Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 - Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater master plan update, stormwater drainage and quality key issueCITY OF BOULD~R WATER RESOURCE ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM M~ETING DATE: September 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Staff presentahon and WRAB discussion on the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CF5) master plan update, stormwater dramage and quality key issues and the role of the Inde endent Review Panel (II2P) and the Citizen Review Grou (CRG). REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utihhes Bob Harberg, Utilities Plannmg and Pro~ect Management Coordinatar Douglas Sullivan, Utilities Pro~ect Manager Donna Swtt, SCOrmwater Quahty Coordinator Jeff Arthur, Develo ment Review Coardmator BOARD ACTION REQUEST~D: None at this time. Staff is providing WRAB an update on the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) master plan update, includmg stormwater drainage and quality key issues and the role of the Independent Review Panel and the Citizen Review Grou and will re uest the Board's comments and in ut. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. Follow-up work will need to be priorirized and funded as art of the on- om bud et rocess. The Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan is the policy that drives efforts in flood management, stormwater drainage and stoirnwater quality. The city's current master plan is referred to as the Comprehensive Drainage Utility Master Plan (CDUMP) and was adopted m 1989. The name of the plan has been changed to reflect the sigruficant effort that also goes mto Flood Management under the Utilities Division of Pubhc Warks. The intent of this update is to review various policy alternatives and provrde recommendations for any existmg programs adjustments Staff hired URS Consultants to help with the development of the master plan update. They have completed technical memos concernmg stormwater drainage and stormwater qualrty The mformation contained in the technical memos was used to identify key issues as discussed in the attached informahon. These issues were reviewed by the Independent Review Panel (IRP) and the Citizen Review Gtoup (CRG) at meetmgs in AugusC. The next step is to identify key issues related to various flood management work including flood mappmg and regulations and a meetmg with the CRG is scheduled far September 18. Staff will present this mformation to the WRAB and requests the Board's comments and mput. Attachment A: Stormwater Dramage Key Issues Attachment B: Stormwater Quality Key Issues Attachment C: Informahon Concernmg Review Groups Attachment A STORMWATER DRAINAGE KEY ISSUES September 9, 2003 Undate the Storm Water Collection Svstem Plan Background In 1984 the Storm Water Collection System Master Plan by WRC Engineering Inc was completed to provide the City of Boulder with a guide to Capital Improvement Pro~ect (CIP) development. This master plan mcluded three phases of development. • To review and develop hydrologic data and create a model to analyze the existmg storm drainage system • To evaluate the existmg system and identify problems withm the study area and develop a matrix of alternatives to solve the problems • To complete preliminary design of selected improvement alternatives Detenrion was evaluated and it was considered only when undeveloped land was available, and only when it could reduce the mihal storm flood peaks to the capacity of the existing system The final list of selected pro~ects did not recommend any detention ponds. Each of the projects was evaluated based on cost, providmg a higher level of flood protechon, reduchon of street flow, and the ability to provide stormwater release points for irrigation ditches. The "selected" projects were then prioritized and added to the CIP list The CIP list includes all pro~ects selected for Boulder mcluding ma~or drainage improvement projects, stormwater dramage pro~ects (storm sewers) and water quality pro~ects. The Storm Water Collectron System Master Plan conhnues to serve as the City's primary guide to allocate resources for stormwater drainage (storm sewers) purposes The City has recently created a GIS layer of sub-basins and sub-catchments, contaming pertinent information that may be used as a basis to update the hydrology and hydraulic modeling. Information from Other Communities None of the other commumues contacted have developed a separate storm dramage plan to define drainage problems and solutions for frequent storm events. Most commumties have only designed systems for less frequent (100-year) storm events, and developed solutions for more frequent events on a concurrent basis except for the City and County of Denver which also has a Stormwater Drainage Plan "Denver Storm Dramage Master Plan." Denver recommends updatmg their plan every few yeais. They last updated their plan m 1989.They have recently selected consultants to update several basins Public Input to Date This issue was reviewed and discussed as part of the CRG meehng on August 14, 2003. It was suggested that the City not spend money on remodeling and restudying those areas we know about; look at known pioblem areas and areas that are gomg to be developed in future Regional detenhon may have some real benefits, however a city as built out as Boulder, opportunrties may be limited. The exception might be