CU South – The great giveaway

The City of Boulder and University of Colorado Boulder are close to cutting a deal. CU gets to annex its flood prone property and then potentially make a pile of cash by selling most of it to a private developer, the residents of South Boulder get inadequate flood protection and the rest of us get none for the foreseeable future, traffic becomes a disaster, and the jobs/housing balance and affordable housing situation is made even worse.

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.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

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

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities