A case study of the planning and decision-making activities in the proposal to build Centennial Valley Mall

Material Information

A case study of the planning and decision-making activities in the proposal to build Centennial Valley Mall
Burstein, Stephen ( author. )
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (ii, 111 leaves) : ;

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Master's ( Master of Urban and Regional Planning)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Design and Planning
Committee Chair:
Hill, David R.


Subjects / Keywords:
Shopping malls -- Planning -- Colorado -- Louisville ( lcsh )
Shopping malls -- Planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Louisville ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Thesis (M.U.R.P.)--University of Colorado at Denver, 1980.
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Urban and Regional Planning/Community Development, College of Environmental Design.
General Note:
"A Studio III project."
Statement of Responsibility:
by Stephen Burstein.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
on10153 ( NOTIS )
1015342708 ( OCLC )

Full Text
University of Colorado at Denver College of Environmental Design
A Studio III Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Urban and Regional Planning/Community Development
Stephen Burstein
Dr. David R. Hill, Thesis Advisor
July, 1980

Table of Contents
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1
Purpose of the Study............................................... 1
Evaluation ........................................................ 3
Statement of Thesis.............................................. 4
Research Methodology .............................................. 5
Scope and Limitations of the Study................................. 6
Organization of the Paper.......................................... Q
Footnotes......................................................... 20
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND OF THE CASE............................ 22
Description of the Proposal and Related Land Use Problems H
History of the Centennial Valley Mall Actions..................... 25
Footnotes......................................................... 29
Approval Functions................................................ 34
Sponsorship Functions ............................................ 33
Footnotes......................................................... 42
AGENCIES IN SELECTED ACTIONS ...................... 43
Amendment to the Boulder Countv Comprehensive Plan ............... 43
Consistency Between the Proposal and the Regional
Growth and Development Plan......................................52
Centennial Mall-Related Transportation Planning and
Rebuilding the Superior Interchange ............................ 58
Southside Interceptor Site Approval .............................. 66

Evaluations...................................................... 79
Examination of Thesis .......................................... 97
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................... 105

This is a case study of the planning and decision-making activities relating to the proposed Centennial Valley Mall in Louisville, Colorado. Various intergovernmental relationships have occurred throughout the well-publicized and controversial series of events. In this investigation I intend to present a history of the proposal up to the time of writing, examine the roles and postures of the governmental agencies involved, and finally analyze the agencies' relative position on issues, their motives for initiating actions, their responses to others' moves, and their "effectiveness" in dealing with the system.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to look at the series of governmental procedures to which a controversial project such as the Centennial Mall can be subjected and to identify problems in intergovernmental affairs. Some of the key questions are: what abilities did certain parties have to affect the proposed action at various points in the process? And how well does "coordinative planning"* work in Colorado under existing circumstances?
The Centennial Valley Mall issue has been a grand test for a number of coordinative planning arrangements. Several such arrangements are: (a) the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, mutually
adopted by the County and municipalities, (b) the Regional Growth
*"Coordinative planning refers to joint planning efforts undertaken for purposes of cooperation, non-duplication, and negotiation of disputes among various governmental and private entities.

and Development Plan, adopted only two years ago by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), (c) regional transportation planning, cooperatively worked on by the State Highway Commission, DRCOG, and RTD, and (d) the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission's site approval function* In addition, under scrutiny are the municipal planning and development reviews and regulations taking place while opposition from other governmental agencies raged on.
This last "test" is particularly interesting because Louisville is a small city, not exceptionally progressive, and generally has been a willing participant in all intergovernmental engagements related to this case.
One component of the story is an increasing interest in land use issues from State and regional government bodies. Colorado is commonly characterized as a state with weak land use controls at the State and regional levels.^- While the State has traditionally played a major role in land development through such functions as providing road improvements and financial assistance for water and sewer facilities, there is now growing interest in asserting State concerns through better coordination of these capital programs as well as through concerted efforts to encourage good local planning. The Human Settlement Policies were adopted by Governor Lamm precisely to better address growth management problems. Likewise the Regional Growth and Development Plan is DRCOG's planning and policy statement for the Denver metropolitan area. Nonetheless, some critics feel that this case demonstrates how weak the State and regional levels still are in regard to land use and how strong local governments are.
According to most participants, the politics in the Mall- issue

have overwhelmed the "rationality" and impartiality of planning procedures. The conflict between the City of Boulder and the City of Louisville in particular has taken on a quality of pushy political raanuvering. Boulder has been pitted against the Mall consistently, soliciting help from everyone else to nix the project.
While this aspect has not been focused on in detail, it must be recognized that "Boulder vs. Louisville" has played a big part in nearly all inter-agency relationships. In general, there is a thin line between planning and politics throughout the Centennial Mall story.
Another component of the Centennial Valley Mall story is the contention that private developers do whatever they please, regardless of what governmental bodies say or do. The underlying theme here is that money and greed are the real bases for land use decisions. The corollary is that all governmental disputes are actually superflous to land use guidance. Clearly, the threat of lost tax dollars has been at least as important to Boulder officials as their land use concerns. Similarly, it is fair to say that Louisville 's foremost incentive to facilitate Mall development is City revenues. However, throughout formidible intergovernmental actions, the major issues have been mainly related to land use planning and not simply lining the developer's pocket or the public coffers.
Beyond recording the history of planning and decision-making activities and analyzing the actions of the participants, this study attempts to make some evaluation of the whole set of pro-

cedures and the various points where influences can be exerted. The following are critical questions which I will try to answer.
Given the existing situation and its numerous constraints, how effective have the participants been in influencing the course of events? Have the challenges been handled "fairly"? What were the opportunities for cooperation; were the incentives for cooperation adequately attractive; and did parties attempt to utilize them?
What is the future of the evolving intergovernmental processes and institutions?
I am interested in the possibilities for creative and constructive action entailing good communication among levels and agencies of government. I am especially concerned with the level of understanding existing between local governments and the State. If there is miscommunication and/or steady adversity then efforts to promote good planning in Colorado fostered at the higher levels will do little good. There are inevitably points where the agencies are just not talking to each other or are butting heads. This is not necessarily counterproductive and may even be a good strategy to deal with problems. However, in many cases it appears to be unhealthy and may be due in large part to problems in the institutional arrangements that can be corrected.
Statement of Thesis
My thesis is that all the fragmentary efforts to deal with different sides of the Mall proposal and to view it from different levels (municipal, county, regional, and State levels) do not make a whole and workable system. Three main problems exist: (a) the roles of the non-local governmental entities (the COG and the State)

are both weak and rather poorly defined; (b) the incentives for cooperation or compromise are not substantive enough; and (c) the system is not sufficiently flexible to arrive at innovative solutions to complex regional problems.
Research Methodology
The case study has been approached from an "institutionalist" theoret-2
ical perspective. The planning and decision-making activities occurring in the more formal institutional situations have been the primary focus of this study. Aspects of each agency's organization, legal powers, procedural rules, activities, and formal relations with other agencies are identified and analyzed in this paper. In particular, the relations between agencies involving "interest group" political pressures are examined through the relative roles and postures of the actors taken within the instititutional setting. As will be shown, these "interest group" pressures have been the main catalyst behind the Centennial Valley Mall events.
The principle sources of data for this study include interviews, government documents, and newspaper articles. Interviews were conducted during May and June, 1980 with government officials who had worked in formulating agency postions and in presenting these positions at occasions of multi-agency interaction. The format of these interviews generally followed the questions listed in Appendix A. Interviewees' perspectives were solicited as to their agencies' roles and actions, their strategies, and their reactions to the other agency participants.
Of course no interview strictly followed the given format. Unexpected variables nearly always arose that required more specific

questions for each participant. Most of the interviews covered a broad spectrum of issues. It is hoped that the timing was "right" so that enough time had passed after most actions had been finished for the participant to reflect on them, yet not too much time lapsed for the person to have forgotten what happened and what feelings he had. At the time of writing there are certain unfinished actions pending that might still alter the course of events and consequently people's interpretations.
The interviewees were all helpful and patient. It was fun talking with them because the story continued to unfold with new facts and points of view. My special thanks to these people.*
Written materials consulted and reviewed include plans, policy statements, reports, memoranda, and letters. Most of these were found in the offices from which they originated or in files of the Colorado Division of Planning. In addition, newspaper accounts were indispensible for gathering facts on the case and to establish a reasonably accurate chronology of events. Boulder County and Denver newspapers were referred to exclusively.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
Events in this study begin with the announcement of the proposal in December, 1978 and go through to the Supreme Court hearing of "McKee v. The City of Louisville" in mid-June, 1980. By beginning with the proposal in Louisville, the City of Boulder's lengthy and unproductive relationship with Sears and the developer, and all
See Bibliography for the complete list of persons interviewed.

considerations of other locations have not been reviewed. And by ending with the Supreme Court hearing we still do not know the final outcome of the whole story: whether or not the Mall will be built.
Environmental and social impacts of the shopping center are not studied here. And there is no attempt to analyze or pass judgment on the wisdom of the physical or technical land use decisions in my report. It is always difficult to be impartial about a hot subject.
I have tried to separate any biases regarding the project from the subject at hand: intergovernmental relations. It must also be clear that I have undertaken this study separately from my job as an intern with the Colorado Division of Planning, Department of Local Affairs and attempt to not be prejudiced in regard to my employer's actions.
The scope of the study is reduced by making no attempt to examine the personalities involved in the issue nor the interpersonal level of arriving at a position or making a decision. The study looks at institutional functions where data is fairly accessible. It is unfortunate to not be able to penetrate into more intimate levels of communication where opportunities for various influences and compromises may appear in a different light. However, access was very poor to secret and unrecorded exchanges. I hoped to learn about the "flavor" of such processes through a couple rounds of interviews with some participants.
The study is further limited in that it was not possible to develop full histories of each agency and ongoing relationships between agencies. A more complete understanding of prior interrelationships would no doubt improve the analysis.

Finally, I have been limited in time and energy of a Master's thesis to do a more thorough investigation into each aspect of the issue; and there is inevitably some spotty data. All of the omissions and mistakes are my responsibility alone, and they will be pointed out wherever possible.
Organization of the Paper
The body of this paper is divided into four parts, Chapter II through V. Chapter II contains a discussion of the proposal, land use aspects, and special circumstances of the case and a brief history of the intergovernmental events throughout the controversy up to the date of writing. In Chapter III, the roles of the City of Louisville, both internally and externally directed, are described and analyzed. The following part, Chapter IV, includes a detailed analysis of several of the most significant events. And Chapter V contains an evaluation of each of the key agencies analyzed and a final examination of my thesis. The Appendix and Bibliography appear at the back.
Ma.jor Findings
This case study has supported my thesis and the supporting propositions. In terms of a capacity for compreinrtisive analysis and action, Louisville, Boulder County, DRCOG, and the Governor each rank potentially high. However, Louisville and the Governor have acted largely as rather narrowly defined advocates and have communicated messages of limited constructiveness. DRCOG has been unable to act incisively largely because of political pressures. And the limited discretion of the Hater Quality Control Commission

and the Highway Commission have been too narrow to address the whole issue. Incentives for cooperation and compromises were
very rare. Several possible opportunities which were still not very attractive came to naught. The system lacks flexibility for accomodating more innovative solutions in both the composite of disjointed analyses and in super-agency review and action potential.

^Robert D. Henly and John S. Rosenberg, Land Use and the States, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), p* 195*
James E. Anderson, Public Policy Making. (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975; Basic-Concepts in Political Science), pp. 23-25*

Chapter II
Description of the Proposal and Related Land Use Problems
Chicago developer Kahan-Jacobs and Company has proposed to build a regional shopping center located at the Superior interchange on the Denver-Boulder Turnpike (U.S. 36) four miles southwest of the City of Boulder. This center would house Sears and four other major generator stores. The development plan^" calls for a first phase complex of 750^000 square feet to be built by 1981, occupying approximately 120 acres just north of the intersection with ancillary office and commercial land uses. At its planned ultimate size of 1.1 million square feet, this shopping center would be the third largest in the Denver metropolitan region. Furthermore, the developers intend to build some 2,28l new housing units by 1992 within their 1,400 acres tract of land. (See Map 2.1)
The City of Louisville has a population of about 5,600 persons. It is an old coal mining town in southeastern Boulder County.
Since all the mines shut down in the 1950's, the City has become increasingly a residential suburb for commuters working in Boulder and Denver. While the City grew substantially during the late I960's and 1970's, it has remained a relatively small and compact settlement surrounded by fields on all sides. (See Map 2.?
In 1975, Louisville decided to expand its city limits to include sufficient land for industrial development and annexed the Mizel property to become the Colorado Technological Center. And later, in 1976, the Storage Tech Corporation property was also annexed. In 1979, the City annexed 1,400 acres to the west of the


Map 2.2*
Taken 1rum Louisville Planning Commission, Louisville Comprehens1vc Development Pjan,
i **n.

i ?
i v,fV'1rdasi
; LiasND:
rn i %-mw
*4 l.if.M
'-j3L/l6V1>_i, CSLSRACC

existing community in order to accommodate the proposed commercial
facility and residential development within the City boundaries.
This property is known as the Centennial Valley Annexation.
The following are the core land use-related problems that have
been repeatedly debated throughout the controversy. The next section in this chapter deals in more detail with when and how these issues were brought up in the planning and decision-making processes.
(1) The City of Boulder is the designated regional activities center in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, DRCOG's Regional Growth and Development Plan (RGDP), and in the State's Human Settlement Policies. While there is some question whether the proposal is inconsistent with the RGDP, it appears to adversely effect Boulder's status as the regional center. Boulder has been working on a downtown revitalization effort that may be jeopardized if a regional shopping center were located outside the City.
(2) The largest share of the shopping center's market areas include the City of Boulder and the urban areas south of Louisville (i.e., Broomfield, Westminister, Arvada, etc.). Shoppers coming from these areas presumably by automobile would U6e more gasoline than if a center were located in the existing population centers. Additional air pollution would result. And both air pollution and energy consumption are critical problems in metropolitan Denver.
(3) This location reinforces our dependency on the automobile and conversely decreases the opportunity for mass transportation because population density would not be sufficient to support
the latter.

