Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Minutes, February 26, 2007 CITY OF BOULDER,COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONSMEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water ResourcesAdvisory Board DATE OF MEETING: February 26, 2007 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Jennifer Gray,303-441-4073 NAMESOFMEMBERS,COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS– KenWilson,Jim Knopf, RobinByers, Bart Miller, Kelly DiNatale STAFF – NedWilliams, BobHarberg, Douglas Sullivan, Bret Linenfelser, Ridge Dorsey, Megan Monroe, Jennifer Gray- Secretary WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLDONE)[REGULAR] [SPECIAL][QUASI-JUDICIAL] Agenda Item1– Call to Order The meeting was called to order at6:03p.m. AgendaItem 2 – Meeting Minutes –January 22, 2007 Motion: Motion byKnopf to accept the meeting minutes with corrections Seconded:Byers Vote: 5-0 infavor, Passed Agenda Item3– Public participationand comment. There was none. Public Participation was closed. Agenda Item4– Final recommendationon Mercurylimits in theIndustrial Pretreatment Program, including proposedrules to requiretheinstallation of amalgam separators in somedentaloffices. Dorsey, Monroe and Linenfelserpresented on the background and changes of the project since their last visit to the board and askedfor a finalrecommendationon theproject. WRAB questionsand comment: Byers:Amin Delagah Have some offices lost the Best Management Practices certification? (Partnersfor a Clean Environment) : Yes,butnot necessarily because of Mercury requirements. There is more to the certification thanjust mercury. Byers:Dorsey Howdo youget the numbers you are presenting tonight?: The measurements are directly from the reports at the analytical laboratories. Byers:Dorsey Has therebeen a significant decreasein dental offices?:No,the number of dental officershas remained fairly level over time. DiNatale:Dorsey Didyourun a blankduring the Boulder dental sampling?:We have runblanks in thepast, butdidnot do thatfor this pastsampling event. Byers:Delagah Have you looked intovet clinics?: We havethought ofit, but ourprogram doesn’t currently have thefundingfor thatoutreach. Byers: What is the foundation for the statement from the city concerning the costsfor this Williams programnot being passed onto dentalcustomers?: Basedonour conversations with some dental offices, they arenot able to pass on the cost because of insuranceprogram regulations. Byers: Idonot think this is a gooddraft of theregulation.It is too long, the amalgammachines arenotgood enough to be mandatory, the lineof responsibility is not inplace, and thenotice of non-compliance needs tobemore specific about whatthe dentistis deficientin. Byers:Dorsey DoesEPAhave to approve this afterCity Council?: Thereis a 30-day comment period and they are involved. Dorsey: The city attorney’s office prepared theregulation and future legalquestions will need to bedirected at them. Wilson:Dorsey How manydentists commented onthis?: We hadthree writtencommentsand spoke to some on thephone. Public Hearing: No public comments. Motion: Wilson movesthat Water ResourcesAdvisoryBoard (WRAB) recommends this rule and furthermore asks the City Manager to appriseCityCouncil on the program. WRAB Summary February 26, 2007 1 Page No. Seconded:Knopf Discussion: Byers: I cannot support the motion based onthe penalties and the language onwho is responsible for the rule. Vote: 4-1, motion passed Agenda Item5–Update on the Stormwater Strategic Plan Harberg, Sullivan presentedon thedraft Stormwater Strategic Plan and asked for WRAB feedback.The presentation was shortened in order to accommodate to a public hearingfollowing thisagenda item. WRAB memberswere askedto send detailedquestion, comments, concerns and additional information through emailchannels. Thiswill appearona futureWRAB agenda for furtherdiscussion. WRAB questionsand comment: Knopf: A sense ofhowwe are going to fund thiswould beimportant to include. th Byers:Sullivan Will Gunbarrelbe included in this?: The Gunbarrelprojectsranked 5 in tier one and it's unlikely it will receive any funding in the next20 years. I will get moreinformationfor you forthe Aprilmeeting. Agenda Item6- Final recommendationon South Boulder Creek Flood Study, including hydrology, climatologyand flood maps. Harberg alongwith consultants and Peer Review EvaluationPanel (PREP) representatives presentedon the South BoulderCreekFlood Study and askedfor a recommendationfrom WRAB. WRAB questions: Wilson:Harberg Whyare there about two and a half timesmore properties in theAE zone?: It is using our new hydrologymodelingtechniques. DiNatale: Wehave a lot more properties ina regulated floodplain. Atwhat point in time would Harberg the propertiesberegulated in accordancewith these flood designations?: We are DiNatale projecting a yearoutfrom now, after the approval of FEMA.: They wouldberegulated Harberg beforea flood mitigationstudy?: Yes. Byers:Harberg What percentagesare in the AEzone from the city and the county?: City: 652 structures, County: 458structures. This is detailed in an attachment. Public Questions: Alan D. Katz, 103GenesseCourt:Harberg Howdoes this account forfuturedevelopments?: The studydoes not take into accountfuturedevelopments. Futuredevelopments would follow floodplain regulations. Tom Christoffel, 2285 HillsdaleCircle: How is it that multifamily structure can land it two Harberg different zones?:These reports aredrafts and I am happy to look at each property. Maybe there are some corrections to make. WRAB is not approving those lists; the regulatory agencies will do that later. Gifford Millard, 1051Gifford: