The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda_2018_8_7_Meeting M ayor Suzanne Jones Council M e mbe rs Aaron Brockett Cindy Carlisle Jill Grano Lisa Morzel Mirabai Nagle Sam Weaver Bob Yates Mary Young Council Chambers 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 August 7, 2018 7:00 PM City M anage r Jane Brautigam City Attorne y Thomas A. Carr City Cle rk Lynnette Beck AGENDA FOR T HE REGULAR MEET ING OF T HE BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL I tems not on the Agenda are sometimes presented to Council in weekly I nformation Packets. Those packets can be accessed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. 1.Call to Order and Roll Call A.Declaration for E mergency Family Assistance Association Day in honor of its 100th Anniversary [presented by Council M ember Brockett] 10 min B.Update on diversity, inclusion and equity and partnership with Government Alliance on Race and Equity 10 min C.Discussion on process regarding appointments for Boards and Commissions to fill vacancies 5 min 2.Consent Agenda A.Consideration of a motion to accept the J uly 24, 2018 Study S ession Summary on Council Review and Input on the Draft Library M aster Plan B.Consideration of a motion authorizing the city manager to enter into a 10-year lease with J ourneys Aviation at Boulder M unicipal Airport C.Consideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 1235 opposing “Initiative #108” a dangerous attempt to amend the Colorado constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulatory authority D.S econd reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8275 amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone the property located 2505 and 2525 4th S treet, and a portion of the property located at 311 M apleton from Residential – L ow 1 (RL-1) City Council Meeting Page 1 of 233 to Public (P), consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive P lan L and Use of P ublic (case no. L UR2017-00028) E.Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only, Ordinance 8264 submitting to the registered electors of the City of Boulder at the municipal coordinated election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, the question of authorizing the city council to impose an oil and gas pollution tax at the rate of up to $6.90 per barrel of oil and up to $0.88 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas for oil or gas extracted within the Boulder city limits and expenditure of the full tax proceeds and any related earnings notwithstanding any state revenue or expenditure limitation; setting forth the ballot title; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details F.Consideration of a motion to authorize the City M anager to enter into a M emorandum of Understanding with Boulder County to equally share costs arising from the climate change litigation G.City Council discussion and consideration of a request for funds for the City of Boulder to make a contribution to the Charles and M ildred Nilon Endowed Teacher Education Scholarship in the amount of $10,000 3.Call-Up Check-In 4.Public Hearings A.Consideration of a motion to direct staff to proceed with the next steps of preliminary design and landowner negotiations for one flood mitigation concept variation regarding South Boulder Creek 3 hrs Updated on August 6, 2018 at 3:21 p.m. Attachment A and I revised. Attachment K added. 5.M atters from the City M anager 6.M atters from the City Attorney 7.M atters from M ayor and M embers of Council 8.Discussion Items 9.Debrief 10.Adjournment 3:40 Hours This meeting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live on Municipal Channel 8 and the city's website and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m. Fridays in the two weeks following a regular council meeting. Boulder 8 TV (Comcast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed captioning for all live meetings that are aired on the channels. The closed captioning service operates in the City Council Meeting Page 2 of 233 same manner as similar services offered by broadcast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with the television remote control. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on Boulder Channel8.com. To activate the captioning service for the live stream, the "C C" button (which is located at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the channel is providing captioning services. The council chambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening devices. I ndividuals with hearing or speech loss may contact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-800-659-3656. Anyone requiring special packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions may contact the City Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please request special packet preparation no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting. I f you need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting, please call (303) 441-1905 at least three business days prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita interpretacion o cualquier otra ayuda con relacion