Thread by @shayshinecastle

This is it: The big one. CU South Annexation. Here's staff's presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_6A_-…

And my story, which is an easier and quicker read (not as comprehensive, but helpful): boulderbeat.news/2021/04/17/cu-…

I'll prob tweet mostly what staff says, and add in extras as I think of it. I have So. Much. Notes. on this — stretching over 3 years — so it's a bit like trying to drink from a firehose.

Or my focus will wander bc I'm bored of reporting on this and I'll tweet like once every 10 min, when someone says something outrageous.

Or nothing, bc I just got kicked out of the Zoom.

Phil Kleisler, going over the traffic study. CU has agreed to a "trip cap" — that is, only a certain # of vehicles in and out each day.

Development will be tailored to make sure it stays under the projected trip cap.

The current plans for development — 1,100 housing units and 500K sq. ft. of classrooms — would create 7,000 daily vehicle trips, 450 occurring during the morning rush hour and 650 occurring during the PM peak hour.

CU is planning a multi-mobility hub on the campus as well. Bus stops, bike share, bike parking, etc.

Derek Silva from CU: The current traffic study out there is a draft. We anticipate taking feedback from the public, TAB, council, etc. We didn't create the scope and assumptions. We worked with city staff on those.

Silva: CU includes bus passes for all students, bike share programs, van and car share. All parking is paid. Our SOV occupancy rate is 50%. So we do a lot to reduce traffic.

Wallach q to Kleisler: How exactly does the trip cap work? It's a great concept.

Kleisler: I don't think we've done it here in Boulder. It's fairly common in California, for Facebook and other companies there.

Essentially, there's a monitoring period. All vehicles in and out are counted. If it exceeds the trip cap, the uni has a cure period (90 days) to get those back down.

Brockett: "I think the trip cap is a great idea. We've talked for years about Transportation Demand Management with teeth. That's great to see."

Bill Fox, from the group that did the traffic study: All the key assumptions were done through collaboration, not picked by CU. (Trip generation rates based on uses, multi-modal trip assumptions, etc.)

Fox: We've heard a lot of concern about doing counts during COVID.

"This is a topic we have to deal with on any study we do in any community in the last year or more. ... Unfortunately, we had to take some counts in November. "

But "the lion's share of our counts are based on pre-COVID commuting. That in and of itself is conservative, bc I don't think we'll ever go back" to that way of commuting, Fox says.

We adjusted our counts during COVID and supplemented them with pre-COVID data, Fox says.

Fox: "We've been criticized a little bit for implying that traffic is flattening out ... but the fact of the matter is, traffic grew faster between early 80s and 2000, and it's been flattening since."

"To think we're going to go back to 1985 and think we're going to travel the same way doesn't make sense when we're looking to the future," Fox says.

Fox: We also were criticized bc we found that not many cars will use Moorhead. But there are other routes that are significantly faster — 1.5-3 min, even during congested times — "so we just don't think that will be the case."

Brockett: Student housing, students who would be living there would already be going to CU but living elsewhere. So some number of those students are traveling in already. Some number of those trips coming to the site would be going there anyway. Are we accounting for that?

His larger point was that this traffic study is somewhat dif, given CU's captive audience, so to speak: Ppl living in CU housing will already be part of CU, and therefore driving in from elsewhere.

Whereas with other developments, though it's likely we're capturing ppl who are already coming into Boulder by letting them live here, it's likely a lower % than with CU housing.

I hope I did that justice with my explanation.

Friend: I also wonder. I live right near the area and often drive my son to Fairview. I imagine some # of trips will be eliminated if we get better bike/pedestrian path connections in the area. How's that being calculated?

Silva: My son doesn't usually bike to high school bc there's not a safe route. If there becomes a viable path, I just wonder if that's taken into account.

Silva: Silva: It hasn't been in the current study. But there is a gap in the connection there. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, but it seems like a good program for collaboration with the city.

Fox: The updated report has a map of multi-modal connections overlaid with the site, to highlight room for improvement. We've heard from city staff that maybe we haven't done enough on bike/ped connections, so we'll be focusing on that.

So it sounds like the numbers of car trips that might be reduced isn't being considered yet, but improved bike/ped connections are on the table.

Weaver: It seems like the folks who live here will be going specifically to other campuses. Was that accounted for, the transportation behavior of residents?
Fox: Yes.

We've studied housing at other CU campuses and traffic behavior. For classroom trip generation, we studied the east campus, Fox says.

Swetlik: I think one of the other concerns with the traffic study is that some of the counts were when school wasn't in session. Was there a reason for that date?