detention that is integrated with Park development or expansion of existing private detention. We should be lookmg for other oppoitunrties to put everyone's money mto places where we can get the most benefits. Recommendations Update the City's Storm Water Collection System Master Plan addressing the followmg issues: • Current and future land use and associated imperviousness • Update hydrology/hydrauhc models • Consider groundwater flows when evaluating existmg capacity • Peak flows for the minor and ma~or storm events • Focus on known problem ateas and future development • Integrate water quality and other multi-ob~ective issues • Reevaluate detention includmg the possibility of regional detention and existing detenhon • Locate (estimate) the water table throughout Yhe city • Re-evaluate iemaining pro~ects for necessity and communrty ob~ectives • Reprioritize recommended projects Maintenance Manaeement Background Stormwater and Flood Management masntenance activities are currently tracked using the Utilities Maintenance Management System (UMMS), a Microsoft Access database. The database is designed to record mformation related to 1) employees, 2) equipment, 3) parts, 4) observations, 5) mamtenance activity, 6) work orders, 7) infrastructure and 8) administrahon UMM5 is currently being integrated with the City's GIS. The GIS captures the majority of all publicly owned stormwater facilities including storm sewer, manholes, mlets and small diameter culverts The system does not currently mtegrate above grade facilrties associated with the major drainageways. However, these facilities were recently mventoiied as part of the Diainageway Information Management System (DIMS) and are now available as a GIS layei Maintenance 2 responsibility for these facilities is shared with the Urban Draznage and Flood Contiol District (UDFCD). In addition, the Call I,og database is a stand alone system that has the ability to assign tasks to a selected hsL of mdividuals and can accommodate multiple tasks assigned to mulriple persons for any given problem. Individuals do not currently mclude project management personnel. Information from Other Communities Surveyed commuruties generally have an automated system that tracks incommg complamts. These database systems aie often used for the prioritization of projects as well as the determmarion of the timmg and development of the best course of action to ehmmate the problems, track the follow-up, and mspechons Most databases are also connected to a map (GIS) inventory system. Public Input to Date This issue was not discussed at the CRG meeting on August 14, 2003 since it was considered an mYernal issue to the City's Public Works Department. Recommendations Integrate above grade facilities associated with the major drainageways (DIMS) mto UMMS. Integrate ma~or mamtenance and all mfrastructure upgrades performed by the UDFCD into UMMS. Include appropriate pro~ect management personnel in the Call Log database On-Site Detention Reauirements Background The Crty has required on-site detenhon for development and redevelopment smce the early 1970s On-site detention storage is required for all developments other than mdividua] smgle- family lots that are not part of a larger development. Current detention requirements are based on non-degradation of stormwater quality and peakmg flows. For example, redevelopment is only required to detain the mcrement of difference between the exishng developed and new developed conditions. Information from Other Communities Most communities interviewed require that redevelopment detam any addrtional runoff volume generated above the amount generated from the site before redevelopment (same as Boulder). One community (Fart Collms) requires that redeveloped sites comply wrth current ciiteria if the site is completely redeveloped. Cuirent critena is deYenhon of the 100-year event, release at the existing 2-year rate with 40-hrs of detention hme for WQ. Public Input to Date This issue was reviewed and discussed as part of the CRG meeting on August 14, 2003. It was suggested that incentive-based performance standards should be used instead of fixed regulatory schemes, particularly for retrofitting where every situahon is different. There are concerns of the tremendous potential for considerable cost to be borne by property owners. Prior to movmg from a non-degtadahon based approach to an approach that contemplates improvmg starmwalei quality and detammg addihonal peak flows there needs to be careful consideration of the associated costs and benefits. Recommendations Review each development plan to look for opportunities to increase detenuon in addirion to the minimum currently required. This could be based on the degree of redevelopment proposed. This could be part of an incentive plan, where going above and beyond would decrease fees. Prior to considering addihonal detenrion requirements for redevelopment, carefully assess the associated costs and benefits Review this issue as part of the update to the Stormwater Collection System Plan. Insnection and Maintenance of Existing Detention Facilities Background The City has required on-site detenhon for development and redevelopment since the early 1970s. The design of these facilrties is reviewed by City staff at the time of application. The facilities are mspected and as-built drawmgs are now required to be submitted. All such facilrties are privately owner and mamtained. The City is