Boulder secretly endorses pact with CU, clearing way for development at CU South City official says accord means CU can move ahead with development, even if Boulder changes mind about dam-building scheme The city’s utility chief told Boulder’s Water Resources Advisory Board last night that, without public notice, the city had received all of the required permits to start $76 million in construction work on a dam along U.S. 36 and had formalized its tentative annexation agreement with CU, allowing development to proceed at CU South. The city apparently acted even before the water board and City Council had given approval to the current capital spending plan including the controversial dam-building project. Utility chief Joe Taddeucci told the board that, with the agreement officially completed, CU can start development projects on the tract, regardless of city actions. Final approval of the tentative accord had been delayed because of delays by the city in securing permits from regulatory agencies. Taddeucci has blamed delays and cost increases on a lawsuit by the project’s opponents, but the city’s failure to secure the permits were a prime cause of the delays. The water board approved the project, whose overall price tag now totals more than an anticipated $100 million including consulting fees and other costs, after a perfunctory session, during which a handful of advocates and opponents of the project testified. WRAB members did not challenge Taddeucci’s defense of the project. Advocates offered emotional appeals, citing conditions after the 2013 flood. Opponents argued that the project’s costs had skyrocketed while its benefits dwindled, and called for an updated cost-benefit analysis and peer review. Environmental groups have criticized the project as detrimental to wildlife habitat in a state conservation area, including two threatened species. A lawsuit is pending after an appellate panel rejected opponents’ contentions, and the challengers have not announced whether an appeal to the state Supreme Court will be filed. The secrecy surrounding the city’s endorsement of the tentative pact is in line with other city moves, intended to thwart opposition to the project. The City Council has previously acted on an “emergency” basis, blocking public hearings on the plan. It has planned to finance the construction through bonds tied to fees on household water bills to circumvent TABOR requirements for a citywide vote on taxes, but now has apparently revised its financing scheme as interest rates have risen. Its unannounced move to conclude the annexation agreement appears designed to stymie further moves by opponents and clear the way for the city to push ahead with the hotly debated scheme.39.98216, -105.23228COCommentShare

38 reactions77 commentsjerry greene5d·Arapahoe AveCU SOUTH The image shows Development Zone, Recreation Zone, Flood Control Zone, Open Space Zone. Flood zone shows a red crayon mark and a wall along US 36. Here are my ideas: 1. Include in the recreation zone the current recreation facility for CU tennis, and work with RMTC to have access to their bubble for their program and 12 month tennis. 2. Retention ponds and ditches are much cheaper than dams or walls: 3 retention wetland ponds with trails, and 1.5 mile wetland ditch running south on US 36, so if flood waters breach the ditch, they will flow to open space instead of housing. 3. Retention ponds, say 1/4 the size of Wonderland lake are a source for water for wildfires. 4. Wetland habitat and trails is good for wildlife and humans.Reply

8Steven Telleen4d·Keewaydin Meadows

jerry As I pointed out to you before, the reason your detention pond approach has been repeatedly rejected by CU is that to do that effectively would require cutting back on their development plan. There is not enough acreage to support both the upstream mitigation approach (wetland ponds) and the plans CU has for “maximum development” on the property.ReplySee 9 more repliesSteve Orr5d · Edited·Table MesaThis is even more concerning than I realized. Given the potential effects on a state wildlife area and Endangered Species, was an Environmental Impact Study performed?Reply

9Steve Lynton5d·Author·Table MesaSteve Boulder’s government has avoided the possibility of an environmental challenge because of the Trump administration’s elimination of regulatory barriers. Opponents challenged the financing of the plan in court as a violation of TABOR but have not challenged it in court on environmental grounds. The Center for Biological Diversity has analyzed the impact of this project on wildlife habitat. Boulder’s government and Council have brushed aside such arguments, contending that they are taking steps to mitigate the harm, a position disputed by opponents.Reply

3Steve Orr5d · Edited·Table Mesajerry I don’t disagree, but do you think the “ship has sailed,” so to speak? I’m very concerned and rather disgusted with what has happened.Reply

6jerry greene5d·Arapahoe AveSteve I have proposed a better, less costly, more nature friendly and more detailed plan than anyone. That is my scope of authority at this point. Anyone can share these to the appropriate staff/council players.Reply

3Trish M.5d · Edited·Lower ChautauquaI watched the WRAB live and rode my bike through the construction dust at CU South yesterday morning. Steve thank you for the information. I wish that some of the City’s actions surprised me.Reply