Fox: Yes. That was the absolute soonest we had authorization to count. We needed to get those 6 on-ramps. It just happened to be the week before Thanksgiving. But we compared it to past counts when school was in session.

"We're trying to adjust for COVID, but not capture the holiday season," Fox says. We never count during the holidays.

"We're doing this for every study we're doing all over Colorado right now," Fox says. "We have to make those COVID adjustments."

Nagle: I have some qs on your thoughts RE: ppl not cutting through Moorehead and commuting not returning to pre-COVID levels.

"If it's less traffic and it takes me longer, I'll do it in a heartbeat," Nagle says on the cut-through.

On commuting: "I was just in Tuscon and it's the worst it's ever been in 25 years. .... It's right back to where it was. "

I get that we hope ppl won't commute again, or cut-through Moorhead, Nagle says, but what's the plan for when they do?

Fox: "There will still be congestion. I'm not saying this solves all problems. ... I lived on Moorehead, and if I didn't have to go down Moorhead, I wouldn't have."

Also says he believes commuting, office use, will not continue the way it was pre-COVID. Based on his professional experience.

Nagle: "I'm understanding there's no technical contingency plan."

Fox: "I'm not sure what you mean by technical contingency plan." I could do a study with traffic routed down Moorehead. "I don't think that's going to be the route of choice."

Nagle: For the neighbors, I think it would be nice to see what could happen. A model.

Nagle: We often see that the ramp to 36 is always backed up. Is there a way for this to be addressed further?
Fox: Are you referring to a specific ramp?
Nagle: Both are almost always backed up. I'm talking about the on-ramp to Denver in the morning.

Fox: The good news is that for this site, I'm not sure that's an issue. Most of the traffic is going to other campuses.

But the ramp to go back toward the main campus could be problematic, and we'd ID'd a way to mitigate that with a traffic signal.

Brockett: Even if Fox is somehow wrong and commuting goes back to 120% of pre-COVID, CU is still stuck with that trip cap, right?

Yes, Silva confirms by nodding.

Some talk of the Tantra connection. Not fully fleshed out, bc the site plans aren't, but CU "leaning toward" using it as emergency access only.

Fox: We didn't project a lot of traffic there. It's in a school zone, through residences.

Fox: "It's a little bit of my crystal ball, looking at how people are going today," and convos with city and CU staff. "That's how traffic studies are done."

That wraps the traffic section. Dang, I could use a 5-min break, but no such luck.

Let's talk about some contingencies the city is building in: That the annexation be contingent on getting flood mitigation permitted.

There are a dozen or so agencies (federal, state, and Boulder's own open space board) that have to OK plans for flood control here. If it doesn't get approval, Boulder could de-annex the site.

CU isn't planning to start building anything until the city starts flood construction. ~2026

The city also working on something like right-of-first-refusal in case CU tries to sell the site.

Annexation terms *always* go with the land, so even if someone buys it, they'd be bound by the terms.

But not everyone is convinced by this. Wallach, who is asking qs now, has some concerns.

Wallach: If the annexation agreement goes with the land, does that mean whoever buys it agrees to all the same things: height limit, building 1,100 units, agreeing to the trip cap? Can it be converted to an office park or other uses?

City Attorney Tom Carr: The annexation agreement binds the owner to those terms. You as the city council also has the ability to place additional restrictions or zoning on the land.

"Belts and suspenders would be what I recommend," Carr says.

The whole reason we're doing this annexation agreement the way we are is precisely because CU *doesn't* have to follow Boulder's building regulations (height, density, etc.) So whatever Boulder wants, it has to get now in an annexation agreement.

Wallach: If 10 years from now, CU wanted to sell the property, whether it's half developed or not developed at all, would a new owner be able to come in and change development plans?

Carr: The city could zone the land in such a way that's consistent with the uses CU is planning there. As long as you do it before any sale.

Wallach: But I thought the annexation terms went with the land?
Carr: It does. As I said before, belt and suspenders. If you want to make absolutely sure, do extra protections.

Brockett: "If this all proceeds, we might want to consider changing the underlying zoning to something that's not terribly attractive" to other owners/developers... "on top of the annexation agreement."

RE: the de-annexation, Brockett asks how council makes sure the city is doing a good-faith effort to finish the permitting process. So a future council couldn't half-ass it to undo annexation.

Kleisler: "I'm not sure, legally speaking, what that would mean."
Brockett: "We should chase that down a little bit."

OH, I forgot one other item in this section: Payment In Lieu of Taxes. CU is a state entity, so it doesn't pay property taxes, for instance. Or impact fees. Or construction use tax.

