CU South – The great giveaway
Here are the many facets to
consider:
It’s a non-solution to flooding: The proposed detention pond on South Boulder Creek will fill up and overrun if the storm significantly exceeds the 100-year size, creating a shorter but still powerful flood. And that will definitely happen, given climate change and the huge increase in atmospheric water from global warming. That’s why detention ponds are the solution of last resort. Worse, once the land is developed, expanding the pond to 500-year capacity will not be realistic: there are issues with the high water table, CDOT’s concerns with raising the dam, etc. And there would be an additional huge cost, assuming it is even feasible.
South Boulder Creek made up only 15% of the
2013 flood damage: Both TwoMile Canyon/Goose Creek and Boulder
Creek had more damage, and most other drainages also had major damage. But
there is no financial plan to fund the necessary flood control improvements
citywide; at current funding levels, city staff says it will take another
century to complete. Other affected residents should ask why South Boulder
Creek is getting such high priority, given the flood’s widespread impacts.
Consider
condemnation: One governmental entity apparently has the power
to condemn another governmental entity’s land if there is a pressing
life/safety concern and the current owner has no immediate need. So
condemnation could have been used as leverage to gain the land necessary for a
500-year detention pond, as the city correctly determined was the proper
solution a few years ago.
Trading CU South for planning reserve land: If
the City Council feels that a trade is necessary, they should make doing that
work top priority. The few hundred acres of city-owned land along North 26th Street
has very good transportation access to Highway 36/28th Street, is just minutes
from a fire station, and delivery of utilities could be sorted out rapidly. The
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan changes could be agreed to in a meeting of
the CIty Council and the Boulder County Commissioners. And there are few nearby
neighbors.
Last-minute changes: The
proposed Annexation Agreement (AA) was substantially altered right before the
public briefing last week. That included a gigantic 50% increase in the amount
of non-residential development, from 500,000 square feet to 750,000 square
feet, completely altering the jobs/housing balance, and a huge change in the
amount and location of fill-dirt, but no plans or analysis were provided.
Water constraints: The
growth allowed by this AA would add a significant load on the city’s water
system, which will come under increasing stress, given that one-third of our
water comes from the Colorado River. This has not been seriously considered.
Jobs/housing balance is way out of whack: The
AA allows 1,100 or more housing units and 750,000 square feet of
non-residential development. Once sold to a private developer — a very
financially attractive move for CU — this will allow 5,000 to 7,000 more jobs.
The required 2:1 minimum ratio of residential to non-residential floor area
means maybe 1,100 residential units of 1,500 square feet per unit with three to
four persons each, or roughly 4,0000 persons in total. Even assuming that all
of these occupants are workers, which is highly unlikely, it’s way more jobs
than people. And none of this housing has to be permanently affordable, other
than in the indefinite future maybe 100 affordable units built on up to 5
dedicated acres.
Development schedule one-sided: The
AA only requires CU, or the private owner/developer, to do 150 units of housing
before it builds out the 750,000 square feet of non-residential development.
And what can the city do after the fact to enforce the 2:1 floor area ratio?
Not much.
No enrollment cap: CU
has not agreed to limit student growth on the Boulder campus. About five years
at CU’s current growth rate will use up all of this housing. Then CU’s
insatiable demand to add students will continue to push up housing costs in
Boulder.
“Right of first refusal” unworkable: The
ROFR terms effectively allow CU to prevent the city from ever acquiring the
property, and so appear to be designed to allow CU to sell to a private
developer. If CU did a deal in December, the city could likely not even counter-offer
because of the ROFR’s short time line and the TABOR requirements for a November
vote on the increase in debt to fund the purchase. “Certificates of
Participation” (city-issued, one-year extendible debts) likely won’t work
because the numbers are too big. Also, CU could take advantage of its ability
to accept tax-deductible donations by accepting a donation as part of any deal.
The city cannot benefit from this scheme like a private developer would,
because it pays no income tax. And the city would be paying multiple times what
the land was worth prior to annexation, just to benefit CU’s bottom line.
Sale to a private developer highly profitable: CU
has stated that it had no serious plans, and therefore no real need, for this
property. And CU would get a huge financial windfall from a sale to a private
developer once the land is annexed and zoned for all this development. So this
sale should be expected as the likely outcome. Money talks!
Traffic mitigation – a disaster from all
angles: CU, or the succeeding owner, is in theory
limited to 5,500 trips per day onto the Table Mesa area, but the unclear and
complicated sampling process for measuring traffic just guarantees disputes.
And I’ve seen no independent analysis of the impact and possible gridlock.
No real enforcement: The
enforcement of the 5,500 per day vehicle trip limit is very weak. All CU is
required to do is expend the cost of an RTD regional ticket per trip over the
limit, which will make little difference. So expect traffic to increase by way
more than 5,500 daily trips. Inexcusably, this limitation on what CU or another
owner would be required to spend was not even noted by staff during the public
briefing.
The simple solution: Just
install in-pavement electronic counters at all entrances and exits. For
example, see diamondtraffic.com Then
install electric gates that shut when the count exceeds the limit, and
only allow passage by emergency vehicles.
“The most dangerous intersection in the world”: That’s
what is being proposed for access to Highway 93 just south of the city limits —
an uncontrolled intersection on a hill and curve.
It’s unclear how long this Annexation Agreement
lasts: There are three different statements about the
term, and they all contradict each other. Section 52 has the AA running for
three years, with an extension for up to two more. Section 47 seems to have it
running with the land and so be semi-perpetual. And Section 38 that says that
the AA has a “term”, which implies it is relatively finite, maybe related to
the three-year limit, but maybe not.
It’s also unclear when major development
begins: Section 10 allows all construction to begin
after the “Three Year Anniversary”, irrespective of whether the city can build
the flood control facilities or not. That contradicts Section 36a, which limits
CU to recreational and supporting facilities until the city obtains the
necessary permits.
The toothless de-annexation process: CU
is allowed to begin development as above, but CU is NOT required to de-annex if
the city cannot get the necessary flood permits or financing. All the city can
do is “request” that CU de-annex, but cannot force them, and must keep
supplying water and sewer to this unnecessary development.
The obvious fix: CU
should not be able to do any development or receive any city services until the
city has all the necessary permits and financing for the flood-control
facilities. And CU must de-annex if the city cannot get these.
Responsibility for this mess: No
one has taken responsibility so far. But at the city presentation last
Thursday, the councilmembers on the CU South Process Committee were notoriously
absent. Who did show up were councilmembers Sam Weaver and Rachel Friend, who
apparently have been advising staff in closed door meetings, as was discussed
when they abandoned their role on the Process Committee back in March.
Staff is confused about the Initiative: In the
briefing session, the staff person appeared to misstate what the citizen
initiative would do. The Initiative is quite clear. It states that if the
property is annexed, then no city services may be provided except for the flood
control facilities unless the Annexation Agreement (which must include a
specific list of topics) is approved by the voters.
We citizens deserve a say: City
Council should restart this whole process, get some leverage on CU, seriously
consider a land swap, do a comprehensive flood-control plan for all the creeks,
and then put it all to a citizen vote.