Thread by @shayshinecastle

Council is talking about what to cancel for tonight: Marijuana rules or the CU South update. Or neither.

Some council members have to leave.

A vote: Only 3 council members want to handle both topics.
Only 3 want to focus on marijuana.

Brockett has changed his vote. They're doing both topics.

I'm going to leave the marijuana issue to @samlounz to tweet and write (OK, start) my vaping story.

@samlounz But I will be back for the CU South update.

@samlounz I'M BACK! I told you I would be.

@samlounz I got one paragraph written.

@samlounz Just a reminder of where we left this: boulderbeat.news/2019/07/18/bou…

@samlounz Carlisle has a q about consulting with OSBT (open space board). They're meeting tomorrow night on this topic; no public hearing, but a study session.

@samlounz Douglas Sullivan, project lead, is up now. "We're continuing with preliminary design. Components we've been working on are mostly geotechnical investigations."

@samlounz Draft report coming next month.

@samlounz Baseline groundwater model has been started, too.

I wish I knew what either of those things are enough to rephrase them for you. I understand them in my head, but I can't translate. I'm sorry!

@samlounz Yates asks: Are we 1 month into the four-six month analysis for the design options?
Sullivan: I would say we're at the beginning of that window.

@samlounz Target is still end-of-year to bring options back to council for tweaking detention and/or land use.

@samlounz Carlisle: An email came to council about costs, $3 million was approved. Who did that, where did that come from?

Sullivan: That was from (an involved citizen I won't name). Cost of (some) analysis has doubled. "There were greater restrictions than anticipated."

@samlounz For instance, Boulder County wouldn't let the city leave equipment on the wetlands to do the groundwater monitoring. So to move, remove and set up that equipment each time cost more money.

@samlounz 26 holes were drilled for both soil and groundwater monitoring.
18 more will be drilled in the second phase, ongoing this year. That will take several months; permitting "makes up the bulk of it."

@samlounz When council gave direction in February about looking at more options, the work for that was $3 million (ish).

So total costs: $1.6M + close to $3M, so close to $4.6M

@samlounz I'm not *totally* sure I'm capturing all of this. I'm going to re-watch and re-summarize.

@samlounz Now we're talking annexation agreement.

@samlounz A more "traditional" communication style will be pursued during the technical work; a more "concerted effort" will happen once there's "more information for the public to weigh in on," Phil Kleiser says.

@samlounz Now an update from CU's Frances Draper. "You people do know how to party. Today it was vaping and marijuana."

@samlounz CU's presentation has a timeline going back to 1996. I was 8.

@samlounz Draper makes sure to say the university said "please don't do Variant 1"

@samlounz She does have a slide of things CU agreed to for annexation: No first-year student housing, no more than 1,100 units, respect the city's height limit, no sororities or fraternities, etc.

@samlounz AND a slide of things the city agreed to for that annexation.

@samlounz I mean, obviously no one has agreed to anything yet, but these are kinda bottom line issues.

@samlounz The next slide is all about why Variant 2 is better. CU is really pushing this one, but council has already said it's dead, dead, dead.

@samlounz But it also has good info about the remaining problems/issues that need to be solved with Variant 1.

"From our read, Variant 1 will be significantly more costly than Variant 2" and will require more land going to open space.

@samlounz "I think we need to re-evaluate if it's a good site for housing," Draper said.

@samlounz Jones on CDOT's issues with Variant 1: They pretty much said no. It's not like they said, 'Let us see more.' It was pretty unequivocal.

@samlounz Derek Silva: The only thing I heard from them was no structure attached to their bridge.
Jones: And we can't go in their right of way. So it would have to be 50 feet out.
Silva: I didn't hear that explicitly in that meeting; I'm inferring that bc they don't want floodwall there

@samlounz Jones: I think we've moved on from Variant 2 and it doesn't feel like you guys have.
Silva: I think we still see opportunity to look at it. There's a significantly higher cost for Variant 1. The q is, is that additional cost worth looking at the flow restrictor?

@samlounz Silva is also from CU, I should say.