al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuniquese al (303) 441-1905 por lo menos 3 negocios dias antes de la junta. Send electronic presentations to email address: CityClerkStaff@bouldercolorado.gov no later than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting. City Council Meeting Page 3 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Declaration for Emergency Family Assistance Association Day [in honor of its 100th Anniversary presented by C ouncil Member Brockett] P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Wendy Schwartz, Homeless Initiatives Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description E FAA Declaration City Council Meeting Page 4 of 233 City Council Meeting Page 5 of 233 City Council Meeting Page 6 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Update from the City Manager regarding next steps in working with Government Alliance on Race and Equity (G A RE) P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Tanya Ange AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo City Council Meeting Page 7 of 233 Item 1B- Update on GARE CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 AGENDA TITLE : Update on diversity, inclusion and equity and partnership with Government Alliance on Race and Equity PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council Agenda Committee requested an update at the August 7, 2008 city council meeting regarding the status of the city’s efforts at advancing issues of diversity and inclusion in the city organization. As council knows, both council and staff have been committed to improvement in this area for many years. Most recently, the city council adopted a Living Wage for city staff members and city contractors; designated Boulder to be a sanctuary city, adopting an ordinance to ensure this; and declared Indigenous People’s Day in October of each year. Later this year, we will be engaging in a tribal consultation with affected Indian Tribes regarding Valmont Butte and other relevant matters. BACKGROUND As an organization, we champion the value of respect and in particular, respect for diversity. We also recognize we can do better. To that end, we have entered into a partnership with the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE), a nationally known non-profit organization that assists organizations who are committed to this work to move past intentions to action. The purpose of this update is to share information related to our partnership with GARE and openly express our ongoing commitment to diversity, inclusion and equity. We have City Council Meeting Page 8 of 233 Item 1B- Update on GARE entered into a partnership scope of work with GARE to finalize an organizational equity strategy and become more progressive in integrating that strategy into the fabric of our organization every day. Staff and GARE are committed to building upon the city’s progress so far, incorporating learnings and best practices from many sources to continue to advance our equity initiatives and commitment. In addition, there is shared a commitment to continuous learning and improvement. GARE is a national membership network with representation that spans geography, demography and political ideology. GARE has worked with 117 jurisdictions across this country, creating additional opportunities to connect jurisdictions and create mutually reinforcing systems for institutional and structural equity. Some cities GARE has worked with include: •Austin, Texas •Boston, Massachusetts •Philadelphia, Pennsylvania •Portland, Oregon •Seattle, Washington GARE is focused on building a national movement for racial equity with a best practice approach to normalize it as a key value with common understanding; operationalize it via policy and culture transformation; and organize in partnership within the organization, other agencies and the community. Focusing on racial equity first has the potential to leverage significant change, setting the stage for the achievement of different dimensions of equity (e.g., age, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic) in our community. During this phase of work, GARE and staff will collaboratively: •Evaluate organizational progress and understand what foundational elements still need development. This includes refining the draft mission, vision, and strategies to form an equity plan. •Identify our leaders and partners by re-establishing purpose and role clarity for our internal teams, as well as formalize the purpose and role of our relationships with local partners. •Ensure connectivity with related efforts, such as the Human Relations Commission, Customer Experience, Employee Engagement and Recruitment/Retention. NEXT STEPS We will be starting the scope of work with GARE in September 2018 and expect this phase to last approximately six months. The scope of work will help inform the role and responsibilities of the next chief equity officer and anticipate a recruitment early 2019. Staff has scheduled an equity initiative update information packet item in November 2018. City Council Meeting Page 9 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to accept the J uly 24, 2018 Study Session Summary on