Opinion: CU South – “The Road Not Taken”

Robert Frost’s famous poem The Road Not Taken ends with:


I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by, 

And that has made all the difference.

 

For me, this captures the essence of the struggle around flood control for area around South Boulder Creek and what should happen on the CU South property. The “road” that the majority of the city council has committed to is almost certain to be looked back on as one taken with inadequate foresight.

Climate change will likely cause significantly larger and more frequent floods. But using detention ponds (new to Boulder on this scale) means that a flood significantly bigger than designed for will overtop the dams and inundate the downstream areas anyway. And committing to allow CU to develop land that otherwise might be used to expand detention capacity means that improving protection levels above that currently planned will be limited, difficult, and much more costly. So the many other parts of Boulder that also were flooded, though smaller than the South Boulder Creek flood zone individually, will potentially have to wait decades for the improvements they need.

When I asked some city council members why they are so committed to letting CU develop this land, the reply was always the same, “We need to preserve good relations with CU”, or something to that effect. To me, this catch phrase excuses shortcutting the serious, in-depth analysis that should be done, and so is being used to avoid actually engaging with the citizens over the big unaddressed strategic issues.

First is the lack of a citywide comprehensive flood protection plan that includes all the projects, with designs, timelines, budgets, and revenue sources. I’m one of the citizens that are helping with the outreach for the update to the current Comprehensive Flood & Stormwater Master Plan. But at almost every step in the process, I see how far we are from having anything like what we need.

To quote from the one page handout to this effort, “Boulder has the highest risk of flash flooding in the state of Colorado. … At current funding levels it would take over 100 years to complete mitigation projects currently designed or in planning.” So, if you got flooded by any of the rest of Boulder’s creeks, including Wonderland, Two Mile, Goose, Gregory, Bluebell, Skunk, King’s Gulch, and Bear, you may be waiting a very long time before your flood work gets done.

Second, the vast majority of Boulder’s current funding comes from Boulder’s ongoing service fees, which are based on a property’s impervious area. But South Boulder Creek drains a 100+ square mile watershed completely outside the city. So there are serious legal issues with using a fee charged on properties within the city to pay for South Boulder Creek projects, to say nothing of paying millions of dollars to raise CU’s tennis courts and fill huge areas to provide CU’s future development better flood protection than downstream residents get.

Third, the council has been unwilling to push CU to seriously consider trading CU South for land further north. For example, the City owns about 200 almost flat acres on the east side of North 26th Street. Safe access from there to US36 (28th Street) only needs a stop light, unlike the dangerous proposed intersection from CU South onto CO 93 (Broadway) on the downhill curve just south of the city limits. There are few neighbors, unlike CU South, which borders directly on Tantra and Majestic Heights. Boulder Fire Station 5 is at 19th Street and Violet, only two to three minutes away. And it has no flood hazards. To figure out how to provide water and sewer shouldn’t take but a few weeks.

Fourth, given how development of CU South will severely limit the ability to deal with larger floods, I really don’t understand why the council is so unwilling to condemn the necessary property. When CU was planning their East Campus some decades ago, they wanted to develop some of the wetland area. But the city council found that unacceptable and threatened to deny access to some city streets. CU then agreed to appropriate protections. And City-CU relations continued just fine.

It’s time the council and the regents sat down and hashed all this out. And while they’re at it, they can finally address CU’s endless expansion in Boulder with its impacts on affordable housing, traffic congestion, etc.

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