quality analysis failed to consider all long-term sources of NOx emissions (e.g.,
travel for recreation at Glade Reservoir, recreation at the Reservoir, and operational water pumping).
The direct and indirect effects of the short-term and long-term NOx were therefore not quantified. A
comprehensive analysis would likely result in at least moderate effects (e.g., clearly detectable
change with measurable effect as defined in Section 4.1.1.3, Intensity and Magnitude of Effect of the
SDEIS). Between an insufficient analysis of all emission sources and with the recent tightening of
ozone standards, the Corps should require a regional ozone conformity analysis.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
8.2 COMMENTS REGARDING INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS RELATED TO GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
8.2.1 Analysis Missing Numerous Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources
SDEIS Section 4.14.1, Methods, Page 4-337
Statement: “The estimated long-term greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) emissions that could result under each
alternative were based on the projected energy requirements for pumping for the alternatives (BBC 2014).”
Comment: The methods used for estimating greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions are inadequate for
determining NISP GHG increases or impacts for the following reasons:
• All GHGs are referred to as CO2 emissions. This indicates that additional GHGs with higher
global warming potentials such as CH4, and hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”) were omitted, and
as a result, total GHG emissions are underestimated.
• Significant sources of GHGs from the large VMT increase to and from Glade Reservoir for
recreation were omitted.
• The Alternative 2 evaluation must include increases in GHG emissions from boats, jet skis,
and other equipment used in the reservoir.
• Increases in emissions associated with waste disposal from recreational users were not
included in the analysis.
• There is a requirement for additional wastewater treatment associated with several proposed
alternatives that would result in increased emissions of GHGs (CO2, CH4
, and N2O) for new
and existing wastewater treatment facilities. These have also been omitted from the analysis.
1
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 67 of 108
The long-term effects from all the GHG sources that were omitted from this analysis should have
been included in the analysis because they can be determined using existing national and
international GHG methods and protocols and because they would significantly change the
conclusion of the analysis.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above. Specifically, the SDEIS must
include a more detailed inventory of all GHG sources and a description of methods and calculations
is needed to determine GHG impacts.
SDEIS Section 5.14.2.1, Long-Term Emissions of Carbon, Page 5-237
Statement: “The cumulative effects of the carbon dioxide emissions on climate change are
unknown.”
Comment: The physical link between increasing temperatures and increasing concentrations of
GHGs has been documented by a large body of research.
3
The U.S. National Climate Assessment,
4
a report compiled by a team of over 300 experts who collected, evaluated and integrated
observations and research on climate change in the U.S., is available to estimate impacts to human
health and the environment. Hence, there is no basis for claiming that the cumulative impacts of
GHG emissions are unknown. Although a detailed, quantitative evaluation of the cumulative
impacts of increased GHG emissions from NISP on the various resources considered in the SDEIS
may be premature, the Corps needs to acknowledge the potential for impacts such as increased
global temperatures resulting from NISP’s GHG emissions.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
SDEIS Section 5.14.6, Impact Summary, Page 5-239
Statement: “The estimated electrical energy used by the alternatives would be about 0.1% of the energy used
in Colorado in 2012 (Section 4.22). This contribution to climate change would be a minor cumulative effect
because the effect would be relatively small compared with the regional total annual emissions of GHGs.”
Comment: The estimation of GHG emissions in the SDEIS only quantifies one source of GHG
emissions–from CO2 emissions from electrical energy use for pumping water. This is an incomplete
estimate of total GHG emissions for the Project alternatives and leaves out:
• The CO2, N2
O, CH4, and HFC emission contributions from increased ground transportation
for recreational use at Glade Reservoir;
• Emissions of other GHGs (N2O) from electricity use for pumping;
3 2007. IPCC WGI Fourth Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers,
http://www.offnews.info/downloads/SPM2feb07.pdf.
4 Mellilo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United
States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/JoZ31WJ2.
1
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 68 of 108
• The CO2, N2
O, and CH4 emissions from disposal of short-term construction and demolition
wastes
• The CO2, N2
O, and CH4 emissions from long-term solid waste disposal from recreational
users at Glade Reservoir; and
• The increases in CO2, N2
O, and CH4 emissions associated with increased wastewater
treatment for several alternatives.
There are numerous national and international protocols (e.g., ICLEI Community Protocol, World
Resources Institute (WRI) GHG Protocol, etc.) for estimating GHG emissions from multiple
emission sources. Furthermore, it is not valid to compare electrical energy use for pumping for
NISP to that of the electricity use of the entire state of Colorado during 2012 and then extrapolate
impact on climate change based on this comparison. There are local and regional differences in the
GHG emissions from electricity depending on if the source is clean (e.g., renewable energy). There
is a state-level GHG emissions estimate (not provided in the SDEIS), but there is no known
“regional total annual emissions of GHGs.” This determination of a minor cumulative effect is not
based on valid or transparent data.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS an
analysis of the total GHG emissions that includes all major GHG sources and uses valid
comparisons. Additionally, the Corps must provide an adequate factual basis for its determination of
minor cumulative effect. The Corps cannot rely on “conclusory assertions that an activity will have
only an insignificant impact on the environment.” Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir. 2004).
8.2.2 Claimed Minor Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SDEIS Section 4.14.7, Impact Summary, Table 4-96. Impacts to air quality, Column Predicted
Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Project Operation at Full Utilization, Page 4-343
Statement: “Alternative 2 Reclamation Action Option: Construction over an estimated 9.1 years would have
a short-term minor impact on air quality.”
Comment: Annual carbon dioxide emissions for Project operation at full utilization of 37,259 metric
tons for Alternative 2 with Reclamation Action Option do not constitute a minor impact on air
quality from a climate change perspective. Moderate effects are defined in Section 4.1.1.3 Intensity
and Magnitude of Effect in the SDEIS as effects that would result in clearly detectable change with
measurable effects. This amount represents 70% of the 2014 GHG emissions from Fort Collins’
entire municipal operations (2014 Comparative Municipal GHG Report) and 80% of the 2013 GHG
emissions from Colorado State University (one of the 3 top GHG sources within Fort Collins city
limits (see reporting via EPA map located at: http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/). For comparison,
under the EPA’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Rules, this level of emissions constitutes a major
source. The Corps’ characterization of these emissions as “minor” when the EPA characterizes
lower levels to be “major” is arbitrary and capricious.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
1
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 69 of 108
8.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
SDEIS Section 5.14.6, Impact Summary, Table 5-54, Page 240
Statement: “When combined with RFFAs and climate change, construction would have a short-term minor
impact on air quality. Exposed reservoir shorelines could periodically contribute to local fugitive dust.
Operations would contribute to the increase in the regional emissions of carbon dioxide. The cumulative
effects on air quality would be minor because the incremental increase in carbon dioxide emissions would be
relatively minor compared with the regional total annual emissions of GHGs.”
Comment: This summary is missing a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative impacts of
criteria air pollutants, air toxics, particulates, and all the relevant greenhouse gases over the lifetime
of the Project. It fails to consider the residence time of any of these pollutants in the atmosphere and
the full range of impacts on human health and the environment. This section and table is missing
numerous emission sources detailed in other comments by Fort Collins. The incomplete assessment
is not adequate to make a determination of air quality. A more comprehensive set of air quality
criteria should also be evaluated to determine the significance of impacts. Additionally, it is not
valid to compare a partial Project GHG emissions inventory to a “regional total annual emissions of
GHGs” that does not exist nor is referenced in the document.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses to address the deficiencies described above.
8.4 FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION CONTROL PLAN AND ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 3.3.4, Air Quality (AQ-01), Page 50
Statement: “To minimize and control fugitive dust, Northern Water would develop and implement fugitive
particulate emission control plan that identifies specific steps that would be taken to minimize fugitive dust
generation.”
Comment: Additional mitigation measures must be implemented to control criteria and other air
pollutants include:
• The fugitive particulate emission control plan should incorporate the following to the
maximum extent feasible:
o All haul roads would be covered in gravel with minimal silt content.
o High winds restrictions to involve no earthmoving activities performed when local winds
speeds exceed 30 miles per hour.
o Implement engineering controls to prevent off-property transport.
o Reduce vehicle speeds by establishing a maximum speed limit or install traffic calming
devices to reduce speeds to a rate that prevents off-property transport of dust entrained
by vehicles.
o Unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly and at the lowest height
possible.
o Dust control measures should be incorporated to the maximum extent feasible during
blasting operations. The following measures should be used during blasting activities:
1
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 70 of 108
o Conduct blasting on calm days to the extent feasible. Wind direction with respect to
nearby residences and sensitive environmental receptors should be considered.
o Design blast stemmings to minimize dust and to control fly rock.
o Install wind fence for control of windblown dust.
• If one or more of the suggested air quality significance criteria are met (proposed by the Fort
Collins in the Comment to SDEIS Section 4.14.7 Impact Summary, Page 4-344), the
following mitigation measures for mobile sources should be implemented:
o Any off-road construction equipment (e.g., loaders, excavators, etc.) must be equipped
with engines that meet the model year (MY) 2015 emission standards for off-road
compression-ignition (diesel) engines. Older model year engines may also be used if they
are retrofit with control devices to reduce emissions to the applicable emission standards.
o Any on-road construction equipment (e.g., pick-up trucks at the construction sites) must
be equipped with engines that meet the MY 2000 or on-road emission standards.
o Any trucks used to transport materials to or from the construction sites must be equipped
with engines that meet the MY 2010 or later emission standards for on-road heavy-duty
engines and vehicles. Older model engines may also be used if they are retrofit with
control devices to reduce emissions to the applicable emission standards.
Implementation of these various engine control measures would substantially reduce NOx and PM10
emissions; however, the extent of the reduction would vary based on the size (horsepower), age, and
type of equipment. Controlling emissions from equipment operating on the construction site,
including both off-road construction equipment and on-road pick-up trucks could reduce NOx and
PM10 emissions by over 80%. Controlling emissions from on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks could
also reduce NOx emissions by approximately 20% or more.
8.5 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 8
• CDPHE, 2014. Colorado Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2014 Update Including Projections to
2020 & 2030.
• City of Fort Collins, 2014 Comparative Municipal GHG Report.
• Fort Collins Climate Action Plan, dated 2008.
• Fort Collins Climate Action Plan: Framework, dated 2015.
• Fort Collins Climate Action, dated 2014.
• ICLEI, 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, V 1.1.
• IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers,
International Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 2-18.
• Mellilo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/JoZ31WJ2.
• Resolution 2015-030.
• WRI, Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories
(GPC), An Accounting and Reporting Standard for Cities.
1
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 71 of 108
SECTION 9: RECREATION AND AESTHETICS COMMENTS
The Poudre River is a major recreational attraction in Fort Collins, attracting approximately
over 500,000 visitor days a year. (SDEIS at page 3-195). These visitors’ fish, hike, bicycle, boat,
picnic, and view wildlife. The fishing is so good in the downtown reach of the river that creel counts
for Segment B are consistently higher than any other reach on the Poudre River, including the
canyon reach (personal communication, Kurt Davies, former Colorado Parks and Wildlife Poudre
River fisheries biologist). Over many decades, Fort Collins has spent tens of millions of dollars
beautifying, acquiring land, building recreation amenities, and restoration natural habitat. (City of
Fort Collins Natural Areas Master Plan and Cache la Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan
Update). Fort Collins owns three parks on the River and over 1,800 acres of natural areas. In 2014,
City Council adopted a Downtown Poudre River Master Plan that describes a vision for continuing
to improve the most heavily visited reach of the River from Shields Street to Mulberry. This Master
Plan describes a proposed whitewater park just below the College Avenue Bridge. The park
includes storm water and habitat improvements and is estimated to cost approximately $8.5 million
of which $7 million have been secured to date.
9.1 IMPACTS TO BOATING
SDEIS Section 4.16.3.3, Segment B
Statement: “Segment B is popular for boating (canoeing and kayaking) and is the location of a proposed
whitewater park. Target flows for quality boating opportunities are at or above 150 cfs. Compared with
Current Conditions, Alternative 2 would result in an average reduction of 3 to 7 boating days per month (a
total of 19 fewer days over the May-August period), resulting in a moderate to major adverse effect on boating
opportunities in Segment B. Augmented winter flows in Alternative 2 would result in minor beneficial effects on
recreational fishing opportunities in Segment B…”
SDEIS Section 4.16.6, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Statement: “Flow changes in Alternatives 2 and 3 would adversely affect boating and fishing opportunities
along the Poudre River through Fort Collins (Segment B).”
SDEIS Section 4.16.1
Statement: “The 150 cfs threshold was based on comments on the DEIS from a local boating group on the
minimum flows that would be needed to allow reasonable passage by canoe through Fort Collins; a 100 cfs
threshold was previously used in the DEIS.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 2.2.1, Summary of Effects
Statement: “Reduced streamflow during the summer would result in a minor to moderate adverse effect on
river-based boating in Segment B…”
Comments: The SDEIS notes in Section 4 that there will be moderate to major adverse effect on
boating opportunities in Segment B associated with Alternative 2. However, in Appendix F, that
effect is inconsistently characterized as “minor to moderate.” The inconsistency reveals a lack of
meaningful analysis required by NEPA.
1
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 72 of 108
Fort Collins does not agree with the characterization of boating impacts to Segment B as only
minor or moderate. With boating days reduced by one-third on average, clearly this is a major
effect, as described by the SDEIS’s own terms. (See page 4-351 “Major effects would result in
readily apparent effects with substantial consequences”).
Paragraph 4.16.3.3 is unclear as to how many days at 150 cfs will be reduced. The SDEIS
states that “Alternative 2 would result in an average reduction of 3 to 7 boating days per month.” If
this sentence is referring to all months it could be read to mean the loss of 36 to 84 days a year.
The SDEIS describes 150 cfs in Segment B as the minimum flows necessary for
“reasonable” passage by canoe. Canoeing at 150 cfs is possible but that is the low end of the
threshold (personal communications with local boaters). Between 75 and 100 cfs, the Poudre River
through Fort Collins is just passable by inner tubes. The SDEIS should more definitively describe
what “reasonable” means with respect to boating in Segment B.
The SDEIS notes minor beneficial effects to fishing due to winter time augmented flows in
Segment B, although in a subsequent paragraph (see SDEIS Sections 4.16.3.3 and 4.16.6
respectively) it inconsistently notes that Alternative 2 would adversely affect fishing. However, as
noted elsewhere in these comments, the SDEIS has failed to adequately analyze impacts to aquatic
biological resources. Therefore, it is not yet possible to accurately characterize the impacts to
fishing.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS an
adequate analysis of the impacts on boating opportunities in Fort Collins, as described above.
Further, the Corps must provide factual bases for its conclusions.
9.2 IMPACTS TO RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCES
SDEIS Section 4.16.3.3, Poudre River
Statement: “Under Alternative 2, changes in streamflows are not expected to result in discernable visual
impacts on recreational experiences along the Poudre River, or the availability of land-based recreational
activities such as trail use, wildlife viewing, and photography. Likewise, wildlife-related recreation along the
mainstem…would be unaffected”
Comment: As noted elsewhere in these comments, Fort Collins has extensive concerns with the
analyses of impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation. Moreover, Fort Collins asserts that the
impacts will be greater than those described by the SDEIS, as described above. Over time, it follows
that the degradation to the environmental resources of the river are likely to result in degradation to
the user experience beyond a negligible or minor impact.
The SDEIS appears to conclude that there will be little to no impact to recreation activities
(other than boating) along the Poudre in Fort Collins (SDEIS Table 4-100, page 4-360). However,
based on a study commissioned by Fort Collins in 2008 (“Estimating Benefits of Maintaining Peak
Instream Flows”, Dr. John Loomis) a reduction in peak flow of 50% would reduce visitation to the
river by approximately 33%.
1
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 73 of 108
The SDEIS describes a very large range of financial value associated with visits to the
Poudre River Trail and visits to Natural Areas along the river. Figures for visits to Natural Areas
range from approximately $2 million to approximately $14 million annually (SDEIS 3-196). Thus,
the median value is $8 million. At approximately 500,000 visitors a year, that works out to $16 per
visitor. Although it is not known precisely how many visitors are present in Natural Areas during
May, June and July a safe assumption is that at least one-quarter of total annual visitors
(approximately 125,000) are present during these months. Thus, a reduction of 33% of these visitors
(approximately 42,000) at $16 a visit would represent an approximately $670,000 annual loss.
While these figures may contain a significant margin of error, they conservatively suggest that there
would be tangible economic losses related to flow depletions.
Proposal/Recommendation: The Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS
additional analyses of the impacts on recreational experiences. Additionally, the Corps must explain
its determination in the face of the contradictory evidence offered by Fort Collins. The Corps fails to
comply with NEPA if it “offers an explanation which runs counter to the evidence . . . .” Sierra Club
v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 295 F.3d 1209, 1216 (11th Cir. 2002).
9.3 AESTHETIC IMPACTS
SDEIS Section: 4.18.3.3 Poudre River, Pages 4-373 to 374
Statement: “Alternative 2 is predicted to have weekly average river stage declines of 0.5 foot or greater
during the May through September period for 19% of the period of record. The increased frequency of
predicted reductions in stage greater than 0.5 feet (almost twice as frequent as the other segments) in a
segment of the river that is highly used, would likely be noticeable to many viewers familiar with the river in
this segment ....”
Comment: The SDEIS needs to provide a better assessment of the impacts of NISP on the visual
resources of the Poudre River (specifically within Fort Collins), including the river channel, and
wetland and riparian vegetation, based on the acknowledged reduced flow levels. However, the
Corps must describe specifically how the aesthetics could change, such as the reduction of diversity
and density of vegetative cover, reduction of wildlife, exposure of rip-rap and man-made structures
and other factors due to the reduction of river flows. Photo simulations and surveys should be
conducted to evaluate the public’s perception of lower river flows and the effects this could have on
the visitor’s experience and future urban and recreational development along the river corridor.
Proposal/Recommendation: Under NEPA, the Corps must require additional mitigation measures
to address the deficiencies described above.
9.4 MITIGATION OF VISUAL IMPACTS
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives, Page 16
Statement: “This section provides an overview of effects for the key environmental resources affected by
NISP, and a summary of mitigation approaches that were identified by Northern Water.”
1
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 74 of 108
Comment: In violation of NEPA, the Corps has “failed entirely to consider an important aspect of
the problem.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. The Corps cannot ignore visual impacts of the proposed
action. Thus, the Corps must include in a revised or supplement to the SDEIS additional analyses of
visual impacts and provide adequate mitigation measures to address the deficiencies described
above.
Proposal/Recommendation: Additional study in these proceedings should be completed to address
the deficiencies described above.
9.5 AUGMENTATION PROGRAM AND MITIGATION
SDEIS Section 4.16.6, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Statement: “The District’s proposed mitigation will be reviewed by the Corps to determine whether
unavoidable adverse impacts would remain with the implementation of the District’s proposed mitigation.”
SDEIS Appendix F, Section 2.1.2, Mitigation Approach
Statement: “Glade Reservoir provides an opportunity for low-flow aquatic resources mitigation. […]
Modification of diversion structures to allow fish migration and enhance channel characteristics
would…benefit aquatic resources….”
Comment: Fort Collins supports efforts to enhance winter base flows, which may provide a minor
benefit to the fishery in Segment B. Based on the Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model, 20 to
30 cfs is an optimal base-flow regime for the sport fishery. (As noted elsewhere in these comments,
it is not clear that Northern will be able to deliver the proposed augmentation flows due to water
rights issues.)
Fort Collins supports efforts to modify intervening diversion structures to improve habitat
characteristics. As noted elsewhere in these comments, the Conceptual Mitigation Plan proposes
improvements to three structures to bypass flows. There are, however, a number of other structures
that lack the infrastructure to bypass flows (See Operational Comments regarding SDEIS Section
7.3.5).
As noted elsewhere in these comments, Fort Collins believes that flushing flows of 2,500 to
3,500 cfs increase the likelihood that “multiple factors supporting reproduction of both trout and
aquatic insects are…maintained over decadal and longer time scales.” (See Fort Collins comments
in Section 7 of these comments and the Poudre River Ecosystem Response Model). SDEIS
Appendix F, however, does not include any flushing flows.
