Thread by @shayshinecastle

NOW: CDOT update on CU South.

Weaver made this request for an update. CDOT has sent a letter, I think. I haven't seen this bc it just came today, when council scheduled this.

Joe Taddeucci, interim director of utilities in public works, up first to address Variant 1 or Variant 2. "Frankly the real q is has Variant 2 come back to life? There was a perception we had put that behind us."

Between CDOT letter and staff discussion, "we're hoping to provide some clarity on that issue."

I'm just gonna refer to him as JT from now on bc I'll butcher his last name. Me and my spellcheck will just crap all over it.

Basically what CDOT has said is we can build any option as long as it's outside their existing ROW. They don't have a position on any of the city's flood mitigation options or the variants. They don't want anything attached to their bridge.

None of that is new information.

The flow restrictor was never meant to be attached to the bridge. And CDOT never weighed in on the variants.

Jones asks about Point 3: What does the right of way look like when you get to the U.S. 36 bridge? It's much bigger there.

ROW goes 50 ft away from the bridge, Jones says. Asking for a map.

"I feel like ppl are still going to walk away with Dif impressions of what this means."

JT: Basically, when you move the variant 2 concept outside of the ROW, it becomes "a new creature." We're not building on existing infrastructure. "That becomes a bigger engineering challenge."

From utilities staff viewpoint, "it's no longer a preferable option."

It moves project into sensitive habitat, creating permitting challenges. And worries Open Space staff "over and above what we discussed before."

Weaver: How big is the ROW there?
JT: 50-60 ft

Weaver: Are we within their ROW with the bike path?
Yes, Kathleen Bracke says. It's jointly maintained with city, county and other cities along the corridor. It was built by CDOT.

Bracke clarifying a Jones q about what can go in the ROW: The commuter bikeway, which could double as a maintenance road.

At one point there was discussion of putting the bike path on the top of the wall. But that was before CDOT said no wall in the ROW.

There was some discussion at some point, too, about a future ROW vs. the existing. CDOT settled on allowing the wall up to the existing ROW and underground parts in the ROW.

Brautigam: The thing I want to say is that JT had an important statement. the bottom line here is that we're taking Variant 2 off the possibilities.

JT: "When we talk about the engineering concepts" of moving the structure 50 ft out, with the flow restrictor, etc. "there's a lot more to that when you move it outside the CDOT ROW."

Combine that with permitting challenges, open space impacts "we don't feel it's a good investment to spend more staff resources and funds on that concept."

Brockett: You'd have to make a new bridge 50 ft out or so. Would you have to tie it to the flood wall? How would that work?

JT: It would be like a roadway embankment.
Brockett: That would tie back into the flood wall?
JT: Yes.

Brockett: How much open space land would be impacted?
JT: 100 ft or so "just off the top of my head."
Brockett: I just want to be able to explain this to ppl. Is 100 ft how wide the embankment is?
JT: It could be 100-150 ft with construction easements.

Brockett: Do you feel like this would keep us from getting permits bc of the environmental impacts?
JT: Yes, we feel that's a possibility.

"We're not sure it makes sense to spend more time on that. Continuing to go down the path of the previous council direction and focus on Variant 1... that's the path we think we're on."

Brockett: "I appreciate you all pinning this to the ground bc I feel like there were unanswered qs. Now I'm fine with the direction we're going."

Jones: "I was in that meeting; I think I heard something definitive, but then we wanted to go back and make sure. Now everybody in the community understands: We didn't take it off the table; it was taken off by the reality of engineering."

Important to make it clear to the community "so we don't do a Groundhog Day and suddenly we're re-examining things that have been taken off the table."

Yates asks for a written memo to explain to the community.

Carlisle: It's not how much open space land this is, but what kind it is. It's that that really drives this in terms of impacts.

Weaver: "This will help us translate widely what the technical restrictions would be. I know in your minds it was probably decided, but the community needs to get this clarity."

Jones: This letter (from CDOT) also says, 'This is the way to go forward.'

Thanks them for compromising on future ROW vs. existing in where it allows city to build.

Jones asks open space to consider how the reality has "shifted" and we know that impacts will have to occur on open space.

That's all for this update. Please unroll @threadreaderapp. Thank you!