Thread by @shayshinecastle

Well, we've arrived #Boulder. Tonight is the public hearing for the CU South annexation.

Oh, and a quick update on the city attorney search. Stay tuned. Coming to you soon.

A reminder that the vote is not tonight. That's next week.

But we will get some info from staff and CU, as is usual for annexations.

You can catch yourself up here: boulderbeat.news/2021/04/17/cu-…

Staff presentation: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

This "presentation is many years in the making," says NRV. Years she blessedly spent not here. Oh, to be so lucky.

City attorney Sandra Llanes is addressing us first, tho. To remind everyone that Yates and Joseph are recusing. boulderbeat.news/2021/08/10/two…

"We have many staff who have moved mountains and worked tirelessly to bring this to you tonight," Llanes says, turning it over to the project team.

City staff suggesting that council pass this annexation on emergency, which means they'll need a super-majority (I think 5 votes, since there are only 7 members).

Phil Kleiser: That would give additional weight to permitting agencies and funding, since this is for a flood mitigation progect.

Emergency votes are typically used for, well, emergencies and time-sensitive matters. But council has been expanding that more and more over the years. If they change something, they'll just pass it on emergency rather than taking it to another reading.

Here's how it works: The ordinance as written has to be voted on first reading and second reading. If there are changes between then, or changes made at second reading, it's *supposed* to go to a third reading (and so on and so forth if additional changes are made)

I think the record is six readings for the ADU changes.

But council can also pass ordinances on emergency if they've been changed.

Anyway. That's emergency votes as I understand them.

Staff going over the long and intense public process that led to this. Summed up on this slide:

It is for this very reason that I will not be tweeting the public hearing tonight. I've given you more than three years on this topic. I'll give you one more day: The actual vote next week.

I'll still be listening. I just don't want to tweet.*
*I may make an exception for song-based testimony.

Council throwing it way back with some qs about the flood mitigation design, which they approved in mid 2020. boulderbeat.news/2020/06/12/bou…

Wallach: Did Planning Board recommend annexation?
Phil Kleisler: They did not. They sent a list of recommended additions to the agreement instead.

Wallach: How many of those were incorporated?
Kleisler: As many as possible.

Young asks about affordable retail space at CU South.
Kleisler: There's nothing on that in the annexation agreement.

Reminder: Council passed on rules for those in new developments, which wouldn't apply here anyway bc CU doesn't have to follow our development rules.

Young: What standards *do* CU follow in regards to environment and sustainability?

CU's Derek Silva going over the university's emissions reduction goals. The timeline for all of them are coming more quickly than this campus will be developed. Could be 10-15 years out before that happens in full.

I don't even want to do a Wallach Sigh-O-Meter tonight. Over/under 10? We're at 2 so far, unless I missed some.

Joe Taddeucci, director of utilities (utilities handles flood projects): This project's timeline dates back to 1996. I've been working on this for 2 yrs. "At the core of what we're doing ... is a life-safety issue."

2,300 ppl will be protected by a 100-yr flood mitigation design

"The flooding we're trying to protect against does present a threat to the community," Taddeucci says. Again brings up the possibility of an emergency vote.

"The emergency ordinance would be another one of those key decision that would give us clarity to move forward" with the project and permitting, he says.

Wallach: What are the legal distinctions between doing this on an emergency basis or not? There's no present emergency. This is going to be a 2,3,4-yr project.

Llanes: If a referendum moves forward (to undo annexation) the annexation is suspended. But the city can still spend $$ on it in the meantime. The emergency order gives a little more weight to spending cash during that time (to make sure work keeps going).

It's a policy call, Llanes says.

"If the ordinance passes by emergency and the referendum moves forward to an election, the ordinance is not suspended from going into effect while the referendum is pending," Llanes says.

"If it's passed by emergency, staff has clear direction" to keep working on flood mitigation. "If it's passed by non-emergency, it's not as clear," Llanes says.

Wallach: Can't council give direction to keep working even if we don't pass it on emergency?
Llanes: If it's passed by emergency, we have a signed agreement. It provides the city with a greater legal assurance and less risk.

Wallach disagrees.

Taddeucci: "That puts us in a better position to go to the agencies we need permits from and demonstrate to them that we have a right to the land. That's a standard condition you'll get from permitting agencies.

"You have to prove you have the ownership and the right to build whatever you're building on that property, Taddeucci says. "It's a more desirable position to be in."

Wallach: Have we contacted the permitting agencies to see if they would be flexible with this project?
Taddeucci: Yes.

Wallach: Have they said to us don't come back to us unless you pass this on emergency?
Taddeucci: No. This is based on my years of experience. We would be more at risk of something changing or getting their full attention if the land ownership is less secure.

Llanes: If it's passed by emergency, there's clear authority that expenses can be incurred, payments made in the interim.

Wallach: Is there clear prohibition of expenses in our charter if we *don't* pass it by emergency?
Llanes: It is not. It's silent in that case, so we would be making an assumption.
Wallach: We will have to agree to disagree on this issue in terms of necessity.

Passing by emergency, which we discussed earlier, has drawn some criticism. Council most recently did it for banning tents on public land.

Staff presentation is over; that much closer to our (roughly) 5-hr public hearing. But first: CU is speaking. documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

They're basically just going over all the things
- Open space
- Housing
- Water rights
- Transportation $$
- Flood protection

Yada yada.

Silva going over climate goals again. Full campus carbon neutrality by 2050 is one that I caught. There were others.

Young: Do your plans include net zero:
Silva: Yes. By 2050, we are looking at a carbon-free campus.

Abby Benson: We try to act before we're required to. We do have a net zero building on campus even tho we weren't required to.

Mayor Weaver: "The time is now to turn to the public hearing."

Actually, the time is in 10 min. Quick break.

I'mma leave ya'll here. I'll still be here listening, but I ain't tweeting. You can follow @djswearingen for that. May god bless her for her efforts.

Weaver first reminding speakers that they are "trying to convince people to see things the way you see them, not browbeat them."

OK, just one last tweet before I go quiet.

My roommate is at the Sylvan Esso concert tonight at Red Rocks. He will be home before I am done with this public hearing. I will still be here, on this couch, in this meeting.

Just one tweet bc it is an argument I haven't heard before (which speaks to how white-centric my reporting has been) from Regina Zaragoza: Opponents think only of themselves and how they'll be impacted by flood mitigation and development at CU South.

They all live in Boulder, Regina says. What about commuters who drive in on U.S. 36 and would be stranded in a flood? Opponents suggest a land swap; they should ask commuters who take the bus if it would be easier to commute to north Boulder.

I'm tired of white ppl telling me what's best for my community, Regina says.

Earlier tweet should have said my reporting is/has been white and homeowner-centric. And absolutely Boulderite centric. Appreciate the perspective I have missed and the opportunity to improve.

I promised I would tweet any lyrical commentary, and Mike Chiropolos delivered. I didn't catch the whole thing in time, but big ups for rhyming "annexation" and "consternation." And using the word "balk." 10/10

Omg, the public hearing is over. My predictions did not come true.

Maybe we had a lot of folks drop off...?

No particular rebuttals from CU, Patrick O'Rourke says. Everything opponents said was considered and "fairly addressed" during years of negotiations.

We are DONE, yo! Cannot believe it. Absolutely chuffed.

Until next week, when council will deliberate and vote. See you next Tuesday.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!

@threadreaderapp OK not exactly done. Q from Young gets answered by Llanes: We can change the agreement up until you vote on this, assuming CU agrees to them. That would not require it a third reading.

Weaver to council members: Sooner is better than later. We should not be making changes on the fly.