(.k) The existing infrastructures are either inadequate or nonexistent to support the shopping center. Cost inefficient investments, mainly borne through government, must be made. Roads, the Superior interchange, sewerage facilities, and water facilities must be constructed or improved.
(5) The development is not contiguous to an existing settlement and tends to generate additional leapfrog development.
(6) Boulder County and Colorado Front Range open space is being rapidly depleted. The results are an undesireable pattern of low density development extending along the entire Front Range corridor.
(7) The City of Boulder's tax base would be relatively weakened by the detraction of retail sales away from its present and future shops. It should be strengthened in order to support the regional services that Boulder offers.
(8) The community of Louisville and nearby rural Boulder County residents would be adversely effected by social, environmental, and aesthetic changes.
This may appear to be a classic case of a shopping center being built in the urban fringe "boondocks" while the existing big city is suffering and is screaming for intervention in the act. However, it is essential to put the Centennial Mall in perspective by considering the unique features of the situation.
The City of Boulder has had very restrictive shopping center development policies and practices. Sears allegedly had attempted to build a department store in Boulder over a twelve year period.
And the developers only considered the Superior interchange site

after they were turned down again. Virtually all parties agree that the logical location is in Boulder; however, given the community'6 intransience, other sites appear far more practical.
Louisville is rather unique as a small Colorado city in that it has been sincerely engaged in comprehensive planning (with a pro-development philosophy) for nearly a decade. The City has developed and kept updated its comprehensive development plan since 1973* Furthermore, Louisville has generally supported and actively participated in Boulder County and regional planning.^
Louisville underwent a law suit over the Mizel Annexation in 1975 with Boulder County and the State Land Use Commission. The case ended up in the Colorado Supreme Court and the City won. Resulting from this experience; (a) the City gained a great deal of knowledge, sophistication, and aggressiveness in regard to annexations, and (b) the City passed an annexation ordinance requiring a thorough annexation statement from applicants. City Administrator Leon Wurl seemed to guide the City through much of this challenge and has remained the City's foremost spokesman and able planning and management expert throughout the Centennial Mall conflict.
Boulder County has been a very progressive county in several ways. The County developed its comprehensive plan from the "area plans" formulated by municipalities for their present incorporated territory and growth areas. The County and municipalities have jointly adopted the plans (with some exceptions). Furthermore, the County adopted policies that restrict development from occurring in unincorporated areas and particularly outside the designated growth
or service areas.
And these policies have generally been adhered to.

Likewise, municipalities are expected to not extend city utilities to service inconsistent growth in unincorporated areas. It is important to note that the Centennial Valley Annexation is in Louisville's service area (in City, County, and DRCOG plans) and had once before been considered for annexation (Sproul, 1973) and denied.
Finally, the case is unique because it has received extraordinary attention from the news media and the state and federal levels of government. The subject of shopping centers was the single most commonly reported local item in the Boulder Camera during 1978 and 1979, covering Centennial, Crossroads, and Longmont proposals. Also, it is not every shopping center that receives Governor Lamm's wrath or the ear of the White House.
History of the Centen-
nial Valley Mall Actions*
Phase I: From the Developer's Announcement to Annexation: On December 1, 1978, Kahan-Jacobs and Company announced its proposal to build the one million square foot "Centennial Fashion Mall" at the Superior interchange. At this time the developer had undergone another defeat in its long-running attempt to locate a Sears department store in the City of Boulder. Based on the company's frustration with the restrictive policies of Boulder, Jacobs and Kahan sought suitable locations outside Boulder where a shopping center would likely meet the jurisdiction's approval and could serve the Boulder retail market area. The Superior interchange four miles
*The chronology is based mainly on news stories in Boulder County and Denver newspapers. Interviews and memoranda have been used to a lesser extent. Some dates may be incorrect by a day or two due to time lag between events and news coverage. The complete list of newspaper stories is included in the Bibliography.

south, of Boulder on the Denver-Boulder Turnpike appeared to meet this initial criteria. While the undeveloped tract of land under consideration was located in the unincorporated territory of Boulder County, it lay in the designated service area of the City of Louisville. And Louisville had intended for some time to eventually annex the property. Rather quickly, it became apparent that the City of Louisville was very willing to cooperate with the developer and do what was necessary to accommodate its construction within Louisville.
During the first month after Kahan-Jacobs made its announcement the City of Boulder worked busily to attract Sears Company back into Boulder. On December 21, 1978 Boulder changed portions of its restrictive shopping center policies. And on December 28th, Boulder Mayor Ruth Correll formally requested Sears not to locate in Louisville and welcomed the department store to Boulder. However, on January 3, 1979, Sears President Edward Telling replied that the company was satisfied with the Louisville site.
Following this affirmation of Sears' and Jacobs' intention to pursue the Superior interchange site, the City of Boulder changed its tact to exerting pessure to stop the Centennial Mall. The Boulder City Manager, Bob Westdyke, requested that the Boulder County Long Range Planning Commission consider designating the mall a "matter of state interest" and utilize the County's powers under House Bill 1041 to address the development's impact in unincorporated territory of the County. Whether or not County officials contemplated action on the Centennial Mall prior to the City of

Boulder's request, the County was initiated to the controversy by mid-January, 1979*
The principle point upon which County government generally focused its attention was compliance of the project with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1978. Based on this reference the County took an early stand in opposition to the Mall. A formal request was forwarded to Louisville on January 18, 1979 to amend its "Area Plan," a section of the composite County Comprehensive Plan jointly adopted in large part by Boulder County and the City of Louisville.
Simultaneously, the City of Louisville Planning Commission was considering the petition for annexation of the 1,^00 acres site spreading to the east of the existing community. According to the City's Annexation Ordinance, the developers must prepare an "Annexation Impact Statement." This document would include a detailed consideration of environmental impacts of the development as proposed by the applicant. The Annexation Impact Statement serves as the primary information source to be referred to by interested parties throughout all development-related review processes. Hanover Development Co. (Donald Kahan, President) and Williams and Associates submitted the Statement on February 27, 1979* Louisville immediately requested Boulder County to review the document.
Governor Lamm entered this early phase of the controversy on February 15, 1979 when he publicly stated his own opposition to the project and asked the developers to reconsider their participation. The Governor's involvement was initiated after Mayor Correll of Boulder brought the matter to his attention. The Boulder City

Council voted to urge State and County review of annexation as early as February ? Moreover at this time* the Governor asked Department Directors Paula Herzmark and Jack Kinstlinger, of the Department of Local Affairs and the Department of Highways respectively, to try mediating the conflicts and to formulate a State point of view.
In mid-February several other developments occurred that further inspirited the controversy. Two citizen groups opposed to the Mall organized and sought to challenge the development. The "Citizens Participating in Louisville's Future" group, composed of Louisville residents, began a drive to place the annexation decision on a referendum ballot. And both the Boulder Camera and the Louisville Times supported the vote in editorials given February 25 and March 1. The referendum petition was presented to the City on March 6, 1979* The "Residents Against Grandiose Encroachment" group, made up of County homeowners neighboring Louisville, requested the County to use a lawsuit to stop the Mall.
Most spectacular of all tactical moves to nix the project was first reported in the County newspapers on February 15, 1979* City Manager Bob Westdyke of Boulder approached one of the landowners, William Suitts, to explore the possibility of buying his estate. Boulder City Council member Paul Danish verified this effort and stated his own interest in acquisition of the property to use as greenbelt through voluntary purchase or condemnation. Louisville officials were outraged by this so-called "under handed" tactic to preclude this development within the Louisville Service Area. Some Boulder officials also reacted negatively. On March 22, 1979 Mayor Correll sent a letter to Louisville disavowing any intentions of the

City to interfere in the land transaction.
Through pressure by the City of Boulder, citizen's groups, and perhaps Governor Lamm, the State Land Use Commission voted to investigate the Mall to determine whether it would become involved; 1041 powers were most closely examined. However, on March 7, the Commission staff advised no action based on analysis of the Colorado Supreme Court decision on the Mizel Annexation indicating that neither the Commission nor the County have grounds to intercede in municipal annexations based on 10*4-1.
On February 26, 1979 the City of Louisville requested an amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan, changing relevant statements in the Area Plan to agree with the shopping center, office, and residential uses proposed for the Centennial Valley Annexation.
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) entered the stage on March 3 1979 to present staff review of the Annexation Impact Statement in comparison with the Regional Growth and Development Plan. As will be discussed in Chapter IV, DRCOG did not make an incisive analysis of the project and neither endorsed it nor called it out of conformity with the regional plan.
Boulder County staff from the Departments of Public Works, Land Use, and Open Space made review comments regarding consistency of the Impact Statement with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP). These comments revealed various issues and problems which the County used to support its position of opposition. The Boulder County Planning Commission rejected the amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan that would make the Mall consistent with the plan on March l^t. The Board of County Commissioners supported their decision the
following week.

Meanwhile, the Louisville Planning Commission had amended the Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan on March 13. Changes were made in both the text and map of the plan.
Local tension between the proponents and opponents was laid bare during a public meeting held by the County Board of Commissioners on March 17 at Burbank Junior High School. Subsequently, the Commissioners voted unanimously not to pursue a court challenge to the Mall. This vote has been variously interpreted as a mild endorsement of the Centennial Mall proposal and as clarification of a foregone conclusion: the County lacked power to mount a successful legal challenge. Commissioner Margaret Mackey was most outspoken about her continuing opposition.
The City of Boulder had kept active its opposition strategy during March by alerting federal officials of the Mall issue and soliciting their support of Boulder's stand.
On March 20, 1979, the Louisville City Council took the final vote on annexation. Attaching an "emergency clause" allegedly based on fear of Boulder interference, the Centennial Valley Annexation was approved and officially incorporated into the City five days hence.
Citizens Participating in Louisville's Future felt that the Emergency Clause was intended to preclude democratic involvement of local residents in the annexation issue. Their petition for referendum was presented on March 6. However, the City Council did not act on the matter until the date of March 20. The referendum was rejected the same night that the annexation ordinance petition was passed. Subsequently, the Citizens Participating in Louisville's

Future brought an initiative petition to repeal the annexation ordinance on March 22, prior to expiration of the five day period between adoption and enactment. And on March 29 this too was rejected by the Council. Next, the group brought suit against the City, heard in District Court presided over by Judge Neighbors. Judge Neighbors ruled that neither referendum nor initiative could be authorized based on adherence to State Statutes, April 5, 1979.
The accomplishment of annexation marks the end of the first and most dynamic phase of the Centennial Valley Mall controversy. Most of the major actors having interest in the Mall have already made their appearances in the various disputes. By this time also most of the basic arguments for and against the Mall have already been articulated and scrutinized under the limelight of public meetings and full media coveragevirtually daily in Boulder County newspapers.
Annexation is the first step in the planning and development process controlled by local government; and as such, signifies the most important move in getting the Mall built. Most simply stated, the power to regulate land use in Colorado is delegated almost totally to the level of government "closest to the people". Now that the shopping center property has been put under the jurisdiction of prodevelopment City of Louisville rather than restrictive Boulder County, potential challenges are less likely to penetrate to the power-holders and must be essentially indirect. The major "internal" challenge to the Mall, coming from the citizens group, has focused effort to effect the situation. Boulder County has continued to be involved in its status as a relevant and interested local government

largely through mutual adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. DRCOG, Governor Lamm, and State agencies thus far have shown their "external" interest in this matter having regional ramifications through mainly indirect roles to fulfill their desire to "hammer on" and perhaps persuade the local governments and developers.
Phase II: From Annexation to the Superior Interchange Upgrading Offer and Delay. Louisville officials arranged to meet with Governor Lamm on April 16, 1979 for the first time since he had taken a stance opposing the Mall. The angry Louisvillites took Lamm to task for contacting Sears and May D&F and trying to persuade them to reconsider their commitment to the Centennial Mall. They contended that Louisville was wronged particularly because the Governor had acted on the urging of the City of Boulder and had never tried to discuss the matter with Louisville and understand the City's point of view.
The Boulder Camera editorial of the following day, April 17, supported Lamm's intervention in the proposed shopping center controversy, and called it a "proper state concern".
On March 24, 1979, reportedly, Louisville Associates Company (Kahan Jacobs) had purchased the land.
On June 19, 1979, a new round of concerns began for the Denver Regional Council of Governments. Louisville requested an amendment in the DRCOG employment allocation raising Louisville's allocation from 4,500 to 24,500 in the year 2000. The Council and the Regional Planning Advisory Committee entertained this issue trying to understand the City's ambitious growth policies and projections as they relate to regional planning coordination. The Mall, Colorado Tech Center, and Storage Tech Co. each effected the City's notion that

higher employment allocations would be realistic. On August 15, 1979 DRCOG denied the request for employment allocation of 24,500 and instead allocated a compromise figure of 10,500.
Boulder and Governor Lamm worked together on another attempt to thwart the project. The Governor wrote another letter to Sears, this time with the endorsements from the mayors of Boulder, Greeley, and Duluth, Minnesota, September 11, 1979. Following up on this, Lamm met with the Sears regional vice president and a representative of Kahan-Jacobs Co. At this meeting Sears proposed to finance a study addressing the issues of air pollution, energy comsumption, and competing market areas of the proposed Centennial Mall compared to expansion of Boulder's Crossroads Mall. And again on October 23 Lamm phoned two prospective major tenents in the Mall and informed them of the State's opposition. All of Lamm's efforts were of course publicized and made front page headlines.
On August 1, 1979, Citizens Participating in Louisville's Future appealed the District Court decision to the Colorado Supreme Court; the hearing date was set ten months later.
The developers offered $3.3 million to the State Highway Commission in order to build a new highway interchange facilitating better access off the Denver-Boulder Turnpike to the Mall, in August, 1979. The Highway Commission studied this proposal during September and October. The Department of Highways prepared various postion papers on the interchange in which they tried to determine consistency of the Mall proposal with the Regional Growth and Development Plan and other relevant regional transportation plans. The Department felt that the proposal was in conflict. However, the