currently entering known detention facilities mto a GIS data base and plans to perform a condit~on assessment of a random sampling of the facilities to determme if they are still servmg their intended purpose. Information from Other Communities Most local municipahties do not have any requirements or programs for mspecting and maintammg existing deYent~on facilihes with Yhe excepYion of Fart Collins which conducts annual mspections and maintenance of 82 city owned detention facilities. Some of these are regional facilities origmally constructed by the city as a capital improvement projects and other facilitres are associated with iesidential subdivisions. They also have ovei 500 privately owned detention facilrties, for which there is no mspection and mamtenance piogram at this rime. The City Overland, Kansas has required annual inspections and cei1ifications of private detention fac~lities smce the late 1980s. The inspection must be stamped by a professional engineer and must certify thaC that outlet structure is funchomng and that the detenCion facility contmues to provide its design storage. Kmg County takes ownership of detention facilihes associated with residential subdivisions and they inspecdmaintam these facilihes once every 2-3 yeais of ovei 1000 fac~lrties. They also inspect new detention facilities associates with iesidential subdivision durmg the 2-year bond period once each quarter. The frequency is greater because this is the hme period when erosion causes the greatest problems with the detention facility. In 2003 the work program calls for a total of 550 mspections and follow-up. In addihon they mspect approximately 800 private (commercial/industrial/multi-family/government) facilities on a 2-3 yeaz rotatmg basis. If they find a problem they send a letter notifymg the propeity owner of non-compliance and that correction is needed. They provide an incentive discount on the uhhty bill if the facilrty is in compliance, however they do not think lhis mcentive is large enough. As a result they will begin taking enforcement action next yeaz. Public Input to Date This issue was reviewed and discussed as part of the CRG meetmg on August 14, 2003. Although no consensus was reached, it was suggested that the City should mventory and periodically inspect these facilities but not necessarily assume maintenance iesponsibility. The City should consider requ~rmg the owners of existing water quality and detention ponds to be made fmancially responsible for returning their facilrties to their origmal design conditions and maintatmng them to keep them funchonmg m accordance wrth their origmal design. Recommendations Require property owners to submit an inspection report stamped by a registered professional engineer to the city once every 5 years certifying the detention facility is funchoning as origmally designed or a plan for improvements. Otherwise impose a fine if they are not comphant. Pros Assure that detention facilities are serving their intended purpose Cons Cost to private property owners for inspection report Cost to City for enforcement and review Maintam the inventory of detenhon facilihes. Reassess the ophon of the crty assuming on-gomg inspection and maintenance of detention facilities in 5 years. Revisit this when the Stormwatei Collection System Master Plan is updated. Priorrtize this work with other Stormwater and Flood Management Utilrty work progiams Requirements for Groundwater Extraction and Release Background Groundwater and sump systems create nuisance drainage in the public rights-of-way and can create hazards As such, the Crty of Boulder is refming requirements for gioundwater extracrion and release prior to, durmg and after constiuction The city currently requires an analysis of groundwater condihons contributmg to site runoff mcluding water table mformation as part of a Stormwater Report and Plan. There is also a groundwater discharge permitYmg system in place to supplement state regulations. The areas we need help on are what we should allow and how that impacts our infrastructure needs. Should we be prohibiting subsurface improvements in some areas and if so what are the impacts? Do we need to update our drainage system master plan to account for groundwater discharge and if so, how does this impact our prioritizahon? How are other cities dealing wrth this issue? The water table information we get in soils reports isn't all that precise. How do we be proactive rather than reactrve (as we are now) in dealmg with groundwater issues when we may not have rehable data on discharga needs until a structure is up and runnmg? Information from Other Communities Most communities do not have a requirement to control groundwater discharge after construction. Generally, commumties require a Soils Report as part of development along with a Stormwater Polluhon Prevention Plan. However, except far the City of Fort Colhns, Colorado, none of the communities interviewed require the identification of groundwater levels and/or a development plan to control groundwater But, cities like Portland require a mitigarion plan if high groundwater is suspected For disposal of groundwater they have different groundwater discharge criteria for each area (mfiltration conditions) within their~urisdiction. Public Input to Date This issue was reviewed and discussed as part of the CRG meeting on August 14, 2003. Comments mcluded supports for groundwater mitigation requirements. Sewers