In general, Fort Collins does not believe and the SDEIS does not establish that the current
mitigation plan will adequately address the negative Poudre River recreation impacts; particularly
those impacts to recreation caused by reduced peak flows. Furthermore, flat water recreation or
other forms of recreation located at Glade Reservoir do not compensate for the loss of water-based
recreation in Fort Collins because such flat water recreation is of a different nature than recreation on
a dynamic, healthy river.
1
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 75 of 108
It is also unclear how the Corps derived the flatwater visitation values for the Glade
Reservoir and whether these add to visitor numbers that would have already existed elsewhere or
simply shift visitation between lakes. If the latter, it is inappropriate to claim any net recreational or
economic benefits.
Proposal/Recommendation: The SDEIS must include avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures that address flushing flows. The Corps must also require compensatory mitigation for the
major loss of boating days on Segment B.
9.6 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 9
• Cache la Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan Update, June 2011
• City of Fort Collins Ecosystem Response Model.
• City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Master Plan, October 7, 2014.
• City Plan, Fort Collins, February 15, 2011.
• Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program, July 18, 2000.
• Fort Collins Natural Areas Map, October 2014
• Poudre River Downtown Master Plan, October 2014.
• Estimating the Economic Benefits of Maintaining Peak Instream Flows in the Poudre River
Through Fort Collins, Dr. John Loomis, April 2008
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 76 of 108
SECTION 10: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES COMMENTS
Fort Collins has invested substantially in the Poudre River corridor through town, and
thereby in its biological resources, which includes aquatics and fisheries, wetlands and riparian areas
(including their ground water aspects), and wildlife. Fort Collins (including through its Natural
Areas and Parks Departments and Stormwater Utility) own and manage nearly 75% of the floodplain
in town as undeveloped lands. The trout populations within Fort Collins are as high as some of the
most productive areas for the river. See Fish Survey, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Cache La Poudre
Fish Survey and Management Information. These investments provide extensive recreation and
educational opportunities, conservation of natural habitats and species, flood attenuation, pollutant
filtration and serve as catchments for urban stormwater catchments (City of Fort Collins, 2011). A
degradation of these resources, a likely outcome of NISP, would substantially and negatively affect
these valued investments and assets. The SDEIS’s analyses of wetlands and riparian areas raise
various concerns as discussed in detail in the following subsections.
10.1 THE POUDRE RIVER IS NOT ON AN INEVITABLE DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY AS
CLAIMED IN THE SDEIS, AND THE ECOLOGICAL RESPONSE MODEL AND RIVER
HEALTH ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK CAN BE USED AS TOOLS
Comment: Fort Collins has conducted various studies on the Poudre River designed to increase the
understanding of current and potential future conditions. As the owner of water, wastewater, and
stormwater utilities, Fort Collins is constantly conducting studies related to the functions of these
enterprises. As a landowner, municipality, and steward of the land and water for current and future
residents, Fort Collins has also sought to better understand the Poudre River beyond the scope of
these vital utilities through conducting studies on other aspects of the river. Several of those studies
are identified in and provided with these comments. In particular, studies have been designed to
further understand site specific issues (such as land use in the floodplain), drivers (such as
inundation of the riparian zone) and thresholds (such as sediment mobility flow thresholds) that
influence the condition of ecological components and also to understand the system as an integrated
sum of its parts.
The future of the Poudre River is of interest to Fort Collins not only for the intrinsic value of
a healthy ecosystem, but also for the role a healthy ecosystem plays in the provision of other
watershed services such as high quality drinking water, wildlife habitat, the basis of the aquatic
ecosystem, recreation opportunities, and protection of public safety and infrastructure, all of which
contribute to a healthy Fort Collins economy and livelihood. The condition of these watershed
services has a direct financial impact on the City, as well as deeper impacts that are less easily
quantified, though no less valuable.
1
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 77 of 108
The SDEIS inaccurately describes the Poudre River as having an ecosystem that has already
passed a biological threshold and that is on a boundlessly declining trajectory. The SDEIS
concludes that important ecological processes such as sediment mobility and support of riparian
functions are not currently occurring and therefore additional reductions are “predicted to reinforce
or accelerate the well-established trajectory” (SDEIS Section 4.9.9 Table 4-69) (emphasis added).
Based on this proposition, the SDEIS concludes that any negative impacts from the proposed actions
of NISP are minor or imperceptible, and not significant when considered against this supposed
inevitable trajectory towards an impoverished system. However, neither NEPA nor the CWA allow
agencies to disregard the impacts of proposed actions by assuming that environmental resources will
be lost regardless.
Fort Collins disagrees with the notion espoused in the SDEIS that the Poudre River is on a
trajectory of inevitable decline. Although many changes have occurred to the Poudre River over the
past 150 years since the early days of water development, Fort Collins’ perspective, supported by
numerous observations and data, is that today’s ecosystem still retains many functional elements that
are key building blocks of a resilient and healthy system that continues to provide valued services.
Moreover, as discussed in this Section 10, Fort Collins believes that a series of flawed analyses in
the SDEIS underestimate the impacts of NISP, mischaracterize the trajectory, and omit an evaluation
of the aggregate impacts of the Project. As a consequence, the SDEIS incorrectly concludes that
there will be minor or negligible impacts to the biological and watershed services and resources
associated with the river.
1
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 78 of 108
The following reports and supporting analyses are submitted as evidence further
substantiating the concern that the SDEIS mischaracterizes the trajectory.
The Ecosystem Response Model (“ERM”) is a probability-based integrative ecosystem
model developed to show likely changes and trends across various flow scenarios. The original
report was produced in 2014 and provides the full project description
http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/eco-response.php. With the release of the SDEIS and CTP
hydrology, the ERM was rerun. New results are provided in the ERM Supplemental Report (City of
Fort Collins, 2015). In preparing this work Fort Collins does not intend the ERM or its results to
supplant the various in-depth studies undertaken as part of the SDEIS. Nevertheless, results of the
ERM provide a meaningful holistic evaluation of the Poudre River ecosystem, an ecosystem which,
contrary to conclusions made from various individualized studies in the SDEIS, maintains many key
ecologic functions.
The River Health Assessment Framework (“Framework”) was developed as a tool to
clearly define the Fort Collins’ vision of a healthy and resilient river through recommended ranges
for system metrics (http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/riverhealth.php). As with the ERM, the
Framework is not intended to supplant the various in-depth studies undertaken as part of the SDEIS.
The Framework also sets forth a methodology for assessing and communicating about river
conditions and functions. The Framework uses a scholastic A through F grading scale to grade
different metrics, which represent various components of the river system. Grades of B and above
signify a resilient component of the system. Grades of C identify at risk components, while grades
of D and below represent impaired or vulnerable components. The closer any single metric gets to
the C- to D+ threshold, the more at-risk it becomes.
Though each component receives a separate grade, these components work synergistically to
support a more robust, functional ecosystem with greater resilience to future disturbances, stochastic
events, and short-term or localized human-caused impacts. In other words, each metric contributes
to an overall system that has good function, or conversely may be at greater risk. Therefore, a grade
of a B or an A for one metric supports other metrics. Conversely, a grade of D or F would indicate
impairment or imminent vulnerability which may have broad implications for whole system
Even though current conditions have not been fully assessed using this tool, much is known
for various metrics through existing datasets and extensive working knowledge of the river.
Preliminary evaluations indicate that current conditions generally range from grades of B to C, with
a few metrics falling below a C. Given the expected response of the Poudre River to a decline in
flows, and if flows are reduced by NISP as indicated in the SDEIS and discussed herein, a number of
the metrics are expected to trend downward from their current condition. (Please see the Framework
report for the best understanding of current conditions by river segment).
A few important themes emerge from the ERM and the Framework. The Poudre River will
show a response to declines in peak flows in particular. Current flows still meet key sediment
mobility thresholds which positively influence all aquatic life dependent on clean riverbeds. The
preferred alternative decreases the return interval for these flows and will negatively affect overall
channel structure, critical aquatic habitat and maintenance of channel capacity. The extent of all
1
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 79 of 108
riparian habitat types and ecological processes is directly correlated to peak flows. A measureable
narrowing will occur across the riparian landscape.
Proposal/Recommendation: The SDEIS should not consider the Poudre River as being on an
inevitable downward trajectory, as discussed in this Section 10. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43
(explanation is not “satisfactory” if the “explanation for its decision . . . runs counter to the evidence
before” the agency.). While Fort Collins believes that NISP poses significant challenges to the
future condition of the Poudre River, with these concerns based, in part, on the ERM and the
Framework, these tools also describe various opportunities for maintaining and improving the
functions and processes that underpin the Poudre River’s biological and healthy conditions. Thus,
the ERM and the Framework can serve as effective guideposts and decision support tools as NISP
and other consumptive projects are proposed and evaluated in the Poudre River basin.
10.2 COMMENTS REGARDING COTTONWOOD ESTABLISHMENT
10.2.1 Inappropriate Assumption that Cottonwood Forests Are in Decline
SDEIS Summary S.6.4.2, Page S-32
Statement: “flows that are no longer effective in establishing new stands of plains cottonwood”
SDIES Summary S.7.6, Page S-45
Statement: “The plains cottonwood woodlands along the Poudre River are on a trajectory of decline.
Nonnative woody vegetation (e.g., green ash, Russian olive, and Siberian elm) are predicted to increase as a
result of the current trajectory.”
Comment: The summary for the analysis (Table 4-69) frequently relies on an assertion that the
downward trajectory of cottonwood woodlands along the Poudre River will continue with or without
Alternative 2. This argument has not been substantiated and directly contrasts evidence from Fort
Collins’ restoration successes and research projects (Shanahan, 2014, City of Fort Collins, 2015a,
City of Fort Collins, 2015b). Moreover, the impacts identified in the SDEIS need to be quantified
and not just described qualitatively. A direct response of narrowing (and reduction in the probability
for cottonwood recruitment leading to age class distributions skewed toward older forests) is
expected when peak flows are chronically reduced as well as a parallel reduction in the probability
for cottonwood establishment (Nilsson and Svedmark, 2002). A data-based impacts analysis is
possible through spatial comparison of flow events likely to support various ecological processes and
habitat types.
Furthermore, it is in the City’s interests to work towards restoring the system that supports
the keystone native woody species. Forests dominated by native species, as compared to non-native
species, are more adapted and therefore more resilient to natural disturbances on this type of system.
A particularly unique situation may occur on the Poudre if we accept the premise that green ash will
dominate the riparian forests (as described herein). With the arrival of the emerald ash borer to
Colorado, the forests along the Poudre River are likely see a significant loss or degradation due to
die off the ash (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/eab_threat_urbanforests.pdf).
1
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 80 of 108
Rather than assume that the future decline of cottonwoods is inevitable, the impetus for Fort
Collins’ research and management has been to better understand the most effective actions for
supporting self-sustaining cottonwood populations. Restoration efforts focused on topographical
changes have proven highly productive for cottonwood establishment, as discussed in this
Section 10. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (explanation is not “satisfactory” if the “explanation for
its decision . . . runs counter to the evidence before” the agency.). In particular, Fort Collins Natural
Areas Department staff has found that when excessive shading and steep banks are restored,
moderate flood events readily leads to extensive cottonwood recruitment. Hence, these types of
efforts and observations made by Fort Collins contradict the SDEIS assertion of a baseline
downward trajectory of cottonwood woodlands, indicating an incomplete disclosure of the baseline
conditions in the SDEIS.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to include a quantitative (and spatial)
analysis of the effects of all NISP alternatives on cottonwoods, and should consider the role of
floodplain topography as well as flows.
10.2.2 Inappropriate Analysis Based on Future Conditions
Wetlands and Riparian Resources Effects Report for the Mainstem of the Cache la Poudre
River (“Resources Report”), Section 4.1.1, Trajectory for inundation of Riparian and Wetland
Resources, Page 16
Statement: “Part of the historical and future trajectory for the riparian and wetland resources of the
Mainstem includes a continuation of the trend of less frequent inundation of wetland and riparian resources
along the Mainstem.”
SDEIS Section 4.9.1.1, Resource Trajectory, Page 4-212
Statement: “the trajectory of the wetland and riparian resources along the mainstem has been affected by
historical and contemporary physical and hydrologic changes that have established a trajectory that is
expected to continue under Current Conditions hydrology […] wetland and riparian plant communities along
the mainstem will likely gradually shift to plant communities with species adapted to a drier environment and
less tolerant of or dependent on flooding or shallow ground water levels…”
Comment: The characterization of the trajectory of the riparian resource and phrase “trend of less
frequent inundation” seems to indicate there will be ongoing hydrologic changes. Whereas other
portions of the SDEIS perform analyses based on the current hydrologic conditions, the analysis of
the riparian resource seems to be based on assumed future conditions, which are presumed to be
worse than current conditions. This is not appropriate and downplays the effects of NISP.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to base riparian analyses on current
hydrologic conditions and not presumed future conditions.
10.2.3 Inappropriate Conclusion That Current Flows Are the Primary Limitation
SDEIS Section 4.9.1.1, Resource Trajectory, Page 4-212
Statement: “The combination of flood flows that are no longer effective in establishing new stands of plains
cottonwood, extensive stands of smooth brome and reed canarygrass that compete with cottonwood seedlings
1
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 81 of 108
and nonnative woody vegetation that is establishing at rates equal to or greater than plains cottonwood,
establish a trajectory for a future Poudre River riparian corridor that will likely be very different from the past
and current riparian corridor.”
Comment: As noted in comments below on the Resources Report, the primary cause for
compositional changes to the riparian forest lies in physical constrictions of the river, banks, and
floodplain. Nowhere in the SDEIS or supporting documents do data or ecologically-based logic
demonstrate that current flows are a limitation. In contrast, as noted elsewhere in these comments,
moderate flow events (such as the 5 year flow) can and do support cottonwood recruitment. See
State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. Further, intense, high flows cause mortality (through scour and burial)
of brome and reed canarygrass on some years.
Furthermore, while this transition may be occurring on the landscape, it is arbitrary and
incorrect to detach changes in flows due to NISP from this trajectory. The body of research on
riparian ecology consistently relates flow regimes with trends in cottonwood populations. Flooding
plays an essential role in the recruitment of cottonwood and a reduction in flooding invariably
negatively affects cottonwood recruitment. Such will be the impacts from NISP and those impacts
must be identified.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to reflect the observations of Fort
Collins Natural Areas Department staff, as described above.
10.2.4 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding the Crossing of a Biological Threshold
SDEIS Section 4.9.8, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, Page 4-250
Statement: “The 2012 Wetlands and Riparian Resources Baseline Report concluded that the mainstem had
crossed a biologic threshold that limits the recruitment of plains cottonwood and is in the process of altering
the composition of the riparian woodlands.”
Comment: The data presented in the Resources Report does not support this conclusion, as
discussed further below. In fact, the word “threshold” does not appear in that report.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to remove references to the threshold.
10.2.5 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding Green Ash
Resources Report, Section 5.3.1, Vegetation Trends, Nonnative Species, Page 26
Statement: “Table 4. Ranking of Nonnative Species at each Poudre River Riparian Vegetation Study Site.”
Comment: In the above-referenced table, green ash is recorded as a “4,” being infrequently
observed the lowest category for all six study sites. This data directly challenges the oft repeated
conclusion throughout discussions in the SDEIS on the trajectory of this resource that green ash is
likely going to replace cottonwoods and become the dominant species. By contrast, Table 5 (page
28) of the Resources Report reports young green ash (<2 dbh) receiving a ranking of #1 for Watson
Lake and Martinez Park. The SDEIS Section 4.9.1, page, 4-212 suggests the upper two sites will
1
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 82 of 108
continue to be dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood. These findings and inconsistent conclusions
should be rectified.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to correct references to green ash.
10.2.6 Inappropriate Conclusions Regarding Cottonwood Recruitment
Resources Report, Section 5.3.3 Size Class Distribution of Woody Vegetation, Page 29
Statement: “Only three species, box elder, narrowleaf cottonwood, and plains cottonwood, were recorded in
the two largest size classes that included individuals greater than 18 inches dbh. … At Martinez Park,
although green ash occurred with the highest frequency, most of the individuals occurred in the smallest size
class. … The Archery site had the fewest number of individuals compared to the other five sites. … Green ash
was rarely recorded at the Archery site….”
Comment: This discussion from the SDEIS is linked to the data in Table 6 (page 30) which shows,
as the discussion suggests, only cottonwoods, boxelder and crack willow occur in the largest size
classes. The data clearly shows that only cottonwoods demonstrate an inverse J-curve distribution of
size classes. This type of distribution indicates ongoing recruitment and survival for cottonwoods.
The issue with cottonwoods is that in these sites they are not demonstrating large recruitment events,
but they are demonstrating continued modest recruitment.
The lack of older/larger green ash may indicate a transition is just beginning whereby green
ash will become more dominant but it also may indicate green ash is not surviving past
smaller/younger age classes. It is important to carry this underlying uncertainty through to summary
statements.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to properly analyze and acknowledge
ongoing recruitment and survival for cottonwoods.
10.2.7 Inaccuracies Regarding Cottonwood Recruitment and Moderate Flow Events
Resources Report, Section 5.8.1, Establishment of Plains Cottonwood, Page 50
Statement: “Cottonwood seedling recruitment is episodic and relatively rare even along free-flowing streams
(Mahoney and Rood 1998)…. If river stages decline too rapidly, drought stress produces substantial seedling
mortality (Scott et al. 1993). Along meandering rivers, successful establishment is characteristically associated
with medium to large floods. Researchers have also determined that it is moderate and large flood events that
directly enable cottonwood recruitment, whereas smaller flood events are often insufficient for cottonwood
replenishment.”
Comment: The use of the term “moderate flood event” is inconsistent and ill-defined throughout the
report. It is used in Section 4.2.2 of the 2014 Technical Report (Riparian Effect) as follows: “the
moderate flows of 580 to 1900 cfs do not currently inundate riparian and wetland areas with enough
frequency to support or renew riparian areas and at most sites NISP will not substantially reduce the
frequency of inundation by these moderate flows.” The term “moderate flows” must be defined.
1
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 83 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to properly consider cottonwood
recruitment and moderate flow events, as described above.
10.2.8 Disregard of Non-Major Recruitment Events
Resources Report, Section 5.8.2, Establishment of Plains Cottonwood Along the Poudre
Statement: “An examination of cottonwood age classes in the Fort Collins reach of the Poudre River found
the last major recruitment year was 1983 (Shanahan 2011a). The lack of natural lateral migration of the
Poudre River has manifested a riparian forest that is no longer connected to the high flows and flooding with
which the forest historically evolved (City of Fort Collins 2011).”
Comment: The SDEIS focuses on the last major recruitment event on the Poudre River in 1983.
Fort Collins’ experience suggests that armoring, and associated constraints on the channel and banks,
as well as an altered species composition, that most limit successful regeneration. The widespread
recruitment observed at restoration sites following the 2014 spring flows (which peaked at ~6,000
cfs in late May) demonstrates the accuracy of this concept. This contradicts conclusions in the
SDEIS, which state that the current flow regime is the major limiting factor.
The above image from McMurry Natural Area provides evidence of the potential for current
flows to establish cottonwoods when the right physical conditions are present. 2015 seedlings are
smaller (in the foreground) and 2014 saplings are seen on slightly higher ground (in the middle of
the picture). See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (explanation is not “satisfactory” if the “explanation for
its decision . . . runs counter to the evidence before” the agency.).
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to address the role of moderate flood
flows as well as topographical limitations to cottonwood recruitment.
1
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 84 of 108
10.3 COMMENTS REGARDING AQUATICS AND FISHERIES
10.3.1 Lack of Temperature Analysis
SDEIS Section 4.3.2.2, River Temperature
Statement: “Thus, all NISP alternatives would be expected to increase stream temperatures at times in some
reaches of the Poudre River. Additional detail on the conceptual understanding of the system and qualitative
anticipated effects of NISP alternatives on stream temperature are provided in Hydros (2014a).”