Department desired to act in accordance with the on-going coordin-ative regional transportation planning in which DRCOG sets the policies for the metropolitan region. Departmental Director Jack Kinstlinger wrote to DRCOG Director Robert Farley asking for their determination of consistency. As part of DRCOG's Year 2000 Transportation Plan, based on the request from Louisville, it was agreed to "aggressively" study U.S. 36 and the Superior interchange over a six month period*
Boulder County was also looking into the interchange upgrading. It failed to make the County's priority list of projects to be proposed to the Highway Commission. In addition the County Commissioners voted 2-1 to recommend against acceptance of the funds offered by Kahan Jacobs for the interchange improvements.
The Colorado Highway Commission decided to table the proposition until it had the chance to review the above-mentioned study of comparative impacts of the Centennial Mall and Crossroads expansion (known as the BBC Report) as well as the DRCOG study of U.S. 36.
In December, 1979 a Boulder entourage headed by Mayor Correll went to Washington, D.C. Ms. Correll testified to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs.
She criticized Sears location policies as they have negatively effected numerous downtown revitalization efforts across the nation. Deputy Mayor of Boulder, Bob White met with the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs on December 18, 1979* The City of Boulder received the support it sought from this office based on the President's recent Urban Conservancy Policy and was assured that federal funds would not be used to assist the Centennial Mall

development. Correll spoke with top officials of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development again on January 8, 1980.
The issue of wastewater treatment system improvements needed to serve the Mall and related development surfaced in March, 1980.
The developer proposed to finance expansion of Louisville's sewage treatment plant and construction of an interceptor serving the Mall, the Town of Superior (located adjacent to the development on the opposite side of the Highway), and much of the residential development proposed in the Annexation. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has authority over site approval for all municipal water and wastewater system improvements. The Commission first heard Louisville's application for the "southside interceptor" and sewage treatment plant expansion on April 9, 1980. (See Map 2.1) Decision was tabled until the May meeting. The Boulder County Board of Commissioners (in a 2-1 decision) and the Long Range Planning Commission sent negative recommendations to the WQCC. The County Board of Health supported the proposal in a 2-1 decision based on its interpretation of the health benefits. In addition, the application was reviewed and commented on by various State agencies through the A-95 review process. Department of Local Affairs gave generally negative criticisms; and Director Paula Herzmark testified to the Commission during the May 5 WQCC meeting presenting the Department arguments. After considerable discussion, the Commission voted on May 5, 1980 to issue site approval.
Also during this phase the BBC Report was distributed and commented on (April, 1980). The consultants Browne, Bortz, and

Coddington concluded that the Centennial Mall would cause a reduction in air pollution and energy consumption from the existing situation. Moreover, the Mall development was seen to be compatible with Boulder's proposed Crossroads expansion in terms of retail trade market in Boulder County; and if both were built, there would be an even greater decrease in air pollution and energy consumption. The State agencies reviewing this document called attention to several major problems with the assumptions of the study and analysis techniques.
The Colorado Supreme Court heard "McKee v. City of Louisville" on June 16, 1980. McKee argued that the petition for both referendum and initiative were caught in a sort of "Catch 22" based on the City's manipulation of the "emergency clause" and other technicalities of law. And the City argued that the power of the people is not absolute; second the demand for a popular vote in this instance was legitimately denied. The Court is not expected to render its decision for another three to six months.
During the second phase of the CVM history following annexation the bulk of external agency reviews and challenges occurred. It is interesting to note that DRCOG has taken (or at least been offered) a leading role in the episodes of employment allocation and transportation planning. With regard to transportation improvements, Kahan has argued all along that the development will take place with or without a new interchange. Nonetheless, virtually every one of the participating agencies (Louisville, Boulder County, City of Boulder, DRCOG, and the Colorado Highway Commission) have focused their attention on the interchange issue.

Apparently it is one of the most crucial decisions in the controversy (and it is still pending).
Boulder's solicitation of federal agency commitments has no immediate consequences. No grant requests have been considered or are currently anticipated in support of the Mall. However, these forays were timed in such a manner as to keep the controversy very much alive through a period in which the Mall may have quietly progressed towards actual construction.
The WQCC hearings appear to be a critical success for the City of Louisville and developer. It is interesting to note that the delay caused by postponing the decision was heavily criticizedand perhaps more instrumental than one would think.
This period of "later game" strategies and actions leaves us somewhat uncertain of the final outcome. Meanwhile; the City's internal procedures for planning and development moved ahead into rezoning, Planned Unit Development approval, and building permit approval.
At the time of writing there are several important intergovernmental decisions and actions that have not been finalized. And of course the Mall is not built. We can speculate that progress in construction has been minimal for reasons of governmental delays, perhaps market conditions, and various other factors.
The following are the decisions and actions that will likely come
(1) The DRCOG report on U.S. 36 and the Superior interchange is due in
(2) The Highway Commission has not yet decided to accept or reject
Kahan-Jacobs' 3.3 million dollars for interchange improvements; and

this decision will depend in part upon DRCOG's transportation analysis.
(3) The Governor may make another position statement on the Centennial Valley Mall. Based on reevaluation of the impacts of the Mall as analyzed by the BBC Report, Lamm may choose to drop his opposition. This also may effect the Highway Commission's decision.
(4) The Colorado Supreme Court heard "McKee v. City of Louisville" on June 16 and the Court's decision will probably be rendered some time within the next six months. If the decision were in favor of McKee then a referendum or initiative issue would be placed on a City ballot.
(5) Boulder County will have the opportunity to review the plans for a water treatment facility serving the Annexation to be located north of Superior in unincorporated territory. The City has not yet submitted an application to initiate the proceedings for a use-by-special-review permit. It is possible that Louisville will contest being subjected to this review process.
(6) As part of the annual process to make ammendments to the RGDP, Louisville may apply again for additional employment application.

^Hanner Development Co. and William and Associates, "Centennial Valley Annexation Impact Statement," 27 Fevruary 1979*
^This list of problems has been compiled by the author from numerous sources including primarily memoranda and interviews.
^Interview with Leon A. Wurl, City of Louisville, 30 May 1980.
Boulder County Planning Commission, Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, Boulder, Colorado, 1978

Phase I
Phase II
December 1978
Announces to locate
Decision in Loulsvil
City of Louisville
City of Boulder
January 1979
Affirms to Boulder? The developer stays with Louisville
Preparation of Annex Impact Statement (AIS)
Holds pre-annexation and Amendment Hearings and Meetings
Request Boulder County and DRCOC review AIS
Requests Sears to recons ider
Westdyke and
Da nn1s h lnve s t i ga t e
Relax shopping center polIcies
Comp. Plan Amend. Louisville
------ Officials meet
Annexation Governor Lama
Review for Conslstancy with BCCP
Governor I-arm & State Agenc
Lamm states position
Review proposal in regard to RCDP
L.U.C. voces Investigate
Highway Commission Dept, of Highways
Water Quality Control Commission
Citizens Participating in Louisville's Future
Presents Referendum & Initiative Petitions
Lamm meets with Louisville officials
Requests RCDP
District Court upholds city actions in "Me Ke^v. City"

Phase II **> 11
Hay 1979 June July August September
Developer Purchase land Offers $3.3 million to rebuild Superior Interchange. Agree to sponsor Independent study of mall and crossroads expansion
City of Louisville Approves P.U.D. & Arch. Design
Boulder County
City of Boulder
DRCOC ConsIders employment allocation amendment Reaches agreement on compromise amendment
Governor Larao & State Agencies Lamm meets with developer
Highway Commission Dept, of Highways Klnstllnger Jawbones against mall Impacts
Water Quality Control Cormlsslon
Citizens Participating in Louisville's Future Supreme Court announces It will hear case

Phase II October 1979 November December I960 January February Phase II March
Developer Rumors of pull out Offers $1.3 million to finance sewage system
City of Louisville Applies for UQCC site approval
Boulder County Do not put Superior interchange on countv priority list
City of Boulder Frank Gray talks with White House Ruth Correll goes to Washington D.C. Push Crossroads expansion
DRCOG Agrees to study U.S. 36
Governor Laaa & State Agencies Lamm contacts perspective mall tenents
Highway Cocclssion Dept, of Highways Commission hears proposal and tables action
Water Quality Control Cocsission 1 Hears testimony on plant expansion and Interceptor
Citizens Participating In LouisvilL's Future

Chapter III
In this chapter the roles* of the City of Louisville will be identified in a general sense through the applicable institutional patternsincluding laws, policies, plans, proceduresand more specifically in regard to actions initiated by the City. The internally-directed actions of annexation and amendment to the Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan will be focused on in some detail as these actions have been particularly significant in intergovernmental relations. The engagements of all key agencies in selected actions outside of Louisville will be examined in Chapter IV.
As the primary governmental agency, the City of Louisville (City Council, Planning Commission, and administrative staff) fulfills two types of roles in the Centennial Mall story. Through the municipal land use management system, Louisville decides whether or not, and under what conditions, to grant approval of the proposed development. The approval role entails a number of functions, to be discussed shortly. These functions have given the proposal its
The term "role" means an individual's definition of his agency's situation with reference to his and other agencies' societal and political positions. This is a variation of a definition given in M. M. Conway and F. B. Feigert, Political Analysis: An Introduction (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc~ 1972), p"! 125
While statements by participants are not always fairly representative of an agency's role, it is assumed that there is a great deal of consistency. Interviewees were asked to speak as agency spokesmen in general. The individual expressing a viewpoint is referenced when it was felt to be appropriate.

initial momentum and have underscored the traditional planning and development procedures while all the controversial inter-agency disputes and procedures went ahead on their tracts.
Secondly, once the project has received the City's initial approval or endorsement, Louisville undertakes the role of sponsor to help guide it through critical intergovernmental discussions, non-municipal permit processes, and media exposures. As sponsor of the Mall, Louisville has served in the front ranks doing battle against all adversaries.
Approval Function
The key actions in which the City has exercised its approval functions, not all of which include inter-agency dealings, involve:
(1) Approval of the Centennial Valley Annexation, entailing preparation of the Annexation Impact Statement and holding numerous public meetings and hearings.
(2) Rejection by City Council of the petition for referendum and initiative on the annexation issue.
(3) Amendment to the Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan.
(4) Rezoning the property.
(5) Subdivision and approval of the Planned Unit Development site plan.
Annexation. Annexation was undoubtedly the most important step taken by the City. It has enabled the project to happen when, otherwise, it certainly could not have. The annexation proceedings also served as the first real issue on which the other levels of government, as well as the local citizens groups, could focus upon. The Annexation Impact Statement was widely circulated and reviewed,

with varying responses by Boulder County, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Colorado Land Use Commission, citizens groups, and others
Once annexation was accomplished, Boulder County lost much of its footing in the whole issue of whether or not to build the Centennial Mall. County zoning and other growth management tools no longer apply directly to the case. The "Mizel Case" precluded any effort to intervene in the issue based on 1041 powers once annexation has occurred.^ Only the "indirect" means of cooperation remain to carry out the County 's land use policies as will be discussed in Chapter IV. The City conducted a series of five public meetings and four public hearings to see that proper and legal
opportunities were available for residents to express their points
of view.
Citizens Participating in Louisville's Future, a group of Louisville residents, participated in these meetings and have concentrated almost exclusively on the annexation issue in hope of thwarting the plan before it gathered momentum. If the group had been successful in getting either a referendum or initiative issue on the ballot and in defeating annexation through popular vote, then of course all proceeding challenges would not have occurred.
Beyond attending meetings, the "Citizens" circulated an ill-fated petition for referendum of the annexation decision. In the short run, the "emergency clause" attached to the annexation ordinance shattered the local group's referendum attempt. However, while the clause worked to hasten annexation, the court challenges that followed may prove in the longer run to be a more important

stumbling block for Louisville. Moreover, the emergency clause and its resultant use to deny a referendum petition was very unpopular throughout Boulder County and undoubtedly pumped up the opposition to the Mall.^
Councilman Norbert Meir maintains that the Council felt there
really was an emergency. He personally intended to move to drop it until he spoke with Paul Dannish at a late date and learned that Boulder was still serious. Other Boulder officials including Mayor Correll denied that the City was interested.^ While we may never know for sure, the Boulder threat was widely perceived as an excuse for Louisville to get annexation through without the trouble of a popular vote.
Amendment to the Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan.
The Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan has undergone considerable changes from the original plan in 1973i to the 1975 Update, and to the 1979 amendment. Both changes reflect the City's active attempts to accommodate private development. In 1975i it was industry; and in 1979, a shopping center. In addition to broadening the City's economic base, the effects are to redirect the City's conceptual development from a relatively compact community to an expansive community.
In the Centennial Annexation and the accompanying Plan Amendment, the City made changes to its policies of commercial development but not residential development. In both the regional (1973) and updated (1975) plans,^ the area west of the community to the highway is designated as the City's primary residential area.
Retail development in the approximate location of the Mall is

denoted on the future land use maps in both documents. However, a
shopping center the size of the Mall was not contemplated. From
the earlier plan we learn that: "Louisville will probably not
become a regional commercial center, but the community can be
expected to supply not only the retail shopping needs of its
citizens, but to capture a large amount of the sales from the
surrounding vicinity."
The 1975 Update discusses "potential highway related commercial
activities" but explicitly clarifies that this would be even smaller
than what was considered in the 1975 Plan in the following excerpt;
Commercial development which will be directly related to the support of residential or industrial development as opposed to major shopping center development, will be integrated into the Plan on an individual project accordance with established policies and criteria.
In accord with the Mall proposal, the Plan was amended again in 1979* This amendment calls for: "designation of the general vicinity of the intersection of Delaney Road and South 80th Street as 'Regional Shopping Center and Auxilliary Commercial Development
Site' on the Development Map." And in the amendment to the
economic section it is stated:
While the Crossroads shopping center is within reasonable travel time of Louisville, economic studies indicate that Crossroads is not meeting the demand for goods which is assigned to its trade area. This forces Boulder County residents to travel needlessly long distances to shop resulting in the inconvenience associated with long shopping trips, wasted gasoline, and increased air pollution... The shopring center and auxilliary commercial uses provided for in the Plan Update will correct these undesirable conditions and will further Louisville's goal of becoming a well balanced, financially sound community. ^

It is interesting to note from a political point of view that the Amendment was approved by the City Council on the same day that Annexation was passed. It appears that these two "approval" functions are neatly coordinated so that the City could hastily commence with its sponsorship functions. From this short discussion of how major amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan have progressed, it appears that the Plan has been quite flexible to meet new opportunities for development and to serve the City's aggressive sponsorship role.
The rezoning, subdivision, and P.U.D. plan have practically no intergovernmental ramifications, except to underline the frustration of the external agencies as they proceeded to try different challenges. Meanwhile, these city processes went along relatively smoothly, divorced from all the hoopla.
Sponsorship Functions
In the role of sponsor, the City of Louisville has initiated an impressive list of actions, including:
(1) Request for review of the Centennial Valley Annexation Impact Statement by Boulder County.
(2) Request for review of the Centennial Valley Annexation Impact Statement by DRCOG.
(3) Request for amendment to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. (k) Arranging a meeting with Governor Lamm.
(5) Request for amendment to DRCOG employment allocation of the RGDP.
(6) Forward to the Colorado Highway Commission Kahan's offer to contribute to building a new Superior interchange.

