Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 2/26/2007CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisor Board DATE OF MEETING: February 26, 2007 NAMFITELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: lennifer Gra , 303-441-4073 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS - Ken Wilson, Jim Knopf, Robin Byers, Bazt Miller, Kelly DiNatale STAFF - Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Douglas Sullivan, Bre[ Linenfelser, Ridge Dorsey, Megan Monroe, Jennifer Gra - Secretar WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL] Agenda Item 1- Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. Agenda Item 2- Meeting Minutes -J~~ry 22, 2007 Motion: Motion by Knopf to accept the meeting minutes with corrections Seconded: Bvers Vote: 5-0 in favor, Passed Agenda Item 3- Public participation and comment. There was none. Public Partici ation was closed. Agenda Item 4- Final recommendation on Mercury limits in the Industrial Pretreatment Program, including proposed rules to require the installation of amalgam separators in some dental oftices. Dorsey, Monroe and Linenfelser presented on the background and changes of [he project since [heir Ias[ visit to the board and asked for a final recommendation on the projec[. WRAB questions and comment • Byers: Have some offices lost the Best Management Practices certification? Amin Delagah (Partners for a Clean Environment): Yes, but not necessazily because of Mercury requirements. There is more to the certification than just merwry. • Byers: How do you get the numbers you are presenting tonigh[? Dorsey: The measurements are directly from the reports at the analytical laboratories. • Byers: Has there been a significant decrease in dental offices? Dorsey: No, the number of dental officers has remained fairly level over time. • DiNatale: Did you run a blank during the Boulder dentai sampling? Dorsey: We have run blanks in the past, but did not do tha[ for this past sampling event. • Byers: Have you looked into vet dinics? Delagah: We have thought of it, but our program doesn't currently have the funding for that outreach. • Byers: What is the foundation for the statement from the city concerning the costs for this program not being passed onto denta] customers? Williams: Based on our conversations with some dental offices, [hey are no[ able to pass on [he cost because of insurance program regulations. • Byers: I do not think this is a good draft of [he regula[ion. I[ is [oo long, [he amalgam machines are not all inspectable, ultima[e respons~bility is not clear, and the notice of non-compliance needs ro be more specific about deficiencies. • Byers: Does EPA have to approve this after City Council? Dorsey: There is a 30-day comment period and they are involved. • Dorsey: The city a[torney's office prepared the regulation and future legal ques[ions will need to be directed at them. • WiLson: How many dentists commented on this? Dorsey: We had three written wmments and spoke ro some on the phone. Public Hearing: No public comments. Motion: Wilson moves that Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) recommends this rule and furthermore asks the Cit Mana er to a rise Ci Council on the ro ram WRAB Summary February 26. 2007 Page No. 1 Seconded: Knopf Discussion: Byers: I cannot support the mo[ion based on the penalties and the language on who is responsible under the rule. Vote: 4-1, motion passed Agenda Item 5- Update on the Stormwater Strategic Plan Harberg, Sullivan presented on the draft Stormwater Strategic Plan and asked for WRAB feedback. The presentation was shortened in order ro accommodate to a pubhc heazing following this agenda item. WRAB members were asked to send detailed question, comments, concerns and additional informahon through email channels. This will appear on a future WRAB agenda for further discussion. WRAB questions and comment: • Knopf: A sense of how we are going ro fund th~s would be important [o include. • Byers: Will Gunbarrel be included in this? Sullivan: The Gunbarrel projects ranked 5'~ m tier one and i['s unlikely i[ will receive any funding in the next 20 years. I will get more informa[ion for you for [he April meeting. Agenda Item 6- Final recommendation on South Boulder Creek Flood Study, including hydrology, climatology and Hood maps. Hazberg along with consultants and Peer Review Evaluation Panel (PREP) representatives presented on the South Bou(der Creek Flood Study and asked for a recommendation from WRAB. WRAB questions: • Wilson: Why are there about two and a half times more properties in the AE zone? Harberg: It is using our new hydrology modeling techniques. • DiNatale: We have a lot more properties in a regulated floodplaia At what point in time would [he properties be regula[ed in accordance with these flood designations? Harberg: We are projecting a year ou[ from now, after the approval of FEMA. DiNatale: They would be regula[ed before a flood mitigation study? Harberg: Yes. • Byers: What percentages are in the AE zone from the city and the county? Harberg. City: 652 sVUCtures, County: 458 structures. This is detailed in an attachment. Public Questions: • Alan D. Katz,103 Genesse Court: How does this account for future developments? Harberg: The study does not take into account future developments. Future developments would follow floodplain regulations. • Tom Christoffel, 2285 HilLsdale Circle: How is it that multifamily structure can land in two different zones? Harberg: These reports are drafts and I am happy to look at each property. Maybe there are some correc[ions to make. WRAB is not approving those lis[s; the regulatory agencies will do that later. • Gifford Millard,1051 Gifford: What if there is a structure on my property, but it is not my primazy residence? Do I have to ge[ flood