have dewatered wells m North Boulder. It is especially important that city have good inspection of check dams. Another commenter didn't suppart performance-based standards or regulations that would require everyone to test the groundwater table. Although this may be appropriate for certain zones of the city; there are other areas where it would not be of concern. Ground water involvement looks like a real nightmare at this time. Why not focus on things we can effectively do now? IY appears from all the checking wiCb other communities thaY no other commumty has tackled this issue and there is a good reason for this. 6 Recommendations Identify problem areas and require moie precise water table mformation that considers seasonal fluctuations. If the City believes or knows of a problem area, then a miugahon plan should be required prior to the permittmg. If groundwater is not expected but is encountered durmg construchon then a mRigaYion plan should be raquired prior to issuing the certificate of occupancy. Evaluate the imphcarions of groundwater contammation and levels from underground storage tank data and further explore existmg available soils informarion. Pros Better assures that groundwater pumpmg and discharge will not create problem condiCions Cons Cost to private property owners for mitigation plan Cost to City for review and enforcement Consider groundwater discharge as part of the update to the Stormwater Collection System Plan. Identify problem areas and issues includmg the affect of groundwater dewatering on local water wells Develop mitigation options for specific problem areas based on estimates of additional groundwater flow. Attachment B STORMWATER QUALITY KEY ISSUES September 9, 2003 (Integratecl Approach) Background Prior to urban development, precipitation can soak into the ground and infiltrate mto groundwater- very httle ramfall is converted to runoff. Urbanization disrupts the natural response of a watershed, decreasing the rate of infiltration and increasmg runoff. The characteristics of a basm, m terms of the amount of developed lands and impervious surfaces are key contributing factors m the quantrty (floodmg) and quality (stream health) of urban streams such as Boulder Creek and its tributaries Traditionally, alleviatmg floodmg problems have focused on efficient rouhng and removal of stormwater with little consideration to environmental impact. Similarly, water quality improvements have focused on specific sources of pollurion, such as erosion. While this approach may be successful m addressing site-specific problems, it often fails to addtess the more chronic problems that contribute to the long-term deterioration of water quality. The overall goal of the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan is to integrate three key objectives of flood protection, drainage management and water quality. A watershed management approach offers an opportumty to balance quanhty and quality issues. This approach allows for the development of soluhons with multi-faceled benefits to the stream corridor and the dramage basm. It is often difficult to meet multiple, often compehng, ob~ecrives m a plannmg process or m implementmg programs. However, one example of how the city has successfully met this challenge is the Greenways Master Plan. Completed m 2000, the Greenways Master plan provides a set of specific pro~ects which are prioritized by objective. If conflicts between ob~ectrves exist on a partrcular pro~ect, these conflicts are worked out durmg the project design level. This two phase, plamm~g and implementation approach helps to maintain multiple ob~ective benefits. The watershed or multiple ob~ective approach can also be used m the CFS Mastei Plan to develop criteria and set priorities in flood protection, dramage management and water quality programs, capital impiovement pro~ects, and regulations. Information from Other Communities The City of Fort Collins uses a watershed approach to stormwater management, includmg sub- basm based requirements and a system for assessmg and balancing compering ob~ecrives. In Portland, Oregon, watershed plans are intended Yo integrate water quahty issues wiYh the planning of public facilities, land use, and redevelopment efforts. It is noted that in reality they have trouble coordmatmg these efforts simply because of size and compiexrty of issues. The City of Ausrin, Texas uses a"needs-based" approach that ranks projects based on mission priorities mcludmg flood mitigahon, erosion contiol and water quality. Public Input to Date This issue was reviewed and discussed as part of the Community Resource Group (CRG) meeting on August 14, 2003. There was some support for using a watershed prioritizahon approach. However, the concern was raised that a watershed approach would slow down the plamm~g process and shift resources away from flood mitigation plans. One participant suggested that more pro~ects should be completed and fewer plans be made. Another participant felt that money would be much more effectively spent on inspection and maintenance of existing BMPs rather than on studies. Recommendations Develop and implement a wateished prioritization system, based on GIS information and analysis that incorporates water quality, drainage, flood management, development, and land-use planning data In addrtion, this priaridzation system should incorporate and support the Gieenways Master Plan and wetlands protecrion. Use the