(7) Request for DRCOG to conduct a transportation study of U.S.
36 and the Superior interchange.
(8) Application for site approval by the Water Quality Control Commission of sewer interceptor and treatment plant expansion.
(9) Defending the Centennial Valley Annexation in the District Court and Supreme Court.
These are a demanding set of functions. Each one has involved other governmental agencies; and each has made Louisville very visible and vulnerable to media scrutiny.
Louisville's visibility was at least partially intentional.
As the City's Administrator Leon Wurl explained, the City tried to use an "open approach" to demonstrate sincerity and honesty. The City's approach also shows the strong intention to win. In addition, it served to keep the developer less open to public exposure. And this may have been calculated to make the project easier for people to identify with and more popular. It is not clear to the author whether or not such visibility promoted more open discussion or created a tense atmosphere in which Louisville and other parties felt it necessary to work more "behind the scenes."
One of the ramifications of an aggressive open approach is, from the viewpoint of some participants, the City had to do above and beyond what others normally do. For example, according to former City Planner, Dennis Drumm, Louisville has been the only community to ask for an amendment to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan while all other municipalities go their own way regardless of the County.
Further enforcing Louisville's feeling that they were extra-

ordinarily cooperative is that a survey had been sent to various communities in the region asking how they would have handled this matter. The majority responded, reportedly, that if there were not federal money and no A-95 review, they would keep a low profile and
ignore the procedures that give opportunities to "hammer on" a
... 12 community.
On the other hand, many of the challenges that Louisville had to face as sponsor would probably have occurred whether or not Louisville had been quite so open and aggressive due to procedural requirements and the controversial nature of the proposal. The City of Boulder, Boulder County, and the citizen groups were very vocal in urging every avenue of scrutiny.
Another element of the City's position in sponsorship function is
the sentiment that "everyone is picking on poor little Louisville". The
City participants felt that all the political strings had been pulled to
fight this issue as if it were a great war, whereas it is actually a
small matter in the scheme of things. For example, the kind of
development having occurred in Aurora probably warrants the attention of
the State and Council of Governments. And the magnitude of population
and land area is much greater. However, it is argued, Aurora has more
political clout because it is a larger entity with more voters than
Louisville; therefore, the critics remain silent. Louisville Councilman
Del Pizzo spoke to Lamm about this, claiming: "I feel we're being
picked on because we're a small community."
The general consensus of Louisville participants is that the grand open forum was very tough on Louisville. Participants felt

burned out by it; they felt discouraged and disenchanted with many of the challenges. And they felt excess time, expenses, and research was required of them.
In summary, the City has become very pro-development, aggressive, and open in roles of both approver and sponsor. The City has been able to handle its approval functions with relative ease, even though this required a major change in the Comprehensive Development Plan. However, the "emergency clause" attached to the annexation ordinance may still prove to be a large problem for the City. As sponsor, Louisville has been particularly active out of its own volition or political necessity. The course of action engaged in as sponsor has proven to be very demanding and not something that City participants would like to repeat if not necessary.

^"Colorado Supreme Court, "City of Louisville v. District Court in and for Boulder County," 5^3, p. 2 of 6?*
^Leon A. '.Vurl, "Lousiville v. Boulder: Ambushed at the Pass," Colorado, June, 1979*
^Boulder Camera, 25 February, 1980; Louisville Times, 1 March 1980; Boulder County Planning Commission, Meeting, 14 March 1979, Partial Transcript, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder.
Interview with Norbert Meir, City of Louisville, Louisville, 18 June 1980.
Ruth A. Correll to Leon A. Wurl, City of Boulder Mayor's file, 22 March 1979-
^Louisville Planning Commission, Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan, Oblinger-Smith, Denver, April 1973; Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan Update, Oblinger-Smith and Drumm and Associates, Louisville, 1975*
Louisville Planning Commission, Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan, Oblinger-Smith, Denver, April 1973*
Ibid., Plan Update, Oblinger-Smith and Drumm and Associates,
^Ibid., Series 1979, Resolution No. 5, 13 March 1979 (adopted).
^Interview with Dennis Drumm, D.C. and Associates, Louisville, 27 May 1980.
Interview with Norbert Meir, City of Louisville, Louisville, 18 June 1980.
^Interview with Mike Randall, City of Louisville, Louisville, l8 April 1980; interview with Leon A. Wurl, City of Louisville,
30 May 1980.
"^Boulder Camera, 16 April 1979, P !

Chapter IV
This chapter deals with several specific intergovernmental actions related to the Centennial Valley Mall controversy. In each of the four actions discussed, the positions of key agencies vis-a-vis the other agencies will be presented and analyzed in an attempt to explain what actually happened and why.
The major actions to be discussed include:
(1) Amendment to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Comparison of the proposal to the Regional Growth and Development Plan.
(3) Highway Commission and DRCOG consideration of the Superior Interchange.
(4) Water Quality Control Commission awarding site approval to the southside interceptor.
Actions that will be discussed more peripherally to the above actions and in less detail include:
(1) DRCOG employment allocation amendment to the RGDP.
(2) Governor Lamm's attempt to jawbone the participants out of building the Mall.
(3) City of Boulder's contacting of the federal administration.
Amendment to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan
Boulder County officials have generally taken a negative view of the Mall proposal, staking their opposition almost always on the

Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP). Based on the joint county-sub-county comprehensive planning effort, in 1976 the County adopted in large part the Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan.^ While there were always differences between the
version adopted by the County and that of the City, it was con-
sidered close enough to be a joint city-county plan. And, as already reviewed in the previous chapter, the pertinent sections of the pre-existing Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan that conflict with the Mall proposal are included in the unchanged County Plan version.
This aspect of joint city-county adoption of policies and geographical area segments has given the County a special standing in the issue. While there was never complete agreement of the Louisville Area Plan, it was close; and Louisville was following the procedures in requesting a Plan amendment.
Boulder County has held a consistant and unified position against the amendment based on staff analysis, Long Range Planning Commission findings, Planning Commission resolutions, and Board of County Commissioners support. The County reviewed the annexation proposal when the Centennial Annexation Impact Statement was first released in order to comment on the annexation, and later, on the amendment request. Several inconsistencies were noted by the County staff as presented below.
The Boulder County Land Use Department pointed out that the development does not conform with several BCCP goals: (a) "to accommodate growth within or adjacent to an existing community," (Goal 1.1); (b) "to utilize existing community facilities within

their accepted capacities (in regard to Louisville's raw water supply)" (Goal 5*2); (c) "to utilize existing community facilities within their accepted capacities" (Goal 6.5). In addition, the Land Use staff specifically objected to a regional shopping center in the Louisville Area contrary to the Area Plan.^
The County Public Works Department commented on changes to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. They noted that several streets should be redesignated from major collectors to minor arterials. In regard to U.S. 36, Public Works stated that the highway should be adequate from a capacity viewpoint through 1990 rather than 2000. And they asked, "Who will pay for/make the
improvements outside the development?"
Finally, the County Parks and Open Space Department stated concerns relating to wildlife and open space. The department urged that land be "deeded to the County,...guaranteed open space in perpetuity." They also considered the Mall location to be in conflict with the County's "buffer concept" and proposed that, "a 1500 foot buffer along the highway should be deeded to the County."^
The County Planning Commission considered these and other comments and denied the request for Plan amendment on March 14, 1979* At that time the County Planning Commission also stated that the County would act consistently to oppose any related improvements or developments.^ This served as forewarning to Louisville that the opposition would not be taken lightly and also told the rest of the parties openly and honestly where the County is coming from.
In reference to the substance of Boulder County's criticisms of the Centennial Mall Amendment, the biggest objection appears to be

4 6
that the shopping center represents decentralization of regional
services; and this would hurt the designated regional center.
However, the development is essentially within the Louisville
Service Area according to Boulder County analysis; and this is a
big step in the right direction. In fact, Land Use Department
Director Ed Tepe made a sort of "limited success" evaluation of this
point when he said: "The comprehensive plan and its concepts are
being implemented in that you don't see a shopping center like this
being proposed in the unincorporated areas where we do not have any
services." It is also interesting from the perspective of later developments that the transportation element critique by Public Works was actually much less passionate than the outcries by Boulder, Lamm, Department of Highways, and local residents over upgrading of the interchange.
The County staff and Planning Commission have suggested three "compromises" that if Louisville acted thusly, the City would be in compliance with the County Plan; (a) phased annexation and phased development, (b) reduced size of the shopping center to the approximate size of a community shopping center serving the Louisville vicinity 100,000 to 200,000 square feet floor area, and (c) dedication of considerable open space in the vicinity of the Turnpike and on Davidson Mesa. None of these possible compromises evoked serious interest from Louisville. One reason for this is that the location requirements by the developer call for a large area for a large center and good access off and on the major transportation route. And, the City of Louisville felt that the Annexation plan adequately addressed the community's open space needs.

The shopping center is generally set back 1,500 feet as required in the BCCP; and with little doubt the area on Davidson Mesa will remain open space in accord with both the BCCP and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Any open space dedication that isolated the Superior interchange from development a prime location is not acceptable to Louisville.
Louisville, of course, proposed the "compromise" that Boulder County accept a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and did not offer any more than an argument of justification for this change. There was little leeway between those two positions to be played within the historical record. While there were complaints expressed in interviews of abrasive personalities and a sense of intransigence between the actors, it is doubtful that the two parties were ready to reach an agreement. Furthermore, it is doubtful if Louisville actually intended to get its amendment adopted, and probably only proposed it out of respect for the County and the need to undertake this challenge openly.
Several City of Louisville interviewees believed that the County's action was politically motivated. They point mainly to the presumed role of Boulder in pressuring the County to get down on Louisville. According to Leon Wurl, all County municipalities, even Boulder, have had problems with the BCCP. This issue became so heated due to Boulder
County's special motivation to pick on Louisville.
The County denied that it was so politically influenced by 9
Boulder. While the City of Boulder requested action by the County almost from the very beginning, the County probably would have acted

anyway based on its own policies and plans. The County claims that it has tried to distinguish itself from the City precisely to guard against the tendency to be dominated by the County seat as it is also the biggest City in the County. It is asserted that this issue is a case in point where the County defined its role very clearly and forcefully based on the BCCP and has had a unified position throughout the ranks. However, no one can deny that the City of Boulder has influenced the County's roles and positions through the close relationship between the County Plan and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in that this is the first and only fully joint city-county plan.
Leon Wurl asserted that since Boulder is the designated regional center, then it has a responsibility to be "practical" in accommodating appropriate commercial development.^ If the City remains aloof, then it would be fair if the County compelled the "King" City to act more responsibly in order to follow the County Plan. Boulder's pompousness was really inconsistant with the County Plan; and the City should have taken a proactive approach to commercial development prior to the Centennial Mall proposal and the later, hasty assay of Crossroads expansion. On the other hand, if Boulder does not desire growth then it cannot fairly squelch every other potentially competing retail in the rest of the County.
Ed Tepe conceded that there is some truth to this when he admitted: "The problem is that we purposely caused the growth to go
to those smaller municipalities; and now that the growth is going to those smaller municipalities, we don't agree with what is happening in those communities.""^ However, the problem would not be solved

by building the Mall. So the County finds that it is easier to mobilize in a reactive mode being against the Mall, rather than in a positive/proactive mode, urging Boulder to build a shopping center.
This episode is not finished because of pending actions. Most of these actions relate to capital facility improvements. The County must be careful and discrete to not try to punish all of Louisville by intentionally holding back on capital improvements just to offend the Mall development.
Here is a brief list of the most prominent forays between Louisville and Boulder County that are possible in the future:
(1) The special review process for a water treatment facility just north of Superior in unincorporated area could pose another formidable challenge.
(2) Any other recommendations that the County has the onportunity to make in trying to persuade other agencies to turn down requests from Louisville pertaining to the Mall may have some impact. None are foreseen now. As will be discussed shortly, Boulder County was party to the Highway Commission, DRCOG, and WQCC proceedings.
(3) The decision to upgrade County roads and other utilities that would serve the Mall would effect the potential development.
(4) The Supreme Court decision could conceivably put the property back under the jurisdiction of the County. This move would depend on the outcome of a referendum or initiative vote.
If it were to revert back to unincorporated property, the County could utilize 1041 designations to further support any restrictions that it can justifiably impose on the property.

Louisville officials reflected on this episode as a case where
Boulder County criticized the City excessively. And the City questions
the use of the consistancy criteria as it can and has caused the
unfortunate disintegration of city-county relations. The City does not
now intend to make any dramatic gestures toward a resolution of the
differences; and as it stands, the City will no longer voluntarily
participated in fruitless cooperative planning efforts.
The lack of consistancy between the Louisville Comprehensive Plan and BCCP dramatically reduces the likelihood that the City and County can work out their differences and arrive at a true mutually adopted city-county plan. And this seems to fuel a growing split between the City and County beginning with the Mizel Annexation issue in 1975.
The roster of participants in this action included Boulder County, City of Louisville and City of Boulder. The most outstanding feature in this series of events is the strong support given to the BCCP from all County participants, and less directly, the City of Boulder. The County Plan has been used during this controversy to scrutinize and judge Louisville's course of action as inconsistent to the BCCP and to focus nearly all of the County's political actions in opposition to the Mall.

