[BoulderCouncilHotline] Input for Oct 9 study session - CU South and Hogan Pancost

[Weaver, Sam]

Fellow Council Members and HOTLINE followers,

I apologize that I will not be able to attend the Oct 9 study session as I will be traveling for business during most of this coming week. Both of the items on the study session agenda are important, so I would like to share my thoughts on them.

CU SOUTH

I want to start by expressing how grateful I am to CU for their active involvement in this process of visioning for the future of this site, and for their flexibility as Boulder has developed our plans for flood protection.  There is new leadership at CU which is interfacing with the city as our mutual plans are developing, and their active involvement is very beneficial meeting both of our organization's goals.

One of the main questions asked of us by staff for this study session regarding CU South is whether we agree with the purpose statement that staff has drafted for us to consider.  While I generally agree with its sentiment, words are very important, and I do not completely agree with some of the framing elements of the verbiage.  I propose this as an alternative which is purposeful about the current relationship between CU, the community, and the ecosystem within which any development would occur:

'The purpose of this process is to define the conditions of annexation for the University of Colorado's potential South Campus ("CU South") which would fulfill the desires of the University system while also meeting the goals of the City of Boulder for this land.  Any annexation agreement will be guided by the BVCP CU South Guiding Principles, and will include agreements which will clearly define building standards and uses, transportation plans, flood mitigation, ecosystem protection, and land stewardship responsibilities, among other subjects.  Because a definitive site plan is not to be included in the annexation, the annexation agreements will also define a process by which the Boulder community will be substantially involved in the formation of plans for building on the CU South site.'

Among the list of topics that staff asked for feed back on, I have several comments.


  1.  There was no mention of how to mitigate impacts on adjacent neighborhoods regarding cut-through traffic, mitigating parking impacts, noise, lighting, litter, and other changes that would come with a 1100-person development plus potential academic classrooms and research facilities.
  2.  The process by which the city will have input to the emerging and evolving plans for CU South needs to be defined in a way that gives the City significant standing in their formation.  While I do not believe it would be fair to ask for any veto standing, I do feel like the City planning process should provide firm guidance through our annexation contractual agreement.
  3.  I also feel that since CU does a very good job at building design (with a few notable exceptions that I will omit here), that our main City concern should be about uses and building massing.  I think those should be the areas that we have the most standing to contribute firm guiding input.
  4.  Regarding the ecosystem impacts, those should be fully delineated and agreed to as part of the annexation process.  This is an area which has unique and fragile environmental properties.  Both parties need to plan for the protection of these sensitive habitats and agree what that program will look like as part of any annexation.

Finally, with the assurance CU has given in their representations that there will be no bypass from Hwy 93 to US 36, I would like us to consider having two accesses to any CU South development.  One could some on the south side from Hwy 93, and another from the north on Table Mesa Drive.  Transit services could be provided from both locations to the main campuses.  From walking the property, it seems that based on the geography of the site that village clusters oriented towards these two transportation connections could make sense, and reduce impacts on the close-in neighbors.  And this would allow emergency services from at least two, and likely more, access points.

Process: First, I think that the pre-application meetings process will need to include several public meetings at which public input is taken.  Without this type of socialization of the terms, any hearings would likely miss early indication of potential friction points. Second, I think that a Council process working group could help guide initial public process. Third, I think that the designated 'study session' of Council after the initial 'Application Submittal and Initial City Review' should instead be a public hearing at a Council meeting.  It could be an item under Matters, but holding a place for public input would be helpful in my view.

HOGAN PANCOST

Here are my cut-to-the-chase thought on the HP property:


  1.  Incorporate areas east of 55th into Open Space properties and perform major restoration.
  2.  On the remainder, consider community gardens which co-exist with current prairie dog habitat.
  3.  On the entirety of the property, consider compost remediation, biochar enhancement, carbon farming and other measures which are being used/studied in the joint city/county localization study of carbon farming.  This local set of land use approaches based on pioneering work in Marin County is being reviewed regularly by the county Resource Conservation Advisory Board (on which I serve), and this area could be well-served as a testing ground for the best practices these studies define.
  4.  I am not supportive of Skate Park/Bike Trails/Pump Track/Disc Golf/Pickleball/Sports Field/Running Track uses on this land.
  5.  I am not supportive of any permanent development uses of the majority of this land. Major development here of any kind will likely impose costs on currently established residents, and is flood-prone.
  6.  I am supportive of studying tiny homes standards in Boulder, and potentially supportive of a small portion of this land used for that.  Generally, we do not have the standards in place regarding tiny homes (mobile or otherwise) or tiny home communities, so I would like to see those standards developed prior to considering whether the H-P land is suitable.
  7.  Similarly with the concept of a mobile-home community, my support would be contingent on siting, flooding, ground-water, and impacts on local communities.  I would be unlikely to support this use unless impacts were much better-defined than those of previous development proposals.
  8.  I support upgrading of Dry Creek Ditch #2 on the west side of the property.
  9.  I support acquiring all of the water rights associated with this property.
  10. I would support annexation of the H-P property as long as it all belongs in portions to OSMP or Parks and Rec. Should there be (in the future) a move to provision a small part of the property to tiny homes or mobile homes, it would require a vote of the OSBT or Parks Board as well as Council for that use, and that is a protection that I support.

Enjoy the study session Tuesday!

All the best,

Sam Weaver
Member of Boulder City Council
weavers at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:weavers at bouldercolorado.gov>
Phone: 303-416-6130

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20181008/98ad8f3f/attachment.html