Guest Opinion: Council members respond to mayors re: CU South

 By Lisa Morzel, Cindy Carlisle, Allyn Feinberg, Crystal Gray, Spense Havlick, Steve Pomerance, Gwen Dooley, BJ Miller, Phil Stern

 

We are former Boulder City Council members, who served from 4 to 21 years each on Council (85 years collectively). We also are knowledgeable about the issues and history of CU South.  We encourage Boulder citizens to vote YES on Ballot Initiative 302 in the upcoming city election.

We read the recent guest opinion by five mayors regarding the recent annexation agreement of CU South between the City and CU. We, as they, want to ensure that our residents are fully protected from the risks associated with floods, want opportunities for a range of housing options that actually are affordable, and want to safeguard in perpetuity the unique ecosystems and species on our Open Space.

In our view, the current annexation agreement is unacceptable and has many flaws, both from the process and content perspectives. Some major flaws include:

The Council’s fundamental role is to serve the citizens, not to dictate to them. Well before this annexation was decided, the citizens put Initiative 302 on the ballot, with many more signatures than required. That should have been a wake-up call to Council. Instead, Council passed it “by emergency,” even though no emergency existed and flood mitigation is years out, assuming the permits are approved. What Council did was clearly an attempt to thwart citizens from having a vote in this matter;

In the process, Council ignored both the Planning Board and the Open Space Board of Trustees, both of which declined to approve the agreement. In our view, that again demonstrated a complete unwillingness to listen to the very citizens that the Council had chosen to provide expert advice;

The detention pond now designed to protect against a 100-year flood is woefully inadequate, given climate change, and only provides false security to the downstream community. Once it overruns, it will flood downstream properties just as if it weren’t there. The Council should have demanded a detention pond sized for a 500-year flood.

CU needs to agree to an enrollment cap. The proposed housing on the site will be irrelevant in a few years, given CU’s high rate of student growth in Boulder;

A majority of housing on the site must be permanently affordable; otherwise, it’s more of what we don’t need.  Currently only 10% of the 1,100 proposed units will be permanently affordable. Normally the city insists on 45%-50% permanently affordable housing for annexations, as well as dedication of important natural resources. CU should state how they will meet this affordability gap so their lowest paid faculty and staff can live close to where they work;

The traffic generated from the site should be limited to the amount that the surrounding streets can easily absorb without going to gridlock. This can easily be done using real-time traffic-counting devices with automatic gates, just like the on-ramps to I-70;

CU said they have no plans to sell the property so the agreement should prohibit a sale. The agreement now says they won’t sell for 10 years and spells out conditions for a sale;

The specific uses of the 750,000 square feet of non-residential buildings are not outlined and need specificity. Does CU want to develop a grocery store, day-care center, a 15-minute neighborhood commercial center to support the housing, or academic study centers related to floodplains, ecosystems, etc. like other major universities are doing with their natural lands? The 750,000 square feet that can be sold, is a huge part of the 5,700 additional car trips allowed in the agreement;

Annexation agreements typically spell out specific criteria for applicants to meet. Since CU is a state entity, exempt from our annexation criteria and our land-use code, it is important we get this agreement right.  Financial burdens should not be passed on to rate payers and the general fund. City goals must be fairly addressed.

The new Council will face a referendum on the current agreement. The process should be restarted, done expeditiously in an open manner so that 500-year flood protection is in place, and commit to putting the final agreement on the ballot so that Boulder citizens have the final say, as required by 302. We believe that former CU Professor Gilbert White, nationally recognized father of floodplain management, was more knowledgeable about wise floodplain management than all five mayors combined, and he warned against development of a campus here. Other alternatives exist and should be explored. Vote YES on Ballot Initiative 302!

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