necessary amendments to the motion re CU SouthFrom:Steve Pomerance
To:Adams, Taishya; Benjamin, Matthew; Brockett, Aaron; Folkerts, Lauren; Marquis, Tina; Schuchard, Ryan; Speer,
Nicole; Wallach, Mark; Winer, Tara
Cc:OSBT-Web; Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria; Tate, Teresa
Subject:necessary amendments to the motion re CU South
Date:Thursday, February 22, 2024 11:07:24 AM
External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender.
To the Council and OSBT:
Irrespective of the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the current flood proposal, the
proposed Motion should be amended as follows, so that, in the possible (and IMO
likely) outcome that the flood project is denied by CDOT, the Colorado dam safety
board, one of the Fed agencies, or otherwise derailed, the land’s environmental
value is not prematurely destroyed.
Therefore, the Motion currently on the agenda should be amended in two ways:
1) to NOT allow the Utilities Department to use the land in any way or for any
purpose whatsoever other than for the flood project (e.g. NOT for a gravel storage
area or a place to park snow plows in the summer or ???). There is no defensible
reason to allow the Utilities Department to use it for whatever it chooses, as the
current Motion allows.
and
2) to REQUIRE the Utilities Department to maintain the land in its current
condition, including taking all necessary steps to ensure preservation of the
endangered species, until such time as the flood project requires a change in that
maintenance, and with ongoing consultation with the OSMP Department as to
necessary maintenance actions. Without such language, the environmental value of
the land may be unnecessarily and gratuitously lost.
Here is the current language, with draft proposed amendments in color and
underlined:
1. Prior to use or management of the approximately 2.2-acre Transfer
Area by the Utilities Department, the City will acquire theapproximately 119-acre OS-O Site and 30.2 shares of Dry Creek Ditch#2 Water Rights from the Regents of the University of Colorado at nocost to the Open Space fund and in a manner that is consistent withParagraph 12, “Conveyance of Land,” of the Annexation Agreementbetween the City of Boulder and The Regents of the University ofColorado recorded in the records of the Boulder County Clerk andRecorder at Reception Number 03916406 on September 27, 2021.Said land and water rights will be managed by the Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department for open space purposes, subject to theUtilities Department’s use for the Mitigation Project. 2. The OS-O Site and Water Rights acquired for open space purposes
will be used by the Utilities Department for the Mitigation Project inconsultation with OSMP staff, until the restoration goals and permitrequirements for the Flood Project have been completed consistentwith the capital improvement project and city permits and agreements.3. The 1.9-acre Temporary Construction Area used by the Utilities
Department during construction of the Flood Project will be restoredto the satisfaction of Open Space and Mountain Parks Departmentstaff.4. The Transfer Area will revert to Open Space and Mountain Parks
Department management if the Flood Project is not fully permitted orotherwise able to be constructed. DELETE or if the Transfer Area isno longer used or needed by the Utilities Department in thefuture.DELETE5. ADD The Transfer Area will be maintained by the UtilitiesDepartment in its current condition, including taking all necessaryactions to ensure preservation of the endangered species and theirsupportive environment, until such time as the flood project requires achange in such maintenance. The Utilities Deparment shall consultongoingly with the OSMP Department as to such necessary actions.ADD
So it’s clear, I do NOT support the transfer or the flood project as currently
conceived. Simply put, the flood management alternatives have not been fully and
intensely explored, including a land exchange for land in the Planning Reserve,
flood proofing the buildings, etc. And the transfer is premature.
And, of course, the lack of transparency with regard to obtaining the necessary
permits is, frankly, terrible.
It is only rivaled by the total lack of transparency with the 23 closed door meetings
in which all this was negotiated, which apparently violated the Charter’s clear
requirement that all meetings of the council and committees thereof be public.
But I recognize that this is on rails, and will only stop if the State or Fed’s say NO!
Steve Pomerance