As far as property taxes go, Boulder will be foregoing ~$200K a year, staff estimated. They want CU to do a PILOT program: Give us extra stuff in exchange for lost property tax (that Boulder would get through annexation if CU wasn't a state entity)

Basically, Boulder is adding in tax-exempt land.

CU has never done a PILOT program for any of its other properties, anywhere, and thinks it sets a bad precedence for it to do one here.

Young asked about affordable housing.
Silva: "We recognize that is a concern, and we have the same concern. If we're going to create housing here, how do we do it for across the community? That is foremost on our minds."

But CU can not use federal tax incentives that ppl use to build affordable housing. "It's a challenge for us to build what ppl typically refer to when they refer to affordable housing," Silva says.

Also, Silva adds, Boulder hasn't made a specific ask for what it wants in affordable housing.

LOLOL Nagle.

She's offering comments on traffic. "Listening to what our residents are saying is more important to me ... than the thoughts of someone who doesn't live in Boulder."

"For thoughts to be brought into this rather than facts is not something I'm interested in"

The "thoughts" she's referring to are the opinions of the expert hired to conduct the traffic study, who spends his life studying traffic patterns and behaviors. But go off, I guess.

Next section: We're going to go zone-by-zone on the 308-acre site. Of course, it hasn't been "zoned" yet, as it's not annexed. But it does have land use designations, through the Boulder Valley Comp Plan process.

They are:
129 acres - Public (intended for public and semi-public facilities like gov't and education; this is where CU intends to build housing and classrooms)

60 acres - Parks, Urban and Other (public lands used for a variety of active and passive recreation; this is where the city is going to do flood control, and CU will build athletic fields.

119 acres - Open Space - Other (this is not exactly the same as open space, but it does preclude most development. You can read more in this 2018 piece I did: dailycamera.com/2018/06/09/bou…)

This is the area of biggest disagreement on the site between CU/the city

Boulder wants to preserve the entire 119-acre swath of OSO, and for CU to give the land to Boulder for free.

CU is offering 44 of the OSO acres for free; Boulder can buy the rest if it wants, the uni said.

Also, CU wants to use 10 acres of the OSO for athletic fields, bc there won't be enough / suitable space left over in the Parks land after Boulder builds a dam and detention area on it, the uni says.

If CU keeps the rest of the OSO land, they'll do community gardens or solar gardens and some recreational facilities there. Not sure exactly what yet.

Boulder, on the other hand, would preserve and restore the whole thing. Again, this is the biggest source of disagreement.

There are sensitive areas and threatened species on the site, which the city hopes to save/restore. Ute Ladies' Tresses orchids and the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse.

I just got *way* ahead of the presentation with that high-level view of what's going where on the site. We'll return to this later in more detail.

Right now, we're focusing on the Public land. This is where all the housing and classrooms and development will go.

As stated previously, CU has agreed to Boulder's 55-foot height limit, and agreed that buildings will scale down as it approaches adjacent neighborhoods.

Oh, and CU has agreed to no large sports facilities (football stadiums, basketball arenas). But according to existing definitions, not-large facilities can have up to 3,000 "rabid fans" , as Wallach calls them. He's concerned about noise.

Wants some restrictions on hours of operation and types of activities that can happen there.

Example of non-large sporting facility would be a soccer field, for instance, or the tennis courts that are there today.

Young: How did we come up with 3,000-person capacity as the cutoff for what a large sports field is?

Silva: "It's not that we envision we'll build Potts Field out there." We had this prohibited use — no large sports fields.

We needed a definition for what a large field was, Silva says. So we settled on Potts Field, much smaller than a stadium.

Young asking about another provision CU has agreed to: That it will build 100 units of housing before it builds anything else. This is to satisfy the guiding principle that housing take precedence over other uses on the site.

Silva: We were trying to meet that fairly vague principle.

Friend: To me, 3,000 people at a sports field sounds high. As a neighbor, it's not a number I'm in love with yet. Nothing is set in stone yet.

Not a direct answer to Friend's question about Boulder's noise ordinances, but staff let her statement about assuming they apply stand so.... we're assuming they apply.

Brockett: 3,000 attendees "does seem like a large number. Idk what the magic number is. 1,400? I'm not an expert on sports fields."

Young: There should be "no potential for an evening concert" or lighting or "loud sports game" that's going to "impact wildlife" or things like that.

Weaver suggests a better reference point than Potts Field, which many people aren't familiar with. Suggests Boulder or Fairview High facilities instead.

Some discussion over the ratio of residential vs. non-residential buildings on the site. Housing is a dire need in Boulder, and CU has been the target of much criticism for years for not having enough housing for its students, who put pressure on the market elsewhere in town.

