Loading...
3 - Citizen Participation, FIRM & FIS report for Boulder County & CU-Boulder South Tennis CourtTO: CENTRAL RECORDS FROM: /'~a~yUyz~-r (Name/ Board Commission) PLEASE add these items to Meeting Packet of: .T~ /~' ao ~ (Date of Meeting) ~ !p ,Tu'1 1 ' II '~~ ~12: 54p p. 2 i ~ 'il~ ' s !~~ ~ w~ ~~~ a;,. ;' ~~ i §~ e ~~ 3 ~I ~ ', II i ~~ ¢~ ~.~ _ ~ 's i Ii'~ `~ ~.{ II j '~~ !, '. ~ ~~~i „~ ~. . ., r ~ :~~'', #' ±~ i y ';; I'j! ' ~ I i '' p ~ i Fgderal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 ~ JUN 152000 ie H. Botham{ P.E. Rice Consultjng WaterEngineers, Inc. ry Street, Suite 300 CO 80211-5119 Botham: IN REPLY REFER TO: Case No.: 00-08-113P Communities: City and County of Boulder, Colorado Community Nos.: 080024 and 080023 316-AD is in response to your letter dated April 19, 2000, regarding the Plood Insurance Rate (F1RM)'and Flood Inswance Study (FIS) report for Boulder County, Colorado and poratad Areas dated June 2, 1995. In a latter dated April 3, 2000, we requested onel d~ req~tu'~e~d to complete ow review of the levee located along South Boulder on the'Universily of Colorado parcel, commonly known as the Flatirons property. ~,et~gr addresse~ each of the six items requested in ow letter, and this letter responds to si>k".items. Your letter also emphasized the importance of knowing whether or not e sajtisfies ~ requirements of Section 65.10 of the National Flood Inswance '~ (1VFIP) re httions, and, if not, what additional information would be necessary to these' raquir ts. Section 65.10 outlines the requirements for levees to meet in C:e) be~aFedited on a FIRM as providing protection from the base (1-percent-annual- 'le fl lave completed our review of the data submitted in support of yew request. With your ~' you submitted a check in the amount of $4,700 to defray the cost of ow review. This nes the requirerr?ent of Item 1 listed in the Apri131etter. Yaw letter provided a detailed 'option df the operations procedwes Per the culvert which passes through the levee and its lre device and a detailed description of the affects of seepage on the structural stability s levee. These descriptions adequately address Items 2 and 3 listed in the Apri13 tetter. r Wi~h' a letter dated August 26, 1999, you submitted several reports that provided technical ~,da to show that the upstream reach (the upstream 4,570 feat) of the existing levee could ;~ ) thb requirements bf Section 65,10. Based on our review of that information and the ~ in ~rnation included in yew April 19 letter, we have determined that the upstream reach of l;911e levee meets all o~'the requirements bf Section 65.10. '~ , ~~ ~'repoit''.entitied "Report on the Flood Control Levee Protecting the University of ado's Property) at South Boulder Creek," dated August 24, 1999, submitted with yew i~ ~ .i V ~I ' ,. 1 ~i #.~ ~'H~ ~}~2:64p p. 3 ii •d 1 I i II I ~i f ~ r I a IIf~~~ ' ,~ ~ I y'~ ; i g..'', 1', E ~,` ,, l i. i' `{ „~ .,~ ~~ ~~ b iE, ~, '~. ~~ ~, ~, i ~'', ~~ ~E,~ }. i st 261etter indicates that the Special Flood Hazard Area (SERA), the area that would be aced by the base flood, abuts natural ground along the middle reach (approximately feet) of the levee. We agree with that determination; therefore, this section of the levee not need to meot the requirements'of Section 65,10. lugust 24 repot states that the downstream reach (the downstream 1,250 feet) does not 'all of the raguiraments of Section 65.10 at this time, and we agree with that ninatidn 5pe'cifically, the downstream reach does not meet the requirements for iard ar~d maintenance. The report states that this reach of the levee has not been studied 'ermind if other ((requirements of Section 65.10 can be met. use the downstream reach of the levee does not meet all of the requirements of 65.10, Tonal data must be submitted before we can revise the FIRM to show that the upstream of the levee prrovide~s protection from the base flood. As requested in Item 4 of the 3 latter, please provide the existing conditions topography and hydrologic and wlic analyses necessary to revise the effective FIRM, The existing conditions analyses include calculations to detemtine the base flood elevations (BFEs) if the downstream of the levee will fail. The existing conditions topographic information must include fhe ,boundary delineation for this "without levee" scenazio. Please ensure that the existing tions hydrologic and hydraulic analyses meet the requiremenk~ of Paragraph 65.6(a)(2) a NFIP'reguhttons. This paragraph states that to avoid diswntinuities between the xi and unravisod flood data, the submitted hydrologic and hydraulic analyses must be sivb enough to'ensure that a logical transition can be shown between the revised BFEs, and floodwaj~ boundary delineations and those developed previously for areas not Vied by the revs$ron, Our detenninarion of the effects of the levee certification on the