Council Review and Input on the Draft Library Master Plan P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J ennifer Phares, Deputy Director of the Boulder Public Library RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to accept the J uly 24, 2018 Study Session Summary on Council Review and Input on the Draft Library Master Plan AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 10 of 233 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a Motion to approve the July 24, 2018 Study Session Summary on Boulder Public Library Master Plan. PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager David Farnan, Library and Arts Director Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director BRIEF SUMMARY OF STUDY SESSION TOPIC Staff presented an overview of Boulder Public Library Master Plan including a summary of the community input and highlights of the master plan goals. The Library Commission’s conclusions and recommendations about the master plan and library funding were presented. Staff presented a recommendation to hire a consultant to conduct a financial analysis of library needs and funding options. DIRECTION • Council supported the Boulder Public Library Master Plan goals. • Council supported the goal of extending library services to Gunbarrel, the renovation feasibility study and modest renovation of the Main Library’s north building if recommended by the study. • Council requested clarification of the financial information in the presentation. • Council supported hiring a consultant to conduct a detailed financial analysis. They expect the report to present a balanced impartial analysis of all the funding options outlined in the master plan. • Council requested more information on library districts i.e. governance, structure, asset allocation, etc. • Council requested a recommendation from staff on the timing of polling or conducting a statistically valid survey to determine library funding support. Item 2B – July 24 Draft Library Master Plan Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 11 of 233 Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to approve the July 24, 2018 Boulder Public Library Master Plan Study Session Summary. July 24, 2018 Study Session Summary: Boulder Public Library Master Plan PRESENT Council Members: Mayor Suzanne Jones, Mayor Pro Tem Aaron Brockett, Bob Yates, Cindy Carlisle, Lisa Morzel, Mary D. Young, Mirabai Kuk Nagle, Sam Weaver Library Commissioners: Vice Chair Tim O’Shea, Joel Koenig, Juana Gomez, Jane Sykes-Wilson Staff Members: Jane S. Brautigam, Tanya Ange, Tom Carr, David Farnan, Jennifer Phares PURPOSE Staff presented an overview of Boulder Public Library Master Plan including a summary of the community input and highlights of the master plan goals. The Library Commission’s conclusions and recommendations about the master plan and library funding were presented. Staff presented a recommendation to hire a consultant to conduct a financial analysis of library needs and funding options. PRESENTATION Library Commissioner O’Shea made opening remarks about the library’s value to the community and gave examples of performance measures that support this assessment. He said the commissioners are unified in their conclusion that dedicated and sustainable funding is needed to secure the future of one of Boulder’s core public goods and pillars of our strong local community. The staff presentation covered four phases of the master plan project, highlights from community feedback, an overview of several of the master plan goals. Extending library services to Gunbarrel was noted as a new goal of the library. The goal to activate the Canyon Theater was a high priority for the community. While there have been several Item 2B – July 24 Draft Library Master Plan Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 12 of 233 visions for the use of the Main Library north building, the library’s proposal to renovate the building to meet programmatic goals is a modest one. High-level cost estimates for implementing all the master plan goals were presented. Council asked for clarification on the bar charts in the presentation slides showing the estimated operating and capital costs subtotaled by budget priority level. See Attachment A.for revised cost estimates and charts illustrating library funding needs. Staff outlined the Library Commission’s conclusions and recommendations in the master plan and the recommendation to hire a consultant to conduct a detailed financial analysis of library needs and funding options. The draft scope of work for the financial analysis was presented. Council asked for more information about the formation of a library district i.e. governance, structure and asset allocation. FRAMING QUESTIONS 1. Does council have any questions or concerns about the goals outlined in the Master Plan? Specifically, does council support the goals of renovating the Main Library north building and activating the Canyon Theater? Does council support library services to Gunbarrel? Council acknowledged staff and the Library Commission for the accomplishments making the library a valued community resource. Council supports extending library services to Gunbarrel. Pending the results of the renovation feasibility study for the Main Library’s north building, council supports modest renovations to support more effective and flexible use of the space, activation of the Canyon Theater, and expansion of the BLDG 61 Makerspace. The concept of the Canyon Theater pilot program was discussed and there was an interest for follow-up information and an opportunity for feedback when this component of the plan moves forward. 