Consistency Between the Proposal and the Regional Growth and Development Plan
The Denver Regional Council of Governments was asked by the City of Louisville, Boulder County, and the State Department of Highways to review the Centennial Valley development proposal for conformity to the Regional Growth and Development Plan (RGDP).
Each agency requesting review had its own purposes. Louisville wanted to know prior to annexation if DRCOG might give the proposal a positive review, or if an amendment to the RGDP would be war-rented. Boulder County sought regional support from DRCOG based on what it expected would be determined to be RGDP inconsistencies.
And the Department of Highways wanted DRCOG's comments to assist in the formulation of a State position and to satisfy the requirements of Highways/DRCOG coordination in the regional transportation planning process.
DRCOG's review raised six major points:
(1) Urban Service Area Policy: The property is essentially within the Louisville Service Area boundaries. In regard to the sections of land not inside, DRCOG cited the following Regional Development Policies (RDP) that discourage development:
Urban development should occur only in defined urban development areas... (RDP 1)
Urban development should not occur in the non-urban areas of the region (RDP 2)
Regional systems and the full range of urban services should be provided only within urban service areas,... and only limited county and rural services should be provided in non-urban areas (RDP 9)^
(2) Activities Center Policies: Regional Activity Centers (RAC's) are defined, for purposes of proscription as well a6 descrip-

tion, to be "multi-purpose in that they may include residential,
employment, commercial, recreational, medical, cultural,
governmental, and educational activities". (RDP 19) DRCOG expressly refused to determine if the Centennial Mall and ancilliary development would constitute a RAC. The argument given by DRCOG Director Robert Farley was that while the development would combine office and commercial uses and would generate a high level of employment, as RAC's properly should, not all shopping centers are RAC's. And the Centennial Valley Mall does not have to be considered one because there are other elements of RAC's that the development would not contain.
In regard to the employment created at the Mall, Mr. Farley commented: "Such high levels of employment (generated by the Mall
and related activities) may have a deleterious effect on the region's ability to concentrate activity in the previously designated regional activity centers.Additionally, the review points out that if the development occurs at the proposed scale, then the RAC policy should be reevaluated. In the words of Mr. Farley, "If the proposed annexation proceeds and does accommodate development on a scale approaching that of a regional activity center, the appropriateness of the existing regional activity center policy should be reevaluated."^
(3) Employment and RGDP Allocations: The concerns are raised that the total employment at the Mall may be understated; and the work generated may push the number of employees above the

RGDP forecast and allocation for Louisville.
(*t) Population Allocation and Housing Policies: The projected population for the Annexation residential area still falls below Louisville's ultimate population allocation figure of 13,600 persons. However, there would be little room for population growth in the rest of the community if the 13,600 population is not to be exceeded.
DRCOG posed more substantial concerns in regard to housing distribution that were not addressed in the Annexation Impact Statement, as stated below:
It is suggested that the developer analyze the housing needs of the potential employment force of the proposed office and commercial developments and design the residential development to accommodate those needs. Policies in the RGDP encourage a more balanced distribution between employment and residential opportunities so that commutation can be minimized and energy conserved.^7
(5) Energy Use and Conservation: The issue of whether the Mall location constitutes an energy inefficient pattern of development is raised by DRCOG in the following dictum:
New development should be encouraged in locations and in patterns which conserve and make the most efficient use of energy and should be carefully analyzed as to the impact on energy consumption (Plan Policy II)...The location of the center regarding the issue of energy use is questionable (italics mine) since the center is not located adjacent to most potential customers and would service a significant number of people in neighboring communities, such as Boulder,
Lafayette, Longmont, and Broomfield, automobiles would provide most of the access.
(6) Natural Environmental Impacts: Finally, the review called for evaluation and mitigation of subsidence hazards caused by prior mining activity in the area.
The DRCOG review did not draw a conclusion or final recommen-

dation. In the opinion of this author, the review indicates more significant problems in the Mall's relationship to the Regional Growth and Development Plan, and fewer significant ways in which the Mall would support the Plan. However, it is close; and DRCOG has intentionally left its review open for interpretation.
In analyzing the substance of DRCOG's comments as related to subsequent actions and reactions by other agencies, several considerations deserve attention. This discussion will follow the same order as DRCOG's points.
Fortunately, the Mall conforms to the Urban Service Area of the RGDP as well as Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. DRCOG seems to assume more relevance to the Urban Service Area Policy than the other policies. If the shopping center site were totally outside any service area, then DRCOG may have taken serious opposition to the project. This parallels Ed Tepe's "limited success" evaluation in regard to the County Plan. Since the Mall is within Louisville's Area, DRCOG appears to be less concerned.
The Regional Activity Center concept is also extermely important, although not so easily defined as the Service Area Policy. It is probably the most controversial part of the RGDP because there are only thirteen designated RAC's in the region; and theoretically each should be competing to intensify activities. But in the case of the Centennial Mall there are several missing elements including population density, higher intensity mixed use development, and a transportation nexus. While DRCOG was not willing to take a stand on this issue, several other agencies involved have proclaimed that the Mall is dangerous to the RAC scheme because it will create a "de facto" activity center.

This is potentially a serious problem and probably should be studied and reevaluated as suggested by Mr. Farley. As it is, there seems to be no concrete definition of a RAC; and DRCOG is unwilling to determine what the Centennial Mall is. Such vagueness has been disagreeable to all, as will be shown shortly in a discussion of agencies' views.
Employment allocation is an important issue that affects regional planning parameters in all areas in which DRCOG is involved and particularly transportation. It became the subject of the only amendment to the RGDP related to the Mall and was hotly debated.
In regard to energy use and conservation, DRCOG presents the argument that such a location would require considerable commuting from nearby cities. However, DRCOG leaves itself room by not giving a firm determination that consequently more energy would be consumed The comments seem to call for the study of energy consumption and air pollution that Browne, Bortz, and Coddington (BBC) later undertook.
As already alluded to, each of the participants expressed a sense of frustration with DRCOG and offered their explanations for DRCCG's behavior and their reactions to it. The foremost response from agency participants is that DRCOG is caught in a "political bind."
Leon Wurl explained that DRCOG must be very careful as to who it chastises or else member agencies would threaten to leave the orgranization.He sympathized with the tough middle-ground position into which DRCOG feels forced. Both Leon Wurl and Dennis Drumm expressed the opinion that DRCOG is a victim of the pressures from

the City of Boulder and Boulder County. DRCOG's examination revealed
six consistencies to satisfy Louisville and another six inconsistencies
to satisfy Boulder County, according to Wurl's tally. If it were not
for the pressures, they felt DRCOG would support Louisville.
The City of Boulder has openly admitted that it will use DRCOG as a
stage for its opposition to the Mall. City Planning Director Frank Gray
additionally commented that not only the regional plan but local City
and County plans may not have strong enough implementation provisions to
save open space threatened by the pressure caused by such fringe
developments as the Centennial Mall. A corrallary of this is that such political joisting that occurs extraneous to the formal planning procedures may be necessary to save open space.
Boulder County Commissioner Margaret Markey speculated that the threat of dropping out of DRCOG was a viable concern in this case. The following exerpt from a correspondence to Robert Farley brings Leon Wurl's last point closer to home:
Louisville's representative, Norbert Meir, has been one of the most outspoken advocates of leaving DRCOG. If you find the Centennial Mall in non-compliance, Louisville will undoubtedly increase its attempts to leave DRCOG. On the other hand, if the Mall is found to be in compliance... the City of Boulder will certainly insist on leaving DRCOG and that community with ^e addition of Longmont would be a powerful force to contend with.
While these possibilities were not investigated, they are certainly credible. And so we see how DRCOG is confronted with choices that it does not want to make. The "middle road" is the safest. And as Jason Brouillette of the Boulder County Land Use Department said, DRCOG is a master at taking the middle road so as

not to alienate any members. J
The Department of Highways has been the most insistent of all
agencies asking DRCOG to take a definite stand on the points of
inconsistency to the RGDP. Harvey Atchison, head of the Long Range
Transportation Planning Section, stated:
DRCOG did not make a determination regarding whether or not the proposed Centennial Valley Mall constitutes a regional activity center...I feel that the proposed mall constitutes a regional activity center... I suggest that if any element of a proposed land use action is inconsistent with the RGDP, then the entire action should be deemed inconsistent.2^
Highways felt that it has a lot at stake in DRCOG's position, based on the relationship between the two agencies as described by Mr. Atchison:
...The Department, as an implementing agency, needs to be able to go to DRCOG for determination related to the local governments 1 actions and how these actions compare to the RGDP. The Department should only take those actions that are consistent with the RGDP.25
This relationship will be examined in more detail in the following
section on transportation planning.
Director Robert Farley presented his own defense for DRCOG's
unwillingness and inability to determine consistency with the
Regional Growth and Development Plan in the following comments to
Jack Kinstlinger of the Department of Highways:
...there are features of the prorosal which are consistent with policies of the regional plan and there are aspects which are not. DRCOG has made it a practice not to attempt to make singular determinations of consistency. Rather we attempt to analyze all referrals against relevant portions of the Plan and identify all consistencies and inconsistencies. An overall determination of consistency would necessitate placing values on individual policies. Lacking guidance in the Plan for such judgments none are attempted.26
Farley goes on to explain the extremely limited statutory authority

to implement regional plans underscoring DRCOG's role definition:
Under these statutes, plans developed by this agency are advisory only, and cannot be directly implemented by DRCOG. The DRCOG must rely on local governments, other regional organization^ and state and federal agencies to effectuate plan implementation.
The "lack of guidance" referred to by Mr. Farley may be interpreted to mean the fragmentation of governmental entities in the region and the lack of consensus on any issue. This tends to dilute the organization's sense of purpose and ability for decisiveness. Interjurisdictional competition tends to impair the effectiveness of DRCOG.
Even as an advisory and coordinative agency, DRCOG has a highly esteemed position and not a small amount of power of persuasion. The organization depends on other institutions to take implementation actions. However, some of these actions, such as Highway's, require DRCOG's participation and agreement. Not only the Department of Highways, but rather all agencies desired DRCOG's support to bolster their own positions. If one is consistent with the RGDP, then there are multitudinous benefits. However, if the determination of consistency cannot be made, then agencies are left in somewhat of a void; and each has expressed dissatisfaction with this.
Centennial Mall-Related
Transportation Planning and Rebuilding the Superior Interchange
A rather complicated planning framework has been established in order to allow a thorough analysis of changes in the regional transportation system with the benefit of citizen and governmental agency input. In the case of the Centennial Mall-related road

improvement issues of the Superior interchange upgrading and widening of the Boulder-Denver Turnpike (U.S. 36), DRCOG, the Department of Highways (DOH), and the Colorado Highway Commission are each instrumental agencies.
The Denver Regional Council of Governments ha6 been designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). As the MPO, DRCOG has primary responsibility to coordinate transportation planning, undertake studies, and make recommendations on regional highway improvements. The Regional Transportation District (RTD), DOH, the Air Quality Control Commission, and local governments are involved in joint planning procedures with DRCOG. DOH, RTD, and local governments along with the U.S. Department of Transportation serve as the implementing agencies for resultant plans.
The Highway Commission has been asked by Kahan Jacobs to accept 3.3 million dollars for a new interchange at the Superior exit, and thus has become one of the instrumental actors in the Mall controversy. Over a period of several months the Department of Highways and Highway Commission studied the proposal before tabling action pending the input of DRCOG and the completion of the BBC Report. In effect the Highway Commission temporarily unloaded this difficult decision on DRCOG. While the Commission has the final responsibility for the decision, it wanted DRCOG to undertake the burdensome planning analysis (which was already in progress) and submit a recommendation as the MPO prior to taking action.
Even before the Highway Commission considered it, the issue of U.S. 36 and the interchange had been raised in the Council of Governments during the proceedings to adopt the 2000 Interim Trans-

portation Plan. According to the Interim Flan U.S. "56 is to remain a four lane principal arterial through year 2000; and no upgrading
2 g
of the Superior was anticipated before 2000. Those roads considered in imminent need of upgrading are referred to as "issue corridors." And these "issues" are to be resolved in the "plan restatement" process through which the Final Transportation Plan will be prepared for Council adoption.
While members of the Council did not wish to make U.S. 36 another issue corridor, the highway and interchanges were bequeathed a special status: to be aggressively studied. According to Norbert Meir, Louisville representative on DRCOG, the
decision to do this was the result of one of the rare compromises
between Council members of Boulder and Louisville. Once this difficulty was worked out the Interim Plan was adopted.
The aggressive study was to be completed in six months from November, 1979; however, it has proceeded more slowly. The main reason for this is that DRCOG planners have had difficulty finding a data base and methodology of analysis agreeable to all parties involved.^ Louisville, Boulder, and Boulder County have continued to press their respective assumptions and convictions through the transportation-related talks.
The primary data base that DRCOG intends to use is the adopted figures for population and employment allocation. The Louisville employment allocation is still a controversial topic following the amendment of Summer, 1979 that reallocated to the City approximately half the number of employees requested. Louisville would still like a higher allocation for year 2000, in order

to reflect their projections for build-out of the Colorado Tech Center, Storage Tech, and Centennial Valley annexations. Boulder and Boulder County have challenged these "wish list" projections according to their perception: of the situation.
Skirmishes holding up the DRCOG study illustrate one of the important roles of the employment allocation figures. These figures may prove to be more critical in implementation of the RGDP than either Urban Service Area or Regional Activity Center policies. The Department of Highways has also been troubled by this unconventional method of traffic projection. They fear that the "political messaging" of numbers may result in unrealistic projections. Furthermore, DOH would still like a determination of RGDP consistency in recommendation to the Highway Commission.
Donald Kahan and the Louisville City Council recently expressed their frustration over the slow machinery of regional transportation planning. In a letter sent to the Highway Commission and DRCOG Kahan stated he is not withdrawing his 3.3 million dollar offer, but he is "concerned." ^ Louisville followed up on this by asking DRCOG to account for the delay.^ Leon Wurl said he was doubtful that the data and methodology problems would be solved to Louisville 's satisfaction.^
The City of Boulder is very much opposed to planning road
improvements on the assumption that the Mall will be built. The
City is committed to fighting this in all DRCOG discussions, as
evidenced in the remarks by Paul Dannish and Bob Westdyke at a
DRCOG public workshop. The City maintains that despite what
Kahan has said, without an interchange there will be no shopping 35