Comment: The SDEIS includes only a qualitative review of water temperature data with a
subjective discussion of potential changes with NISP. The lack of a quantitative analysis of change
in water temperature does not allow an evaluation of impacts to the aquatic species. The conclusions
of “minor or moderate” impacts to aquatic resources and fisheries are not supported without
quantification of the amount of change.
The Hydros 2014 Stream Temperature Report (“Hydros Report”) is qualitative only with no
quantification of change in temperature with the proposed alternatives, which GEI cites for water
temperature impacts to fish and macro invertebrates. However, Hydros conducted dynamic water
temperature modeling for the Windy Gap Firming Project EIS and CWA Section 401 certification.
Miller Ecological also conducted dynamic water temperature modeling for the Moffat Collection
System EIS and CWA Section 401 certification. No adequate basis is provided for the lack of such
an analysis for NISP.
The change in Daily Maximum (“DM”) and Mean Weekly Average Temperate (“MWAT”)
are derived from an hourly water temperature model. The CDPHE has protocols to determine the
antidegradation analysis for the project from the modeled data. The anti-degradation calculation first
calculates a Baseline Allowable Increment (“BAI”), which is 15% of the value between the baseline
water temperature (current conditions) and the temperature threshold (either DM or MWAT). For
example, if the baseline water temperature is 1.0 C away from the threshold then any change in
water temperature greater than 0.15 C is considered a significant degradation. The analysis is
complex to complete both the modeling and the antidegradation analysis.
The Baseline Allowable Increment (“BAI”) for water temperature like other water quality
constituents is 15%. The 15% translates to 0.15 C change for every 1.0 C lower than either the DM
or MWAT threshold. The incremental change decreases the closer the water temperature gets to the
threshold. If NISP results in an increase in water temperature, then the BAI may be smaller for Fort
Collins when the Corps completes the analysis for the Halligan Project.
The lack of quantification of water temperature does not provide the City with full disclosure
to aquatic resources in the Poudre River corridor. The change in water temperature is perceived to
be small. However, even a small change in water temperature can result in a significant impact. The
impact could be to the aquatic resources or to water treatment facilities in meeting discharge
requirement.
1
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 85 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The full analysis of water temperature should be completed
prior to release of the final EIS. Adequate review of the modeling approach and data sets should be
allowed for participants in the Common Technical Platform. For example, Fort Collins should be
provided with interim products to review the applicability and adequacy of the analyses. Mitigation
for any approved alternative should include a firm commitment to offset any water temperature
increase. The mitigation could be release of some amount of cold or cool water to offset the water
temperature increase. The current mitigation is conceptual and does not include a firm proposal.
10.3.2 Approach to Impacts on Aquatic Biological Resources
SDEIS Section 4.12, Aquatic Biological Resources
Statement: “This section summarizes the predicted potential aquatic biological resources effects of the NISP
alternatives. Fish, benthic invertebrate, periphyton, and aquatic plant communities and their habitat represent
the components of the aquatic environment of interest for the project. […]”
Comment: The conclusions for impacts of the NISP alternatives on aquatic habitat are based on an
overly simplistic approach to calculation of changes to aquatic habitat. The change in fish habitat is
based on synthetic graphs of 20%, median and 80% habitat constructed from a 25 year daily habitat
time series. The annual graphs are then summarized into minimum, maximum and average habitat
values. The percent change between the single average value derived from a 25 year daily
simulation is used to determine the level of impact. This oversimplification of a detailed analysis
does not allow the evaluation of inter- and intra-annual changes in habitat, which affect the fish
species. (Annear et al. 2004). Further, there is no means to directly compare a habitat value with a
specific discharge.
The discussion on page 4-314 of the SDEIS discusses changes in habitat with changes in
flow. However, there is no means to verify any of the statements since computational data for
habitat-flow time series is not presented in the supporting aquatic resource technical documents. For
example, the recent EIS for the Windy Gap firming project included the basic habitat time series data
by water year type as part of the technical supporting documentation (see following example figure,
Windy Gap Firming Project FEIS). The display of habitat by water year type or actual year allow
the reader to make a direct comparison of habitat change between alternatives.
The aquatic habitat analysis up through the development of habitat versus flow
determinations follows the standard approach used in instream flow studies. (Bovee et al. 1998,
USGS 2001). The divergence from the standard approach is in the calculation of habitat over time.
The use of a synthesized habitat values based on recurrence and then a single average value derived
from the synthesized data masks the relationship of habitat over time. This approach does not allow
a full analysis of impacts to the aquatic resources within Fort Collins, especially in the downtown
corridor, which is highly valued
1
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 86 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analyses and conclusions should be revised in these proceedings
to address the deficiencies described above.
10.4 COMMENTS REGARDING ANALYSES OF WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN AREAS
10.4.1 Lack of Defined and Objective Standards
SDEIS Section 4.9.2, Methods, Page 4-213
Statement: “Moderate effects would result in a clearly detectable change, with measureable effects.
Moderate is used when beneficial or adverse effects would be noticeable, and the existing wetlands, riparian
resources, or other waters would likely be lost. Moderate effects typically are long-term. Major effects would
result in readily apparent effects with substantial consequences. Major is used when permanent impacts on
large areas (10 acres) of wetlands, riparian areas, or other waters would occur.”
SDEIS Section 4.12, Aquatic Biological Resources Methods
Statement: “The overall impact was categorized as negligible, minor, moderate, or major according to
professional judgment by taking into account the individual impacts to the components of the aquatic
environment based on the magnitude of the changes, the risk of crossing an ecological threshold, the changes
in habitat availability for other species and life stages in that segment, and the predicted changes to other
relevant aspects such as water quality, temperature, channel geomorphology, sedimentation, and riparian
vegetation.”
Comment: The reliance on professional judgment without distinct metrics defined to determine the
relative change between alternatives precludes replication of the determination of the level of effect.
1
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 87 of 108
The subjective determination of impact makes it difficult to determine if mitigation is adequate to
minimize the impact from an alternative. The above are examples of the vague, qualitative language
and standards used throughout the SDEIS. The SDEIS does not identify solid, scientific basis or
objective standards for the proffered definitions.
For instance, regarding the statement from SDEIS Section 4.9.2 above, the permanent loss of
wetlands is considered only a “moderate” effect despite its permanent nature. Also, the
determination of “major” effect as one greater than 10 acres of permanent loss appears arbitrary
without some reference to a reason for this delineation. In this arid region, riparian habitats and
wetlands represent a small portion of the arid landscape and yet provide critical support for a
majority of wildlife and increase overall richness in the region (Merritt et al. 2010, Naiman et al.
1993, Webb and Leake, 2006). Given the importance of these habitats, a reference or explanation
for these definitions is required.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analyses should clearly set forth all definitions and standards and
the bases therefore. To the extent that this has not been completed in the SDEIS, the subject analyses
should be revised accordingly.
10.4.2 Inconsistent Identification of Acres of Effected Wetlands
SDEIS Section 4.9.9, Impact Summary, Page 4-250
Statement: “Table 4-68 Summary of unmitigated effects on wetlands and waters. 9 acres permanent
impacts under Alternative 2.”
2014 Riparian Effects Technical Report, Section 4.3.3, Page 41
Statement: “The mapped potentially sensitive vegetation classes for Segments A through F are presented for
varying distances from riverbanks in Table 14. For the entire length of the Mainstem there are about 220 acres
of the potentially sensitive vegetation classes. Segment B is about 6 miles long and has about 10 acres of
potentially sensitive vegetation within 100 feet of the river.”
Comment: The SDEIS and its supporting reports appear to inconsistently quantify the number of
effected wetlands, specifically for Alternative 2 in Segment B and with the result of reducing the
number below the potentially-arbitrary threshold of 10 acres. This value is presented as 10 acres (a
major effect) in the Resources Report and as 9 acres (a moderate effect for Segment B) in the SDEIS
and summaries.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analyses should explain this discrepancy and the reasons
therefore. The analyses should also apply all thresholds and standards in a consistent and objective
manner. To the extent that this has not been completed in the SDEIS, the subject analyses should be
revised accordingly.
10.4.3 Inconsistencies in the Riparian and Wetland Analyses
SDEIS Section 4.23, Summary, Page 4-415
Statement: “Table 4-109 Wetlands from Poudre River flow changes (indirect effects).”
1
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 88 of 108
Comment: Background on this analysis is provided in the Resources Report. On page 25 of that
report, it states “the repeated stress of numerous years with prolonged groundwater declines could
lead to loss of wetlands; however, most herbaceous wetlands would recover in subsequent years
when the hydrologic support returns.” If wetland hydrology is lost for a prolonged period of time,
but returns occasionally (and infrequently such as during wet years or precipitation driven flood
flows), this should be considered a permanent impact.
The summary table provided at the end of Section 4 of the SDEIS is the most succinct and
comprehensive presentation of impacts of the alternatives in the SDEIS. However, this table omits
the riparian areas despite having identified minor to moderate impacts throughout Table 4-69.
Without explanation, this is arbitrary and appears to suggest that the impacts from Alternative 2 are
fewer and less severe that the underlying analyses indicate.
Table 4-69 also summarizes conclusions on river stage, alluvial groundwater, inundation, and
other flood related functions analyses which are all linked to groundwater and soil saturation in the
riparian zone. They should, at a minimum show common trends and scale of responses. However,
Table 4-69 presents inconsistent and sometimes opposing results. For example, the results for
Alternative 2 for “River Stage” are a moderate effect on Segment B whereas for “Alluvial
Groundwater” a negligible effect is anticipated. Similarly, regarding “Inundation” there will be
negligible impacts whereas for “Other Flood-Related Functions” (directly related to inundation)
moderate effects are predicted. It is confusing for these pairs of analyses to show results that span
from imperceptible to long term loss of resources.
Additionally, the last line on Table 4-109 describes “Other Flood-Related Functions.” A
determination of moderate effect is made for Alternative 2. However, the only reference to this
conclusion comes from a single sentence on p. 4-218 (Indirect Effects Common to all Alternatives):
“Reductions in inundation would potentially have some level of effect on these functions or the
frequency at which these functions are provided.” The conclusion thus lacks a basis. It is important
as these processes support critical resilience factors such as pollutant filtration and floodwater
attenuation. It should be supported by something more than a single sentence that is apparently
without basis.
These contrasts and vacillations over the impacts to wetlands and riparian areas do not enable
Fort Collins, other stakeholders, and ultimately, the Corps, to have a clear picture of the impacts to
these resources.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analyses should consistently treat all alternatives. To the extent
that this has not been completed in the SDEIS, the subject analyses should be revised accordingly.
This confusion over the timing of impact of Alternative 2 persists throughout the Riparian and
Wetland Conclusions, as discussed elsewhere in these comments.
1
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 89 of 108
10.4.4 Failure to Adequately Consider Long-Term Changes Resulting from NISP
Resources Report, Section 3.4, Wetland Functions, Page 12
Statement: “Of the nine fundamental variables, only water source, water distribution, water outflow,
chemical environment, and geomorphology are expected to potentially change in the short term for riverine
wetlands as a result of the NISP alternatives.”
Comment: It is not clear why the above-referenced analysis only considers short-term changes.
NISP would cause a permanent change in the flow regime of the Poudre River that will affect
wetland conditions and related functions.
Proposal/Recommendation: Long-term changes to hydrology and vegetation variables, and the
related changes in functions, should be fully analyzed. The authors of the SDEIS are expected to
understand the fundamentals of the project and analyze the impacts accordingly.
10.5 COMMENTS REGARDING GROUND WATER ANALYSES AND ISSUES
10.5.1 Inaccurate Assumptions about Ground and Surface Water Interactions
SDEIS Section 3.5.3, Poudre River, Page 3-85
Statement: “The river loses water to alluvial groundwater where the river crosses very permeable former
channels and regains water when the river crosses former channels farther downstream. (ERO 2012b).”
SDEIS Section 3.5.3.4, Poudre River Study Sites, Page 3-89
Statement: “Water level observations at the six transects show a range of relationships between the alluvial
ground water and river stage. […] In these areas, if alluvium receives recharge from a rising river stage, the
alluvium discharge this water back to the river within a very short period.”
SDEIS Section 4.5.1, Methods, Page 4-177
Statement: “Using the largest predicted stage reduction at each study site for each of the action alternatives,
and river stage-ground water relationships developed for each monitoring well, graphs were constructed with
predicted reduction in depth to ground water as a function of distance from the river for the action alternatives
(ERO 2013b).”
Comment: The description of river losses on the Poudre River in the SDEIS oversimplifies such
patterns and establishes inaccurate assumptions for the subsequent impact analysis of Fort Collins’
wetlands and riparian resources, which are already at risk of decline.
Proposal/Recommendation: To the extent the analysis disregards key aspects of the alluvial
exchange processes, it should be revised, e.g., to consider:
• The alluvium throughout the river corridor is quite permeable, and alluvial recharge is more
widespread and complex than flow through “former channels” implies.
• River gain-loss patterns are influenced by streambed heterogeneity, variations in streambank
material, channel geometry, saturation, evapotranspiration, and local groundwater and
surface water elevation. As a result, the volume of water recharging the alluvium and its
1
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 90 of 108
residence time will vary depending on differences in hydraulic head between the river and
surrounding aquifer (per Darcy’s Law). These head differences are in turn influenced by
numerous local factors such as ditch diversions, supplemental recharge, etc. which vary on
subreach and site-specific scales.
• Even brief transient recharge is important for ecosystem processes, such as nutrient
processing, and should not be discounted.
10.5.2 Shortcomings in the Data Used for the Ground Water Analysis
SDEIS Section 4.5.1 Methods, Pages 4-176 to 4-177
Statement: “As part of additional studies performed for the SDEIS, a hydrologic investigation of the
mainstem of the Poudre River was conducted from 2009 through 2011. […] The 2012 Ground Water Report
(ERO 2012b) provides details for the six transects that were established along the Poudre River, data
collection methods, and discussion and interpretation of the results. […] Using the largest predicted stage
reduction at each study site for each of the action alternatives, and river stage-ground water relationships
developed for each monitoring well, graphs were constructed with predicted reduction in depth to ground water
as a function of distance from the river for the action alternatives (ERO 2013b).”
Comment: Data used to establish the river stage-ground water relationships appear not to be
representative, complete, or consistently interpreted as described below.
As identified in Fort Collins’ comments to the Draft Baseline Ground Water Technical
Report in August 24, 2011, which are part of the administrative record in these proceedings, ground
water wells at Lee Martinez Park may not be representative of the segment because they are located
in areas that are supported by supplemental ground water recharge due to their proximity to a
flooded gravel pit having a water surface that is maintained at an elevation about 10 feet higher than
the river due to the inflow of “salvaged water.” The SDEIS and the 2013 Ground Water Effects
Analysis support the City’s concerns from 2011. While it is true that upgradient groundwater
recharge may occur in numerous other places along the river, the magnitude of these influences on
the water table varies. For example, variation in groundwater levels is evident within the Martinez
transect itself, where piezometers located at similar distances from the river but on opposite sides
respond quite differently. During the EIS study, for example, the differences in reported ground
water elevations for L3 and L4 – which are relatively equidistant and across the river from each
other – was an average of 0.87 fott and ranged from 0.27 foott (9/16/09) up to 6.21 foot (5/11/09).
These local variations in the aquifer make it questionable to apply relationships established based on
distance from the river in one location to another location, even in the same segment.
The SDEIS is inconsistent by first stating that groundwater monitoring at the study sites
should be considered “as a whole,” but then eliminating data from two of the six transects because
the observed measurements did not fit the anticipated patterns for distance from the river
relationships. According to the Wetlands and Riparian Effects Technical Report, page 8, “Because a
clear relationship of change in ground water levels and river stage with distance was not apparent at
Eastman park and 59
th
Avenue, an average of the four other sites was calculated to estimate the
percent change of ground water based on stage changes at various distances.” The rationale for
applying transect data from one location to another is not sufficiently justified, and if one-third of the
1
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 91 of 108
study results do not fit within the hydrogeologic conceptual model and analysis method, it suggests
the model and method need to be refined.
The datasets used to establish the river stage-ground water level relationships are incomplete
because continuously recorded data from loggers were not available for all wells or river stage
locations. Widely-spaced, manual readings (and weekly average readings) do not capture the full
range of relationship between river and groundwater. This is an important consideration because
Lee Martinez Park did not have a river logger, so the river stage-ground water relationship was based
on sporadic manual readings that cannot accurately reflect the relationship. To demonstrate the type
of data that can be missed see the figure below (Modified Figure 13 from the ground water technical
report) which compares manual readings (red triangles) to continuous logger readings. The circled
period of record demonstrates how the entire groundwater peak was missed by the manual readings
in spring 2010.
It is also unclear how accurate river stage-groundwater relationships could have been
established for “each monitoring well,” when half (14) of the 28 wells and two of the six surface
water stations were not equipped with continuous data loggers. Additionally, for two of the reaches,
piezometer data were not used and instead averages from the other four sites were applied, and by
definition using an average will not show maximum effects.
Proposal/Recommendation: Rather than discount or replace site-specific data with averages from
other segments, river subreaches could be characterized based on hydromorphic classifications (e.g.,
based on similar geometry, boundaries, upgradient influences) and relationships could be developed
and applied based on their classifications. Site-specific data could be used, at a minimum for
comparison, with each pieziometer having its own water table fluctuation relationship, despite the
fact it may not be linear.
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
3/28/09 7/6/09 10/14/09 1/22/10 5/2/10 8/10/10 11/18/10 2/26/11 6/6/11 9/14/11
Water Surface Elevation
Time
Figure 13. 59th Street - Well 59-3
Example of how gap in manual
measurements (circled) misses
range of conditions.
1
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 92 of 108
SDEIS Section 4.9.4, Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives, Page 4-219
Statement: “The effects of decline in river stage on alluvial ground water levels greater than about 100 ft
from the river are predicted to be generally less than the 0.5 ft impact threshold.”
SDEIS Section 4.5.7, Impact Summary, Page 4-187
Statement: “As discussed above, reductions in alluvial ground water levels were used to predict resource
effects and are addressed in those sections of the SDEIS. The predicted reductions to ground water levels in the
alluvium would be similar for all action alternatives. Within 50 ft of the river, ground water level differences
between the alternatives would be a maximum of about 0.5 ft. The difference in predicted reductions in ground
water levels between alternatives would decrease as a function of distance from the river (4-59).”
Comment: The basis for the statement in Section 4.9.4 is unclear. According to Figure 4-59,
changes in depth to ground water greater than one foot were predicted at each of the graphed sites
beyond the 100 foot distance from the river. Therefore, the 100 foot distance from the river appears
to be unfounded, and groundwater impacts occur at further distances.
Furthermore, based on the data collection and analysis methods that were used, it is unknown
if impacts greater than 0.5 foot and/or beyond 50 foot from the river may occur. The impact analysis
using the distance from the river function does not address times and locations where the river
influence extends further out due to factors such as river configuration and more permeable alluvial
deposits.
Proposal/Recommendation: Impacts at greater than 100 feet from the river in some segments
should be more fully evaluated.
10.5.3 Misinterpretation of Data
SDEIS Section 4.5.3.2, Poudre River Segments, Page 4-182
Statement: “...The effect of these buried channels can be seen on Figure 4-59 where predicted ground water
level reductions are out of character with distance from the river and neighboring monitoring wells.”
Comment: The observed influence of the river at greater distance from the river is not “out of
character” but rather reflects the character of many places along the river. The alluvium is very
heterogeneous with permeable pockets of material, not just channels, known to occur throughout the
deposits. It is not surprising for river influence to occur at greater distances from the river than the
analysis expected, and it is not out of character. These observations demonstrate the limitations of
assessing impacts to wetlands and riparian areas based on the distance from the river approach.
Proposal/Recommendation: This interpretation should be re-evaluated.
SDEIS 4.5.3.2.1 Poudre River Segments, Segment C, Page 4-183
Statement: “Similar to Segment B, the reductions in ground water levels decrease in a relatively short
distance from the river.”
Comment: The reduction in groundwater levels in this segment is not similar to Segment B, so
this statement appears to under report the effects. At 200 feett from the river in Segment C, there
1
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 93 of 108
is still a 1-ft decline in ground water for the three alternatives, which is twice the impact
observed in Segment B at the same distance (where only 0.5 ft decline is observed, probably due
in part to the upgradient recharge as previously discussed).