Forgot this earlier, but CU has also agreed to abide by Boulder's outdoor lighting ordinance. You can read more on THAT in THIS old story of mine: dailycamera.com/2019/01/04/for…

Joseph adds some perspective: As a woman, we need to think about outdoor lighting and safety.

The ordinance doesn't ban outdoor lighting; it just requires that it points down and doesn't project up toward the sky.

OK, moving onto the Parks land.

Where, again, the flood mitigation will go.

Forgot to say this earlier, but in a nod to city requests, CU may put a dog park and running track there as well.

LOTS of people walk their dogs on CU South today, and many are opposed to development. Even folks I know, who aren't super involved, know that they don't want to lose their dog-walking spot.

Some mention of the levee, which I'm not super confident in the details of. The city wants it removed; I think CU is OK with that, but there's disagreement on who pays and who gets to keep the dirt from it.

It all seemed a little in-the-weeds to me, and I've never been super clear on the levee issues, so I haven't really focused on it.

Bigger fish to fry, in this case.

OK, we've moved onto the Open Space - Other land, which is the bigger fish.

Most of the city's position on this actually comes from OSBT recommendations. Again, this is a disagreement about how much land CU should give the city for preservation (44 acres vs. 119)

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 1

Another disagreement: The city wants the water rights, for restoration purposes.

Actually, not technically a disagreement, bc CU hasn't answered yet. They're still having a consultant look at this.

Brockett is in favor of letting CU put some athletic fields on 5-10 acres of the OSO land that "isn't right for restoration."

Kleisler answers: The move of the floodwall into open space — out of the CDOT right-of-way — is what triggered OSBT to request more open space land
Brockett: I'm aware of that, Phil.

He said it much nicer than my tweet made it sound, of course. Brockett is perennially polite.

Brockett: "I don't want to break the deal because of that."

Friend: "I use CU South a lot. It's a v convenient place to walk a dog in a loop that is flat." A dog park "won't quite have the same feel. Is there any thought of maybe recreating what is there now" when it becomes Boulder open space?

It's not city open space, Friend says, but "it's kind of used as such now."

Dan Burke, head of OSMP: Maybe, but it's hard to plan for that without knowing how it impacts open space. OSBT recommended a typical trail planning process (stakeholder feedback, community feedback, board and council feedback)

Burke: We fully anticipate that any public recreation use of any land will have to go through a robust planning process. Restoration is also a consideration.

"Yes, it's definitely on our minds. But that would be a public planning process in and of itself."

Weaver: "I think it would be super great to not have any fields on OSO. I think it's super great enough that it should be something we work toward."

We should do "as much as we can to restore the value that was there before it was a gravel pit," Weaver says. "We don't want it to be a deal breaker, but it should be a strong area of emphasis."

One more section: Costs. I don't think there are slides for this. Wallach is leading.

Here's some info from my notes:
Flood mitigation will be
$66M
$41M for flood mitigation
$10M for fill (to allow development)
$15M for impacts to CU

Currently $31M funded through Capital Improvement Plan for flood mitigation. The rest will be added to water bills. (+$8.75/mo to average utility user for stormwater & flood mgt)

But as staff and consultants have noted, these are very early estimates. They can be off by up to 50%. The flood mitigation part, at least: the CU costs are less likely to change.

For each $10M extra, approx $19/yr added to household bills for 20 years

Lots of consternation over paying for fill dirt so CU can build on the land.

The $15M for impacts, at least, is fairly standard (though this is a large project) bc the city always reimburses property owners for impacts to land it uses for projects, staff have said.

But the $10M in fill costs... I'm not sure if that's standard or abnormal. And that has drawn a lot of ire.

Wallach asks if there's a cost that's too high; that is, if flood mitigation goes past a certain point, do we then de-annex?

Nagle: I'm v concerned about the environmental impacts of this, especially when there's a planning reserve we could have shifted this to. (That's the land swap idea that CU isn't on board with.)

Weaver: Costs are a big deal. Fill costs are something to keep an eye on.

OH, I have more cost info. Not exactly cost, but $$ that Boulder is "losing out on" bc CU is a tax-exempt entity.

The city has estimated those at $6.7M in impact fees and $4-$5.9M in construction use tax, along with aforementioned $200K annually in property tax.

"I don't think we have enough info to do a deep dive tonight, but I don't think we can lose track of it," Weaver says.

Boulder can lessen its spending on fill IF it can use the dirt from deconstructing the levee.

There was some pushback on that from CU in the notes... I didn't quite follow it all.