The Draft Centennial Mall/Crossroads Expansion Impact Study (BBC Report)"^ adds more confusion over what assumptions are valid. In this study it is calculated that if Centennial Mall were built alone then the market area could support a shopping center of
553.000 square feet floor area. And if both the Mall and the Crossroads expansion projects took place, then the Centennial Mall could justifiably contain 471,000 square feet. These numbers are substantially smaller than the figure arrived at in the Annexation Impact Statement analysis; and Kahan still intends to build a
700.000 square feet first phase development.
Problems created by this discrepency in regard to DRCOG's
study have been somewhat alleviated by taking the approach that
traffic generation should be calculated according to the lower
(BBC) figures. And at the time of writing, DRCOG staff was hopeful
that this would be acceptable to the other parties.
Once again, it appears that DRCOG is caught uncomfortably in the middle of inter-jurisdictional disputes. Transportation planning is one of DRCOG's most significant functions in directing the future shape of the metropolitan area. It has shown that it takes the study seriously, following a democratic inclination to reach a consensus on methodology. The approach has been timetaking, but it may produce more valid results. And possibly this is the only way in which to make their recommendation credible to all the parties.
The Highway Commission is in a vulnerable position in having to decide whether or not to accept Kahan's offer within a reasonably short period of time. Can the Commission really refuse 3.3 million

dollars during a time of austerity in highway budgeting?
As already reviewed, DOH has tried to push DRCOG into taking a
stand on the RGDP for purposes of DOH's own recommendation to the
Commission. But beyond this, DOH would require an environmental
assessment pursuant to the Department's own rules and regulations.
Jack Kinstlinger wrote in August, 1979 to Don McKee:
Even if the interchange is found to be consistent with the transportation development plan, that the Mall is considered consistent with the regional growth and development plan, that the construction is consistent with the State Air Quality Implementation Plan, and even if no public monies are involved, the Department of Highways will require an environmental assessment which will review the transportation, environmental, and social-economic effects of any proposed modification of the Superior interchange.
The Highway Commission reportedly had a mixed reception to
Kahan's proposal during the Fall, 1979 meetings. Some Commissioners strongly opposed the proposal at that time based on the Department's call for DRCOG's analysis of the RGDP. Others supported the proposal because it would probably be needed eventually and DOH does not have the funds. In looking at possible political pressures, the power of appointment may play a role here in that every Commission member was placed on the Commission by Governor Lamm, and many may honor his opposition.
Louisville officials were displeased over the Highway Commission 's sour reception of Kahan's offer. Leon Wurl said that if
there is a demand for a facility and a willing patron to satisfy
the demand, then it simply should be met. He showed little sympathy for the negative-incentive approach to capital improvements decisions.
The BBC Report does not specifically address the Superior

interchange and requires interpretation in order to apply its findings to the Highway Commission decision. One possible interpretation is that since the BBC Report concludes that the supportable floor area for the Mall is less than what the previous
analysis indicated, then a reduction in the size of the Mall is in
order. DOH staff have suggested that this would be desirable. Reducing the size of the shopping center may minimize the need for a new interchange and, more importantly, the advanced scheduling of widening of U.S. J>6.
The City of Louisville applauded the BBC conclusion that a
reduction in energy consumption and air pollution would result from
both "build the Mall" scenarios explored. And the City ultimately
hoped that this "objective analysis" will facilitate a way for Lamm
to back out of his opposition, and consequently clean the slate for
the State agencies to accept the development. However, based on
criticisms by several State agencies of BBC's assumption and limi-
tations, Lamm's retreat does not appear imminent.
According to a brief reflection on the situation by Dave Ruble of the Long Range Planning Section, the Commission has historically made decisions in the mode of trying to accommodate high demands and safety hazard mitigation whether or not improvements were in
conformance with land use plans. This precedence works in Louisville's favor.
It appears that it would take a great deal of personal conviction by Commission members and support from other agencies for the Highway Commission to turn down Kahan's offer. The roles of DRCOG, Governor Lamm, and other State agencies could each be

crucial. If Lamm reversed his opposition to the Mall based on the BBC Report or other reasons, then much of the pressure to reject the offer would be relieved. And if DRCOG's U.S. 36 study concludes in favor of an upgraded interchange, then much of the concern for consistency between the two agencies would be served by accepting Kahan's money.
A final segment of the transportation planning story involves the efforts by Boulder Mayor Ruth Correll to obtain support from the White House and federal agencies. The President's policy on federal aid related to commercial areas is contained in the "Community Conservation Guidance." In this document, a commitment is made to revitalization of existing commercial areas. Federal projects facilitating development on the urban fringe that would hurt an older city would be carefully scrutinized if requested by the chief elected official of the effected community. Ms. Correll pursued this in order to urge pro-active attention to U.S. 36, which could probably not be widened without federal aid. Secretary of the Department of Transportation Neil Goldschmidt assured Correll that "any request for Federal highway assistance to support the shopping
/f 5
center development would receive careful scrutiny by this office." However, they wouldn't take any immediate action in regard to the interchange issue because no federal aid is involved. Nonetheless, perhaps the "groundwork" that Ms. Correll laid was an effective move to notify the State Highway Commission that it should not count on federal highway aid.
Regional transportation planning is especially complicated because so many agencies are involved. In this case, DRCOG (in

several capacities), DOH, State Highway Commission, Louisville, Boulder, Boulder County, consultants BBC, and finally the Department of Transportation have each participated. DRCOG and the Highway Commission have the most responsibility at this time; and the other agencies have served primarily as interest groups. It is hard to say now how this series of episodes will turn out because there are still some "high-pressured" activities that are taking place or will occur in the future. The Highway Commission decision on the Superior interchange will be particularly interesting from the perspective of how all the influences are evaluated.
Southside Interceptor Site Approval_________
The City of Louisville applied for site approval of the "southside wastewater interceptor" and expansion of the Louisville Sewage Treatment Plant from the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC). The interceptor would service the Mall, the Town of Superior, and a large portion of the residential development in the Annexation.
Centennial Mall developer Kahan-Jacobs offered an estimated 1.4 billion dollars to finance the improvements as well as the first year maintenance costs. Most of the front-end money would be recouped from tap fees when the residential area is built out.
The Water Quality Control Commission is responsible to Colorado
Revised Statute 25-8-704 (1973). This Statute requires in part that:
In determining the suitability of a site location for any sewage treatment plant, interceptor, or pumping

station, the Commission shall consider the long range comprehensive planning for the area and the consolidation of sewage treatment plants, interceptors, or pumping stations (italics mine). 1
As a rule, site approvals are routine matters for the WQCC However, in this case the Mall controversy entered the Commission's considerations, and this permit process was embroiled in heated debate. The process served as a crucial test for Louisville's sponsorship role. Of course without sewage treatment serving the site, the Mall could not be built. And as shown above, the Water Quality Control Commission has a statutory mandate to consider both water quality and plan conformity.
The City of Louisville had several strong points to argue in favor of its application, summarized below:
(1) The Town of Superior, currently on individual septic systems, clearly ha6 potential health hazards that would be mitigated by a hook-up to Louisville's sewage treatment system.
(2) The area of the Annexation to be used for residential development would be served; and no one disputes that development.
(3) This proposal would consolidate facilities through a cooperative arrangement between neighboring communities rather than necessitate a proliferation of facilities.
{k) There is basically no conflict with the regional 208 Water Quality Plan.
(5) There is no conflict with the Louisville or Superior comprehensive plans.
(6) Private sponsorship of the project eliminates the need for State or Federal aid.
Boulder County and the Department of Local Affairs each made

recommendations to deny or at least postpone site approval, arguing the following points:
(1) Other alternatives were not considered. In particular, there may be realistic alternatives that would meet Superior's needs while not servicing the Centennial Valley Mall.
(2) The Centennial Mall development to be served by the proposal is inconsistent with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Much of the proposed interceptor will lie in Boulder County's jurisdiction (unincorporated territory); and Boulder County is opposed to site approval.
(4) Local negotiation and reconciliation should be undertaken prior to State approval.
Following the testimony presented, the Commission voted to grant sit approval. Essentially the WQCC accepted Louisville's arguments and rejected the arguments of Boulder County and the Department of Local Affairs, as will be shown through this analysis. This was a significant decision in part because it was the only State permit in the entire Mall story. And despite the generally negative position taken by the State administration, the approval was straightway granted. The modicum of direct State control was not or could not be used to stop the project.
While this decision does represent a clear victory for Louisville in an important battle, it did not seem to be a surprising upset to the opposing agencies. The Commission took the position that it both could not and would not use its limited discretion to weight the case on controversial land use factors rather the generic water quality factors. And Louisville convincingly argued that water quality goals would be servedeven if they might be met

in other ways as well.
The Commission reportedly has no uniform record in how it has considered land use planning arguments in past site approval decisions. According to Deraid Lang, District Engineer with the
Water Quality Control Division (WQCD), site approvals have rarely
been denied and let alone for land-use based reasons. He noted a few cases when the Commission had withheld approval because the Commissioners refused to arbitrate disputes. The WQCC recommended that the applicants come back when agreements between conflicting parties were reached.
In this case, the likeliness of working out differences between Louisville and Boulder County seemed remote to the Commission. The
City of Louisville argued this through both Leon Wurl's testimony
and written submittals on past City-County conflicts. The argument made by Paula Herzmark that a solution might be worked out in a
reasonable period of time, like three months, was rejected.
Louisville was openly prepared for legal action if denied the
permit. The City had informed the Commission of this, had an
argument prepared by a law firm in favor of the application, and contracted its own court transcriber to record all discussions during the two meetings. According to Leon Wurl, the City officials did not know what to expect.^ They feared denial based on the Commission's reputation, the lengthiness of application submittal, and the drawn-out hearing.
Beside the arguments from Louisville, Superior, and the developers, the WQCD gave staff support for the application. While this has not always meant that the Commission would follow suit, in

this instance the Commission seemed to appreciate the recommendation. In such a hot issue, the Commission was staying on safe ground by following its own staff recommendation and a relatively strict interpretation of its discretionary powers. Moreover, neither the Commission nor Division believed that a decision based on land use arguments would be upheld in a court of law.^ Under pressure, the Commission would not stick its neck out on what it perceived as open ended land use planning issues.
Boulder County's input into the site approval proceeding contained some contradictory elements. The County administration and office holders did not entirely agree on the site approval issue. It is interesting from the perspective of the County's approach to Comprehensive Plan consistency to examine the record.
Ihe Boulder County Long Range Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the interceptor system which would be located in unincorporated territory. Two reasons were given: (a) the interceptor would be oversized, and (b) the Centennial Valley Mall would be served. County Planner Barbara Bryan wrote in behalf of the Commission:
When potential wastewater flow of the other areas (including CTC, STC, and all areas north of South Boulder Road within the Louisville Service Area) are included, the population equivalent (for Louisville) will be well above 20,000. This represents substantial departure from the Louisville Comprehensive Plan ...irrespective of the Centennial Valley Amendment issue...The South Side Wastewater Interceptor System is being proposed to serve a regional shopping center (the CVM) and ancilliary facilities which are denied by the Boulder County Planning Commission when considered as an amendment to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan.53
Further clarifying the way in which the planners of the County are using their plan in this case is the following excerpt from a

staff memorandum: "At this time the City of Louisville has not submitted information documenting the need for the capacity expansion to serve development in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan."5**
In a show of solidarity, the Boulder County Commissioners forwarded a recommendation to the WQCC in support of the Long Range Planning Commission's finding based on a two to one vote.
Commissioner John P. Murphy cast the desenting vote and sent a letter to the WQCC explaining his position. Mr. Murphy asserted that since no formal agreements had been executed between Louisville and Boulder County that the most relevant plan for consideration by the WQCC is the Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan.
Interestingly, Mr. Murphy seemed ready to dismantle the County's stonewall opposition to the Mall based in part on the Commissioners' vote to take no legal action at the Burbank Junior High meeting, March 17, 1979* He wrote:
These applications obviously need to be approved to enable Louisville to serve its comprehensive planning area. This is especially true when...these same land use conflicts were thoroughly considered by the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners a year ago and we voted unanimously not to take any action. I do not believe the WQCC should be asked to enforce policies that the Boulder County Commissioners would not act upon themselves.55
Further weakening the County's stance was the approval of the project by the County Board of Health in a two to one vote. The Board of Health made a discrete recommendation based solely on health concerns. The one dissenting Board member criticized the lack of consideration of alternatives.^
This lack of unity caused the WQCC and staff to discount the negative position, expressed by the Long Range Planning Commission,

one Board of Health member, and two of the County Commissioners.
It became more convenient for the Commission to label these arguments off-based.
The DRCOG review of this application was generally favorable. Brief comments were made in regard to the Water Quality Plan and the possibility that property outside the Urban Service Area may be serviced. Issues of the RAC policy and interjurisdictional disputes were not raised. This was surely to the satisfaction of Louisville.
The Department of Local Affairs seemed to seize this opportunity to expound upon the Mall almost for the first time, as late in the game and ill-placed as this may seem. The Department's main reason for recommending denial or postponement was that the Mall is a local matter requiring negotiation between Louisville and Boulder
County. If the Commission issued the site approval, then this would be unfair to Boulder County based on a legitimate interest in the matter. Paula Herzmark urged the Commission to postpone action "until they get their acts together." Beyond this, Ms. Herzmark expounded upon the argument that the interceptor would facilitate a de facto regional activity center which would adversely affect other centers.
In explanation of the Division of Planning's position incorporated into the Department's presentation, Director Phil Schmuck explained that it is not the Division of Planning's policy to kill the Mall, but rather to show that if out of the WQCC and other
processes it is determined that the best thing is not to build it,
then other options should be fairly explored. However, it was hard for the WQCC to perceive that this was a time to explore other

The members of the Commission were not sympathetic with this presentation. They declared that these considerations may indeed be valid; however, they must be regarded as extraneous to the Commission's mandate to promote water quality. In effect, without substantial water quality concerns, testimony was considered very weak.
In reaction to Local Affairs' testimony, Dennis Drumm speculated that Governor Lamm had a hand in formulating the departmental position for political reasons.^ The theory implied by Drumm is that the State has a cohesive manner of operating and can mobilize against projects that Lamm does not like using any weapons available. The Department of Local Affairs is also blamed for the one month postponement in the Commission's vote trying to delay the project.
The participants in this episode include WQCC, WQCD, Louisville, Boulder County, and the Department of Local Affairs. This examination of Louisville's sponsorship role, the last in this study, reveals a situation where the City was well prepared and the odds seemed in their favor. There was not broad enough discretion in this permit process to take on the whole Mall issue.
No one really wanted to do so. The Department of Local Affairs tried to go furthest but asked only for postponement. And this was not acceptable because water quality issues were not presented. Boulder County did not stand on a firm enough position because their arguments were also not directed at water quality; and there was dissension in the ranks. The only prominent character missing in this episode is the City of Boulder, because Boulder did not have standing. Despite the victory, Louisville still felt burdened hv a lancthv and trvine nrocess.