impendmg updates to the Stormwater Collecuon System Plan, the Design and ConstrucUon Standards and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Map as opportunihes to integrate watershed based water quality information and issues. Expand Greenways Master Plan, to mclude all major tributaries of Boulder Creek (curiently the program is limited to Boulder Creek and six major tributaries). Pros • The most effechve way to protecdpreserve water qualrty and riparian habitat is to mtegrate water quality thiough interconnected dratnage and flood management systems m urbanized basms. • A watershed approach to management of stormwater quahty issues is the most complete system to evaluate water qualrty issues • GIS is an effective tool, which has been effectively coordinated for analyzmg city- wide geographical data sets. Cons • May hinder waCer qualrty activities by hnkmg tbem to the polit~cal process. • Cooperation with other departments requires more time out of alieady busy schedules, additional staff resources may be needed. • Open Space objectives foi Boulder Creek tributaries may not be compaCible with management ob~ectives far tributaries that dram urbanized areas. • Expansion of city GIS services may require additional city resources for staffing and training. Best Manasement Practices for Redevelopment and Imulementine BMPs in Existins Development Sites (Treating Runoff) Background The city's Phase II Stormwater permit requires the city to implement development regulations which address impact of runoff from new and redevelopment srtes. The crty is currently participatmg in the Watershed Approach to Stream Health (WASH) pro~ect. Other participants mclude: Longmont, Erie, Superior, Louisville, and Boulder County To meet permit requirements, the WASH pro~ect is drafting development standards based on the Urban Dramage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Urban Storm Draina~e Criteria Manual Volume 3 Best Management Practices (UDFCD Vo13). In addition, the city's existmg Design and Construction Standards reference UDFCD Vol. 3 This is a well-accepted document based on years of experience and field testing in the Denver area, as well as research conducted throughout the country. However, most of the BMPs mcluded in UDFCD Vol 3 address new development rather than redevelopment ar adding BMPs to existing development. Boulder is predommantly built out, and guidelines focused on new development have limited apphcability m denser, redevelopmg areas. Therefore, to address water quality concerns, more mnovatrve runoff treatment solutions need to be considered To encourage these solutions, historically, the crty has been receptive to a variety of mnovahve BMPs. However, many developers have been reluctant to implement BMPs other than those represenhng tradrtional approaches. Information from Other Communities In Portland, Oregon mfiltration trenches are pnmarily used m single family residential area, the stormwater planters and mfiltration basins are very popular for commercial/multi family srtuations, and then ponds are shll popular m mdustrial and subdivision type situations. These types of approaches could be useful for mcorporation into redeveloping sites. In Austtn, Texas the mmimum standard of pollutant removal for permanent BMPs is based on sand filtration. Permanent BMPs are not required unless ~mpeivious cover exceeds 20% For selected ateas of high background water quality, new developments must meet a non-degradation standard. Public Input to Date 3 This issue was reviewed and discussed as part of the CRG meetmg on August 14, 2003. During this meeting, there was a general preference expressed for performance-based requirements that are flexible and provide financial mcentives. It was suggested that the city should considei a pomt system similar to the LEED program One participant raised the concern that considerable cost for BMPs would be borne by property owners and developers and therefore, the cost of additional requu•ements and associated water quahty benefits should be carefully assessed. The comment was made that the responsibilrty is and should be on the property owner. Recommendations Research BMPs oriented to redevelopment and BMPs for existmg development (for example, eco-roofs, cisterns, underground treatment) and mcorporate appropriate methods, such as Better Site Design, into crty standards. The use of underground storage and treatment BMPs should be pursued as pilot programs and opportunities for grant money should be explored. Develop a BMP implementation plan for urbamzed watersheds and explore the use of subsidies and paitnerships with development companies, landscape professionals, and property owners Better utilize existing stormwater fee incentives to encourage better design and construction practices. Look at ways to encourage innovarion such as detenhon areas trade-offs for use of alternative BMPs, such as porous pavement. Promote BMPs m smgle family residential landscapes by changing Gieen Pomts program (B.R.C. 9-3.3-24). Currently, pomts may be eained accordmg to only one criteria stated as follows• '3 pomts - Use of engmeered swales to filter storm water runoff (these pomts are awarded only if swale is not required by site plan conditions).' Addrtional criteria and points should be defined. For commercial development, implement a water quality pomt system, similar to Green Points, which would require the standard water quality