[BoulderCouncilHotline] CU's response to Variant 1 500 yr, plus questions and heads-up for our flood mitigation conversation tomorrow

[Grano, Jill]

Dear Council and Hotline Followers:



Given that one of our Baseline Criteria in deciding a course of action for flood mitigation at CU South is: "Land owners (CU, CDOT and OSMP) must be willing to allow construction of the concept," I feel it important to share with the public an email that Frances Draper, Vice Chancellor for Strategic Relations and Communications, sent to the entire City Council on August 10, 2018, after our August 7 Public Hearing on this matter.  At the August 7 meeting, Councilman Weaver asked a question of CU about the Variant 1 500 year concept. In essence, the question was whether CU would consider the Variant 1 500 year concept if land use could be reconfigured on the site.  Given that Ms. Draper had not had a chance to discuss Councilman Weaver's question with colleagues, she followed up on his question via email.  The entire text of Ms. Draper's email is copied below this post. In summary, Ms. Draper reiterated that "neither Variant 1 500-year nor Masterplan 500-year options work for the university."



In addition to sharing with the public this important email that was received after the public hearing, I would like to ask a question of staff for our meeting tomorrow.  First some background: A number of community members, including PLAN Boulder County, have recommended that City Council not follow all of our Baseline Criteria, and have instead urged council to not consider the land owners in making a decision about flood mitigation ("Flood mitigation decisions should not be made on the basis of who owns the property" - Leonard May, speaking on behalf of PLAN Boulder County). Implied here is that if Council decides to move forward with a plan that the land owner says no to, we must find a way to acquire the land. Some, such as the attorney for Save South Boulder, have addressed how the City might acquire the land head-on by publicly speaking to City Council about the use of eminent domain. I therefore request that the City Attorney or someone from staff (and CU if possible) come ready to provide further information to Council about options to acquire land that is not ours should Council decide to move forward with a concept that the property owner has not agreed to. Specifically, can a City use eminent domain on State owned land; and would the use of eminent domain by the City hold up in a court of law given that other options to protect the public (and would not require the use of eminent domain) exist?  More specifically, since the land owner has already offered to donate a portion of the land for flood mitigation, is eminent domain a viable legal path?  If so, how much time and money are we talking about?



As a heads up to my colleagues on Council, if Council does decide to abandon part of our Baseline Criteria and move forward with a concept that the land owners do not agree to, I would like to have an informed discussion on how we plan to execute flood mitigation on land that is not ours.  It does not seem prudent to authorize spending more months and years, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars, on a plan that relies on land we do not own, that the owner has said no to, and that we have no plan for how to acquire.



Warmly,




Jill





Email from Frances Draper to City Council in response to Sam's question at the public hearing:




Dear Sam:



After Tuesday’s council meeting I had further discussion with my colleagues at the university about addressing your question at the meeting regarding our ability to consider the Variant 1 500-year flood mitigation concept. With that time for further thought and discussion, I would like to clarify our position.



The university has asserted that Variant 1 500-year and Master Plan 500-year concepts would not work for CU because, in both of these cases, we would lose significant portions of the land designated as Public under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan where we hope to place housing for faculty, staff, graduate students and upper level undergraduates.  These two options also make access to the site more difficult and expensive to build.  Further, we will have to review whether the tennis courts/facilities would need to be moved.  If so, that would further reduce the acreage available to develop housing and academic space while increasing costs.



Under these two concepts, we also note that the 500-year flood plain, where we have agreed not to build habitable structures, would occupy essentially all of the OS-O and Parks and Urban Other designated lands on CU Boulder’s property under the BVCP.  Consequently, we do not see a scenario under which we can change our originally stated position that neither Variant 1 500-year nor Masterplan 500-year options work for the university.



Happy to discuss further if you like, but wanted to make sure that you had this information.  Thank you for your and the entire council’s hard work on this issue.



Kind Regards,

Frances





Frances Draper
Vice Chancellor for Strategic Relations and Communications
University of Colorado Boulder
Boulder, Colorado 80309
O 303 492 4504
C 303 775 3192

[cid:b8491e80-1cad-47fa-81ae-f2a484a67252]


Jill Adler Grano

Boulder City Council

granoj at bouldercolorado.gov

303-917-6810


"The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There's no innocence. Either way, you're accountable."
-Arundhati Roy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180820/b093912f/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedImage.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10359 bytes
Desc: pastedImage.png
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180820/b093912f/attachment.png