Boulder County Planning Commission, Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Boulder, 1978.
^Interview with Jason Brouillette, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder, 20 May 1980.
^Boulder County Land Use Department to Long Range Planning Commission, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder, 13 March 1979.
Boulder County Public Works Department to Long Range Planning Commission, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder, 13 March 1979.
^Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department to Long Range Planning Commission, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder,
6 March 1979*
^Interview with Jason Brouillette, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder, 20 May 1980.
John Leach, "Comprehensive Plan Weakness Revealed," Boulder Camera, 25 March 1979*
Interview with Leon Wurl, City of Louisville, Louisville,
30 May 1980.
^Interview with Jason Brouillette, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder, 20 May 1980.
^Interview with Leon Wurl, City of Louisville, Louisville, 30 May 1980.
John Leach, Boulder Camera, 25 March 1979
Interview with Leon Wurl, City of Louisville, Louisville, 30 May 1980.
Robert D. Farley to Dennis Drumm, 21 March 1979, DRCOG.
l6T.. ,
l8T, Ibid.

Interview with Leon Wurl, City of Louisville, Louisville,
30 May 1980.
2Interview with Leon Wurl, City of Louisville, Louisville,
30 May 1980; Int erview with Dennis Drumm, D.C. Associates, Louisville, 2? May 1980.
^Interview with Frank Gray, City of Boulder Planning Department, Boulder, 2 July 1980. i
Margaret Markey to Robert D. Farley, City of Boulder, Mayor's file, 2? April 1979-
Interview with Jason Brouillette, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder, 20 May 1980.
Harvey Atchison to Jack Kinstlinger, "Centennial Mall Position," Long Range Transportation Planning Section, 23 October 1979*
Farley to Jack Kinstlinger, 10 September 1979,
p Q
DRCOG, 2000 Interim Transportation Plan, l*t November 1979 (adopted), Figure k.
Interview with Norbert Meir, City of Louisville, Louisville, 18 June 1980.
Telephone interview with Doug Hawkins, Transportation Services, DRCOG, Denver, 30 June 1980.
^Joseph 18 June 1980.
C. French, Attorne Meir, Louisville
y, Louisville City Council
City Council Meeting, Meeting, l8 June 1980.
^Leon Wurl, Louisville City Council Meeting, 18 June 1980.
Paul Dannish and Robert Westdyke, DRCOG, Phase III Public Workshop, Boulder, 28 May, 1980.
^Interview with Frank Gray, City of Boulder Planning Department, Boulder, 2 July 1980.
^Dean C. Coddington, et. al. Draft Centennial Mall/Crossroads Expansion Impact Study, Denver, April 1980.
Telephone interview with Doug Hawkins, DRCOG, Denver, 30 June 1980.

3 8
Jack Kinstlinger to Don McKee, Long Range Transportation Planning Section, Denver, August 1979*
Interview with Greg Henk, Long Range Transportation Planning Section, Department of Highways, Denver, 2 June 1980.
Interview with Leon Wurl, City of Louisville, Louisville,
30 May 1980.
Interview with Dave Ruble, Long Range Transportation Planning Section, Denver, 2 June 1980.
Letters from the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, Department of Highways, and Division of Planning in file SR #80-25, State Clearinghouse, Division of Planning.
Interview with Dave Ruble, Long Range Transportation Planning Section, 2 June 1980.
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Community Conservation Guidance, the White House, no date.
Neil Goldschmidt to Ruth Correll, City of Boulder Mayor's file, Boulder, 15 February 1980.
"Approval of Sewage Treatment Works," Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 25-8-704 (1973)*
Interview with Deraid Lang, Water Quality Control Division, Denver, 9 June 1980.
Leon Wurl, Water Quality Control Division, Meeting, Denver,
5 May 1980.
Testimony of Paula Hertzmark, Meeting of Water Quality Control Commission, Denver, 5 May 1980.
^ Stephen T. Williamson, to Water Quality Control Commission, "City of Louisville, Application for Site Approval of Sewage Collection," Water Quality Control Commission, Denver, 21 March 1980.
^Interview with Leon Wurl, City of Louisville, Louisville, 30 May 1980.
Interview with Deraid Lang, Water Quality Control Division, Denver, 9 June I98O.
^Barbara M. Bryan to Leon Wurl, Boulder County Land Use Department, Boulder, 30 January 1980.

John P. Murphy to Evan Dildine, Water Quality Control Commission, Denver, 7 April 1980.
^Hester McNutty, "Minority Report-Louisville Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion," Water Quality Control Commission, no date.
Robert Farley to City of Louisville, "Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion ard Interceptor," State Clearinghouse file on Louisville-Superior Interceptor, 8 February I98O.
c D
7 Paula Hertzmark to Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, "Site Approval for the South Side Wastewater Interceptor," Division of Planning, Denver, 5 May 1980.
Conversation with Phil Smuck, Division of Planning, Denver,
23 April 1980.
^Interview with Dennis Drumm, D.C. and Associates 1 Louisville, 27 May 1980.

Chapter V
In this final chapter the roles of the key agencies in the Centennial Mall controversy will be characterized in an evaluative framework and my thesis propositions will be examined. The opening part of the discussion concerns the "effectiveness" of agencies according to the following critical questions asked in Chapter I:
(1) How successful have participants been in influencing the course of events?
(2) Have the various challenges been handled fairly?
(3) Were opportunities and incentives for cooperation made attractive to participants; and did the agencies attempt to utilize these incentives to achieve their aims?
In order to facilitate the evaluation discussion, these questions have been broken down into the following set of criteria applied to key actors in the controversy:
(1) Legitimacy of involvement. This criterion refers to an agency's statutory authority and the agency's status in a general societal context for undertaking the role(s) that were played.
(2) Consistency of position. The consistency criterion is an evaluation of the extent that an agency adhered to a position and the principles and policies behind that position throughout the events in which it was involved.
(3) Fairness of position and action taken. "Fairness" refers to the reasonableness in the amount and type of resources mobilized for a position or action. In the case that the action is decision-making, fairness refers to the adequacy of an agency's

basis for judgment related to the various inputs of information and pressures.
(4) Constructiveness of input. This refers to how well an agency communicated new information or points of analyses which could be the basis for additional discussion and ultimately conflict resolution.
(5) Persuasiveness. This criterion is an evaluation of how successful an agency was in communicating points that became accepted by other agencies. And in the case of decision-making, it refers specifically to the matter of who won and who lost.
Evaluation of City of Louisville. Louisville rates very high uner the criterion of legitimacy throughout the controversy. As the local government having jurisdiction over the site of development, Louisville has been the primary agency in capacities of approval and sponsorship roles. Certainly no one else had the statutory authority of Louisville in its status as a general purpose government to undertake all of these activities.
The approval action of annexation entailed the questionable use of the emergency clause, as it precluded referendum and initiative elections petitioned for by the Citizens Participating in Louisville's Future. This was a quick and devastating blow to the citizen group's efforts to engage popular participation in the first and most significant decision leading to the building of Centennial Mall.
From the evidence reviewed in this study, there appears to have been no real emergency. A referendum was not an emergency; and

the City of Boulder's faltered threat of acquiring the property was not really an emergency in my understanding. Even if this use of the emergency clause and related maneuvers are decided by the Colorado Supreme Court to be lawful and legitimate, in my estimation it was not fair to deny a popular vote on this unanticipated and crucial civic issue.
A brief examination of the role of the Citizens Participating in Louisville's Future highlights several points about the legitimacy of the Louisville establishment. The ultimate internal challenge or incentive for altering the City's course lies within the local elective process. If Citizens Participating in Louisville 's Future could have ousted the City Council then the group could have handled the Mall issue in its own way. This broad action would have required a recall election because the regular election is scheduled for 1981. And for reasons not explored, the group did not wish to wage such a massive campaign. The City Council and administration repeatedly claimed that the majority of residents favored the Centennial Mall and hence favored the Council's actions in regard to the Mall.
Another note on legitimacy of Louisville is that both annexation and comprehensive plan amendment moves were undertaken carefully if aggressively. The City followed a formidable and lawful planning process entailing public meetings and hearings; and thus they acted legitimately and fairly.
A final remark on Louisville's legitimacy is that in some ways the City functioned as a subordinate to the developer. As sponsor, Louisville consistently tried to help the project along in every

possible way. It is a fair if difficult question to ask whether this characteristic was healthy for the community or necessary to achieve the City's aims. Such a posture, while indeed virtuously consistent, may have made the City less receptive to considerations brought up by other agencies and in general less flexible to innovations.
Once the City decided that it was willing to accommodate the Centennial Valley Mall, the City was very consistent. The revamping of the Louisville Comprehensive Development Plan in order to conform with the Mall could be called inconsistent with the major provisions of its own plan. However, the City has shown a certain degree of consistency in making its plan flexible in order to accommodate private sector opportunities. There is a serious risk in such a flexible disposition towards a city's comprehensive plan in that community ammenities may be destroyed with the sanction of poorly thought-out amendments. Nonetheless, Louisville must be credited for following a
clear strategy of aggressive economic development.
Regarding contributions, it must be noted here that Louisville made no substantial compromises to the developer's plan through either approval or sponsorship functions. In the "approval" discussion regarding annexation and subdivision there were concerns expressed over residential density and the aesthetics of the shopping center. Neither of these made the project more agreeable to adversary agencies; nor were they offered as a bid for cooperation and compromise with these agencies. Characteristically, Louisville would not negotiate over the development with other levels of government or with the citizen groups. In regard to the former, this intransigence results in part from ineffectiveness of

other agencies, as will be discussed.
In the four episodes examined in Chapter IV, Louisville was only completely successful in one, WQCC approval. This was a case in which the City made a very persuasive application both in its arguments in favor of the proposed sewage system improvements and its threat of a law suit. However, the site approval function was weighed in favor of the applicant if water quality goals would be clearly served despite land use planning controversies. And such was the case.
The City was unsuccessful in its request for an amendment to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. In this episode, the City submitted its request in the form of an argument for its justification; and simply ran into a confrontation with the County that it did not seem to try, nor probably expect, to work out. The City did act in good faith to rank high in the fairness of its engagement however, it did not act particularly constructively. It surely felt that the odds were so against them that suggestions for cooperation and compromise would not work; and they tailored their actions accordingly straight. Furthermore, the City showed no interest in the "compromises" offered by the County that practically suggested the alternative of n£ shopping center. This dialogue between the City and County unfortunately was not designed to find new options agreeable to both parties.
Louisville fared somewhat better in DRCOG's comparison of the Mall proposal to the Regional Growth and Development Plan. The proposal was not determined to be inconsistent with the RGDP; and therefore DRCOG did not confront the City's intended actions.