2.Does council support staff’s recommendation to hire a consultant complete a library financial analysis? Council supported the completion of a financial analysis that includes all the options that were outlined in the master plan. 3. Does council have any feedback on the scope of the financial analysis? Council asked that the analysis breakout the funding options into a menu and for concrete options for asset allocation in the library district scenario. Several council members asked staff and commissioners to be sure that all options are explored and that the report back to council is an impartial analysis. 4.What questions does council have about the potential pursuit of a library district? Item 2B – July 24 Draft Library Master Plan Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 13 of 233 Overall, council is committed to finding a sustainable funding source for the library. The issue of asset allocation may be a concern of city taxpayers since they have funded the current facilities. Council would like more information about how governance of a library district and asset allocation would work. Staff was asked to research how Fort Collins and other cities that have library districts determined the asset allocation. Concerns about asking voters to increase taxes to pay for library services may be perceived as a takeaway were mentioned. More information on library funding i.e. how much is dedicated vs. how much comes from the General Fund was requested. Recommended timing for statistically valid survey or polling to determine voter support for increased library funding was requested. The concept of a Regional Library Authority was discussed as a possible model for areas like Niwot to provide financial support to cities that provide their residents with services. In an RLA, the city partners with another legal district and agree to fund the library. There are no districts to partner within the Niwot area. No libraries in Colorado have this funding model. Regarding a possible district boundary, Boulder’s development pattern is different than other communities in that it is ringed by open space and other communities outside the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan area may need to be included. Some council members expressed interest in inviting Fort Collins staff and library board members for a public discussion in the future. There is a need for public outreach no matter what financial option is chosen. 5.What additional information would council like prior to the scheduled September 4, 2018 consideration of a motion to accept the Boulder Public Library Master Plan? No requests for further information prior to the Sept. 4, 2018 council meeting. 6.What additional information would council like prior to the scheduled November 27, 2018 study session to discuss library funding options? In addition to the results of the financial analysis and defining scenarios for asset allocation, staff should make a recommendation about timing to conduct polling or a statistically valid survey about support for library funding. KEY TAKEAWAYS Council supported the Boulder Public Library Master Plan goals including the goal of extending library services to Gunbarrel, the renovation feasibility study and modest renovation of the Main Library’s north building if recommended by the study. Item 2B – July 24 Draft Library Master Plan Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 14 of 233 Council supported hiring a consultant to conduct a detailed financial analysis. The report is to present a balanced impartial analysis of all the funding options outlined in the master plan. Council requested more information on library districts i.e. governance, structure, asset allocation, etc. Council requested a recommendation from staff on the timing of polling or conducting a statistically valid survey to determine library funding support. NEXT STEPS •Staff and the commission will present the 2018 Boulder Public Library Master Plan to the Planning Board on Aug. 16, 2018. •Staff and the commission will present the 2018 Boulder Public Library Master Plan council for acceptance on Sept. 4, 2018. •Detailed information about the options library funding, information on library districts i.e. governance, structure, etc. and recommended timing for a poll or statistically valid survey to determine support for library funding will be presented at the Nov. 27, 2018 City Council Study Session for council’s consideration. Item 2B – July 24 Draft Library Master Plan Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 15 of 233 Over the next 10 years, it is estimated that $3 to $3.5 million in funding is needed for ongoing annual operating cost and up to $6 