F can not ba ptOCessed until the existing conditions hydrologic and hydraulic analyses ipogta~thic mapping are submitted pquasted that you provide written acknowledgement of the revision request from both :ity of Boulder and Boulder County. We received copies of your June 1, 2000, letter to community requesting such written acknowledgement. In the event that the City and/or County do not provide written acknowledgement of the request, we can continue uslbg'tt4is request t(:rough the prgvisions of Paragraph 65.4 of the NFIP regulations. graph 64'.4 states 'that if written acknowledgement is requested and refused by a ~~ttunity, FBMA can proceed with the request if written evidence is provided that indicates he' acknowledgement, has been requested of the community. Therefore, Item 5 in our 3 lettek has'ber+n satisfied. ' are aware of the ongoing mitigation study that is being performed as a cooperative effort ke Citiy' of Boulcl'er, Boulder Count, the University of Colorado, and the Urban Drainage Flood Control district. We understand that the focus of the mitigation study is to amine the hydr ogy of the area and that limited resources will be allocated to hydraulic Vises arid'tlgodpl, ' +mapping. We encourage you to work with the co-sponsors to expand i~ f1i~,nl I~~ 9 i `~I4 i ~ Iii I ~ . i ~ ~' „u l i 's a, ~, {, ;I~~ ,y „ ~' ; ~ ~ , '~ ,~ ~,1 ;i f I ,, I f~ ,III 'i, ~ ~ ,', i ~ i _,I. rv ~~! 'I„ is ;,; ; . ~; ~ ~ a ,i I~ I„ `i141 I;. '~ '! 1r ;. ~. '~iI ~h ,~ ~ ~ I2s54p ', p.4 ki ~ i !~ 3` I cope of the study to develop the necessary technical data to improve the SFHA anon shown op the effective FIAM based on the updated hydrology. s I stave been infomted that theprelmtn . - findin s of the miti ation stud indicate that-the ._. .W ~ ~_$...._.- i3 -_ y '~ _ fed-tease flood discharge will be significantly higher than the effective discharge.that-was- 1 _ta_prapare-,the.FIRM,_and_wlll,hk4ly~result._in_increasod BFEs., Ow review of yaw r regarding wmpliance with Sections 65.10 was based on the BFEs associated with the s 've discharge or this reach of South Boulder Creak. Please note that if the base flood ~c~i ~ ge and BFE~ increase as a result of the mitigation study, the lever will ha_v_e to be _. -- fr wad for compliance with Section 65.10 based on the increased discharge and BFEs., z __.._._ _... __ _ _. _ . ~,, i (i ' ; I, ~'~,I i I~nl ~i is I I F 1" i ;i :§` ' ~,,. 1 I' ,~ ~ I~ i ~ ~; I :' G li s I,' III i ~If~,~i re'would 1'ke to reiterate that the, effective FI1tM may underestimate the real flood _.. sociated w~th the current condmons Tong South Boulder Creek. We encowaga the.,.... :ounty of Boulder to carefully monitor construction activities in this area and to use iscretion iq permitting any new development. Please note that Paragraph 60.1(d) of regulation's states that in some instances, community ofl'icials may have access tom - m` or kno~lodgo of conditions that require, particularly for human safety, higher than the minimum criteria sat forth in the NFIP. Therefore,_anX.rttptazesirictive.... -.. anaQemant regulations that are adopted by a communty,tak@,prFcede[tce and are, ,_,,,, ...~_. ~~ ,fir) n a nd the required items described above directly to ow Mapping Coordination rat the following address: ' Michael Baker Jr., htc. 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600 ' Alexandria, VA 22304 Attention: Gregorio G. Vigilar, Jr., Ph.D. Telephone: (703) 317-6274 i PaK: (703) 960-9125 fentification purposes, you must include the case number referenced above on all pond~nce. do not ieceive'tha required data within 90 days, we will suspend ow processing of your d. ,Any data submitted after 90 days will be treated as an original submittal and will be ;t'to aii;submi~tal~iayment procedures, including the flat review and processing fee for as' of thi 'type, established by the revised fee schedule that became effective on March 14. A'copy of the notice summarizing the current fee schedule, which was published in ~deraJ'Register, is enclosed for ydw information. r are unable to meet the 90.day deadline for submittal of required items, and would like A to continpe proceising'yow request, you must request an extension of the deadline, request must ba submitted to our Mapping Coordination Contractor in writing and must de (1) the reason why the data cannot be submitted within the requested timeframe, and now date for the submittal of the'data Wa receive a very large volume of requests and ~t maintain inactive requests for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, the fees will be I ,f '~ I ~~il G, ,~ ,, ~ ,~ ~,'I ~4 '~ ~~ ~' j ~ ~~ 1 ra' ~, iI ~ ~~ ', n ; I a ~' af~ ~ ~~ r it i '., ~~ ;~~~ @, ui Fu 'i i ,! ,lip ,~ ,i. q'I a, ~ ' ~ o~ uu ~, ,~ ;i~~ ,~i '~i ~,~E ,, ICI ` i~:54p ~, ~ for' arty request for which neither the requested data nor a written extension request ved within 90 days. 