In a presentation Tuesday night during a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Board, Jeff Arthur, Boulder’s director of public works for utilities, lamented that much of the city was developed “without a good understanding of flood risk.”
Commenting specifically on the controversial, roughly 300-acre CU Boulder South property along Table Mesa Drive and U.S. 36, Arthur noted that there are more than 500 structures and close to 2,000 housing units in the South Boulder Creek floodplain.
“From a strictly flood-management perspective, it’d be better to have people not living in the floodplain,” Arthur said. But, he added, “We have a lot of competing objectives.”
This competition was on full display during Tuesday’s meeting and public hearing, where city officials were briefed on the latest development and flood mitigation plans at CU Boulder South. Fifty-five people signed up to offer testimony on the matter. As of 10 p.m., two dozen of them had not yet gotten to speak.
At issue is the future land-use designation of the CU Boulder South property, which sits in unincorporated Boulder County and is owned by the University of Colorado.
The city and county are currently in the midst of updating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan — a broad map of the community’s future that dictates where various land uses can and can’t occur, and at what levels — and it is in this process that certain sites are up for possible redesignation.
No site has generated more community interest this time around than CU Boulder South, for which the city and the university have discussed a tentative plan that would lead to annexation of the property and eventual development on part of it.
CU has said it would like to eventually develop 1,125 much-needed housing units for faculty and students — both groups have been increasingly priced out of city limits — plus build eight academic buildings and three recreation fields.
As part of this plan, a berm would be constructed on the northeast side of the side, along U.S. 36, to protect the highway and homes against what is called a “100-year” flood event.
Many feel that much work remains to be done to understand and then mitigate the flood risks on the site. The current plan could exacerbate downstream flood concerns, they say, and is being pushed through hastily to accommodate the university, at the potential expense of people living nearby.
“We can’t keep increasing pressure on these fragile areas,” Edie Stevens said during the public hearing. “We need to stop approving development in places zoned to be potentially hazardous.”
Ben Binder, who has pressed the city to consider alternative designs, calls the current flood mitigation plan it a “Rube Goldberg” solution that he alleges is financially and topographically imprudent.
Speaking on behalf of the citizen group PLAN-Boulder County, Allyn Feinberg urged the council and Planning Board to “separate (CU Boulder South) from the update” to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and “further evaluate.”
Others who addressed the council Tuesday said that flood risks must be addressed urgently, and implored decision-makers to approve the land-use redesignation of the site. Many of those speakers live in the nearby neighborhoods of Frasier Meadows and Keewaydin Meadows, where the 2013 flood was devastating, and where neighbors live in fear of a repeat incident.
The prospect of a flood mitigation project near their homes is, thus, very exciting to some of those neighbors.
“Every time it rains, we all wonder, is this the next flood?” Patricia Multhauf told officials. “Please do not waver; the safety of my neighbors is at risk. We need the process to move forward.”
The public hearing was open to anyone looking to address the council on any matter related to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update, but during the citizen comment period, almost everyone spoke about CU Boulder South.
Neither the council nor the Planning Board was set to vote on the land use at CU Boulder South or on anything else related to the plan update, as Tuesday’s meeting was intended purely for staff and public commentary.
Both bodies will meet over the next month to deliberate and consider approval of the plan. The Planning Board returns first, for a meeting on Thursday, while the council will meet twice in June.
Alex Burness: 303-473-1389, burnessa@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/alex_burness
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