Louisville may have prompted this action by the persuasiveness of its arguments or by a threat to bolt the organization as suggested by County Commissioner Margaret Markey.
The transportation planning series of events has not yet been completed. Nonetheless, Louisville has been at least partially successful by continuing to be a strong participant to reckon with in DRCOG's U.S. 36 and Superior interchange study. With regard to Highway Commission proceedings, Kahan is the direct sponsor of the offer to rebuild the Superior interchange while Louisville is backing up the developer. City Administrator Leon Wurl felt that the Commission was not receptive to the Superior interchange proposal during the Fall, 1979 meetings. However, when the Commission meets again, this may change. Not only will the Commission have the BBC Report and hopefully DRCOG's U.S. 36 study to consider, but also the periodic pressure from Louisville and the temptation of a 3.3 million dollar offer to ponder. If the developer and Louisville introduced a reduction in the size of the Mall, the Commission would probably support the proposal.
Transportation planning is an intricate affair involving numerous intergovernmental communications over a long period of time. It has extended after the time of writing. Unfortunately I am not qualified to give a full evaluation of Louisville's role based on current research.
Evaluation of Boulder County. Boulder County has staked the legitimacy of its involvement on the Boulder County Comprehesive Plan as it has been practically mutally adopted by both the County and Louisville. And through the failed amendment to the BCCP, the

County has claimed consistently that the Mall development would contradict the Plan; and all related permits and improvements would harm the County. While the intergovernmental contract was not finalized, it was found acceptable to both parties; and as 6uch, it is a legitimate foundation for County action in my opinion. Furthermore, the County deserves high marks for its consistency on this issue, upset somewhat only during the Water Quality Control Commission episode.
In my interpretation, the County's position has been the "heart" of opposition to the Mall due to its standing as an involved local government entity. While the City of Boulder actively put pressure on the County, it was the County that stuck firmly to its own plan and pursued continual involvement. And without the County's participation in each of the major actions examined in Chapter IV, Lamm, WQCC, Department of Local Affairs, DOH, and DRCOG would have had much less to go on in their own position formulations and actions.
Norbert Meir raised the question, at what point would the County be carrying out its opposition too far, and thus injure the relation between Louisville and the County and not get on with the business of government planning and management. This points to the problem of diminishing legitimacy when an agency proves to be too inflexible in an aggressive position. The fact that the County has little else it can rely on besides the cooperation of municipalities and other parties in BCCP implementation intensifies the need for the County to accept at some point a development even if it does not like it, However, the Mall is not yet built; and

perhaps only then will the County change its adversary posture.
In the event that the County used its position to punish the existing community of Louisville because of the Mall, such an action would be unfair. But in the events to date, the County has acted legitimately and fairly, if also toughly in my evaluation. Characteristically, the County has acted in a straightforward manner bringing solid issues to the attention of other agencies, as shown in the episodes involving DRCOG, WQCC, and the Highway Commission.
Nonetheless, at least in the short run, Boulder County has alienated the City by its hardline approach. And at no time was the County successful in persuading Louisville to reconsider its intentions. The state of inter-agency cooperation in Boulder County has deteriorated. As alluded to in the introductory chapter, clashes may be more healthy than stone silence or whimsical compromise. However, through the rather bitter and unresolved conflict between Louisville and Boulder County in this controversy, relations have probably been injured in the long run as well. Although, the City and County still seem more respectful of each other than indicated by statements by Louisville participants.
In regard to the problem of legitimacy in constructing one 's role, Boulder County has embarked on a difficult course. The County Comprehensive Planning effort has put Boulder County in a role contending to be a sort of "super-agency" promoting interjur-isdictional cooperation. The "consistency requirement" is a rather inadequate foundation for the job, and is potentially harmful. It could be used to discourage appropriate changes in municipal plans

and creative negotiations and compromises that are more effective than a single rule determination. Furthermore, if consistency criteria is used arbitrarily in the selection of cases to go after, then the whole planning process is suspect in terms of integrity and fairness. Leon Wurl has voiced this challenge. Despite these profound problems, cooperation of governmental units and private parties to act in accord with the Plan is not a bad way to go about planning. And in a rather bureaucratic set-up, one must hope that the parties do not act inconsistently and arbitrarily; it is not inherent that they must. In order to become more of a super-agency, the County would need more powers of implementation and responsibilities through enabling legislation.
Boulder County deserves a mediocre ranking in persuasiveness and constructiveness while it has been making a serious effort to be consistent and assertive. The RGDP consistency determination was not conclusive; and therefore cannot be said to be supportive of the County position. While the BCCP could not be ignored, as it is inter-related to the RGDP, it was not given any over-all endorsement.
The Water Quality Control Commission in effect decided against Boulder County in its site approval. The County plan regarding the Mall controversy was not perceived by the Commission to be an overriding consideration. And moreover, the testimony from John Murphy and the Board of Health weakened the opposition posed by the Long Range Planning Commission, Land Use Department, and the two to one vote of the Board of County Commissioners. This illustrates that other agencies do not give as much weight to the BCCP

as the County does. Nor did the Commission believe that either the County or Louisville could effectively negotiate an agreement.
Evaluation of Boulder County's role in Mall-related transportation planning follows the same line as for Louisville. The County is still involved in the DRCOG study. And the County registered its priorities with the Highway Commission; but it is difficult to weigh their effectiveness to date.
Evaluation of the City of Boulder. The City of Boulder must be credited as the party who generated the most arguments against the Mall and worked hardest to persuade the agencies--namely, Boulder County, Governor Lamm, and federal agencies--to challenge the proposal. As a "jawboner," Boulder was successful.
In terms of consistency of position, Boulder also ranks highly not only in holding to its substantive arguments but also in its tenaciousness. The City has systematically covered nearly all the bases in presenting its hardline opposition to the Mall proposal. Who else could Boulder have spoken with?
In some interpretations Boulder is the original culprit because it had been hard on shopping center development to the point of offending most developers. And Boulder'6 prolonged meddling in Louisville's affairs is judged to be neither fair nor legitimate. Based on my examination of Boulder's role in specific events I want to make the following remarks.
In its pre-annexation efforts the City of Boulder was most notably involved in (a) one last effort to lure Sears back into Boulder, and (b) an unofficial threat to acquire the Mall site.
As regards the first effort, Boulder was reportedly ineffective in

large part because of the sad history of past relations with Sears during which time Boulder offended the developer's sensitivities.
And as for the interest in acquiring the property expressed by Councilman Paul Dannish, this was a foolish and treacherous proposition. It caused problems not only for Boulder's image and arguments, but for the opposition postures of others as well. While the City of Boulder as a whole entity cannot be faulted with this action, the media portrayed it to be a very big and serious effort. And Louisville utilized this to justify its emergency clause which consequently was used to deny referendum. According to the criterion of fairness, the move rates very low.
The City acted within a legitimate role and fair manner to 6peak with the County, DRCOG and the Governor. It argued effectively that the Mall is a matter of County-wide interest. And DRCOG is designed to facilitate discussion of regional land use and transportation issues. It is not so obvious that the Mall is a matter of State-wide interest; however, it was fair to bring it up for Lamm's attention. Boulder was notably not involved in the WQCC proceedings as the City did not have legitimate standing in the matter. The most extravagant effort was to contact federal officials in Washington, D.C. But this too was legitimized by the Community Conservation Guidance as explained in Chapter IV.
In characterization of Boulder's interest group/injured party role, Boulder has shown itself to be a relentless critic, and very haughty in its manner of presentation. The City was very difficult to communicate with, let alone cooperate with. It is possible although unlikely that certain compromises may have been entertained

had boulder not been actively involved. However, the unpleasant tension between the two cities certainly hardened each other 's relative positions and minimized whatever opportunities for cooperation that there were.
Evaluation of DRCOG. DRCOG is probably the agency most vulnerable to general criticism in this study due to its position in the middle of disputing agencies and the various expectations that other agencies had of the Council. DRCOG hosted important events during two of the episodes examined in this study: comparison of the proposal to the RGDP and Mall-related regional transportation planning. In both functions, the regional organization has seemed to struggle to not alienate member governments and to find a central path that both sides of the controversy would accept and be willing to work with. In terms of the evaluation criteria, DRCOG tried to enhance its legitimacy as the regional referral agency and show to the other agencies its quality of fairness.
The DRCOG analysis of the Mall proposal in relation to the RGDP was one of the most frustrating episodes for virtually all parties. DRCOG's notion that a determination of consistency is beyond its present capabilities strongly suggests that something is amiss in the role of DRCOG, in the RGDP document, or both. In the existing situation the regional organization did little more than to monitor how the Mall proposal lines up with the regional plan. Whether or not DRCOG could serve in an effective coordinative capacity when conflicts rage has become increasingly doubtful through the display of behavior in this study.
Perhaps only Louisville, in its attempt to exercise flexibility in changing provisions of its comprehensive plan, appreciated the

weakness of DRCOG's position. Although the City participants also voiced opinions that DRCOG was too vague. The support that the various agencies had wanted from DRCOG was missing.
In the framework of any intergovernmental cooperative planning, the role of the Council of Governments is central and highly esteemed. This lends credibility to DRCOG's legitimacy as an actor in the controversy. However, in its central position, DRCOG was still unable to give direction based on its own plan or to mediate disputes. And this factor leads to a low evaluation of DRCOG's constructivenes6 regarding especially the action of RGDP analysis.
In the DRCOG analysis, the RAC concept is the most important and difficult one with which to come to grips. The policies appear to need substantial review and clarification. If a regional shopping center may occur independently of RAC's, as Robert Farley suggested, then there i6 a need for a shopping center policy. Such a policy should outline: (a) what size of a commercial facility constitutes a regional shopping center, sub-regional, etc.; (b) what land uses accompanying a shopping center should be encouraged, and (c ) where shopping centers should be encouraged to locate. And this could be the basis for consistent and incisive analyses.
While DRCOG introduced certain considerations of the land use, housing, and energy consumption policies, the weakness of the full analysis made it very unlikely that Louisville or the developer would be persuaded to modify their intentions. It is not even clear, except in the case of housing distribution, that DRCOG seriously intended to persuade anyone to act differently.
In regard to transportation planning, DRCOG has acted very

cautiously in its function to prepare the 2000 Transportation Plan for adoption and to "aggressively" study U.S. 36. The posture taken is that all relevant parties should agree on the base data and study methodology. This is a commendable attempt to be fair to all parties although the accuracy of the study may suffer as the Department of Highways suggested. If DRCOG can successfully receive consensus on the study's parameters then the study may prove to be valuable and persuasive to the local governments and the Highway Commission. This would be a difficult maneuver, and it would be an effective contribution to intergovernmental relations.
Evaluation of the Colorado Highway Commission and Department of Highways. The Highway Commission has become involved in the Centennial tflall controversy in the limited capacity of considering the developer's offer to finance a new highway interchange at the Superior exit. In this capacity, the Commission has been the target of many interest-group pressuresnot the least, from the Department of Highways. Since this decision has not been made at the time of writing it is impossible to fully evaluate this agency, even though the dynamics of interrelations have been especially rich.
The Commission had a mixed reception to the proposed interchange rebuilding at the time of the Fall, 1979 hearings, prior to tabling the matter until the DRCOG and BBC studies were completed. This postponement was disappointing to the developer and Louisville; however, it appears to have been a legitimate action in terms of the transportation planning framework in which DRCOG plays the primary role. Continued postponement in the case that DRCOG is unable >to complete the study in a timely fashion would constitute a different

sort of action, perhaps an unfair delay.
It is only possible to specualte what influence different parties have had on the Highway Commission. The Governor appears to have special influence through the power of appointment of Commissioners and Jack Kinstlinger, Director of the Department of Highways. Presumably, this influence would work to deny the offer. Jack Kinstlinger and the members of the DOH staff have urged DRCOG to take a stand on the RGDP that would finalize the issue of consistency; and they have suggested their own interpretation that the Mall does violate the Regional Plan. And Ruth Correll has received a tentative endorsement from the Department of Transportation that indicated they would not look favorably on federal investment in Mall-related projects. On the other hand, Louisville and the weighy offer of 3*3 million dollars have put pressure on the Commission to accept the offer.
An interesting pressure for compromise is presented in the discrepancy in supportable square footage between the BBC Report and the Annexation Impact Statement. DOH and the Highway Commission surprisingly may be in the position to push for this compromise through the transportation planning process.
The Highway Commission will have to review this proposal in terms of the impacts beyond the five years over which the Commission is directly concerned in the Five Year Construction/Improvement Program. If the argument is accepted that a massive widening project for U.S. 36 would be necessary before scheduled due to traffic generated by the Mall then the Commission may decide that the interchange improvement should be phased for a more appropriate period
of time

Evaluation of the Water Quality Control Commission. The Water Quality Control Commission was involved in the controversy through the statutorily required site approval review of the Louisville 6ewage treatment plant expansion of the 60uthside interceptor that would serve Centennial Mall. In WQCC's enabling legislation is the mandate to review a site approval in regard to conformity with local plans. Boulder County and the Department of Local Affairs both agreed that the approval was unacceptable because the BCCP would be violated. However, the Commission rejected this testimony as either superfluous or just unconvincing and based their approval mainly on the generic water quality arguments presented by the appli cant. The Commission was seeking for a definition of its own role in regards to land use issues and finally determined that under pres sure of general controversy and the specific threat of legal action it was better to discount the land use arguments. In terms of criteria of evaluation, WQCC took a narrow position based on solid but limited legitimacy in the issue.
This decision seems prudent and reasonably consistent with its past record as best as my research indicated. However, in my evaluation, it is not fair to Boulder County as a legitimately interested third party. While the proposed interceptor clearly has merits through servicing the community of Superior, the concerns raised by several parties, i.e., Boulder County Board of Health members, over other alternatives are very much to the point. It would have been more fair given these constructive inputs. And in addition, while the likelihood of an agreement between Louisville and Boulder County seemed remote, using the "friendly" nudge of

WQCC postponement may have done some good to encourage more effort in negotiation. This move would heighten the incentives for cooperation (constructiveness) and increase opportunities for persuasion .
Despite these evaluation comments, I must admit that there are two problems that work against this viewpoint: (a) both WQCC and WQCD may be correct that such an approach would be struck down in the court case that would inevitably follow; and (b) the developer would drop this proposal in favor of an alternative that would not serve Superior such as a lagoon system and would still be able to receive site approval. I cannot give an authoritative evaluation of the first problem other than to interpret the statute quoted to mean that the Commission can indeed be more bold to consider land use planning problems. And the second problem would be reduced if the Commission would indicate that site approval for a Mall sewage treatment system would not be given away easily.
Evaluation of Governor Lamm and Generalized Administration.
The Governor has the legitimacy to become involved in matters of State interest through his duties as the chief executive of Colorado. His appropriate category of interest into which the Centennial Mall issue fits is most generally the issue of Front Range urban growth patterns. His position has been from the beginning not a mere expression of interest but rather advocacy against the decision to build the Centennial Mall. And the legitimacy of this is more questionable particularly because he undertook a fairly rigorous role in following the City of Boulder's beckoning to "jawbone." Moreover, Lamm did not make the effort to speak with

Louisville officials and solicit their ideas prior to making his commitment. The fairness of his behavior at that time must be ranked low. Louisville resented this with due cause. Lamm never relied on any more powers of his post than the status of office and its high visibility.
Exposure given the Governor 's opinions should have enhanced his persuasiveness. Perhaps Lamm has been more persuasive in a subtle way that eludes any immediate action or reaction. Neither Sears nor other perspective Mall tenents acknowledged being persuaded by the Governor's requests that they reconsider. And it is mere speculation that the Highway Commission and WQCC may be persuaded through appointmentship. The WQCC decision does not demonstrate having a lead from Lamm. In short, the Governor's extensive urgings are evaluated to have a low value of persuasiveness. And as an advocate making the same arguments as Boulder, Lamm has not played a uniquely constructive role. He tried to stimulate ideas unsuccessively. The BBC Report was one constructive outcome of Lamm's talks with the developer. However, its value has yet to be fully tested.
Thus far Lamm has been consistent in his position. Although he may be persuaded by the BBC Report to change.