million is needed to fund one-time and capital needs. The chart below shows the estimated funded and unfunded one-time and capital needs additive by budget priority level. The Meet Demand total was corrected and is different than the study session presentation slide. The capital cost for north Boulder branch library was over estimated. An estimate for Main Library north building renovation is pending the renovation feasibility study and is not included in the totals in the chart below. That cost will be prioritized as Expand Services when it is known. Item 2B – July 24 Draft Library Master Plan Study Session Summary Attachment A: Revised Library Master Plan Cost Estimate Charts City Council Meeting Page 16 of 233 The chart below shows the estimated unfunded one-time and capital needs additive by budget priority level. An estimate for Main Library north building renovation is pending the renovation feasibility study and is not included in the totals. That cost will be prioritized as Expand Services when it is known. There are no unfunded one-time or capital needs estimated for the Expand Services priority level at this time. The chart below is estimated unfunded annual operating costs by budget priority levels. Funding for these operating costs is needed to accomplish the master plan goals. This Item 2B – July 24 Draft Library Master Plan Study Session Summary Attachment A: Revised Library Master Plan Cost Estimate Charts City Council Meeting Page 17 of 233 funding would be in addition to the library’s current annual operating budget which is approximately $8 million in 2018. Item 2B – July 24 Draft Library Master Plan Study Session Summary Attachment A: Revised Library Master Plan Cost Estimate Charts City Council Meeting Page 18 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion authorizing the city manager to enter into a 10-year lease with J ourneys Aviation at Boulder Municipal Airport. P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Tim Head, Airport Director RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion authorizing the city manager to enter into a 10-year lease with J ourneys Aviation at Boulder Municipal Airport AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 19 of 233 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion authorizing the city manager to enter into a 10-year lease with Journeys Aviation at Boulder Municipal Airport. PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works Mike Gardner-Sweeney, Director of Public Works for Transportation Tim Head, Airport Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Journeys Aviation has been a tenant at Boulder Municipal Airport since 2007 and has served as the primary fixed-base operator (FBO). In addition to fueling airplanes, managing tie-down and hangar spots, and providing flight training, Journeys also greets pilots and passengers using the Boulder Airport Terminal Building and serves as a resource for visitors. The owner of Journeys Aviation is currently in a 10-year lease with Boulder Airport that will expire on Aug. 30, 2022. However, the owner has requested a new 10-year lease that would be effective Sept. 1, 2018, and expire Aug. 30, 2028. The new lease would provide the owner the financial security to examine options for further investment in the company’s relationship with Boulder Airport. It would also support Boulder Airport to continue to be a resource for the transportation needs of pilots and passengers and provide community-beneficial services. This lease does not preclude the city from examining future options for the airport because all airport leases include language that allows the city to close, vacate or abandon the airport for any reason. Item 2C - 10-Year Lease Renewal with Journeys Aviation at Boulder Airport City Council Meeting Page 20 of 233 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the lease renewal with Journeys Aviation. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into a 10-year lease with Journeys Aviation at the Boulder Municipal Airport. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic: The 2013 Airport Economic Impact Study, published by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Aeronautics Division, estimated that Boulder Municipal Airport contributes more than $69 million annually to the Boulder economy, supports approximately 340 jobs and enhances the economic diversity of the area. Journeys Aviation is a locally-owned small business with 10 employees and has been operating in Boulder since 2007. The company provides local and visiting business users the aviation resources they need to operate in Boulder. •Environmental: Journeys Aviation complies with all federal and state environmental requirements. •Social: Journeys Aviation has been a stable tenant at the airport. The services the company provides and the revenue from their rental payments allow the airport to continue various partnerships that benefit the community such as Rocky Mountain Rescue; Civil Air Patrol; CU Flying Club; Northern Colorado Medevac; Cub Scouts of America; area nonprofits and others. The company also operates a coffee and snack bar at the Boulder Airport Terminal Building with staff who greet visitors. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal: The lease renewal will provide income for the City of Boulder’s Airport Fund, with the lease contributing more than $17,000 per year. This and similar types of leases allow the Airport Fund to remain financially self-sufficient, with no money needed from the General Fund. •Staff time: No additional staff time would be required to support the 10-year lease renewal. BACKGROUND Journeys Aviation was selected in 2007 as part of a public Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide Fixed-Base Operator (FBO) services. As an FBO, the company provides aviation services to the public, including fueling airplanes, parking airplanes, greeting visitors, staffing the public terminal, renting airplanes, coordinating ground Item 2C - 10-Year Lease Renewal with Journeys Aviation at Boulder Airport City Council Meeting Page 21 of 233 transportation for visitors, and many other essential services. This reduces the need for additional city personnel and expense. Since 2007, the company has provided these services in a friendly, professional manner, and regularly receives high ratings from customers and visitors to Boulder. ANALYSIS During the 2017 update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the following language was added regarding Boulder Airport: “The city will seek to mitigate noise, safety and other impacts of airport operation while assuring that new development in proximity will be compatible with existing and planned use of the airport. At the time of the next Airport Master Plan, the city will work with the community to reassess the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood-serving uses.” This lease with Journeys Aviation does not exclude the city from examining future options because all airport leases include language that allows the city to “close, vacate or abandon (totally or partially, temporarily or permanently) the airport for any reason it chooses,” without default or obligation, if it so chooses sometime in the future. The airport benefits by having the continuity of service and outstanding performance that Journeys has provided. The proposed lease would provide Journeys Aviation a measure of economic reassurance to their bank and funding sources. Their existing lease only has four years remaining before it expires. This new lease would add six years to their remaining four and provide an expiration date that enables Journeys Aviation to consider adding additional services and further investment that benefits the airport and its users. Staff recommends that City Council approve the lease renewal with Journeys Aviation. POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL 1)Approve lease with Journeys Aviation (see attachment). 2)Provide an amended lease recommendation for staff. 3)Disapprove the 10-year lease. This will likely affect the owner’s ability to invest further and thus place the future of Journeys Aviation at Boulder Airport in question, as well as the exceptional service the company provides airport customers. When their current lease expires in 2022, Journeys Aviation would have the option to renew or cancel. If they cancel, the airport would lose a tenant who has proven to be beneficial and a new RFQ would be published. ATTACHMENT Proposed lease between the city of Boulder and Journeys Aviation, dated Aug. 1, 2018. Item 2C - 10-Year Lease Renewal with Journeys Aviation at Boulder Airport City Council Meeting Page 22 of 233 LEASE AND AGREEMENT FOR PRIMARY FBO SERVICES THIS LEASE AND AGREEMENT, effective this 1st day of September, 2018, by and between THE CITY OF BOULDER, a Colorado municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Journeys Aviation, Inc. (a Colorado corporation), whose address is 3335 Airport Road, Suite A, Boulder, Colorado 80301 (hereinafter referred to as "Operator"). WITNESSETH: Recitals WHEREAS, the City is the owner of an airport located in the northeast portion of the City of Boulder and commonly known and referred to as the Boulder Municipal Airport (hereinafter referred to as the "Airport"), a map of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference is made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, as part of the Airport, the City owns the aircraft parking ramp, Parcels 1, 1E and 12A and the improvements thereon, which are more fully described on the attached Exhibits B, C, D and E and by this reference is made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Operator desires to lease space and facilities and to engage in the activities of a fixed base operator at the Airport, as defined by the Boulder Revised Code, Chapter 11-4; and WHEREAS, the laws of the City provide that no person shall engage in any activities of a fixed base operator unless and until he or she enters into a lease with the City. WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease with Operator permitting Operator to perform the services enumerated herein; and WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain the services described in Exhibit F (hereinafter referred to as “Scope of Services”) during