6Steve Orr5d·Table Mesajerry it doesn’t seem like WRAB is particularly open to suggestions at this point and they’ve made their decision. I hope that’s not the case or perhaps a lawsuit will be filed?Reply

4Steve Lynton5d·Author·Table MesaSteve WRAB is not open to reconsidering this issue. Board members simply accept claims made by Joe Taddeucci, his staff, and consultants and do not seek or evaluate independent information. That would require peer review or reconsideration by an independent agency or panel, a proposition flatly rejected by the city.Reply

3See 6 more repliesDaniel Sacco5d·Coal Creek CanyonHow dare the governed have opinions and ideas that thwart the plans of the ruling class!Reply

5Steve Lynton5d·Author·Table MesaDaniel This project has all along been a development scheme launched by CU, which considers itself an independent state agency unaccountable to Boulder residents. After the 2013 flood, Boulder’s politicians found it politically expedient to capitulate to CU’s developers. The consequences have been obvious.Reply

12Mark Wallach4d·Lower ChautauquaSteve, come on. I get it that you don’t approve of the CU South project and would like to stop it, but there is no reason to resort to the types of misinformation contained in your post, which is not your general modus operandus. Let us count the ways: 1) The agreement with CU was executed years ago; back in 2021 if my memory serves. The conditional nature of that agreement was a term the City bargained for in order to protect itself. We did not want the project to proceed if we did not get our permits and made it conditional upon our receiving them. We have now received them, and it is merely an administrative matter to finalize the agreement we had previously negotiated. There is nothing secret about it; nor was this condition meant to reinstitute a full scale review of the project which was approved by an earlier Council. 2) No public notice is required to announce the completion of the approval process; we finished that process and the City is now authorized to proceed. 3) The notion that this is merely a grab by CU and that Council is a pawn in their schemes is beyond absurd. This was a very difficult and often contentious negotiation, and the City prevailed on any number of red-line issues without which they would not have proceeded. In addition, as a result of those negotiations, approximately half of the property will be added to the City’s Open Space permanently. Five acres will be donated for the construction of affordable housing and two more acres will be made available for the possible construction of a fire house. Boulder’s height limitations, which are not applicable to CU, will be maintained. Restrictions have been placed on CU’s ability to sell the property to third parties, and the construction of housing will take precedence over the construction of any research facilities. We absolutely did not capitulate to the desires of CU. This project has been well-vetted and there has been voluminous public comment and testimony. The project was endorsed by the City Council. Two citizen initiatives intended to block the project failed dismally. The lawsuit has failed at two levels of judicial review, and is almost certainly going to fail at the highest level if appealed again. So my question to you is: at what point do you accept the judgment of the Council, the voters of Boulder and the Courts of Colorado regarding this project? Continuing to call for further review, when the only real purpose of that review is to contradict the verdict of the City government, the voters and the courts is a profoundly anti-democratic approach to this issue. The judgment of this community has been rendered; is there any point in time when you might accept that judgment, or can we expect yet another lawsuit attempting to overturn that consensus from the government, the voters and the courts? None of this means that you have to approve of the project, but the approval process is complete and that ship has sailed. Enjoy our new Open Space.Reply

7Steve Lynton4d·Author·Table MesaMark Thanks. Your position on this issue is well known. I have not agreed in the past, and I do not agree now. Yes, a further court appeal is likely. If it were possible to challenge this in court on environmental grounds, I would support such a challenge. However, the Trump administration has made that difficult, if not impossible. This is a huge mistake, as others have noted. I’ll continue to do whatever I can to prevent it.Reply

9See 9 more repliesMichael Le Desma4d·Martin AcresLeaving aside the merits of the project, it is misleading to suggest that this was secretive because there was no public notice or opportunity for comment. Formalizing the terms of an already-approved annexation agreement once prerequisite conditions are met is an administrative execution step, not a new legislative decision requiring public notice or hearing. Again, I’m not speaking to the merits of the project. I’m just saying that, procedurally, this particular step in the process is totally normal.Reply