capture volume and, require additional on-site BMPs or mvestment in regional BMP. Contmue to require UDFCD Vol 3 design guidehnes and implement ordmances developed by the WASH pro~ect far permit comphance. Use the impendmg updates to the Stormwater Collection System Plan, the Design and Construction Standards and BVCP Land Use Map as opportuniries to mtegiate stormwater qualrty BMPs and development Standazds. Pros • BMPs oriented to retrofit of existmg development should provide greater benefits m highly urbamzed aieas of Boulder where water quality concerns are greatest • Demonstration projects based on grants, partnerships, mcentrves and subsidies can be used to evaluate design and implementation options. Cons • BMPs oriented to redevelopment and retrofitting existmg development with BMPs may be costly and may compete with other redevelopment goals • Programs based on partneiships, mcentives and subsidies may not achieve significant reductions m pollutants and coirespondmg stormwater quality benefits. (Preventing Background Currently, the City has programs that help mimmize imperviousness and directly connected impervious areas. These include buying land through the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. The City also encourages new development to mmimize imperviousness and directly connected impervious areas accordmg to gmdelmes of the UDFCD. These include grass swales, buffers, and porous pavement design guidelmes. Boulder is predommantly built out and has liuuted opportumhes to impact waCer quality with the current requirements. Redevelopment that Boulder is experiences offers the opporturtity to mtegrate pervious aieas where stormwater can infiltrate and be used m landscape areas. Information from Other Communities Portland, Oregon is considermg a discount program that would reduce the stormwater utrlity fee by 1/3 for managing stormwater on your site. They also have a small grant ($5,000) program for commumty groups to retrofit existmg development andlor restore natural areas. A group of stormwater managers m the San Francisco azea (Bay Area Stormwatei Management Agencies Association) has produced a booklet entitled Stari at the Source, which has Best Management Practices (BMP) that are common to the hterature (e.g., swales) as well as less common, more mnovahve ideas. Included m this latter category are yard "cisterns" with permanently open outlets, which release water slowly. These should not be actual cisterns that capture the water and thus are problematic m terms of water rights. The water that is slowly released can be dramed to a grass area, vegetable garden, xeriscape garden, or other vegetarion. To prevent drainage problems, a commitment to maintenance of this BMP is important. Austin, Texas development regulations have relatively strmgent hmits on impervious cover for the more sensitive watersheds (as low as 15% to 20%). There are no impervious cover lirtuts m the urban watersheds, while suburban watersheds have hmits as high as 80% for commercial sites 5 Public Input to Date This issue was reviewed and discussed as part of the CRG meeting on August 14, 2003 There was a general preference expressed for performance-based requirements that are flexible and provide financial mcentives. The goal to mmimize imperviousness and diiectly connected impervious areas might conflict wrth another departmenYs requirement/objectives such as Planning's "new uibanism" - not wanhng garages in front of residences, which would necessitate buildmg longer driveways (i.e., impervious areas) than might otherwise be needed Supporiing more density and mmimizing imperviousness may be conflicting objectives However, MDCIA and "new urbamsm" do not have to be mutually exclusive For example, cluster development can reduce density on a larger scale by reducing driveway and road area. The side affects of using pervious materials - like pervious concrete should be considered. Concern would be weed and grasses grow m these and this rtught have the unmtended consequence of people usmg herbicides which may affect stormwater and groundwater quality? Recommendations Develop a runoff reduchon plan for urbamzed watersheds based on GIS mformation and analysis to assess runoff reduction ob~ectives for each sub-basm. Runoff ob~ective should include post development peak discharge rate limited to the pre-development discharge rate for smgle design two year storm event. More effectively use existmg stormwater mvestment fee incentives to reduce runoff. Explore the use of additional subsidies and partnerships with development compames, landscape professionals, and property owners. Use existmg city-owned land for water quality protechon and enhancement to the extent practicable. In addihon, expand ffood hazard acquisition program to mclude water quahty improvement areas. SigmficanC decreases in impervious area can be achieved at the individualloY level, that is, changes m landscapmg by mdividual property owners To defei costs and promote support, it may be effective to rely on public education and creation of mcenhves through garden shops and nurseries. Implement construction and development standards which include runoff and impervious area reduction strategies. These strategies may include Better Site Design, landscape and parking standards, Forest Green (using city trees to reduce runoft~. Contmue to use UDFCD design guidelmes which address impervious area reduction and disconnection strategies. Use the impending updates to the Stormwater Collection Systein Plan, the Design and Constiuction Standards and BVCP Land Use Map as opporlumhes to mteg•ate pervious area mto city pro~ects and standards. 