the period of this Lease and Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Operator desires to provide these services to the public and is fully qualified to perform the services needed by the City; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a new lease with Operator which will supersede any previous lease with Journeys Aviation Inc. Covenants and Conditions NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, promises, covenants, and conditions set forth herein, and other good and valuable considerations herein receipted for, the parties agree as follows: Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 23 of 233 Section 1. Term. The City does hereby demise, let, and lease unto Operator hangar and office space in the Terminal Building (3335 Airport Road) located on Parcel 1 and fuel facilities located on Parcels 1E and 12A as defined herein and shown on Exhibits B, C, D and E (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), to have and to hold, together with the privileges and appurtenances pertaining thereto, and subject to the conditions and covenants contained herein, for a term of ten (10) years from the effective date of this Lease and Agreement as written above. Section 2. Expiration. This Lease expires on the 30th day of August, 2028. Upon the expiration of this Lease and Agreement, and if no succeeding or new lease has been entered into by the parties, Operator may remove from the Premises all of its personal property and forthwith quit the Premises, leaving it in at least as good condition as at the inception of the Lease term, normal wear and tear excepted. This same obligation shall apply in the event the Lease is terminated by either party. Section 3. Renewals. The City reserves the right to extend the Lease and Agreement if mutually agreeable to both parties. Renewals shall be in writing and signed by both parties. Section 4. Financing and Refinancing. Operator shall not finance or refinance any improvement located on the Premises without prior written approval of the City. At the time of expiration or termination of this Lease and Agreement, all improvements constructed by Operator shall become the property of the City and shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Section 5. Permissible Activities of Operator. Operator shall conduct activities which are aviation related. Operator may perform any or all of the following activities and no others on the Premises for the full term of this Lease and Agreement, and those other activities, if any, which are determined by the City to be reasonably incidental to these activities: Aircraft shall include certified aircraft, experimental aircraft and gliders. A.Transporting passengers by aircraft for hire; B.Providing flight instruction for hire; C.Transporting parcels and freight for hire; D.Towing gliders; E.Renting and leasing aircraft; F.Renting space in the Terminal hangar for aircraft storage or other aviation uses; G.Renting tie down space; H.Selling gasoline and other aviation fluid products; Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 24 of 233 I.Selling and managing aircraft, aircraft parts, and aircraft accessories; J.Selling aviation-related supplies; K.Selling snack food and drinks; and L.Providing additional services as detailed in Scope of Services. Section 6. Prohibited Activities of Operator. A.If a contemplated activity is not specifically identified in Section 5 above as a permissible activity, then it is prohibited under the terms of this Lease and Agreement unless the City has given written permission to Operator for said activity. B.The storage of trailers, motor homes, and other non-aviation related vehicles and equipment on the Premises or on the Airport is expressly prohibited unless prior written approval from the Airport Manager has been obtained. The City shall give notice of non-permitted use to the Operator. Operator shall immediately correct the noticed item(s). If Operator fails to immediately correct any noticed item or to reach agreement with the City for its correction, then the City shall have the right to correct the noticed item(s) at Operator's expense. Operator agrees to reimburse the City for its expense in correcting the noticed item(s) within 30 days of the City's written billing of Operator. Such notice of non-permitted use shall constitute notice of default as provided for in Section 29. Section 7. Compliance with Fixed-Base Operator Standards. The Operator shall at all times comply with the City of Boulder - Boulder Municipal Airport Scope of Services for Primary Fixed Base Operator (FBO) attached as Exhibit F. Operator shall undertake the duties and responsibilities and provide the services desired by the City and described in Scope of Services. The Scope of Services is incorporated fully into this Lease and Agreement. The Lease and Agreement shall take precedence over the Exhibits in case of conflicting terms. Section 8. Payments to City. A.Operator shall pay to the City a monthly rent determined as 1/12th of the Yearly Rents in the following table and other amounts set forth in this Section: Description Quantity Price per Unit Yearly Rent Terminal 