Proposal/Recommendation: This interpretation should be re-evaluated.
SDEIS Section 4.9.4, Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives, Page 4-219
Statement: “Table 4-70 in Section 4.9.9 summarizes the predicted depths to the alluvial ground water level
for the action alternatives. None of the declines in groundwater levels within the cottonwood woodlands are
predicted to be greater than 2.5 ft below the deepest annual water table depth during the growing season.
Effects on the cottonwoods associated with declines in river stage of 2 feet or greater are predicted to be limited
to periodic short-lived stresses because the estimated declines in alluvial ground water levels are predicted to
occur infrequently (i.e. not predicted to be sustained) and are generally predicted to occur in May at the
beginning of the growing season when soil moisture conditions are typically favorable for supporting
cottonwoods without dependence on shallow ground water levels.”
Comment: Impacts of ground water declines in riparian areas appear to be underestimated for
multiple reasons. There appears to be insufficient basis to claim that the maximum declines will be
limited to periodic short-lived stress. The frequency, duration, and impact of declines will be
influenced by the change in the volume of water storage and availability in the riparian zone (e.g.,
which could be done using a daily water budget approach). There is no discussion of the effects of
change in the volume of riparian water storage over time, e.g., to address impacts when there is
already a groundwater deficit due to drought years or extended incremental declines in recharge.
Reliance on May precipitation and soil moisture to offset impacts is inherently uncertain and should
not be justification for discounting negative effects. Further, May precipitation already affects the
system and is not a new measure to offset NISP diversions. The ecological significance of some key
exchange processes between rivers and ground water are not evaluated. For example, saturated soils
during alluvial recharge play an important role in nitrogen processing (and can provide a nitrogen
pulse at a critical time in the growing season) when e.g., anaerobic conditions trigger microbial
denitrification.
Proposal/Recommendation: This interpretation should be re-evaluated.
10.6 COMMENTS REGARDING ANALYSES OF POUDRE RIVER WETLANDS
10.6.1 Inappropriate Assumption of Changes in River Stage of 0.5 Feet or Less
SDEIS Section 4.5.1 Methods, Pages 4-176 to 4-177
Statement: “This approach was taken because most of the reductions in river stage are predicted to be 0.5 ft
or less (Appendix A of the 2014 Wetland and Riparian Effects Report) and therefore would have had only minor
reductions on associated alluvial groundwater levels. A maximum effect scenario was of interest because
alluvial ground water levels can influence cottonwood woodlands and reductions in ground water levels below
the annual water table low (Section 4.3.1 of the 2014 Wetland and Riparian Effects Report.)”
Resources Report, Section 4.2.2, River Stage, Page 21
Statement: “Changes of 0.5 foot or greater in river stage during the growing season was selected as the
threshold for potential impacts because herbaceous wetlands would likely start being affected by groundwater
1
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 94 of 108
declines of greater than 0.5 foot. Declines in ground water elevations during the growing season of less than
0.5 foot are well within the range of normal fluctuations that are already occurring as observed in monitoring
wells at the riparian vegetation study sites (ERO 2012a).”
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.1, Impact Thresholds, Poudre River Stage, Page 4-214
Statement: “….were reviewed for changes in river stage of 0.5 foot or greater during the growing season... A
threshold of 0.5-foot decline in river stage was used to determine potential effects on herbaceous and shrub
wetlands. Herbaceous wetlands are potentially the most sensitive communities to declines in alluvial ground
water levels. The Corps’ technical standard for wetland hydrology is that the wetland site is inundated
(flooded or ponded) or the water table is 12 inches or less below the soil surface for 14 or more consecutive
days during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (50% or higher probability) (Corps
2005). Assuming an average midpoint of 0.5 foot for ground water levels for wetlands, a decline of less than
0.5 foot in ground water levels would still meet the threshold for wetland hydrology.”
Comment: Using the 0.5 foot decline combined with a mid-point of 0.5 foot ground water level
below ground surface is an inappropriate threshold for assessing wetland impacts for a maximum
effects analysis, and the basis for this approach is neither justified nor logical. A wetland with an
initial water table near the 1 ft depth would be impacted by declines of less than 0.5 ft. If, for
example, a wetland has a water table depth of 11.9,” then a decline of less than 0.2 foot could cause
a shift from wetland to non-wetland hydrology. Therefore, a maximum effects analysis should
evaluate impacts from a lower starting elevation in herbaceous wetland areas (especially based on
the assumption that in a dry year the water table will likely be starting out at a worst case scenario).
Section 4.2.2 is the first location in the SDEIS that this threshold is identified. However, no
basis for this threshold is provided; and such a threshold is not a convention in wetland science. The
response of vegetation and soil microbiota to changes in ground water levels and fluctuations is
different in different textured soils, on sites with stable versus variable water tables, and on plants
with different root morphologies and physiological responses. The DEIS ignores the context and
range of possible responses for the Poudre River. The statement that the 0.5 foot of fluctuation and
decline falls within normal ranges of fluctuations is not relevant since the alternatives do not affect
these short-term fluctuations, but rather, they compound them and cause a long-term decline of
average ground water depths amidst ongoing smaller fluctuations. This will cause significant and
long-term changes in wetland hydrology, which will cause changes in vegetation composition and
structure, soil microbial processes, and habitat quality.
The assumption that river stage declines exceeding 0.5 foot for greater than 10% of the
period of record may adversely impact wetlands is flawed as discussed above. It would be more
realistic and less arbitrary to base the approximate average depth of groundwater for wetlands on the
type of wetland plant community present along the corridor. For example, Typha (cattail) and
Scirpus (bulrush) would have groundwater at approximately ground level (fully saturated soil
column and possibly standing water), a community dominated by Carex nebrascensis would have
groundwater at approximately six inches to one foot, and a Salix exigua dominated system may have
ground water at depths of greater than one foot (Henszey et. al., 2004). Thus, certain communities
are more vulnerable to changes in depth to ground water and seasonal fluctuations in ground water.
1
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 95 of 108
Any wetland community with the average groundwater table deeper than six inches may no
longer be able to support wetland plant communities and wetland functions with a reduction in
groundwater less than 0.5 foot. For example, cattail marshes would likely see a shift in species
composition whereas drier wetlands like those dominated by Carex nebrascensis may be completely
lost (Henszey et. al., 2004).
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to not include the assumption of
uniform response to altered wetland hydrology as discussed above. If no alternate approach is
applied, please provide examples of other federal permits or peer reviewed research that has used
this approach to help the reader understand the basis for the conclusions reached.
10.6.2 Inappropriate Assumption of Changes of a Duration of 10% or Less
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.1, Impact Thresholds, Poudre River Stage, Page 4-214
Statement: “At 10% or less the effect would be negligible because 10% represents an average of 2 weeks
during each year of the growing season and the Corps’ technical standard for wetland hydrology is that the
wetland is inundated…for 14 or more consecutive days…..”
Comment: If the site currently has wetland hydrology for two weeks per year (thereby just
marginally meeting the USCOE standard for jurisdicaitonal wetland), then a shift of less than 10% of
the period (such as one week per year) will cause the site to be inundated lessbe than the two week
criteria in the USCOE definition. Altering hydrology, by definition will indeed cause changes in the
inundation duration. This is a cause and effect linkage that cannot be contested. The changes will
effect wetlands acorss the entire gradient, but more so for those wetlands just inside the two week of
inundation criteria.Such an averaging approach misses a considerable area of wetlands that will be
affected and results in an underestimation of impacts. Hydrology is what distinguishes wetlands and
riparian areas from adjacent uplands. The effects of altered flows well established in the literature
(e.g., Merritt et al. 2010). Reduced peak flow, and reductions in inundation duration will cause
narrowing and decreased extent of riparian areas and areal loss of wetlands.
Further, Fort Collins has run the CTP hydrology through its ERM vegetation model and has
made the following findings. (Please see Appendix B5 Riparian Vegetation of the Poudre River
Ecosystem Response Model for methods.) The results of this modeling are shown in the following
graphic. The graphic illustrates the expected reduction in the width of hydrophytic vegetation in two
reaches of the river from about the Larimer and Weld diversion to the Lake Canal in Martinez Park.
Clearly the preferred alternative would have substantial long-term impacts to this band of vegetation.
1
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 96 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to not include the subject assumption
as discussed above.
1
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 97 of 108
10.6.3 Inappropriate Assumption Regarding a Shift in Wetland Vegetation
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.1, Impact Thresholds, Poudre River Stage, Page 4-215
Statement: “Stage declines of this magnitude during the growing season are predicted to results in a shift in
species at wetlands dominated by obligate wetland species (i.e. cattail and threesquare bulrush) to those that
tolerate greater fluctuations in river stage such as reed canarygrass. Since most wetlands along the banks of
the mainstem are dominated by reed canarygrass and sandbar willow, two species that can tolerate greater
range of groundwater levels effects are predicted to be minor and likely not perceptible along Segment B.”
Comment: The overall basis of the wetlands analyses lies in whether any given wetland is going to
shift from a wetland supporting hydrology that meets the definition of a wetland given the Corps’
standards. The argument in the SDEIS shifts here, as cited above, to explain any potential impact to
focus on species. However, this shift in the argument does not change the fact that wetlands will be
lost under NISP. Further, shifts in hydrology that favor generalist and stress tolerant species like reed
canary grass is undesirable as this is a non native species that is persistent and competes for
resources and space with desirable native riparian species.
The statements made about shifts in species are based upon speculation rather than data and
information. There have been no analyses, no species distribution modeling, or other objective
assessment to support the statements. There has been no consideration of context. For instance,
species distributions might shift toward the channel. No evidence is provided to support the
statement that most wetlands are reed canarygrass and sandbar willow.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should not include the above statements unless they are
supported by an analysis, modeling, or other objective assessment. To the extent that this is not
completed, such statements should not be included in the analysis.
10.6.4 Failure to Consider Permanent Shift in Poudre River Flows
Resources Report, Section 4.2.2, Stage Effects on Herbaceous and Shrub Wetlands, Page 24
Statement: “Many types of wetlands in the West experience periods of drought and water stress each growing
season but are resilient when supportive hydrologic conditions return. The repeated stress of numerous
consecutive years with prolonged ground water declines could lead to the loss of wetlands; however, most
herbaceous wetlands would recover in subsequent years when the hydrologic support returns.”
Comment: The preferred alternative causes an absolute shift (decline) in groundwater levels. Even
if wetlands in the western United States experience periods of drought and could recover, there is a
quantifiable change that would occur under the preferred alternative. This explanation seems to be
excusing the impacts rather than identifying them. A longer period of drought to a wetland can lead
to a reduction in wetland condition (loss of functions, shifts in species composition) and/or a change
or loss of the wetland plant species (often resulting in noxious weed invasion) Occasional return of
the hydrology does not enable the plants to spontaneously return and favors non-native, weedy,
ruderal plant species over native, perennial species.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be based on the correct assumption that the
changes to the Poudre River flow regime from NISP are permanent, and use this information to
1
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 98 of 108
accurately portray of wetland impacts. The analyses and interpretations should be revised
accordingly.
10.6.5 Inappropriate Reliance on CDOW Mapping
Resources Report, Section 5, Existing Conditions Methods, Page 17
Statement: “About 53 percent of the CDOW mapping within the area defined as the riparian corridor was
field reviewed from publicly accessible sites or by remote sensing, and inaccuracies were changed to the
appropriate category. Of the areas reviewed, about 49 percent of the CDOW-mapped areas were changed to
another category.”
Comment: The analysis and conclusions depends on the CDOW riparian mapping dataset. The fact
that field verification of this data set reports only 51% accuracy is of significant concern and
undermines its use in the SDEIS and supporting reports. This is not a scientifically defensible level
of confidence. Furthermore, the minimum mapping unit for this methodology is 0.5 acre which
would indicate small patches of wetlands, as expected in northern Colorado, may be missed or
mischaracterized.
In 2011/2012 the Environment Protection Agency and Fort Collins provided comments on
the initial draft of this technical report. Both sets of comments expressed concern on the high level
of inaccuracy and uncertainty found during field review. The other option suggested was to rely
instead on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (“NWI”) mapping data set.
The Corps responded that the CDOW mapping “will be used to describe the general extent,
distribution, and composition of riparian vegetation along the mainstem of the Poudre River.”
However, the CDOW mapping seems to be the source of data for quantifying potentially impacted
wetlands along the Poudre River. The NWI dataset recently completed along the Poudre River is the
best data available for wetlands. Additionally, Fort Collins Natural Areas has ongoing updated
habitat mapping for restoration planning
10.6.6 Failure to Identify the Data Source for the Acres of Wetlands Impacted
Resources Report, Section 3, Methods, Page 4
Statement: “Mapping of the vegetation was conducted on two levels: detailed mapping at the six riparian
vegetation study sites …and broader vegetation mapping along the Mainstem from Colorado Parks and
Wildlife…to describe general habitat types along the Mainstem”
Comment: The purpose of the above-identified analysis is to provide a prediction of the acreage of
wetlands impacted. It is unclear which data source was used to extrapolate the final conclusions of
the acres of wetlands impacted. Indirectly, it seems the Colorado Department of Wildlife
(“CDOW”) mapping project was the source. However, this is not expressly stated anywhere in the
SDEIS or the technical reports. Furthermore, as noted above, Fort Collins requested the GIS files for
wetlands and riparian areas impacted for all alternatives from the Corps. The dataset provided by the
Corps includes no wetland polygons along the Poudre River adding to the confusion.
1
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 99 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should clearly and expressly identify the data source and
analysis used to identify the acres of wetlands impacted by NISP. The analysis should be revised to
use the NWI dataset.
10.7 COMMENTS REGARDING EFFECTS TO RIPARIAN HABITATS AND ECOLOGICAL
PROCESSES
10.7.1 Inappropriate Application of the Definition of Wetlands to Cottonwood Woodlands
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.3, Inundation, Page 4-216
Statement: “For the purposes of the effects analysis, cottonwood woodland sites predicted to be inundated in
at least 13 years (half of the years of the period of record) under Current Conditions were assumed to receive
some amount of hydrological support from inundation based on the Corps’ technical standard for wetland
hydrology that the site is inundated (flooded or ponded) or the water table is 12 inches or less below the soil
surface for 14 or more consecutive days during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10
(>50% probability) (Corps 2005).”
Comment: The application of Corps definition of wetland hydrology to analysis of impacts to
riparian habitats (non-wetlands) is incorrect and an inappropriate. No explanation is provided in the
SDEIS for the use of wetlands hydrology in this context.
Proposal/Recommendation: The impact assessment methodology and analyses should be revised
to more accurately reflect the hydrology of riparian woodlands.
10.7.2 Inappropriate Exclusion of Certain Riparian Forests
SDEIS Section 4.9.2.1.2, Alluvial Groundwater, Page 4-220
Statement: “Inundation has the potential to provide supportive hydrology for wetland and riparian
vegetation; however, inundation of many of the locations within the Poudre River study sites under Current
Conditions occurs infrequently. […] For all action alternatives, the riparian and wetland locations inundated
in more than half of the years under Current Conditions hydrology, and thus potentially more dependent on
frequent inundation, are not predicted to have a substantial decrease in the number of years in which
inundation occurs.”
Comment: Periodic inundation is precisely what makes a riparian forest unique from an upland
forest and other types of wetted habitats. (Naiman and Dacamps, 1997). To suggest that sites that
receive inundation less than 50% of the years will not experience an effect underestimates the extent
of important, functioning riparian areas.
For those sites that are inundated “frequently,” which would more accurately be referred to as
wetlands, a significant reduction in peak flows caused by Alternative 2 would also be expected to
cause a shift (narrowing) of riparian vegetation on the landscape. Table 4-71 indicates 8 data points
were used to assess a 2,500 acre study area. This is an insufficient sample size for extrapolating such
a conclusion. The SDEIS does not address this result.
1
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 100 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to include all riparian forests, as
described above.
10.7.3 Incorrect Conclusions of Impacts to Riparian Forests
SDEIS Section 4.9.5.3.3, Preferred Alternative, Inundation, Page 4-229
Statement: “Segment B. The plains cottonwood woodland locations within the Martinez Park study site,
representative of Segment B, have minimum inundation flows of about 2,000 to 3,200 cfs (Table 4-71). Under
Current Conditions, these locations would be inundated in about 4 to 11 years of the period of record. The
number of years in which inundation would occur is predicted to be reduced by 1 to 5 years at these locations.
None of these locations would be inundated in more than half of the years of the period of record under Current
Conditions. Under Alternative 2, the estimated reduction in inundation is predicted to have a negligible effect
on cottonwood woodlands in Segment B because under Current Conditions, the cottonwood woodlands are not
inundated with enough frequency to provide consistent hydrologic support.”
Comment: For those sites that are inundated “frequently,” a significant reduction in peak flows a
caused by Alternative 2 would also be expected to cause a shift (narrowing) on the landscape and all
the complex functions and vegetation types supported by the peak flows. (City of Fort Collins,
2015a, City of Fort Collins, 2015b, Shanahan et al., 2014). In contrast to this expected result, all
narratives related to this inundation analysis for Segment B conclude the effects will be negligible.
An example in central Fort Collins: The quote above for the impacts of Alternative 2 references
Table 4-71. This table shows three points (LMT2.1-3) will have reduced frequencies of inundation
from 42% of the years to 23% of the years. This will have an impact on the probabilities for many
of the aforementioned processes to occur. Please see the 5 year flow -analysis (please refer to
Section 10.4.9) and the plant guilds analysis (Merritt, 2015) as evidence substantiating the
importance of “infrequent” flows and the likely narrowing of all processes and habitat types reliant
on moderate flows.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to include all riparian forests, as
described above.
10.7.4 Incorrect Conclusions Regarding Impacts of Recent Flooding on Riparian Forests
SDEIS Section 4.9.4, Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives, Page 4-217
Statement: “Flooding on the Poudre River mainstem in 2010, 2011, and 2013 provided the opportunity to
review how flood flows and inundation affect wetland and riparian resources. Post-flood reviews of the
mainstem determined that most of the vegetation and riverbanks of the reaches reviewed appeared to be
unaffected by the floods. […] There were no observable effects on vegetation from the inundation outside of
the active channel or stream banks other than the flattening of herbaceous vegetation and the accumulation and
piling of woody debris. […]
“Flows of this magnitude did not create substantial areas of either newly deposited sediments or eroded areas
beyond the active channel and riverbanks that could provide potential suitable substrate for colonization by
riparian vegetation. The floods in early June of 2010 and 2011 occurred during the normal time for peak flows
that can facilitate the establishment of new cottonwood stands. Very few areas of post-flood cottonwood
seedlings were observed and the few areas of cottonwood seedlings that were observed occurred within and
adjacent to the active channel where the cottonwood seedlings are vulnerable to inundation, channel erosion,
and aggradation.”
1
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 101 of 108
Comment: Natural Areas staff has made observations that contradict those presented here. For
example, Sterling, Homestead, and McMurry Natural Areas have all experienced substantial
deposition of fine-grained materials in much of the riparian habitat as a result of high flow events
between 2010 and 2014. Furthermore, not all floodplain functions associated with inundation are
readily observable and the observations from a sample of sites and years should not overrule well
established and accepted riparian scientific principles. Even the SDEIS outlines the processes
known to occur with inundation, yet the narrative uses field review exclusively for ignoring these
readily acknowledged ecological processes (See SDEIS Section 4.9.4).
In areas undergoing restoration where shading and thatch is not a limitation, extensive and
significant establishment of new cohorts of native woody vegetation is occurring regularly and in
direct response to flood flows. These areas include Sterling, McMurry, and Homestead Natural
Areas. The following three photos show natural establishment and recruitment of native vegetation
(specifically cottonwood and coyote willow) following recent high flow years at the McMurry
Natural Area along the Poudre River. Following the wetter springs of the past few years (2010
through 2014), Fort Collins Natural Areas Department staff has observed an increase in several
uncommon and desirable plants. For example, clammyweed (Polanisia dodecandra) was
established at Springer Natural Area, more goldensmoke (Corydalis curvisiliqua subsp. occidentalis)
and an increase in violas, which support rare butterflies have also been observed in response to the
wet years. At the same time dieback of smooth brome close the river’s edge and generally an overall
robust growth for all riparian vegetation was observed each of the wet years that have occurred
between 2010 and 2015.