6 Pros • Mmimizmg imperviousness and directly connected impervious areas are mtegral parts of any plan to ~mprove stormwater quality through source controls. • Demonstration projects based on partnerships, incentives and subsidies can be used to evaluate design and implementation ophons. Cons • Minimizmg imperviousness may conflict with other City land use goals such as "new urbanism" • Programs based on partnerships, incentives and subsidies may not achieve significant reductions m impervious areas and corresponding stormwater quality benefits. Attachment C Information Concerning Review Groups Indeqendent Review Panel The IlZP was created m December of 1999 to assist Urilihes staff in the master plannmg and flood mapping process for Fourmile Canyon Creek Durmg its review and mvestigation of floodplam management and recommended infrastructure development for the Fourmile Canyon Cieek flood basin, IRP members determined that the ciry would need to address policy requirements contamed in the master plan update m order to make systemic adjustments to traditional flood management practices In testimony before the Boulder City Council durmg the Flood Management Study session in Febivary of 2001, IRP member Gilbeit White indicated that the IRP had a profound interest in the master plan update as a vehicle for insurmg that future development and flood protection practices prohibited addrtional designed "problems" m the city's creeks and floodways. City Council members asked Dr. White if he and his colleagues would assist with the master plan update. The IRP has contmued its work on behalf of flood and dramage issues since then and is committed to pazticipatmg m the master plan update. The IRP mcludes professor emeritus and flood-protection expert Dr Gilbert White, Co-directoi of the CU Natural Hazards Center Mary Fran Myers, hydrologic engmeer and former city council member Ken Wright, Colorado Water Conservation Board representative Brian Hyde, and jommg with the original members for the master plan update, Urban Dramage and Flood Control DistricC Directar Scott Tucker. Citizen Review Groun (CRG) Group Goal: The purpose of the Citizen Review Group is to have a group of citizens who are affected by and/or utihze the policies contamed in the city's guidance for stormwater dramage and flood management, review mformation provided by the consultant and provide feedback. It is anticipated the CRG will meet a total of four times during the engmeering and technical mvestigation process. The consultant will research and present suggestions and recommendations for use m the master plan update. Input from the review group will be assembled as "reactions and recommendations.' The group's feedback will be used for purposes of advisement and may or may not be used in the updated master plan. All of the review group feedback will be forwarded with the draft plan to the city's boards and commissions for their use m their own review of the draft plan. CRG Reviewer's Role: The review participants are asked to review the consultant's recommendations and give input. In their review, participants are asked to evaluate the suggestions and recommendations against the followmg queshons. . How does this suggestion/recommendation affect my area of interest? • How does this suggestion/iecommendation affect broader city-goals for which I am concerned? . What are the benefits and costs of adoptmg this suggestion/recommendation? CRG Reviewer's Responsibilities: Reviewers should, to the best of their ability: • Participate m the three ieview group presentation meerings m August, September, and October. . Review materials provided for the three review meetmgs in advance of the meetmg. . Ask clartfying questions on e-mail or at the review group meettng . Provide candid and thoughtful comments and input to the project staff. . Frame input to suggest "posrtive futures" for the city's utihhes program . Focus on problems; not on people. Listen and treat all project participants with respect. . Help project staff understand how suggestions and recommendarions help the master plan serve Boulder's commuruty goals. . Help pio~ect staff gather mput and mform other commumty-interest groups of the update process The Citizen Reviewers: The individuals who are assisting with the review mclude• Jerry Lee Local developerBusiness mterest Bill Mitzelfeld Development Engineering Consultant Alison Richards TAB emeritus Kathie Joyner Greenways interest Terry Rodrigue BURA/Civil Engmeer Peter Gowen WRAB/Plan Board emeritus water law consultant So Boulder Creek resident 2 Stuart Grogan Boulder Housing Partners Affordable Housmg Developer. Elizabeth Black Affected neighbor Jim & Kathy Snow County residents Ditch company reps Bob McFarland Citizen formerly commented on CDUMPBoulder Creek Issues Ken Hotard Boulder Area Realtar Associatron Realtor/busmess mterest. Phil Simpson Facihties Management at CU Dave Webster Boulder County Transportahon Sara Michl Jeannette Hillery PLANBoulder/LOW V Joe Howard Director of Facilihes Management Boulder Community Hospital Large Area Business/ Developmg Business Alan O'Hashi Planrung Board G~l Barth WRAB member & Hydrologist Charlie Manlove Parks and Rec Board Don Mock Gov't Labs &Meteorologist