'lava anq quasti~ns regarding this letter, Please contact Ms. Sally P. Magee of ow staff hingtorS, DC, by phone at (202) 646-8242 or by facsimile at (202) 646-4596, ~;, Sincerely, M".~-' ' Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief Hazards Study Branch Mitigation Directorate i~ ~; 1 i p ~ ~' ~ i I. ~; ~ , ,~~ ~, ~;~ ~ 'Ii { ` Y I ~' ~ ~ ~~. ~;~i i I, ~I ~_~' I f 1~ ;!, I~~ li ~ j ~I ,I. I, ~, 1, i ', ~'~; {,' I. G~~ ~ ~~ 4s ~ ~I ~, ~I ~¢ ji~ C 1 ~; { it ~~ '~ I f tl i Z ~ ~ i ~ I aI i i ~ i ~ ,~ i ~;, i i t l I iE p' ~ ~ I ~'~ Ill i! ~I Ms. JanaL. Mendez Board of County Commissioners Boulder County P.O. Box 471 Boulder, CO $0306 Mr, Bill DeGroot, P.E. Chief Floodplain Management Program 2480 West 26ei Avenue, Suite 156B Denver, CO 80211 Mr. Ronald IC. Stewart Boatd of County Commissioners Boulder County P.O. Box 4711 B'ouldor, COI 0306 I~ ~I ' ' Mr. Paul D. Danish ~~ ~ Board of County Commissioners ' Boulder County ,li P,O. Box 471 y ~ Boulder, CO 80306 Ii ~~ Mr. Richard Byyny ,Cha~ceHor Unrvorsity of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, CO 80309 i i II i li f i Mr. Brian R Hyde Senior Water Resowce Specialist CcloradoWatet ConservadonBoard Department of Conservation 721 State Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Dt. John Liou, Ph.D., P.E. Hydrologist Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VIII Office Denver Federal Center, Building 710 Denver, CO 80025 Mr. Ronald A. Sacrist city Manager City of Boulder P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 p.5 f% 'i; i ~~~ ~(n~ ~EC~li~~t July 9, 2002 Ms. Nan Johnson City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Dear Ms. Johnson: I just came upon my letter regarding the City's request for opinion on BOULDER COUNTY 1041 STATE INTEREST REVIEW OF CU-BOULDER SOUTH TENNIS COURT REPLACEMENT PROJECT. I am a neighbor adjacent the west boundary of CU South Campus property. I have enjoyed living here for 25 years and am very concerned about the direction of development being allowed on this property. NO APPLICATION SHOUD BE CONSIDERED UNTIL AFTER A FULLY ACCREDITED AND INDEPENDENT HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF FLOODING ISSUES FOR THE SOUTH BOULDER CREEK WATERSHED. The tenhis court project is only a fraction of CU's proposed growth. It's obvious that the expense of possible future flooding catastrophe will fa111'to the taxpayer! PLEASE TAKE TIME FOR PROPER LONGTERM PLANNING. Thank you for considering this and others citizen opinions! Sincerely, ~G~~ Janet A, Meadows P.S. Yes, this property, on the doorstep of our beautiful city, should have remained Open Space! i ~ ~~~ CG~~ ~:~,~- ~~ ~ 3 Page 1 of 1 Nan Johnson -South Campus/Flatirons Development From: Stefan Muszala <muszala@scarab.cgd.ucar.edu> To: <schmidtc@ci.boulder.co.us>, <johnsonn@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 7/18/2002 11:18 AM Subject: South Campus/Flatirons Development Cory Schmidt and Nan Johnson I would like to voice my concern about the CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Replacement Project for the property located at 5278 Table Mesa Drive as I will be unable to make it to the meeting tonight. I am personally opposed to such development. The area is frequented by walkers and runners, provides a pleasant addition to the open space in the immediate area, and provides a habitat for many species. Keeping more open space in Boulder and limiting development is so important in an age where we increasingly have to deal with the problems of over-development. Furthermore, a primary reason that I live in Boulder is that there is a desire here to limit development and keep the area looking as beautiful as possible. My wife and I are planning to buy a home in South Boulder in the near future and would find it a shame for the area to be even more developed than it is now. I would be willing to pay an increase in taxes for the purpose of having Boulder County purchase the property from CU to convert to open space. I am aware that this was put to a vote during the 1996 November election (Ballot Issue 205) and perhaps it is time to take a new vote. I did vote yes for section 171 on Ballot Question 2A "Shall Section 171 of the City Charter be amended to add acquisition of open space to the listed functions of the Open Space Department?" but am not sure if that is relevant and applicable here. As a current Ph.D. student in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at CU Boulder, I would also be willing to pay a tuition increase in order for CU to redevelop and redesign existing facilities so that they are more efFicient in their use of space and accommodation of their needs. Thank you for your time and consideration Stefan Muszala muszala@colorado.edu muszala@ucar.edu file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\johnnl\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 7/18/2002