@samlounz Draper laying out what CU thinks the "cost items" of Variant 1 are: May need to take over some open space acreage, move the tennis courts, maybe no housing there, elevated road construction "a darn expensive road"

@samlounz Brockett: Are there any numbers?
Draper: "We have some ideas, but they're really just broad side of the barn estimates, but we think this could be $15M+. We're saying this should all be looked at" so you can decide.

@samlounz Draper talking about valuation of the land
Morzel: Is that pre-annexation or post-annexation into Boulder? Bc that changes it considerably.
Draper: It's about the use: open space vs. development, etc.

@samlounz "Variant 1 does cut off the property, which we're very concerned about," Draper says.

@samlounz "We're urging you to do a thorough review of those. We're urging you to look at both of them and not just take Variant 2 off the table."

@samlounz Young: Putting aside that we're moving ahead with Variant 1, you're making the case that we could move fast(er) and it would cost less?

Draper: Yes, that's what we're saying.

@samlounz Young: Under the rule of good, cheap, fast, that means if we move fast and it's cheap, it's not good.
Draper: That's an assumption.
Young: That's the rule.
Draper: Both were vetted by your experts and Variant 2 was selected by WRAB.

@samlounz Brockett: It wouldn't be that fast, and that's a rule of thumb.

@samlounz Nagle: I thought Variant 2 was off the table. I'm confused.
Draper: You have yet to sit down and provide details of Variant 2.
Nagle: I'd say this is a massive communication error between staff, CDOT and CU.

@samlounz Carlisle: When WRAB made that recommendation for the 134th time, it was thinking that it was OK to use the CDOT right-of-way.
Draper: The other one uses it, too.

@samlounz Draper thinks CDOT might change its mind if they see details of both plans.

@samlounz Carlisle: (Variant 2) It's horrific for the wetlands. Untenable.

Draper: None of these are easy choices.

@samlounz Jones: What does staff say?
Sullivan: What I walked away from the meeting was CDOT "clearly said" they did not want a structure attached. They did not go as far to say Variant 2 was not an option. It was never intended to be attached to their structure. But it was in their ROW.

@samlounz Jones: We talked very, very briefly in that meeting that we'd have to pave South Boulder Creek.
Sullivan: I think the paving terminology is probably a little bit strong. (Said something else, but I don't understand it; I'm sure.)

What's needed is "to make sure their structure saw no more stress than under existing conditions," but not necessarily pavement.

Yates: Is there a downside to CU, CDOT and the city sitting down again? Are we afraid we sit down with CDOT they're going to change their mind?

Draper: That's what we're advocating.

"That's all we're saying; you need a full picture bc there are significant impacts of Variant 1."

Brockett: I tried to push this before. "There was a discussion; it sounded bad," but that was it.

Jones: I feel like we're deja vu-ing this.

Carlisle: If anyone meets, "open space needs to be included. Bc this is a huge impact." Morzel agrees.

Young: I agree with (Yates) about sitting down again.

Morzel: It's frustrating at this point. It's been CU and the city.

Brockett: Their right of way bows out in that one spot. Maybe they're not attached to that.

Jones: That's one point they were very clear on.

Brockett: The $$ you were throwing out, those were for 500-year Variant 1. But we're working to rejigger that... "those numbers would shift a bit."

Draper: Correct.

Jones: I just don't want us to keep jerking the public around. But it sounds like a number of ppl want to nail this down with CDOT, yet again.

Draper: The annexation agreement we submitted remains pretty flexible. We're trying to set it up so if you do say, Variant 1 no matter the costs, it can be worked for you.

Jones: It's our needs of flood protection, and that's yours, too. We all need flood (protection).

Draper: I'm not saying we don't.

Annexation will go into 2020.

Jones: Next step would be having this meeting with CDOT?
Sullivan: Yes
Brockett: While you're continuing work?
Sullivan: Yes

Draper giving thanks.
Jones: I know you feel we haven't heard you. We've heard you; we may not agree with you, but we've heard you.

That's a wrap on this. @threadreaderapp, please unroll.