insurance? Harberg: Your primary residence may not need flood insurance if it is not in the actual floodplain. • Spence Havlick, 665 Emporim: Should there be some mechanism in place [o change the runoff patterns that will change the sWdies you have done ro date. Harberg: We have not considered this. Right now we are jus[ asking FEMA [o review our curzent data and analysis and mitigation s[udies will come at a later time. • Ben Binder, 720 S. 21s` Streeh Concerning the CU South Berm area, what is the city's policies concerning floodplains? Have they changed? The city opposed long-earthen levies before. Wilson: We do not have jurisdiction for this property. • Carl Williamson: Why diddt FEMA like this plan m the past? What has changed so we are confident FEMA will approve it now? Harberg: The results we have today have been more thoroughly reviewed. WRAB Summary February 26, 2007 Page No. 2 • Ann Christoffel, 2285 Hillsdale Circle: Because [his does impact people's lives, I do not think the board should approve this while [here are so many pieces still floating around. I dodt think [his is ready for a federal agency. • John Weineq 135 Manhattan Drive: Concerning Ihe Hogan annexation, I go[ Ihe impression that city staff was not direcfly going to address this large issue if the time did not suit I think it is unsetihng ro hear this since there are so many people affec[ed by it. Additionally, I am not sure that you realize how much it affects people if you make a small mistake and put a residence on Flood zone list. • Jeff McWhirter, 5435 I-lini Way: Citizens have been involved and there has been good that has come out of it. The amount of work that comes out is staggering and I would hope that the city could take a breather and slow the process down a bit. I am not sure the city is looking at all of the aspects of [his; an example being of the difference the flood would make if shifted by two miles. There are a lo[ of flaws in the study. • Alan D. Katz,103 Genesse Court: IFthe board has been able to read the dowments received by this meeting, then do as you wish. If not, please do not move forward now. WRAB Discussion: • DiNatale: If WRAB does recommend these reports, what can the public do to stay involved? Harberg: We will continue to work with residents on their specific properties in question. There will be a public heazing with Planning Board in March and with City Council in Apri1. • Miller: Is there a clear process for resolving issues property owners have regazding non-residence sVUCtures in [he floodplain? IIarberg: I am sure we can but I have not specified a cleaz process. • Miller: When will you look into mitigation? Harberg: There will be future mitiga[ion planning when it comes time, which is after FEMA approves the study and maps. ~ Knopf: The insurance impacts seem to rely on mitigation. When are people beginning to be responsible? How can they get out of the floodplain map? Harberg: In May of 2008. There will be a map revision process. • Byers: Keep the real estate professionals in the loop. • Harberg: We will continue to modify [he reports based on feedback from [he public, the peer review and WRAB. • Byers (to the peer reps.): Is there anything in this that is a big deal-breaker? Doug Laiho: It has evolved and we are very close to the end product. No deal-breakers. Motion: The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) recommends the South Boulder Creek Flood Mapping study be submitted to FEMA, but before final submittal, staff should continue to address technical issues to the degree practical, and develop policies and recommend those to city council to ensure that only the portions of properties located in the future regulated tloodplain be subjected to the rules. Staff should develop a policy and recommend to council how to handle the development or annexation of properties that are not currently, but would be, subject to regWation under the newest t7oodplain. Seconded: Knopf Wilson: PREP has given us good feedback. I ihinlc we had stepped back, but now is no[ [he appropriate time. While other boards at issues look more politically, we aze looking at the [echnicalities. I think we should move [his along. Miller. In keeping op[ions open for future mitigation, would FEMA in any way hinder our options? KnopE. There will already have to be more work done in regards to the berm. Harberg: Corzect, righ[ now it is no[ a certified flood levy. Knopf: We may need to add something about WRAB being uneasy about the berm. Byers: There has been a court case and therefore that issue might be handled in a whole different forum. Vote: 5-0, motion passed WRAB Summary February 26, 2007 Page No. 3 Agenda Item 7- Matters From Staff - • Williams presen[ed a revised WRAB calendar. • Williams presented the public comments concerning the rules for the water budget methodology. • Byers asked for updates on the South Platte Wells Vial. The Vial is in i[s third week and it is expected that the city of Boulder side will begin nex[ week. The case is expected to be completed in March. Matters from Board - • The March meeting will be Keds last mee[ing. Miller will organize a social gathering to celebrate Keds departure. Agenda Item 8- Discussion of schedule for future meetings. Agenda Item 9- Adjournment Motion: Motion to adjoum by Miller Seconded by Byers Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed. Meeting adjourned at 9:57 PM Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The nex[ mee[ing will be Monday, March 19 - 7 p.m., regular meeting, Municipal Services Center, 5050 East Pearl Sveet unless otherwise decided b staff and the board. These are summary minutes. Audio tapes are available through Central Records for full record. ~ . G"/~ Minutes approved by: Date: ~. iln~:l~ WRAB Summary February 26, 2007 Page No. 4