By Philip P. DiStefano
The CU Boulder South Annexation agreement currently under public review provides the residents of the City of Boulder the best and most expedient way to achieve critical flood protection. It’s as simple as that.
As a nearly 50-year resident of Boulder and the leader of the university, I have a vested interest in our entire community’s safety, health, prosperity and the preservation of what makes this city so unique.
I witnessed the devastation of the 2013 floods and, frankly, adequate flood protection, especially in South Boulder, has taken far too long. Yet, in a few short weeks, the approval of the draft annexation agreement would provide the solution we need — immediately enabling the city to begin pursuing the permitting necessary to build flood protections for 2,300 residents downstream.
I disagree that our moral obligations have not been met in regard to the planning and implementation of this complex project.
CU Boulder has met and exceeded the moral obligations to our community and our diverse stakeholders by not only providing flood protection, but through additional benefits, including the preservation of open space and the inclusion of attainable housing options for CU students, faculty and staff, at a time when the cost of living in Boulder is increasingly out of reach for many.
The agreement also provides for five acres of new affordable housing, which will add a significant amount of new supply to help alleviate our extremely tight local housing market. This housing is a vital community benefit that furthers our city’s and university’s shared goals for diversity, equity and inclusion. The flood protection at the site also enables equity in the community, as a significant portion of people who will benefit from the new protection live in permanently affordable housing in areas currently at risk of flooding.
Let’s also be clear that the draft annexation agreement — six years in the making since the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update first set the stage — is the fastest way to achieve these benefits at the site.
In recent days, the idea that the university might be able to simply grant an easement to the city to build flood protection at the site — with annexation taking place at a later date — has been suggested as an alternate option to quickly achieve flood mitigation. This notion is false.
If CU granted the city an easement, it would give the city only the right to access the land. It would not give the city ownership of the land upon which it plans to conduct flood mitigation.
The easement proposition ignores the intent of the 2015 BVCP — which itself was approved after significant public input — that a university ownership transfer of the land to the city was the ideal method to provide flood mitigation for its residents. In fact, the requirement of land transfer has been one of the most basic underpinnings driving annexation negotiations for the past six years.
While it might sound on its face like an easement would be a simple and quick proposition, that is not the case. In many ways, it would take us back to square one. Granting an easement would be no less complicated than the current proposal.
Nor does it take into account the crucial elements like transfer of over half of the land and all of the university’s water rights ownership at the site, both of which are key factors in the city’s ability to obtain federal and state permitting for flood protection and wetlands preservation.
Any attempt to enact flood mitigation without these key elements would significantly complicate the approvals for the city’s plans. Backtracking now to grant an easement would add months, if not years, of further delays. It’s a risk our community shouldn’t have to take.
In reality, the discussion of an easement option threatens to derail this project. The well-thought out annexation plan not only provides critical flood protection and housing in our community, it also makes a significant addition to the city’s inventory of permanent open space, establishes multiple provisions for habitat preservation at the site, and creates innovative transportation solutions that are new to the city of Boulder to mitigate future traffic impacts and support the city’s transportation goals.
And the idea that development density at the site will be similar to that of downtown or CU’s Main Campus is entirely untrue. Strict density limits and height requirements are clearly set forth in the plan and, even when fully developed in the years to come, will not approach levels in other parts of town. This is inaccurate information that is disconnected from reality and meant to sow doubt by furthering the false idea that this annexation agreement has been rushed.
Through thousands of hours of meticulous collaboration, negotiation, flood mitigation analysis, innovative problem solving and public input over the past several years, the city and university have developed a plan that meets the responsibilities we have to our respective communities — and then some.
The agreement provides life safety for the community and helps the university secure an equitable and sustainable future in which our affiliates can live — as proud members of the Boulder community — where they work and study. I appreciate the many in our community who have played a role in making this annexation agreement a robust solution that provides myriad benefits to us all.
We are on the cusp of this solution becoming a reality and we cannot stall any longer.
Philip P. DiStefano is the 11th chancellor of CU Boulder.