1
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 102 of 108
Another high prolonged flow year occurred in the spring of 2014. The previous two photos show
observations by Fort Collins Natural Areas Department staff from the air in June, 2014. The first
photo above shows the Sterling Natural Area and the second photo shows the McMurry Natural
Area. Each identify depositional zones (pockets of fine material seen throughout the riparian areas),
with the red circles identifying areas of significant fine sediment movement and deposition.
Inundation even for brief periods drives numerous functions that distinguish riparian habitat
from upland terrestrial habitats. Some of the ecological and hydrological functions and processes
can be difficult to observe and the observations from a sample of sites and years should not overrule
well established riparian processes. Even the SDEIS outlines the processes known to occur with
inundation yet the narrative uses field review exclusively ignoring the readily acknowledged
ecological processes (See SDEIS Section 4.9.4).
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to include the observations described
above and to include a more in-depth analysis of impacts to the other floodplain processes associated
with inundation.
10.7.5 Incorrect Conclusions Regarding the Response of Cottonwoods to the Diversion of
Peak Flows
Resources Report, Section 4.3.1 Changes in Ground Water Levels for Cottonwood Woodlands,
Page 35-38
Statement: “Scott et al. (1999) noted that over a three-year period in medium-grained alluvial sands,
sustained declines in the water table of greater than 3.1 feet resulted in 88 percent mortality of plains
cottonwood. […]
“Effects to the cottonwoods associated with declines in river stage of 2 feet or greater are predicted to be
limited to periodic short-lived stresses because these estimated declines in alluvial ground water levels are
1
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 103 of 108
predicted to occur infrequently (i.e., not predicted to be sustained) and are generally predicted to occur in May
at the beginning of the growing season. […] Most of the declines in ground water levels are predicted to occur
in May when soil moisture conditions are typically favorable for supporting cottonwoods without dependence
on shallow ground water levels. May in Fort Collins is typically the wettest month of the growing season with
an average of 2.74 inches of precipitation (18 percent of the annual average) […] The combinations of
relatively high precipitation and low temperatures at the beginning of the growing season provide soil moisture
levels that could support cottonwoods without shallow ground levels compared to the rest of the growing
season […] Some or all of the following effects may occur infrequently to cottonwoods […] when ground
water levels temporarily decline below the estimated deepest annual water table depth of 6.85 feet for the
cottonwood woodlands:
• Delayed leaf out (lengthened dormancy at beginning of growing season)
• Yellowing and loss (abscission) of leaves
• Reduced branch growth
• Branch die-back
“Effects from the 1-2 ft stage declines and subsequent ground water level declines are predicted to be
negligible.”
Comment: The SDEIS states that Scott et al. (1999) concludes that a sustained decline in ground
water levels of 3.1 feet results in 88% cottonwood mortality whereas the declines as a result of NISP
can be as much as 2.5 feet and equate to no mortality, only “short-lived stresses.” This conclusion is
not valid.
This conclusion is explained by saying that “most” of the declines would be in the wettest
month, May. However, there is no evidence to suggest that reducing the peak flow would have no
adverse effect on cottonwood woodlands. It is true that cottonwood trees are more vulnerable to
water stress when temperatures are higher, when the canopy if fully leaved-out, and when less of the
root system is in contact with the water table, all of which occur late in the growing season.
Depending on position in the riparian zone, trees positioned at higher and drier sites will be more
vulnerable to a 2.5 foot decline in peak streamflow than those nearer to the river and at a lower
elevation. The vegetation is distributed along a gradient; the gradient is driven by the hydroperiod,
inundation frequency, and depth to groundwater (as well as variability in these factors). Reducing
the peak flow by diverting large volumes of water in the spring will have an effect on riparian
vegetation. (Poff et al., 1997). Unequivocal statements about the cottonwood forests responding in
a unified and single way to flows result in incorrect and arbitrary conclusions.
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to more accurately reflect the effects of
the removal of peak flows, as described above.
10.7.6 Failure to Analyze Ecological Services
Resources Report, Section 5.8.9, Other Ecological Functions Associated with Flooding
Statement: “[T]he degree to which the ecological services are provided vary with frequency, duration, and
extent of flooding and are not discussed in this technical report because they have not been the focus of scoping
or comments on the NISP DEIS and can vary greatly from site to site.”
1
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 104 of 108
Comment: The evaluation of environmental impacts includes any changes to the natural
environment as a result of the Project. The reduction of peak flows in the Poudre River will
diminish the provision of valued ecological services. . The statement in the SDEIS that these
processes can vary greatly from site to site is precisely why it is important to analyze them. Just
because these ecological services were not a focus of scoping or the comments of others, they should
still be considered by the Corps. SDEIS Section 4.9.4 describes this topic well and illustrates how
ecological services are fundamentally important to river and riparian habitat dynamics.
Understanding and disclosing how these ecological services would be affected are important aspects
of the this NEPA analysis.
The areas inundated with a frequency at or greater than 20% of the time (the 5 year
floodplain) could be considered as a possible surrogate for understanding changes to these services.
The 5 year flow was used in both the RHAF and ERM Supplemental Report as an indicator of the
positive relationship between important functions of the riparian forest and river-floodplain
connectivity to moderate flows.
Fort Collins and its consultants calculated the 5 year flow at the USGS gage at the Lincoln
St. gage using methods described in USGS bulletin 17b for historic, current conditions and
Alternative 2 flow scenarios (see ERM Supplemental Report, Current Conditions and Alternative
2and USGS, 1982). Respectively this flow is 3,486, 3,018, and 2,366 cfs. According to these flow
values, this “moderate flow” appears within range of flows most affected by the preferred
alternative.
Historic
(3,486 cfs)
Run 1
Current
Conditions
(3,018 cfs)
Run 3a
Preferred
Alternative
(2,366 cfs)
Percent
change from
Run 1 to
Run 3a
Transition: (Canyon Mouth to
Shields) 49.2 41.9 30.0 28.5
Urban: (Shields to Boxelder
confluence) 86.4 70.5 56.5 19.8
Warm: (Boxelder to County Road
32E) 169.1 134.5 91.7 31.8
The first three columns in this table present the average width (in meters including both sides
of the river) of the 5-year floodplain for three RHAF river segments under various 5 year flow
scenarios. The percent change from Current Conditions to the Preferred Alternative can be
calculated as a way to present the expected change in ecologic services. This methodology and these
river segments, are explained the RHAF (City of Fort Collins, 2015a). Due to bank armoring and
channel constrictions the riparian forest is narrow for significant lengths in each of these river
segments. In contrast, the sections with more natural low-lying floodplain topography are more
likely to receive the benefits of inundation. For example, as portrayed in the photo below, the river
section downstream of Lemay Ave. currently inundates the forest under the 5 year flow. WithNISP
the 5 year flow will not extend into the forest at all.
1
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 105 of 108
Proposal/Recommendation: The analysis should be revised to provide a spatial assessment of
inundation alterations and the effects to the riparian environment, as described above.
10.8 COMMENTS REGARDING WILDLIFE ANALYSES
10.8.1 Inadequate Analyses of Impacts to Wildlife
Comment: The SDEIS analysis for wildlife primarily addresses the direct impacts at or near the site
of the reservoirs. Indirect impacts for wildlife along the Poudre River rely on the Riparian and
Wetland analysis, which have weaknesses as discussed above in Section 10, and therefore are not a
reasonable perspective from which to analyze impacts to wildlife. The general conclusion that the
project would likely affect the overall abundance of wildlife but would not alter species composition
and distribution; and that species would likely adapt to the new habitat conditions isnot supported by
any additional information and inconsistent with fundamentals of wildlife biology.
Proposal/Recommendation: The wildlife analyses and conclusions should be revised, in
conjunction with revisions to the wetlands and riparian area analyses, to address the deficiencies
addressed herein.
1
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 106 of 108
10.8.2 No Basis for Assertion of Adaption of Species
SDEIS Section 4.10.3.2, District’s Preferred Alternative, Poudre and South Platte Rivers, Page
4-272
Statement: “The predicted changes in vegetation would occur slowly over a long period of time and would
likely be negligible and imperceptible given the dynamics of riparian areas. Wildlife using these habitats
typically use a wide range of aquatic, wetlands, and riparian habitats and would likely adapt to the new habitat
conditions that currently occur within the riparian areas of the rivers.”
Common: The changes to the flow regime under the preferred alternative will begin abruptly once
the Project is constructed and the ripple effect through the system will not be “slow” given plants,
especially herbaceous plants, respond to real time conditions. There will be a slower response to
woody vegetation, however drought stress could cause decadence to some stands within years rather
than decades.
To say wildlife will adapt to the changes fundamentally mischaracterizes the expected
outcome. As vegetation changes it is likely to cause a concurrent change in wildlife species
composition and diversity. Species that “adapt to the situation” will likely be those species common
to urban settings and not the suite of riparian dependent species.
Proposal/Recommendation: The wildlife analyses and conclusions should be revised, in
conjunction with revisions to the wetlands and riparian area analyses, to address the deficiencies
addressed herein.
10.9 COMMENTS REGARDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND
MITIGATION
10.9.1 Complete Analysis Is Needed
SDEIS Appendix F
Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Comment: The adequacy of the cumulative effects and mitigation planning cannot be evaluated
without better analysis of the critical factors discussed in this Section 10. The impacts to the riparian
and wetland resources need to be quantified in order to address them. The SDEIS rationale that the
impacts will be imperceptible, negligible, or minor and that Alternative 2 will accelerate and/or
reinforce the well-established trajectory is not substantiated.
10.9.2 Current Proposal Omits Certain Needed Elements
SDEIS Appendix F
Statement: “Proposed Conceptual Mitigation Plan …”
1
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 107 of 108
Comment: The current proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation lacks certain required
elements, such as peaks flows and other measures to specifically address the issues identified in this
Section 10. The key missing elements of the current proposed approach are:
• The provision of peak flows to compensate for narrowing of all riparian flow related
functions and wetland loss.
• Provision of long term management plans for improving river floodplain access as well as
periodic manual scour (creation of bare sites) to support maintenance of future forests and
resilience of native woody species.
• The loss of critical ecological services associated with flooding in the riparian zone must be
addressed through mitigation.
Proposal/Recommendation: Peak flows are the cornerstone of riparian and wetland resources.
Peaks flows therefore should be a central component to any plan to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the
impacts. Any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation should also address the issues described
above.
10.10 RESOURCES FOR SECTION 10
The following references were used in the preparation of this Section 10.
• Annear, T., I. Chisholm, H. Beecher, A. Locke, and 12 other authors. 2004. Instream flows
for riverine resource stewardship, revised edition. Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, WY.
• Bovee, K.D., B.L. Lamb, J.M. Bartholow, C.B. Stalnaker, J. Taylor and J. Henriksen. 1998.
Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. U.S. Geological
Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD-
1998-0004, viii+131pp.
• Bredehoeft JD, Papadopulos SS, Cooper HH. 1982. Groundwater: the Water Budget Myth.
In Scientific Basis of Water-Resource Management, Studies in Geophysics, Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
• Browne C. 2014. Surface water and groundwater exchange along the Cache la Poudre River:
considerations for conservation planning. Colorado State University.
• City of Fort Collins 2015a. River Health Assessment Framework. City of Fort Collins.
Available at: http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/river-health-report-final.pdf
• City of Fort Collins, 2015b. ERM Supplemental Report: Analysis of NISP Hydrology
Scenarios, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department.
• Colorado State University, 2015, access on 8-17-2015 at
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/eab_threat_urbanforests.pdf
• Eamus D, Froend R, Loomes R, Hose G, Murray B. 2006. A functional methodology for
determining the groundwater regime needed to maintain the health of groundwater-
dependent vegetation. Australian Journal of Botany, 54:97-114.
• Fish Survey, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Cache La Poudre Fish Survey and Management
Information.
1
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 108 of 108
http://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Fishery%20Survey%20Summaries/CachelaPoudreRiverCa
nyon.pdf
• Healy RW. 2010. Estimating Groundwater Recharge. Cambridge University Press.
• Merritt DM and DA Lytle. 2004. Hydrologic Regimes and Riparian Forests: A Structured
Population Model For Cottonwood. Ecology 85:2493–2503
• Merritt DM, Scott ML, Poff NL, Auble G, Lytle D. 2010. Theory, methods and tools for
determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riparian vegetation-flow response
guilds. Freshwater Biology 55: 206-225.
• Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain ME. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and
Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA.
• Naiman RJ, Decamps H, Pollock M. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining
regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3:209-212.
• Nilsson C and M Svedmark. 2002. Environmental Management. Oct;30 (4):468-80.
• Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg
JC. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration.
BioScience 47: 769-784.
• Shanahan J.O., D.W. Baker, B.P. Bledsoe, N.L. Poff, D.M. Merritt, K.R. Bestgen, G.T.
Auble, B.C. Kondratieff, J.G. Stokes, M. Lorie and J.S. Sanderson (2014) An Ecological
Response Model for the Cache la Poudre River through Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins
Natural Areas Department, Fort Collins, CO. 93 pp + appendices. Available at:
http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/erm_report.pdf
• Stromberg JC, VB Beauchamp, MD Dixon, SJ Lite, and C Paradzick, 2007. Importance of
low-flow and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in
arid south-western United States. Freshwater Biology, 52:651-679.
• USGS, 1982, Guidelines for determining flood-flow frequency: Bulletin 17B of the
Hydrology Subcommittee, Office of Water Data Coordination, U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston,Va., 183 Accessed online on 7/4/15 at
http://water.usgs.gov/osw/bulletin17b/bulletin_17B.html
• USGS. 2001. PHABSIM for Windows, User’s Manual and Exercises. Midcontinent
Ecological Science Center, November 2001, Open File Report 01-340.
• Webb RH and SA Leake. 2006. Ground-water and surface-water interactions and long term
change in riverine riparian vegetation in the southwestern United States. Journal of
Hydrology, 320: 302-323.
• Windy Gap Firming Project FEIS. 2011. US Bureau of Reclamation.
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/wgfp_feis/feis_chapter_3.pdf
[Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally]
1
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
APPENDIX A:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ COMMENTS ON SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT
LIST OF SELECTED PREPARERS OF COMMENTS
1. CITY OF FORT COLLINS STAFF
Donnie Dustin, P.E. Donnie Dustin is the Water Resources Manager for the City of Fort
Collins Utilities. His education includes a B.S. in Geology from James Madison University in
Virginia and a M.S. in Civil Engineering (with emphasis in Water Resources Planning and
Management) from Colorado State University. He is a registered professional engineer in
Colorado and has been employed by the City of Fort Collins for approximately 17 years, 10 of
which has been with the Utilities Water Resources Division. His duties and expertise includes
developing policies related to water supply system operations and development, and demand
management. He has provided criteria and guidance related to hydrologic and water rights
allocation modeling. He oversees the management of the City’s raw water supplies including the
administration of relevant water rights decrees. He also serves on the governing boards of two
irrigation companies.
Keith Elmund, Ph.D. After serving as an officer in the U.S. Air Force, Keith came back
to CSU and finished his Ph.D. in environmental microbiology. He has been with the City of Fort
Collins Utilities for over thirty-five years and since 1984 has served as Environmental Services
Manager. In this role, he manages both the City’s certified drinking water quality and pollution
control labs. Beginning in 2006, he helped implement the Poudre River Monitoring Alliance that
was part of EPA’s award winning “performance track” environmental leadership program. This
ongoing program joins together the Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley, the Town of Windsor, the
Boxelder and South Fort Collins Sanitation Districts, and Carestream Health, with CSU, the
North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association and the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division in a collaborative effort to monitor and help protect water quality in over 42 miles of
the lower Poudre.
Cameron Gloss, AICP. Cameron Gloss is the Planning Manager for the City of Fort
Collins. Since entering the field in 1984, his public and private sector experience includes an
array of work including comprehensive community planning, subarea and neighborhood
planning, transportation master planning, land development review, sustainability modeling, and
the crafting of land use regulations. Prior to his most recent role with the City of Fort Collins,
Cameron spent five years working with the Fort Collins offices of both AECOM and Clarion
Associates where he acted as a Senior Planner, leading community planning projects over a
dozen states, primarily within the western region. Mr. Gloss holds a B.S. in Geography (urban
emphasis), Arizona State University, 1983. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified
Planners.
Adam Jokerst, P.E. Adam Jokerst is a Water Resources Engineer for the City of Fort
Collins Utilities. His education includes a B.S. in Biological and Agricultural Engineering from
1
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 2 of 6
the University of Arkansas and a M.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University. He
is a registered professional engineer in Colorado and has been employed by the City of Fort
Collins for approximately three years with the Utilities Water Resources Division. His main
function at the Utilities is to provide hydrologic, water rights, and system modeling used to
assess the Utilities’ current and future water and infrastructure needs. In addition, he acts as
project manager for the Halligan Water Supply Project. He is also knowledgeable in the areas of
water resources engineering, planning and management and provides his expertise to develop
policies, maintain and protect water rights, and provide water supply and use information.
Bonnie Pierce, Ph.D. Bonnie Pierce is an Environmental Data Analyst in the Fort Collins
Environmental Services Department. Dr. Pierce’s work for Fort Collins focuses on climate
change and air, water, and hazardous waste matters including those related to oil and gas
operations. Dr. Pierce is the City’s project manager for the Poudre River Area and North
College Ave. Innovation District Brownfields Assessment project. Her previous job assignments
include Program Principal and Senior Project Manager for the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Division for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Associate Director for
Natural Resources, State of the Parks program, National Parks Conservation Association. Dr.
Pierce received her Ph.D. in Soil Science from Colorado State University.
Jill Oropeza. Watershed Specialist for the City of Fort Collins Utilities and
Secretary/Reserved Seat Member of the Coalition for the Poudre Watershed. Jill has worked as
the Watershed Specialist for the Fort Collins Utilities Source Watershed Program since 2007.
The City’s Watershed Program monitors water quality of the Upper Poudre River and
Horsetooth Reservoir in collaboration with the City of Greeley and the Tri-Districts in effort to
identify and address issues that affect drinking water treatment operations and watershed health.
Jill holds a Master’s degree from CSU in Ecology and has over 12 years of experience working
on natural resource issues in the state of Colorado.
Eric R. Potyondy, Esq. Eric Potyondy is an Assistant City Attorney in the Fort Collins
City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Potyondy’s work for Fort Collins focuses on water-related issues,
including water rights, water quality, and related matters. Prior to working for Fort Collins, Mr.
Potyondy was in private practice in Colorado for nearly six years, with his practice focusing
almost exclusively on water rights and related matters. Mr. Potyondy has litigated numerous
cases in the Colorado District Courts for various Water Divisions and the Colorado Supreme
Court. Prior to private practice, Mr. Potyondy worked for two years as the water law clerk for
Hon. Chief Judge Roger A. Klein, District Court, Water Division 1, State of Colorado. Mr.
Potyondy received his Juris Doctor degree and his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University
of Colorado.
Kenneth C. Sampley, P.E. Ken Sampley manages the Water Utilities Engineering
Division of Fort Collins Utilities consisting of a multi-disciplinary team of 13 employees that
provide stormwater and floodplain management, flood warning and emergency preparedness,
stormwater master planning, stream rehabilitation and stormwater water quality, development
review for new stormwater, water and wastewater improvements, and water distribution and
1
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 3 of 6
wastewater collection system capacity. Ken is a licensed professional engineer in the State of
Colorado and has over 34 years of experience. He worked for 3 years in consulting engineering,
26 years for the City of Colorado Springs, and the last 5 years for the City of Fort Collins. Ken
graduated from Colorado State University with a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering, specializing
in hydrology and hydraulics. He obtained his M.P.A. degree from the University of Colorado.
Jennifer Shanahan. Jennifer Shanahan is an environmental planner for the City of Fort
Collins, Natural Areas Department. Jen leads and participates a variety of planning processes
related to management of the City’s 42 natural areas with a particular focus on a spectrum of
issues and projects surrounding the Poudre River. These include collaborative landscape-level
planning, application of river science to policy and management, report development on
integrative river models and monitoring projects, and communication of technical Poudre River
issues to the broader community. She holds a master’s degree from the Department of Forest
Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship at Colorado State University, with a research focus in
riparian restoration.