It doesn't help that I read the old version of the briefing book first, then the new one. Lots had changed in between; I don't quite remember what was where.

Brockett: I would not go to the point of putting a de-annexation clause if the project gets too expensive; that's subjective. But we do need to keep an eye on costs.

Responding to the open commenter who said why is this area so special to spend so much $$: We spend lots of $$ on flood control everywhere in the city. They don't protect as many ppl, they cost a little less.

Glad he mentioned that. Lets compare CU South cost/benefits to another planned detention project: Hogan Pancost.

Hogan Pancost detention was also ID'd in that 2015 South Boulder Creek master plan as a priority project.

It will protect 26 nearby homes for $2 million to $6 million, or $76,000 to $230,000 each.
boulderbeat.news/2019/07/13/des…

CU South will protect 1,100 homes and 260 other buildings. At $66 million, that's $60,000 per home. If costs are $99M (which staff has said is possible) that's $90,000 per home.

I have cost info for other projects but Idk how many ppl were "protected" by that, so Idk how it stacks up. I'll do a story if this becomes an issue (like council debating how much $$ is too much)

A list of other flood mitigation projects:
8 Projects, $119-$152M cost
Upper Goose Creek: $24M
Gregory Canyon Creek: $10M
Fourmile Canyon Creek at 19th Street: $10M
Boulder Creek stormwater mgt: $4M
Four-mile flood mitigation / Broadway culvert: $3M

That's from the May 26, 2020 stormwater and flood mitigation update. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1265448…

In case you're interested.

Joe Taddeucci, of utilities, also spoke earlier to the same open commenter as Brockett. She showed images of the multi-use paths flooded in 2013.

That's what they were designed to do, Taddeucci said.

In fact, I believe federal flood $$ gets used for some of those multi-use projects/improvements bc they are part of the flood mitigation strategy.

Friend not so keen on de-annexing based on flood project costs. I'd be concerned about people manipulating that, she says.

Wallach: My suggestion wasn't if the $41M became $50M or $60M. But would you have any qualms if it became $90M or $125M?

"To me it's not the principle, it's the price."

Friend: It's a consideration, for sure. If it becomes too costly, we have to figure out how to save lives still but in a different way. I just don't want that to be linked to de-annexation.

Taddeucci: "Definitely, the costs have elevated over the years that we've been planning and looking at design."

Right now, the uni has 129 acres of land not in the floodplain. But when we build the dam and detention, it's going to change the floodplain.

"The reason for the fill is to make them whole for those 129 acres."

Ah, so it might fall under what Boulder typically does, which is reimburse property owners for impacts to their land. Still, projects aren't usually this big or expensive.

We've tried to be v conservative in our estimates, Taddeucci said. If prices go up to where we can't work within our current planning, we'll let you know.

Taddeucci: Mile High Flood District is partnering with Boulder on this project. They make grants; a few million $$ are allocated for this right now.

Swetlik: How is the negotiation process for the dirt going to work?

Bringing an appropriate humor to this absurd sticking point.

Swetlik: "Do we have any excavation-intense projects we could line up with this? Or if we need to have a dirt drive, let's do it."

Taddeucci: We will definitely do that. We are creative in sourcing our materials.

"100 years of dirt" is a phrase Friend just uttered.

Wallach: One more q about dirt.
Do we know much $$ it would take to deconstruct the existing levee?
Yes, Taddeucci says: Our project manager is thinking about it and working on it.

"There's not a significant amount there to really make a huge dent in the fill placement, but it all helps," Taddeucci says. Or it can be used to build the new earthen walls.

Gah we're still at it.

Returning to the PILOT discussion: Instead of $$, CU has offered 2 additional acres of land for Boulder to build a fire station on.

Estimated value (from the city; CU hasn't provided its own assessment): $340,000

Swetlik: Fire Station No. 4 is a small single-family home with a glorified RV garage, so it seems v insufficient for what our needs are.

It has been tapped for relocation, at an estimated $35M

Land costs, of course, being a huge part of that. Boulder spent $9M on land to move Fire Station No. 3 dailycamera.com/2018/10/16/bou…

Swetlik: I know there are a lot of community members who don't want anything to go here. I'm probably in that camp. But I realize there are competing needs in the city.

Weaver: "This is a project that has a lot of disparate interests involved. Life safety being first and foremost. ... All of us on council recognize that, in a perfect world, we'd all have open space out our back door."

We're working with CU to come up with a deal that is fair. Sometimes, when you have competing interests, the job of gov't is to balance those, Weaver says.

"That's what we're working on."

That feels like a good place to stop (because we're done anyway). BANG-BISCUIT that was a long one.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!