Opinion: Jefferson Parkway — Deal or no deal


The Boulder City Council and Boulder county commissioners were offered a deal by the Jefferson county commissioners to get these two governments to not oppose the Jefferson Parkway (JP), the proposed highway between Broomfield and Golden. As with most offers, the right thing to do is to counter-offer.
The Jefferson county commissioners say they will put $5 million toward the purchase and preservation of Section 16, a square mile of land, owned by the State Land Board, on the east side of Colorado 93 at the south-west corner of the federal Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge. Section 16 is a valuable wildlife corridor; it connects the Refuge to the City of Boulder Open Space land west of 93. The Boulder governments would probably have to invest $2 million apiece, with an additional $900,000 coming from other cities. The JeffCo deal importantly requires the Boulder governments to not oppose construction of the JP, and to support transfer of a right of way from the east edge of Rocky Flats to the JP authority. These requirements would be in force whether or not the Section 16 purchase goes through. The other terms are so loose as to be irrelevant. The JeffCo offer expires at the end of this year.
The JeffCo deal fails to address some serious development issues. A major driver for the JP is the development of the Candelas property (roughly two square miles) between the southern edge of the Refuge and Colorado 72. At its western extremity, this property runs north from the 93/72 intersection for about a third of a mile. Building an office park here would ruin the high plains character of the whole area. Additionally, the deal needs to limit development in the industrial sites along the west side of Rocky Flats near the Boulder County line.
The Northwest Parkway deal, cut some years ago, required nearby local governments to make a 99 year commitment to restrict improvements to the transportation system that might divert traffic from the parkway and thereby reduce the financier’s toll revenues. A similar deal would likely be part of any financing arrangement for the JP. This could hugely impact people who commute on 93, as well as anyone from Boulder who wants to go west on I70. Without an exemption for maintenance, safety and capacity improvements, and future transit on 93, we could be forced to drive down US36 and then pay tolls on the JP, obviously more lengthy, expensive and impactful.
The improvements necessary to connect the JP through Golden will certainly cost millions of dollars. I understand that these may be funded by an earmark that Rep. Perlmutter would arrange. But the JeffCo deal is not contingent on this, so what happens if this money doesn’t come through? The same issue exists for the improvements needed to connect the JP to the NW Parkway. Who will pay?
The City of Boulder and Boulder County need to make a serious counter-offer. First, the part of the Candelas property within one mile of 93 should be declared off limits to development, as well as any developable property to the west of 93 and around the 93/72 intersection. In exchange, an equal acreage at the SE corner of Rocky Flats could be made available for development (not easily arranged, to be sure!); this location is actually adjacent to the planned JP route, and thus would be both more valuable and less impactful. Second, the industrial properties on the west side of Rocky Flats near the Boulder county line should be down-zoned by JeffCo, and all cities should agree that these properties will not be annexed. Third, no agreement like the 99 year Northwest Parkway restriction should be signed unless it exempts safety, transit, capacity, and maintenance improvements on 93 and other state highways. Fourth, all permission to develop the JP should be contingent on the actual purchase and protection of Section 16, and the commitment of funding for all the peripheral intersection improvements.
None of this compensates for the idiocy of building a highway just to promote more growth (and in an area with radioactive residue), the outrage of pushing development into this relatively pristine area of the foothills, the damage caused by increased air pollution, and the environmental harm resulting from unnecessary auto travel. But a deal like this would be far better than what JeffCo proposed.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more