John Stokes. John Stokes is the Director of the City’s Natural Areas Department. The
Department manages over 40,000 acres of conserved land, including approximately 1,800 acres
along the Poudre River in Fort Collins. John is a member of the Colorado Water Institute
initiative the Poudre Runs Through It, a regional collaborative group working on issues related to
river health and water supply. In that capacity John has initiated an instream flow collaboration
with various regional partners as well as an annual Poudre River Forum that has generated
substantial participation from the community. John is a member of the South Platte Basin
Roundtable as one of two environmental representatives. In 2014 John was recognized by the
Colorado Water Trust with the David Getches Flowing Waters Award which recognized John’s
efforts to restore and improve Poudre flows.
2. OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS
Daniel Baker. Daniel Baker is a research scientist at Colorado State University (CSU). In
the summer of 2012 Dan completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Johns Hopkins University,
working with the National Science Foundation-funded National Center for Earth Surface
Dynamics and the Intermountain Center for River Rehabilitation and Restoration based at Utah
State University. He completed his PhD in civil and environmental engineering in 2009 at CSU,
with a focus on river engineering and stream restoration. Dan’s research focuses on the
interaction between physical and biochemical processes in streams, the effects of flow extraction
on stream geomorphology and sediment dynamics, and the application of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) technology to evaluate reach-scale conditions from digital elevation
models. Other current projects focus on developing urban stream restoration guidance with the
USACE and monitoring post-fire sediments and aquatic insects on the Poudre River.
Brian Bledsoe. Brian Bledsoe is a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Colorado State University. Brian has more than 25 years of experience as an engineer and
environmental scientist in the private and public sectors, including more than 20 years of
1
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 4 of 6
experience in stream and wetland restoration. Brian’s research and teaching are focused on
watershed and river processes at the interface of hydrology and aquatic ecology. He has worked
in the private sector as a consulting engineer and surveyor, and for the state of North Carolina as
a stream and wetland restoration specialist and nonpoint source program coordinator. Brian has
served as a peer reviewer on recovery programs for the Platte and San Juan Rivers, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP), as well as on numerous large-scale restoration projects including the Everglades and
Louisiana coastal areas. Brian is a licensed professional engineer in Colorado and North
Carolina.
Claudia A. Browne. Claudia Browne, is a Water Resources Specialist and the Southern
Rocky Mountain Bioregion Leader at Biohabitats Inc. (since 2004), a national ecological
consulting firm specializing in restoration, conservation planning and regenerative design. Ms.
Browne has over 30 years of experience in environmental protection and water resource
management with expertise in habitat assessments, riparian and wetland restoration and
maintenance, groundwater monitoring well installations, surface water and groundwater data
collection and evaluation, wetland permitting soil sampling and data evaluation, point-flow
analysis, water budgets, conceptual hydrogeologic model development, and groundwater
modeling. Ms. Browne has been the Project Manager for the Fort Collins Wetland and Riparian
Restoration On-Call contract since 2008. As such, she has participated in a wide range of City’s
river projects including assisting with the Poudre River Management Plan update; assessing the
groundwater-surface water regime for multiple properties, and; restoration planning efforts
including prioritizing potential restoration projects, identifying focal species and habitat types,
and helping develop restoration concept plans. Ms Browne is also providing ecological master
planning assistance for the Poudre River Downtown Master Plan for the City. Her role has
included developing habitat goals and objectives for 10 miles of river through the City’s urban
core, mapping priority habitat areas, collaborating with wildlife biologists and stakeholders, and
identifying opportunities and constraints. Ms. Browne received her B.S in Natural Resources
from Cornell University and her M.S. in Ecology from Colorado State University
Jordan Furnans, Ph.D., P.E., P.G. Dr. Furnans is a Senior Water Resources Engineer
with INTERA Incorporated, and engineering and geosciences consulting firm in Austin, TX. Dr.
Furnans holds a PhD in civil engineering and an MSE in environmental and water resources
engineering, both from the University of Texas at Austin, and a BSE in civil and geological
engineering from Princeton University. Dr. Furnans has 16 years of professional experience that
encompasses both field hydrologic data collection and the analysis of data through the
development and application of numerical models. He specializes in the areas of water right
accounting; coupled field and model hydrodynamic investigations of estuaries, lakes, and rivers;
linking water quality and hydrodynamics in natural systems; water availability modeling;
watershed hydrology planning and management; hydrographic and sedimentation survey
methods; and freshwater inflow and instream flow requirements for ecosystem health. Some of
Dr. Furnans’ recent experience includes developing expert testimony for water rights litigation
efforts, accounting plan development and water rights analysis, performing model reviews,
developing an automated bathymetric data processing system for volumetric and sediment
1
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 5 of 6
surveying, aiding development of instream flow recommendations for rivers in Oklahoma, and
modeling circulation in lakes.
Andrew Herb. Mr. Herb, owner of AlpineEco (founded in 2007) has worked as an
ecologist in the Rocky Mountain Region for over 16 years. Although most of his work has been
in Colorado and Utah, he has worked in nearly all the Rocky Mountain, Great Plains, and Great
Basin States, as well as in Korea, Japan, Guam, and Puerto Rico. His work involves most aspects
of field ecology, with a focus on wetlands. He is currently the president of the Rocky Mountain
Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists, which is an international organization committed to
improving the management of wetlands through sound science and education. He is also the
founder and chairperson of SWS’s Wetland Restoration Section, which brings together
professionals from around the world to share information on wetland restoration. His
commitment to science and the environment, combined with his practical approach to problem-
solving results in creative, cost-effective, and ecosystem-friendly approaches to projects. Mr.
Herb is also the owner of AlpineEco Nursery (founded in 2012) which provides native wetland
and riparian plants for ecological restoration.
William Lewis, Jr., Ph.D. Dr. Lewis is professor and Director of the Center for
Limnology, University of Colorado Boulder, and serves as Associate Director of the CU Boulder
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. His interests in research and
teaching include ecological characteristics and processes of inland waters (lakes, streams, and
wetlands). Research for Dr. Lewis and his students focuses mainly on biogeochemical processes,
ecosystem modeling, effects of water pollution and hydrologic changes on aquatic ecosystems
and organisms, composition and abundance of aquatic organisms under natural and
anthropogenically altered conditions, and productivity of aquatic ecosystems. Dr. Lewis has
published over 200 journal articles related to these research interests. He is recipient of the
Renewable Natural Resources Foundation Sustained Achievement Award and of the Baldi
Award and the Naumann-Thienemann Medal of the International Society for Limnology. He has
served as a member of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology and on the Water
Science and Technology Board of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council.
John Putnam, Esq. John Putnam is an attorney and partner at the law firm of Kaplan
Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP, in Denver. Mr. Putnam’s practice emphasizes counseling and
litigation for public and private entities on complex issues of environmental law, especially for
large public and public/private projects. Mr. Putnam has extensive experience providing clients
nationwide with strategic advice on large and controversial development and transportation
projects, including airports, highways, real estate development, telecommunications facilities,
and other infrastructure. He counsels clients regarding a wide range of environmental,
transportation and development issues, including the National Environmental Policy Act,
wetlands, air quality, climate change, sustainability, air toxics, noise, tolling and innovative
finance, land use, endangered species, floodplains, municipal law, transportation regulations and
Native American jurisdiction. Mr. Putnam received his Juris Doctor degree from the University
of Chicago and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Williams College.
1
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
City of Fort Collins NISP SDEIS Comments
Appendix A
Dated September 3, 2015
Page 6 of 6
Jennifer Roberson. Jennifer is a professional research assistant with the Center for
Limnology at the University of Colorado Boulder, within the Cooperative Institute for Research
in Environmental Sciences. Her duties include data assembly, data analysis, and synthesis of
information for reports and publications of the Center for Limnology. She holds a Bachelor’s
Degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Colorado Boulder and has
extensive experience in fieldwork, laboratory analyses, data analysis, and document preparation
related to water quality, aquatic life, water quality regulations and related matters specifically for
Colorado.
1
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Exhibit A (3490 : NISP Comments RESO)
Agenda Item 23
Item # 23 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2015, Amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to the
Addition of Permitted Uses in Eight Zone Districts. (Option A or Option B)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to amend the Land Use Code to require City Council review of Addition of Permitted
Use (APU) applications in eight residential zone districts. Second Reading of this Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2015, was postponed to this date and time to allow time to develop the
revised final ordinance.
Two APU process options are proposed for City Council consideration:
Option A is a bifurcated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would make a decision on a
development plan conditional upon Council approval of the APU application and then forward a
recommendation to Council on the APU.
Option B is a consolidated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would review a consolidated
APU/development plan application and make a recommendation to the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 080, 2015, Option B, which requires City Council review of
consolidated Development Plan/APU applications.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At its public hearing on July 21, 2015, City Council requested that staff develop a revised ordinance amending
the APU provisions of the Land Use Code. As the Planning and legal staff began preparing the APU process
ordinance for City Council consideration, it became clear that more work needed to be done to clarify how
related land development applications associated with an APU request would be reviewed by City Council.
Staff has prepared two options for Council consideration:
Option A is a bifurcated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would make a decision on a
development plan conditional upon Council approval of the APU application and then forward a
recommendation to Council on the APU. City Council would separately consider an appeal of the
Planning and Zoning Board decision on the development plan, if any.
Option B is a consolidated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would review a
consolidated APU/development plan application and make a recommendation to the City Council. The
City Council would be the final decision maker on the APU/development plan; therefore, there would
be no appeal process for either application.
23
Packet Pg. 347
Agenda Item 23
Item # 23 Page 2
Both options presented would apply solely to the following eight (8) predominantly residential zone districts:
Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
Urban Estate District (U-E)
Residential Foothills District (R-F)
Low Density Residential District (R-L)
Low Density Mixed – Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B)
Since the date of the First Reading, staff has received a citizen request to consider additional changes to the
APU provisions of the Land Use Code related to the public notification and City Council public hearing review
processes. Under Section 2.2.6 of the Land Use Code, all property owners within 800 feet of the parcel of land
proposed for development are mailed a written notice regarding the development application. A request has
been received to extend the standard distance by an additional 520 feet for a total of 1,320 feet (one quarter
mile). Staff is not convinced that a Code amendment is warranted since all rezoning requests for parcels under
40 acres require an 800 foot notice radius, the Director has the discretion to expand the notification area under
the present Code, and the staff routinely exercises this right by expanding the radius so that appropriate
notification is provided. Additionally, a request was made to create a unique order of City Council public
hearing proceeding for APU applications, whereby:
1. Equal presentation time is provided for the applicant and citizens in opposition and there is a
procedure for any organized group(s) to give a single presentation;
2. There is a balanced structure between participants, so if there is a rebuttal period for the applicant
there is also an opportunity for the citizens in opposition to offer rebuttal;
3. There is no staff recommendation; and
4. The staff presentation before the City Council is unaltered from that provided at the Planning and
Zoning Board hearing.
Staff does not recommend adoption of any of the suggested changes to the established order of proceedings
since such changes would be inconsistent with the procedures for City Council review of quasi-judicial zoning
or rezoning applications.
On September 15, 2015, staff will present for Council consideration a resolution adopting revisions to the
Council Meeting Rules of Procedure establishing the details of the process for consideration of the matters to
come before Council under either Option A or Option B.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on August 13, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board voted (4-2) to recommend that
City Council adopt Option B, the consolidated process.
Planning and Zoning Board continues to express its perspective that no changes be made to Section 1.3.4 of
the Land Use Code and the procedures for APU reviews; however, the majority of Board members indicated a
preference for the APU and development plan applications to be reviewed as one interrelated package, given
the two options provided.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, July 7, 2015 (PDF)
2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 13, 2015 (draft) (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
23
Packet Pg. 348
Agenda Item 23
Item # 23 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 7, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Addition of Permitted Use Amended Process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2015, Imposing a Moratorium Upon the Application or Effectiveness
of Section 1.3.4(D) of the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Addition of Permitted Uses by the Planning and
Zoning Board. (OPTION 1)
or
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2015, Amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to
the Addition of Permitted Uses in Nine Zone Districts. (OPTION 2 - Residential Zones Only)
or
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2015, Amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to
the Addition of Permitted Uses in All Zone Districts. (OPTION 3 – All Zones)
The purpose of this item is to amend the Land Use Code to require City Council review of Addition of Permitted
Use (APU) applications in nine residential zone districts or in all zone districts or, alternatively, enact a
moratorium on such applications for a period no longer than five years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends no Land Use Code changes to Section 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses (APU).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The ability of the Planning and Zoning Board to consider adding uses, which are already defined in the Land
Use Code, to zone districts where such uses are otherwise not permitted was introduced into the Land Use
Code in 2008.
A series of recent Land Use Code amendments have been made to address concerns that the degree of
flexibility afforded to developing property owners under the APU process has been provided at the expense of
neighborhood livability and character, and that the outcomes are too unpredictable. Over the past three years,
the Code requirements were expanded to include the requirement for two neighborhood meetings, additional
criteria that include safeguards that protect predominant neighborhood character, and the requirement that
changes to the location, size, design or operating characteristics to an existing APU trigger a new APU review.
The Planning and Zoning Board continues to receive input on these revisions, including a specific citizen
request to prohibit the APU process in nine (9) zone districts however, this input did not result in the requested
prohibition. The following predominantly residential zone districts where the APU would not be applicable, as
identified in the citizen request, are:
ATTACHMENT 1
23.1
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, July 7, 2015 (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Agenda Item 23
Item # 23 Page 2
Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
Urban Estate District (U-E)
Residential Foothills District (R-F)
Low Density Residential District (R-L)
Low Density Mixed –Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N)
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B)
At its public hearing on June 2, City Council requested that staff develop potential options for a moratorium on
APU applications within the aforementioned districts.
Staff has prepared three options for Council consideration:
Option 1 – 5-year moratorium on APU applications.
The suggested moratorium period roughly coincides with the completion of the upcoming City Plan
Update.
Option 2 – City Council review of APU applications within 9 zone districts.
Under this approach, City Council would be the decision maker on standalone APU applications and those
development plan applications consolidated with a request for an APU. Council consideration would follow an
APU review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board. This option pertains solely to APU
applications within the nine aforementioned districts.
Option 3 – City Council review of APU applications in all zone districts.
The third option extends City Council purview of APU review as described in Option 2 to properties in
all zone districts.
Staff concurs with the Planning and Zoning Board’s position that recent changes to the Land Use Code
sufficiently address neighborhood concerns and that no Code changes are needed at this time. However,
should the Council determine that a Land Use Code change is warranted, staff recommends Option 2, with the
suggested modification that the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) be removed from the list of
applicable zone district since the MMN districts typically abut commercial areas or other activity centers and
are more removed from established detached single family neighborhoods.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
None.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on May 14, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that
no changes be made to Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code. At its regular meeting on May 14, 2015, the
Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that no changes be made to Section 1.3.4 of the
Land Use Code (Attachment 1). The Board views the APU as the key tool for providing flexibility in land uses
as the community transitions to a small, urban city. Just as the Modification of Standard allows for flexibility in
specific design standards, the APU provides land use flexibility (see Attachment 2 - P & Z summary).
23.1
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, July 7, 2015 (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Agenda Item 23
Item # 23 Page 3
PUBLIC OUTREACH
There has been no public outreach on the APU process since the adoption of the most recent revisions in
September 2014.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning and Zoning Board minutes (draft), May 14, 2015 (PDF)
2. Planning and Zoning Board memo to Council, June 23, 2015 (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
23.1
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, July 7, 2015 (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2015
Page 1
Other Business
Addition of Permitted Use – City Council Process Options
Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief description of this topic, stating that a specific process had
not been solidified for evaluation of a development plan associated with an APU. Legal and
Planning Staff have developed 2 options:
Option A is a draft ordinance where City Council would review the APU as a
separate action, conditioning its approval on the successful approval of a
development plan by the P&Z Board. The City Council would hear potential
appeals of a P&Z Board decision on development plans.
Option B is a consolidated process whereby the P&Z Board would review both the
APU and the development plans but would not take action; rather it would be a
recommendation to City Council, who would then evaluate both applications at a
public hearing and make a decision. There would be no appeal process at that
point.
Board Questions and Staff Response
Member Hobbs clarified that this process has been characterized as “spot” rezoning; he asked
whether, in a rezoning situation, if an Overall Development Plan (ODP) is also linked to the APU
and if it would also go straight to City Council as a linked issue. Planning Manager Gloss
responded by saying that, typically, an ODP would seldom be coupled with an APU. Deputy
City Attorney Eckman stated that the code currently allows this to occur, although Option B has
excluded final plans.
Public Input
Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Drive, has a concern with the two options being offered for
the APU process. She does not feel either option represents the citizen concerns that have
been brought up in the past.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, also has concerns with the APU options. He discussed
the language of “prohibited uses” and “detrimental to public good”, stating he does not believe
that the standard will impact future citizen participation.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, stated his concern about the APU criteria, not the process.
He acknowledged that the hearing process is of vital importance. He also believes the current
process is biased against citizens; he would like to see citizens given more time for
presentations and rebuttals.
Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns
Planning Manager Gloss responded to the citizen concerns by saying the P&Z Board could
consider some of the citizen suggestions.
ATTACHMENT 2
23.2
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 13, 2015 (draft) (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2015
Page 2
Board Questions and Staff Response
Member Schneider stated his disappointment that this process has been ongoing with no
acceptable resolution; he is more in favor of Option B, but would like to see more time spent
developing this process overall. Member Heinz agreed and is in favor of continuing the
discussion. Planning Manager Gloss confirmed that, while City Council is scheduled to review
the P&Z Board recommendation on September 1st, this item could still be continued to a later
date. Member Hart suggested that one of the options could be recommended with work
continuing on the process. He explained the use of “detrimental to the public good”, and he
suggested that a future process could allow citizens to respond to Staff. He prefers Option B,
but acknowledged that he is not truly satisfied with either option at this time. Member Hobbs
stated the positive aspects of allowing citizen time for rebuttals as well as the drawbacks
(having large citizen groups requiring extensive amounts of time). He also suggested the
possibility of having a different process for APU submittals. Deputy City Attorney Eckman
clarified that the P&Z Chair can run each meeting and grant citizen and applicant time to speak
as needed. More discussion continued among Board members. Member Hart suggested that
this process be reviewed at a future work session. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified both
options and then stated that the P&Z Board can make any recommendation to City Council they
wish, including no recommendation at all. Member Heinz suggested that a rebuttal period for
citizens be added to the APU process as well. Chair Carpenter suggested that the Board select
one of the options and allow City Council to modify it as necessary. The Board is concerned
that there is a moratorium currently in effect, so passing one of these options would at least lift
the moratorium at present.
Member Hart motioned that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council
approve Option B, Ordinance No. 080, 2015, relating to amending Section 1.3.4 of the
Land Use Code, pertaining to the Addition of Permitted Uses in eight zone districts.
Member Schneider seconded. Chair Carpenter added a friendly amendment to this motion
that City Council gets the minutes from the P&Z hearing to provide background for this
recommendation. In addition, Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that “final plans” will be
removed from Option B. Member Hart amended his motion to reflect these amendments.
Member Schneider restated his reservations with this recommendation. Member Hobbs cannot
support this motion, because both options appear to be narrowing the options for the
community, and they reduce the citizen options for appealing decisions. He stated that he
would prefer to keep the APU process status quo. Member Hart agrees, but he would still like
to move the process forward. He feels that the APU has been an effective tool in the past with
very few times being overturned. Member Hansen will not support either recommendation; he
feels the long-term ramifications of putting either of these options in place would overshadow
the current issue of causing project delays. Member Schneider clarified that the process of the
hearing is separate from this ordinance; therefore, he questioned whether both should be
considered simultaneously. Member Heinz will somewhat support Option B, with the idea that
further work will be performed in the future. Chair Carpenter will support the motion because
City Council requested the P&Z Board to choose among these options and will trust City
Council’s final decision. Vote: 4:2, with Member Hansen and Member Hobbs opposed.