3Steve Lynton4d·Author·Table MesaMichael Sorry, news is news. As a former newspaper reporter and editor, I frequently post news when I see it. This project has been on hold for several years, amid continuing controversy and considerable opposition. It was on hold primarily because of protracted delays by the city in obtaining regulatory permits. When those permits are obtained and the city is prepared to endorse what was previously a tentative agreement, a public announcement would be expected. That’s particularly so, since a capital budget including this project’s construction costs was pending both before WRAB and the Council. It’s also particularly so because concluding this previously tentative agreement is the key step giving CU the go-ahead for its development plans. Without that, the entire agreement could be renegotiated. It makes no difference whether a public announcement is legally required. It’s a matter of public policy and public information in the interest of transparency, concerning one of the most costly and controversial project’s in this city’s history. It comes at a time when Boulder’s finances are a matter of controversy. In fact, there was no public announcement. That’s not in dispute. This is a city with a $4 million PR staff of 32. Is that PR staff incapable of posting a news release describing the agreement and its consequences? In a city with a functioning government, the mayor and city manager would hold a news conference to provide details of this turning point in this project’s history and explain its ramifications.Reply

7See 12 more repliesJeff Finkelstein4d·Highland Park

I walked there with the dogs today, as I watched them start to clear cut part of CU South. It’s very sad for me. Today, I saw two deer and a red tailed hawk. Two weeks ago, I saw two Elk grazing in the grass. I’m not going to wade into the politics of it, and I realize that nothing I do can change the outcome. This is a loss for people in Boulder, and sad to lose a 2.5 mile loop where dogs can roam free and swim. I’ve walked here most days for the past seven years. It’s just very sad to see this special place turned into concrete and condos.Reply

11Steve Lynton4d·Author·Table MesaJeff Thanks for your update.Reply

1See 6 more repliesKathy Russell4d·East BoulderI would love to help you Boulder, I have lived here since 1981, love this dog walk. BUT YOU VOTED THESE PEOPLE IN, now deal with it as you vote for every tax increase that has ever been on the ballotReplyGeorge Weber2d·Macky WayKathy I, and many others did not vote for these people. And yes, I agree that the Boulder electorate seems to knee jerk approval for every tax increase that uses pie in the sky politically correct language.Reply

1L C Burger4d·Majestic HeightsThank you all for your thoughts! Very helpful to me.ReplyBen Binder3d · Edited·Majestic Heights

To avoid floods, wise universities build on high ground, not in depleted flood prone depleted gravel pits below major Front Range drainage basins. When the depleted Flatiron gravel quarry was unloaded on CU for a bogus appraisal of $16 million, the gravel permit reclamation plan included large ponds that would attenuate South Boulder Creek floods (Attached). The reclamation plan did not include a 6,000’ earthen levee to divert floodwaters around the gravel pit onto neighboring properties. But CU, placing more importance on maximizing development on its gravel pit than on protecting the lives and property of Boulder residents, hired a consultant to revise the reclamation plan to accommodate maximum future development (Attached). The revisions eliminated the ponds which could have been configured to detain floodwaters and added a 6,000’ berm to divert floodwaters around the gravel pit onto neighboring properties. CU then used its political clout to get the state Mined Land Reclamation Board to gut the reclamation plan. When the 2013 flood hit, neighboring properties were severely flooded while CU’s vacant gravel pit remained dry (Map Attached). Quite an accomplishment for a university which teaches classes in environmental studies and is always boasting about its environmental stewardship.Reply

6George Weber3d · Edited·Macky Way

This is appearing on people’s door knobs this afternoon. How Orwellian — up is down and down is up. This reminds me of the Vietnamese War when the US burnt and bulldozed Vietnamese villages in order to ‘save’ them from the Commies!ReplySteve Lynton3d·Author·Table MesaGeorge Thanks. Boulder’s $4 million PR staff swings into action. Instead of any public announcement, Boulder is delivering a little message to our doorknobs (if we’re lucky enough to get one), with no further details. Hmm, let’s not ask too many questions. This is, of course, all for our benefit.ReplyGeorge Weber3d·Macky WaySteve Yes, the largely from out of town, many new to Boulder and Colorado, mercenary City staff know what’s best for us wayward, privileged folks that have lived here for decades.Reply

1Sally T.2d·Palo Parkhttps://nextdoor.com/p/pNtD43dtpRfW?utm_source=share&extras=NDY5Mzc5&share_platform=10&utm_campaign=1790286615678&share_action_id=120a1a51-6468-4a71-841e-a2cce1ce3139For those of us who want to protect green spaces, wildlife, wetlands and the environment – please read on.nextdoor.comR