What if there is a structure on my property, but it is notmy Harberg primary residence?Do I have toget flood insurance?: Your primary residencemay not need flood insurance if it is not in the actual floodplain. Spence Haulick, 665 Emporim: Should there be somemechanism in place to change the runoff Harberg patterns thatwill change the studies you have done todate.:Wehave not considered this. Right now we are justasking FEMA to review our current data and analysis and mitigation studies will come at a later time. st Ben Binder, 720 S. 21 Street: Concerning the CU South Berm area, what is the city’s policies concerning floodplains?Have they changed?The city opposed long-earthen leviesbefore. Wilson: We donothavejurisdiction for this property. Carl Williamson: Whydidn’t FEMA like this plan in the past? What has changedso we are Harberg confident FEMAwill approve it now?: The results we have today have been more thoroughly reviewed. Public Hearing: WRAB Summary February 26, 2007 2 Page No. Ann Christoffel, 2285Hillsdale Circle: Because this does impact people’s lives, I donot think the board should approve this while there are so manypieces still floating around.I don’tthink this is ready for a federal agency. John Weiner, 135 ManhattanDrive: Concerning theHogan annexation,Igot the impression that city staff wasnot directly going to address this large issue if the time didnot suit. I think it is unsettling to hear thissince there are so many people affected by it. Additionally, I am notsure that you realize how much it affects people if you make a smallmistake and put a residenceon flood zone list. JeffMcWhirter, 5435 Illini Way: Citizens havebeeninvolvedandthere has been good thathas come out of it.The amount ofwork that comes out is staggering and I wouldhope that the city could take a breather and slow the processdown a bit.I am not sure thecity is lookingat all of the aspectsof this; an example beingof the difference theflood would make if shiftedby two miles. There are a lot of flaws in the study. Alan D. Katz, 103GenesseCourt: Ifthe board has been abletoread the documents receivedby this meeting, then do as youwish. Ifnot,please donot moveforwardnow. WRAB Discussion: DiNatale: If WRAB does recommendthesereports, what can thepublicdo to stay involved? Harberg :Wewill continue towork with residentson their specificproperties inquestion.There will be a public hearingwithPlanning Boardin March and with City Council inApril. Miller: Is there a clearprocess for resolving issuesproperty owners have regardingnon-residence Harberg structures in the floodplain?:I am sure we canbut I havenot specified a clear process. Miller:Harberg: Whenwill you look into mitigation? Therewill be future mitigation planning when it comes time, which is after FEMA approves the study and maps. Knopf: The insurance impacts seem to rely on mitigation.When arepeople beginning to be Harberg responsible?How can theyget outof the floodplain map?: In May of 2008. Therewill be a map revision process. Byers: Keep thereal estate professionals inthe loop. Harberg: Wewill continue to modify the reportsbasedonfeedback fromthe public, thepeer review andWRAB. Byers (to the peer reps.):Doug Laiho Isthere anythingin this that is a bigdeal-breaker?: It has evolved andwe are very close totheend product. No deal-breakers. Motion:The Water ResourcesAdvisoryBoard (WRAB) recommends the South BoulderCreek Flood Mappingstudy be submittedto FEMA, butbefore final submittal, staff would continue to address technical issues to adegreepractical, and developpoliciesand recommend those to city councilto ensure only portionsof properties located in the future regulated floodplain be subjected to the rules. Staff should develop a policy and recommend to councilhow to handle the development or annexationofproperties that are not currently,butwould be subject to regulationunder the newest floodplain. Seconded: Knopf Wilson: PREP shas given usgoodfeedback. I thinkwehad stepped back,butnow isnotthe appropriate time.While otherboards look more politically,we are looking at the technicalities. I think we should move this along. Miller: Inkeepingoptions open for futuremitigation, wouldFEMA in any wayhinderour KnopfHarberg options?: Therewill alreadyhave to be more workdone inregardsto theberm.: Correct, right now it is not a certifiedflood levy. Knopf:Byers We may need to addsomething aboutWRABbeinguneasy about theberm.: There hasbeen a court case and therefore mightbehandled in a wholedifferentrealm. Vote:5-0, motion passed WRAB Summary February 26, 2007 3 Page No. Agenda Item7- Matters From Staff– Williams presented a revisedWRAB calendar. Williams presented thepublic comments concerning the rules for thewaterbudget methodology. Byers asked for updateson the South Platte Wells trial. The trial is in its thirdweek andit is expected that the city of Boulder sidewill beginnext week.The case is expected tobe completed in March. Mattersfrom Board – The March meetingwill beKen’s last meeting. Miller will organize a social gathering to celebrate Ken’s departure. AgendaItem 8 – Discussion of schedulefor future meetings. Agenda Item9- Adjournment Motion: Motion toadjourn by Miller Seconded by Byers Vote: 5-0 infavor, passed. Meeting adjourned at 9:57 PM Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: Thenext meeting will be Monday, March19–7p.m.,regular meeting, Municipal Services Center,5050 East PearlStreet unless otherwisedecidedby staff and theboard. These are summaryminutes.Audio tapes are available through Central Recordsforfull record. Minutes approved by:____________________ Date: ____________________ WRAB Summary February 26, 2007 4 Page No.