23.2
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 13, 2015 (draft) (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Addition of Permitted Use Land Use Code Amendment
9-1-15 Cameron Gloss
ATTACHMENT 3
23.3
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Two APU Process Options
2
Option A: Bifurcated Process
• Planning and Zoning Board decision maker on development plan,
subject to Council APU approval
• City Council decision maker on APU
• Possible appeal of development plan to Council
Option B: Consolidated Process
• Planning and Zoning Board recommendation on APU/development
plan
• City Council decision maker on consolidated APU/development
plan
23.3
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Public Notification Requirements
3
• Minimum Notification = 800 feet
• Rezoning for Parcels < 40 acres = 800 feet
• Developments > 100 mf units = 1,000 feet
• Notification area can be extended at Director’s discretion
23.3
Packet Pg. 356
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Public Hearing Proceedings
4
1: Director Overview
2: Applicant Presentation
3: Staff Presentation, including recommendation
4: Staff Response to Applicant Presentation
5: Public Testimony
6: Applicant Response
7: Staff Response to Public Testimony or Applicant Response
23.3
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3487 : SR 080 APU)
Applicable Zone Districts
5
City Council review of APU applications within 8 zone districts:
• Rural Land Use (R-U-L)
• Residential Foothills Development (R-F)
• Urban Estate (U-E)
• Low Density Residential (R-L)
• Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L)
• Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (N-C-M)
• Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B)
• Low Density Mixed –Use Neighborhood (L-M-N)
23.3
Packet Pg. 358
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3487 : SR 080 APU)
- 1 -
OPTION A
ORDINANCE NO. 080, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 1.3.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USES
IN EIGHT ZONE DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code contains provisions whereby additional
uses can be permitted in zone districts under a process involving either the Planning and Zoning
Board or the Director; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed to members of the City Council from some
residential property owners that the addition of uses under the process provided in Section 1.3.4
within residential neighborhoods diminishes residential property values, increases
incompatibility between uses and causes unpredictable outcomes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the addition of permitted use process established in Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code should
be amended so that the decision on the proposed additional use will be made by the City Council
after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board in any of the following zone districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
. . .
(C) Procedures and Required Findings. In conjunction with an application for
approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any
amendment of the foregoing, and upon the petition of the applicant or on the Director's
own initiative, the Director, or with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection
(G) the Planning and Zoning Board, or with respect to the zone districts listed in
subsection (G) City Council by ordinance, after recommendation from the Planning and
Packet Pg. 359
- 2 -
Zoning Board, as specifically authorized and limited in subsection (D) below) may add to
the uses specified in a particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all
of the following conditions The following procedures and required findings shall apply
to Addition of Permitted Use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning
Board, and City Council respectively:
(1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall
development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing
(the “Primary Application” for purposes of this Section only), for property not located
in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval
of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be
determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an Addition of
Permitted Use in conjunction with the Primary Application, the Director in his or her
sole discretion may initiate the Addition of Permitted Use process. The Director may
add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to
all of the following criteria:
(1) (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
(2) (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and
the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
(3) (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has
minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
(4) (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic
hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts,
adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services,
adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse
impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other
permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added.
(5) (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding
area.
(6) (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added.
(7) (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential
neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the
Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review
process, that the development proposal would not have any significant
neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior
to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must
Packet Pg. 360
- 3 -
take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has
completed the first round of staff review.
(8) (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-
452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section
15-603 of the City Code.
(2) Planning and Zoning Board Approval. In conjunction with a Primary Application
for a project not located, in whole or in part, in any zone district listed in subsection
(G), the applicant may apply for approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses
described in subsection (B)(2) to be determined by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically
finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1);
(2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the
requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed
as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The
Addition of a Permitted Use by the Board shall be specific to the proposed project
and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D) below.
(3) City Council Approval. In conjunction with a Primary Application for a project
located, in whole or in part, in a zone district listed in subsection (G), any application
for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use shall be determined by the City
Council after a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation on the Addition of
Permitted Use. The Planning and Zoning Board shall remain the decision maker on
the Primary Application.
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a
proposed use described in subsection (B)(1) be added if the Board specifically
finds that such use conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1).
The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a
proposed use described in subsection (B)(2) be added if the Board specifically
finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection
(C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in
compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4)
is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the
proposed site is located.
(b) In considering the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and in
determining whether a proposed use should be added, the City Council shall
follow the notice and hearing requirements that are established for zonings and
rezonings of areas of no more than six-hundred forty acres in size, as set forth in
Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use Code.
(c) In deciding the Addition of Permitted Use application for uses described in
subsection (B)(1), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning
Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds
Packet Pg. 361
- 4 -
that such use conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). In
deciding the Addition of Permitted Use application for uses described in
subsection (B)(2), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning
Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds
that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1);
(2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with
the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically
listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is
located. The City Council’s action on the Addition of Permitted Use shall be by
ordinance. The Addition of a Permitted Use by City Council shall be specific to
the proposed project and shall not be considered for a text amendment under
subsection (D). The City Council’s decision on the Addition of Permitted Use
shall not be appealable and, if applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights
and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13.
(d) If the Addition of Permitted Use is denied, any Primary Application that has been
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board contingent upon the City Council’s
approval of an Additional Permitted Use under this Section shall be automatically
terminated and made null if such condition is not met; and any pending appeal of
such conditional approval shall also be automatically terminated if such condition
is not met, whereupon the appellant shall be promptly refunded any appeal fee
that was paid to the City.
(D) Planning and Zoning Board Authority and Limitation.
(1) In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development
plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing in
any zone district not listed in subsection (G), the Planning and Zoning Board may
add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use would not be
detrimental to the public good and would be in compliance with the requirements
and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1, provided that such addition of a proposed
use by the Planning and Zoning Board must be specific to the proposed site and
shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (E) below and
provided further that such use is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the
zone district in which the proposed site is located.
(2) In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development
plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing
in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the Planning and Zoning Board may
add recommend to the City Council that a proposed use be added if the Board
specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good and
would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section
3.5.1, provided that such addition of a proposed use by the City Council must be
specific to the proposed site and shall not be considered for a text amendment
under subsection (E) below and provided further that such use is not specifically
listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is
Packet Pg. 362
- 5 -
located. In considering the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board
and in determining whether a proposed use should be added, the City Council by
ordinance, shall follow the notice and hearing requirements that are established
for it pursuant to Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use Code pertaining to text and map
amendments.
(E) (D) Codification of New Use. When any use described in subsection (B)(1) has
been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance
with subsection (C)(1) above, such use shall be promptly considered for an amendment to
the text of this Code under Division 2.9. If the text amendment is approved, such use
shall be deemed to be permanently listed in the appropriate permitted use list of the
appropriate zone district and shall be added to the published text of this Code, at the first
convenient opportunity, by ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2.9. If the text
amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently listed in the zone
district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a permitted use in such zone
district for only the development proposal for which it was originally approved under
subsection (C)(1) above.
(F) (E) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in
any zone district in accordance with this Section, the Director, (or the Planning and
Zoning Board with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection (G), or the City
Council with respect to any zone district listed in subsection (G), the City Council after
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board may impose such conditions and
requirements, (including, but not limited to, conditions related to the location, size and
design), on such use as are necessary or desirable to: (1) accomplish the purposes and
intent of this Code, (2) ensure consistency with the City Plan and its adopted components
and associated sub-area plans, or (3) prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts.
(G) (F) Changes to Approved Addition of Permitted Use. Approvals under this
Section are specific to the subject Addition of Permitted Use application. Any changes to
the use or to its location, size and design, in a manner that changes the predominant
character of or increases the negative impact upon the surrounding area, will require the
approval of a new Addition of Permitted Use.
(G) Zones Subject to City Council Addition of Permitted Use Review. The City
Council shall make all final determinations regarding anythe Aaddition of Ppermitted
Uuses under subsection (DC)(3) with respect to propertya project located, in whole or in
part, in any of the following zone districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
Packet Pg. 363
- 6 -
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
July, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 364
- 1 -
OPTION B
ORDINANCE NO. 080, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 1.3.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USES
IN EIGHT ZONE DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code contains provisions whereby additional
uses can be permitted in zone districts under a process involving either the Planning and Zoning
Board or the Director; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed to members of the City Council from some
residential property owners that the addition of uses under the process provided in Section 1.3.4
within residential neighborhoods diminishes residential property values, increases
incompatibility between uses and causes unpredictable outcomes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the addition of permitted use process established in Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code should
be amended so that the decision on the proposed additional use will be made by the City Council
after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board in any of the following zone districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
WHEREAS, in order to effectively determine whether to approve a proposed additional
use in the aforementioned zone districts, the City Council has determined that it is in the best
interests of the City that the City Council be the decision maker for the land use application
associated with the proposed additional use after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
. . .
Packet Pg. 365
- 2 -
(C) Procedures and Required Findings. In conjunction with an application for
approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any
amendment of the foregoing, and upon the petition of the applicant or on the Director's
own initiative, the Director, or with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection
(G) the Planning and Zoning Board, or with respect to the zone districts listed in
subsection (G) City Council by ordinance, after recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Board, as specifically authorized and limited in subsection (D) below) may add to
the uses specified in a particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all
of the following conditions The following procedures and required findings shall apply
to Addition of Permitted Use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning
Board, and City Council respectively:
(1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall
development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing
(the “Primary Application” for purposes of this Section only), for property not located
in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval
of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be
determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an Addition of
Permitted Use in conjunction with the Primary Application, the Director in his or her
sole discretion may initiate the Addition of Permitted Use process. The Director may
add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use as described in
subsection (B)(1) which conforms to all of the following criteria:
(1) (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
(2) (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and
the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
(3) (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has
minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
(4) (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic
hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts,
adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services,
adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse
impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other
permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added.
(5) (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding
area.
(6) (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added.
Packet Pg. 366
- 3 -
(7) (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential
neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the
Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review
process, that the development proposal would not have any significant
neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior
to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must
take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has
completed the first round of staff review.
(8) (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-
452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section
15-603 of the City Code.
(2) Planning and Zoning Board Approval. In conjunction with a Primary Application
for a project not located, in whole or in part, in any zone district listed in subsection
(G), the applicant may apply for approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses
described in subsection (B)(2) to be determined by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically
finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1);
(2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the
requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed
as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The
Addition of a Permitted Use by the Board shall be specific to the proposed project
and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D) below.
(3) City Council Approval. In conjunction with a Primary Application for a project
located, in whole or in part, in a zone district listed in subsection (G), any application
for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use shall be determined by the City
Council in conjunction with the Primary Application after recommendations from the
Planning and Zoning Board on both the Primary Application and the Addition of
Permitted Use. The recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Board and
designation of the City Council as the decision maker for the Addition of Permitted
Use and the Primary Application are specific exceptions to Section 2.1.1, applicable
only to this Section. The City Council shall first decide the Addition of Permitted
Use application and, if approved, then decide the Primary Application. If the
Addition of Permitted Use is denied, then the Primary Application shall also be
denied as described in subsection (c) below.
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to City Council for the
Primary Application shall follow the applicable procedures and standards
contained in the Land Use Code for the type of Primary Application at issue. Any
required notice shall include information regarding both the Primary Application
and the Addition of Permitted Use application. The Planning and Zoning Board
may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection
(B)(1) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use conforms to all of the
eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). The Planning and Zoning Board may
Packet Pg. 367
- 4 -
recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection (B)(2)
be added if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the
eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public
good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in
Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone
district in which the proposed site is located.
(b) In deciding the Addition of Permitted Use application for uses described
in subsection (B)(1), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning
Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds
that such use conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). In
deciding the Addition of Permitted Use application for uses described in
subsection (B)(2), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning
Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds
that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1);
(2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with
the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically
listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is
located. The City Council’s action on the Addition of Permitted Use shall be by
ordinance. The Addition of a Permitted Use by City Council shall be specific to
the proposed project and shall not be considered for a text amendment under
subsection (D). The City Council’s decision on the Addition of Permitted Use
shall not be appealable and, if applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights
and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13.
(c) If the Addition of Permitted Use is denied, the ordinance denying the
Addition of Permitted Use shall also deny the Primary Application. Such denial
shall not be appealable and if applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights
and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13. If
the Addition of Permitted Use is approved, City Council shall decide the Primary
Application, in conformance with the applicable procedures and standards
contained in the Land Use Code for the type of Primary Application at issue with
appropriate substitution of the City Council as the decision maker in such
procedures. Any required notice shall include information regarding both the
Primary Application and the Addition of Permitted Use application. City
Council’s action on the Primary Application shall be by ordinance. The City
Council’s decision on the Primary Application shall not be appealable, and if
applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights and takings determination
pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13.
(D) Planning and Zoning Board Authority and Limitation.
(1) In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development
plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing in
any zone district not listed in subsection (G), the Planning and Zoning Board may
add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use would not be
Packet Pg. 368
- 5 -
detrimental to the public good and would be in compliance with the requirements
and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1, provided that such addition of a proposed
use by the Planning and Zoning Board must be specific to the proposed site and
shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (E) below and
provided further that such use is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the
zone district in which the proposed site is located.
(2) In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development
plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing
in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the Planning and Zoning Board may
add recommend to the City Council that a proposed use be added if the Board
specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good and
would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section
3.5.1, provided that such addition of a proposed use by the City Council must be
specific to the proposed site and shall not be considered for a text amendment
under subsection (E) below and provided further that such use is not specifically
listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is
located. In considering the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board
and in determining whether a proposed use should be added, the City Council by
ordinance, shall follow the notice and hearing requirements that are established
for it pursuant to Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use Code pertaining to text and map
amendments.
(E) (D) Codification of New Use. When any use described in subsection (B)(1) has
been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance
with subsection (C)(1) above, such use shall be promptly considered for an amendment to
the text of this Code under Division 2.9. If the text amendment is approved, such use
shall be deemed to be permanently listed in the appropriate permitted use list of the
appropriate zone district and shall be added to the published text of this Code, at the first
convenient opportunity, by ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2.9. If the text
amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently listed in the zone
district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a permitted use in such zone
district for only the development proposal for which it was originally approved under
subsection (C)(1) above.
(F) (E) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in
any zone district in accordance with this Section, the Director, (or the Planning and
Zoning Board with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection (G), or the City
Council with respect to any zone district listed in subsection (G), the City Council after
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board may impose such conditions and
requirements, (including, but not limited to, conditions related to the location, size and
design), on such use as are necessary or desirable to: (1) accomplish the purposes and
intent of this Code, (2) ensure consistency with the City Plan and its adopted components
and associated sub-area plans, or (3) prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts.
Packet Pg. 369
- 6 -
(F) Changes to Approved Addition of Permitted Use. Approvals under this Section
are specific to the subject Addition of Permitted Use application. Any changes to the use
or to its location, size and design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of
or increases the negative impact upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a
new Addition of Permitted Use.
(G) Zones Subject to City Council Addition of Permitted Use Review. The
City Council shall make all final determinations regarding anythe Aaddition of
Ppermitted Uuses and associated Primary Application under subsection (DC)(3) with
respect to propertya project located, in whole or in part, in any of the following zone
districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
July, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 370
j%A6j<KLQfHO?jbY6Yj,V6jR6UMDZ[65jDOj^6j !jDY_D4ZjYc3I64Zj[Qj3,YD4j
56e6KQRM6OZjT6eD6fjRUQeD565jZA,[jYb4AjcY6Yj16jKQ4,[65jQOjKQZYjZA,[j,U6jR,U\jQ7j0j
,RRUQe65jYDZ6jYR64D:4j56e6KQRM6PZjRL,Oj
##!#%#'##'
446YYQWhj3bDL5GP?Y
446YYQXjdY6Y
&U3,Oj,@E4bKZbU6
3jOhjbY6j,cZAQUGi65jRdUYb,OZjZQj,jYDZ6jYR64D8F4j56e6KQRM6PZjRL0jZA,Zj
f,YjRTQ46YY65j05j,RRUQe65j6DZA6TjDOj4QMRLD046jfD^jZA6j'QODO?jQ56jGPj
6964ZjQOj 14Ajj
jQUjDOj4QMRLD046jfD^jZADYj,O5j&Y6jQ56jQZA6Uj
,j;,KjYb35DeDYEQOjRK,[jQUjMGPQUjYb35DeDYDQOjRL,Zj,RRUQe65jRdUYb-PZj
$64[EQOjjQTjjQ7jRUDQUjL,fj<Uj0hjOQOU6YD56O[E,Kj
56e6KQRM6OZjQUj0hjMbLZD7,NDLhj5f6KKGO?j4QO[,DODO?jMQU6j<dUj (*j
5f6LKDP?jbODZYjRUQeD565j^,ZjYb4BjbY6jYA,KKj36jYb3I64[j,KKjQ7jZA6jdY6j,O5j
56OYD`jU6SbDU6M6O[Yj,O5j4QO5DZDQOYjQ7jY,E5jYDZ6jYR64D8F4j56e6KQRM6OZjRL,O
j
j4jOhjbY6jfAD4AjDYjPQZjA6U6,=6TjKDYZ65j,Yj,jR6UMDZ\65jbY6jGOjZADYjiQO6j
5EY_D4[j3bZjfCE4Ajf,YjR6UMEZ\65j<Uj,jYR64D8F4jR,V46KjQ7jRUQR6UajRdUYb,O[j
ZA6jiQO6j5DY_D4ZjT6?bL,ZDQOYjDOj6964Zj<UjYb4BjR,V46KjQOj 14Ajj
j
,O5jfCE4AjRAhYD4,KKhj6gDYZ65jbRQPjYb4AjR,V46KjQOj 14Ajj
j
RUQeD565j AQf6e6Uj ^,ZjYb4Aj6gDY[EO?jbY6jYA,KKj 4QOYZDZcZ6j,jR6UMDZ\65jbY6j
QOKhjQPjYb4AjR,V46KjQ7jRUQR6UZhj
j #$$%$
&%'##'
!6D?A3QUBQQ5jR1JYj,Yj568FO65j3hjZA6j",VJYj,O5j#64U6,ZDQO
"QLD4hj"K,O j
j6j
#$'##'
$A6K[6UYj<UjeD4ZGMYjQ7j5QM6YZD4jeDQK6P46j<TjbRjZQj8F>6Oj'
U6YD56PZYj
j%A6j<KLQfEO?jbY6Yj,V6jR6UMDZ]65jDOj^6j !jDY_D4ZjYc3I64Zj[Qj
,5MDODY_,ZDe6j U6eD6fj
#$'##'
$DO?K67/EKhj56[,4A65j5f6KKGO?Y
%fQ7,NDKhj5f6KKDO?Y
$DO?K67/EKhj,ZZ,4A65j5f6LKGP?Y
OhjU6YD56PZD.jbY6j4QOYEYZDO?jGPjfAQK6jQUjDOjR2jQ7jMbKZD7/DKh
5f6LKGP?YjKGMEZ65jZQj6D?AZj )+jQUjK6YYj5f6KLDO?jbODZYjR6Uj3bDK5HO?j
ATTACHMENT 6
20.6
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: List of Permitted Uses in the L-M-N District (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
/LPLWHG&RPPHUFLDO=RQH'LVWULFW
%
%
Z5+Z1==AU:@3ZRH+HZ#F+ZB+G6IK+*Z:@ZJ5+ZZ6HN6)IZHR(<+)IZ(#H6)Z*+T+=AB?+@JZ
D+T7+UZ
D(#@Z#46)R>ISD+
(Z@WZRH+Z#RJ5AD;X+*ZBRDHR&IZJAZ#ZH8J+HB+)6/)Z*+T+=AB?+@JZB>#@ZMIZU#HZ
BEA)+HH+*Z&*Z#BBDAT+*Z+6L+DZ6@Z)A?B=8&)+ZU8J5ZI5+Z A@6@3ZA*+Z8@Z+.+)JZ
A@Z')5Z Z ZADZ6@Z)A?B>8&)+ZU6J5ZI58HZA*+ZAJ5+DZJ5&Z#Z0@#=Z
HR(*8T6H6A@ZB>#JZADZ?:@ADZHR(*6T6H6A@ZB=#JZ#BBDAT+*ZBREHR&JZJAZ+)J6A@Z
ZADZ
ZA,ZBE6ADZ>#UZ1EZ&WZ@A@D+H6*+@J6#=Z*+T+>AB?+@JZAEZ&WZ?R>I6Y
,%6=WZ*U+==;@3Z)A@J#;@;@3Z?AD+ZI5#@Z1RDZ!
"Z *U+=>;@3ZR@6JHZBDAT6*+*ZJ5#JZ
HR)5ZRH+ZH5#==Z(+ZHR(<+)IZIAZ#=>ZA,ZI5+ZRH+Z&*Z*+@H6PZD+CR6D+?+@JHZ#@*Z
)A@*8J8A@HZA,ZH#8*ZH6J+HB+)80)Z*+T+>AB?+@JZB=&Z
)ZZ@WZRH+ZU56)5Z8HZ@AIZ5+D+#2+EZ=6HJ+*Z#HZ#ZB+E?6JJ+*ZRH+Z6@ZI58HZXA@+Z*6HN6)IZ
(RJZU56)5ZB+E?6JJ+*Z1DZ#ZHB+)8-9)ZB')+=ZA,ZBDAB+EQZBREHR&JZIAZJ5+ZXA@+Z
*8HO6)IZE+3R=#J;A@HZ6@Z+.+)IZ1DZHR)5ZB#E)+=ZA@Z$F)5Z Z
Z#@*ZU56)5Z
B5WH8)#==WZ+V6HJ+*ZRBA@ZHR)5ZB')+=ZA@Z#E)5Z Z
ZBDAT6*+*Z5AU+T+DZ
J5#IZHR)5Z+V6HJ;@3ZRH+ZH5#=>Z)A@HJ6ISJ+Z#ZB+D?8JI+*ZRH+ZA@=WZA@ZHR)5ZB$F)+>ZA,Z
BEAB+DPZ
Z5+Z1==AU6@3ZRH+HZ'+ZB+E?6IK+*Z:@ZHR(*6HN6)JHZA,ZL+ZZ8HO8)IZHR(<+)JZJAZ
#H6)Z+T+>AB?+@JZ+T6+UZ Z*?6@6HN#J6T+Z WB+Z
Z+T6+UZAEZ=#@@6@3Z#@*Z
A@;@3ZA#D*ZWB+Z Z+T8+UZ#HZHB+)80)#==WZ8*+@J80+*ZA@ZJ5+Z)5#EKZ(+>AUZ
%#% $ %!% %!%"%
08+5!$614df!R-!f^!441=f
f
f
^@%04df 441=f
f
f
08+5!%14dfRT-!f^!441=f
f
f
fNP1!7T15fBP0PR08+f17f`?4!f?Kf07fGLTf?"f6V4R1$614df^!441=fR-Rf
f ef
?>17f&)f f^!4417+fU71RPf?Kf4!PPf7fP![!>d&[!f fPfDf4!PPf
fNP1!>15fVP!fBP0PR08+f17f`?4!f?Kf07fGLTf?"f6V4R1%14df_441=fR-Rf ef ef
?>17f6Ff'*ff f^!4418+fW:0RPf?Kf6D!fR-7fP!\!>d'\!f fPf
K?UGf-?6!Pf
f ef
1b!VP!f^!450=f ef ef
bTKfAYdfN>4f-?UP!Pf^1R.f(]ff f?Kf"!^!KfR!;Pf
f
f
%
bTMfAX8dfM!9T4f-?VP!Pf^1R.f6Ff&\!ff fR!<Pf ef ef
KR!ORdfQRdf-?UP!Pf
f ef
/4R!KPf#Df[1S16Pf?#f?6!PS1f[1?4!7!f
f
f
4!Pf?"faLP-1Gf?KfPP!64df
f ef
K8P1Rf$141R0!Pf^1R-?ZfK!H0KfPRE+!f
f ef
K2PfK!NR1Bf?T-!Kf?J7f47Pf!c!GSf7!1,CfI3fPf!&7!fdf dJf ef
2"451
'2+,
3'!#5))
5)
5
&* &-%$5
ATTACHMENT 5
20.5
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: List of Permitted Uses in the C-L District (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
(SW CORNER, SE 1/4,
NW 1/4, SECTION 10)
PARCEL 2
EXISTING ZONING: T - TRANSITION DISTRICT
PROPROSED ZONING: LMN - LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
551,179 sq. ft.
12.653 ac.
L4
N00°38'53"E 163.32'
L1
L2
L3
N27°34'06"E 386.65'
S62°25'54"E 458.15'
POINT OF BEGINNING
PARCEL 2
N89°14'44"W 215.00'
LINE TABLE
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
LENGTH
39.76'
30.68'
2.34'
53.71'
72.44'
86.39'
BEARING
S76° 32' 17"E
S68° 48' 16"E
S62° 17' 03"E
N90° 00' 00"E
S07° 37' 19"E
N89° 14' 44"W
LINE TABLE
LINE
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
LENGTH
21.00'
83.00'
50.00'
85.50'
150.00'
BEARING
N00° 23' 46"E
N89° 14' 44"W
S00° 23' 46"W
N89° 14' 30"W
S00° 45' 13"W
B
B
BBAAAASSSSI
IIILLLL
L
LLL
BASIL LN NNNN
TTTTEEEEDDDDM
MMMOOOONNNN DDDD
TEDMON DR RRRR
M
M
M
M
EE
EE
R
R
RR
C
C
CCEEEE
R
RRR
D
DDDR
R
RR
M
E
R
C
ER DR
TTTTAA
A
ARRRRRRRR
AAAAGGG
G
OOO
ONNNN LLL
L
NN
TARRAGON L NN
N
LLLLAAAAYYY
YLLLLAAAANNNNDD
LAYLAND DDCCCCTTTT CT
JJJJUUUUNNNNII
IIPPPPEEEERRR
JUNIPER RCCCCTTTT CT
TTTTRRR
REEE
E
VVVVOO
OO
R
R
TREVO RRSSSSTTTT
R
S
T
DDDD
EEEE
R RRR
A
A
AACCC CTT
DERA CT TT
PPPPLLLLAAAAIII
INNNNSSSS CCCC
PLAINS CT TTTT
DDDDAAAALLLLEE
DALECT EECCCCTTTT
BB
B
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
C
C
H
H
H
H
C
CC
CTTT
T
B
E
E
C
H
C
T
PP
PP
E
EEEN
NNNNNNN
S
SS
SYY
YY
LLLLV
VVVAA
A
A
NNNNIIIIA
A
AA
SSSS
T
TTT
P
E
NN
S
Y
LV
A
NIA ST
MMM
MAAAANNN
NTTTTZZZ
Z
PP
PPL
L
LL
MANTZ
PL
H
HH
HOO
OO
M
M
MM
E
EERR E
R
R
CC
C
CTT
T
T
H
O
M
E
R
CT
CCCCOOO
OLLLLLLLLIIIINN
NNSSSSCCCCTTT
COLLINS CT T
BBBBEEEEEEEECCC
BEECH CHHHH
C
CCC
O
OOO
RRRRII IIA
AAANNNN
DD
DD
EE
EERRRR
LLLL
N
NN
N
C
ORIAN
D
ER L
N
SSS
SUUUUNNN
SUNS NSSSS
WW
WW
CCCCOO
OOYYYY D
WCOYDR DDDRRRR
L
LLL
AAAANN
NNCCCCEE
EE
LANC RRRR
E
R
LLLLA
A
AANNNNCCCC
EEEE
R
LANCER RRR
SSSSRRRROOOOO
OOOSSSSEEEEVV
VVEEEELLLLTTTTA
SROOSEVELTAVE AAAVVVVEEEE
SSSS MMMMCCCCK
KKKIIIINNNNLLLL
EEEEYYYY AAAAV
SMCKINLEYAVE VVVEEEE
HHH
H
OOOOMM
MMEEEE
RRRR DDD
HOMER DR DRRRR
WWWW MMMM
AA AAGGGG
NN NNOOOO
LL LLIIII
AA CC
WMAGNOLIA CT TT
CC
CCO
O
OORRR
R
VV
VVIIII
DDD
D
WWWWAAA
C AYYYY
O
RVID WAY
BBBBEEEE
LL
L
LLLLLWWWWEE
E
ETTT
THHHHEEEE
RRRR LLL
BE LNNNN
L
LWETHER LN
WWWW
OOOO
OOOO
DD
FFFF
OOOO
RR
DD
CC
TT
WOODFORD CT
GGGGRRRRAAAAN
NDDDDVVVVIIII NN
EWWWW EEE AV AAA
GRANDVIEWVVVEEEE AVE
EEEECCCCO
OOOYYYYDDDDRR
ECOY DR RR
JJJJAAAAMMMMI
IIITTTTHHHH PPPP
JAMITH PL L LLL
CC
CC
OOOO
O
O
OO
K
KKKDDDDR
RRR
CO
O
KDR
RIIII RRR
DDD
DLLLLE D
E EE DDDDR
RIDDLE DR RRR
FFFFRRRRAAAA
NNNNKKKKLLLLI
FRANKLIN IIINNNN SSSSTTTT ST
JJJJAAAACCCCK
KKKSSSSOOOONN
JAVE JACKSON NNAAAAVVVVEEEE
JJJAAAACCCCKK
KKSSSSOOOONNNNA
JACKSON AAAVVVVEEEE AVE
NN
N
N
MMMMCCCCKKKK
IIIIN
N
NNLLLLEEEE
YYYYAA
AAVVVV
E
EEE
N
MCKINLEYAVE
N
NNNMMMMCCC CKK
KIIIINNNNLLLLE K
EEEYYY YAAAAVV
NMCKINLEYAVE VEEEE V
N
NNN M
MMMC
CCCK
KKKI
IIIN
NNNL
LLE L
EEEYYYYA
AAAVVVVE
NMCKINLEYAVE EEE
N
N
N R
R
R
R
O
O
OOO
O
OOS
SEEEEV SS
V
V
EEEELLLLTTTT A
AVVVVEEEE AA
N
R
OOSE
V
ELT AVE
N
N
N
N
R
R
R
R
OO
OO
OO
O
O
SS
SEE S
E
E
VV
V
V
E
E
E
E
L
L
LLT
T TT
AVV AAA
VEEEE V
N
R
O
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
AVE
WWWW
EEEESSSSTTTT
VVVVII
IIEEE
EW
W
W
W
AA
A
AV
V
V
V
EEEE
WESTVI
E
W
AV
E
WWWWEEE
ESSSSTTTTVVVVII
IIEEEE
W
W
WWAAAAVV
WESTVIE VVEEEE
W
AVE
L LLL
AA
AA
K
K
KK
E
E
E
E
SS
SSIIIIDDD
DEE
E
E AAAAVVV
VEEE
E
L
A
K
E
S
IDEAVE
BBBBIIII
SSSSHHHHOOOOP
BISHOPSSSSTTTT PPP ST
R
RR
R
OO
O
O
O
OOOKKKK SSSS
T
T
TT
R
O
OK S
T
EEEEB
B
B
OOOO
N
NNNP
P
PP
I
ICC II
C
C
AA
AA
S
SS
STT
T
EBON PI
C
A
S
T
RRRRIII
ICCCCHHH
HAAAARRR
RDDDDSSS
S PPPPLLL
RICHARDS PL L
PEEEEAA PPP
AARRR RLLLLSSSST
PEARL ST TTT
PPPPEE
EAAAAR E
RRRLLLL S
PEARLSSSTTTT ST
NN
NNMMMMOOOONNNNT
TTTVVVVIIIIEEEE
WWWW R
R
NMONTVIEW RRDDDD RD
NNNN HHHHI
III
L
LLLLLLL
CCCCRR
RR
EEEES
SSSTTTT DDDDRRRR
NHILLC
R
ESTDR
LLLLLLLLEEEER
LLER RRR DDDDRRRR DR
WW
WWOOOOLLL
LIIIIVVVVEE
EECCCCTTT
WOLIVECT T
AAAAZ
Z
ZZTTTTEEEE
CCCC DD
DD
R
AZTEC DR RRR
AAAALLL
LAAA
A
MMMMEE
EE
DD
DDAAAASSSS
ALAME TTTT
D
AST
FF
FF
IIIISS
SSHHHHBBBBAAAAC
CCCKKKK AAAAV
V
VVE
EEE
F
ISHBACK AVE
HHHH
A
AAANNNNN
NNNAAAASSS STT
HANNAST TT
HHHHAA
ANNNNNNNNA A
HANNA ASSSSTTT AA ST T
WWWW
OOOOLLLLIIIIVVV
VEEEE SSSSTTTT
WOLIVEST
SSSSYYYYCCCCAAA
AMMMMOOOORRRR
SYCAMORE EEEE SSSSTTTT ST
SSSSYYYYCCCCAA
AA
M
M
MMOOOORRRREE
SYCA EESSSSTTTT
M
ORE ST
C
CCCIIIIT
TTTYYYY P
PAAAAR PP
RRRKKKK A
AVVVVE AA
CITY PARK AVE E EE
NORTH
1
TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH,
RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
REZONING MAP
NOTICE:
According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based
upon any defect in this survey within three years after you discover such
defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey
be commenced more than ten years after the date of the certificate shown
301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 hereon.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
NRN O R T H E
PHONE: 970.221.4158
www.northernengineering.com
DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL 1:
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.,
City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 as bearing North 89° 14' 44" West and with all
bearings contained herein relative thereto:
BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, said point
being POINT OF BEGINNING 1; thence, North 00° 38' 54" East, 435.71 feet; thence, North 00° 38' 53" East, 163.32
feet; thence, South 76° 32' 17" East, 39.76 feet; thence, South 68° 48' 16" East, 30.68 feet; thence, South 62° 17' 03"
East, 2.34 feet; thence, North 27° 34' 06" East, 386.65 feet; thence, South 62° 25' 54" East, 458.15 feet; thence, North
90° 00' 00" East, 53.71 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46" West, 472.81 feet; thence, North 87° 54' 20" West, 249.40 feet;
thence, South 07° 37' 19" East, 72.44 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 86.39 feet; thence, North 00° 23' 46" East,
21.00 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 83.00 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46" West, 50.00 feet; thence, North 89°
14' 30" West, 85.50 feet; thence, South 00° 45' 13" West, 150.00 feet to the South line of the Northwest Quarter;
thence along said South line, North 89° 14' 44" West, 215.00 feet to Point of Beginning 1.
The above described tract of land contains 442,729 square feet or 10.164 acres, more or less and is subject to all
easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
PARCEL 2:
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.,
City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 as bearing North 89° 14' 44" West and with all
bearings contained herein relative thereto:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10; thence,
North 00° 38' 54" East, 435.71 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING 2; thence, North 89° 14' 49" West, 330.72 feet;
thence, North 00° 42' 46" East, 656.12 feet; thence, South 89° 24' 33" East, 1320.17 feet; thence, South 00° 23' 46"
West, 377.97 feet; thence, North 89° 14' 44" West, 285.00 feet; thence, North 90° 00' 00" West, 53.71 feet; thence,
North 62° 25' 54" West, 458.15 feet; thence, South 27° 34' 06" West, 386.65 feet; thence, North 62° 17' 03" West,
2.34 feet; thence, North 68° 48' 16" West, 30.68 feet; thence, North 76° 32' 17" West, 39.76 feet; thence, South 00°
38' 53" West, 163.32 feet to Point of Beginning 2.
The above described tract of land contains 551,179 square feet or 12.653 acres, more or less and is subject to all
easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing.
NOTES:
1) This survey does not constitute a title search by Northern Engineering to determine ownership or easements of record. Title
Commitment No. FCC25125833-6, dated March 12, 2015, by Land Title Guarantee Company was utilized in preparation of this
survey.
2) The lineal unit of measurement for this survey is U. S. Survey Feet.
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
NORTH
SITE
LAPORTE AVENUE
MULBERRY STREET
VINE DRIVE
TAFT HILL ROAD
ATTACHMENT 4
20.4
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Proposed Zoning Boundary Map [Revision 1] (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
20.3
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Existing Zoning [Revision 1] (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Proposed Zoning (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
S Impala Dr
W Myrtle St
Lancer Dr
Riddle Dr
Briarwood Rd
N Bryan Ave
N Frey Ave
C
ol
u
m
bi
n
e
C
t
Frey Ave
N Roosevelt Ave
Junip
e
r C
t
Franklin St
Clover Ln
Hillcrest Dr
Tedmon Dr
Broad
v
i
ew
P
l
Baystone Dr
H
o
m
e
r
D
r
Birch St
Sterling Ln
Miller Dr
Webb Ave
B
e
e
c
h
Ct
Trevor St
W Laurel St
W Magnolia St
Bishop St
Fishback Ave
Leland Ave
Raven View Rd
N Briarwood Rd
Grandview Ave
Pennsylvania St
Tarragon Ln
E C
o
y
Dr
Lakesi
d
e
Ave
Corvid Way
Jamith Pl
Collins Ct
Layland Ct
W Olive Ct
B
ri
a
rwood Rd
Elm St
Birch St
Orc
h
ard Pl
W Oak St
S Bryan Ave
Lyons St
Clover Ln
W Mountain Ave
Ponderosa Dr
Laporte Ave
W Mulberry St
W Vine Dr
S Taft Hill Rd
N Taft Hill Rd
W Vine Dr
N Taft Hill Rd
Salud Family Health Rezoning -
1830 LaPorte Avenue
1 inch = 1,000 feet
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet
Site
ATTACHMENT 1
20.1
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Vicinity map (3478 : Salud Family Health Rezoning)
o
s s
i
l
C r e e k
R e s e
r
v o i r
N
e
l
s
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Mc
C
lellands
C
hannel
R o b
e
r
t
B e n
s
o
n
L a k e
Boxelder Ditch
F
o
s
s
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
F
o
s
s
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
F
o
s
s
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
M
a
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
D
i
t
c
h
Fossil Creek
F
o
s
s
i
l
C
r
e
ek
Box
e
ld
e
r
D
Fossil Creek
M
c
Cl
e
ll
a
n
d
s
C
h
a
n
nel
B o y d
L a k e
F
o
ssil
C
r
e
e
k
S
w i f t
P
M
a
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
P
o
r t
n
e
r
R
e s
e r
v o
i r
Mail Creek Ditch
D o n a t h
L a k e
F
o
s
s
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
D u c k
L a k e
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
I s l a n d L a k e
M a r i n e
A n d
S p o r t s P o n d
F
o
s s
i
l
C r e e k
R e s e
r
v o i r
N
e
l
s
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Mc
C
lellands
C
hannel
R o b
e
r t
B e n
s
o
n
L a k e
Boxelder Ditch
F
o
s
s
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
Fos
si
l C
reek
F
o
s
s
i
l
C
r
e
e
k
CoyoteRidge
NaturalArea
PrairieRidge
NaturalArea
LongView
FarmOpen
Space
Larimer
County
LandĮll
CathyFrommePrairie
NaturalArea
Colina
Mariposa
Hazaleus
Pelican
Marsh
FossilCreek
Wetlands
PrairieDog
Meadow
FossilCreek
ReservoirRegional
OpenSpace
Eagle
View
RedtailGrove
Two
Creeks
FortCollins–LovelandCommunitySeparator
Sunset
Vista
Rimrock
Open
Space
4200 CR 30 property
±
Fort Collins –Loveland Community Separator
E. County Rd. 30
Trilby Rd.
N. County Rd. 13 S. Lemay Ave.
N. County Rd. 11E
Boyd Lake Ave.
W. 57th St. E. 57th St.
S. County Rd. 19 S. Taft Hill Rd.
S. County Rd. 17 S. Shields St.
Carpenter Rd.
Kechter Rd.
Ziegler Rd.
S. County Rd. 11 Timberline Rd.
ATTACHMENT 4
19.4
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Fort Collins-Loveland Community Separator Map (3428 : IGA with Loveland to Acquire 4200 CRD 30)
Conservation easement property
E. County Rd. 34C
ATTACHMENT 3
1
Packet Pg