2nd Floor Offices 1,353 ft2 $6.9736 / ft2 $9,435.24 Terminal Hangar Storage Rooms 600 ft2 $3.88 / ft2 $2,328.24 Fuel Facilities (Fuel Farm and Self-Serve Tank and Pump) Flat Rate $633.88 / mo $7,606.56 Fire and Casualty Insurance 2,045 ft2 $0.2156 / ft2 $421.07 Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 25 of 233 B.Operator shall perform hangar management duties by sub-leasing space in the Terminal Building Hangar for aviation uses and storage of aircraft not owned by Operator. Operator shall use commercially reasonable efforts to maximize rental revenue for the Hangar Area and shall manage the facility as hangar-keeper in a professional and workmanlike manner. Monthly payments to City will be calculated at 50% of gross hangar revenue from previous month, as determined by a “Sales by Item Detail” revenue report produced by Operator within 15 calendar days after the end of each month. 1.Operator shall set sub-lease price for aircraft storage based on market rates. The City represents that the rate shall not be limited by the terms of Boulder Revised Code (BRC 1981) Section 4-20-1, which dictates prices for City-leased t-hangars. 2.Operator is permitted to store fueling materials, equipment necessary for minor aircraft maintenance, battery chargers, aircraft tugs and other equipment and machinery deemed by the City as reasonably incidental to the approved activities listed in Section 5 at no cost. 3.Operator-owned aircraft shall be permitted overnight storage in the hangar up to 15 times per lease year at no charge. Operator shall document any overnight storage in excess of 15 nights per year on the monthly revenue report as income and the Operator shall charge itself the same rate which it charges sub-tenants. Operator shall provide priority to non-Operator- owned aircraft when space is limited. 4.Operator is permitted non-overnight use of hangar areas at no cost for minor aircraft maintenance, aircraft heating, aircraft cleaning, and other uses as pre-approved by the Airport Manager. Operator is prohibited from using the Terminal hangar for maintenance activities that require an FAA certified mechanic unless such repairs are on Operator-owned or – operated aircraft. 5.At any time during the term hereof, Operator may by written notice to City elect to pay a fixed rent of $3.88 per square foot per year (with applicable CPI adjustments) for the entire area of the Terminal Hangar, thereby adding the hangar area to the Premises, allowing aircraft maintenance for hire and ceasing its role and obligations as Hangar Manager set forth in Section 8 B. C.Operator shall pay a proportional share of the utilities and City-purchased Fire and Casualty Insurance (also see section below entitled “Fire and Other Casualties”) in the Terminal Building, as billed monthly by the City. D.Operator shall pay to the City a fuel flowage fee of six cents ($0.06) per gross gallon for fuel delivered to it. Operator shall deliver to the City copies of bills of lading for deliveries within 15 calendar days after the end of each month. E.Operator shall pay to the City twenty percent (20%) of gross collected revenue from aircraft tie-downs for any and all tie downs it leases to non-Operator affiliated parties. Operator Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 26 of 233 will pay full price for tie-downs for Operator-used aircraft, including those owned or on lease back. The rental rate for such tie downs shall be $40 per month or as otherwise dictated by City law. The Parties agree that Operator may offer additional non-mandatory billable services with tie downs such as for ropes, snow removal, security, tug and pre-heat service and the like, and no portion of revenue collected for these additional services is payable to City. F.Included in the monthly payment shall be interest calculated on One and One Half Percent (1-1/2%) per month for any overdue amounts due for the previous month in which the actual amount due was paid after the tenth (10th) day of the month. G.Annually during the term of this Lease and Agreement, the City shall increase or decrease the rent amount set forth above proportionately to the annum increase or decrease in the cost of living established by the change in "all items" figure for the prior calendar year in the most recent United States Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area for Denver. The maximum increase or decrease shall not exceed 10 percent for any one year. Section 9. Right of Entry. The City shall not disturb Operator's right to quiet enjoyment of the Premises, except that the City shall have the right to enter upon and inspect the Premises at any time during normal business hours, and at such other times as may be necessary in the event the City determines an emergency situation exists. Section 10. Insurance Requirements. Operator agrees to procure and maintain in force during the terms of this Agreement, at its own cost, the following minimum coverage: A.Commercial General Liability: Bodily Injury & Property Damage General Aggregate Limit: $2,000,000 Personal & Advertising Injury Limit: $1,000,000 Aircraft Liability: $1,000,000 Each Occurrence Limit: $1,000,000 B. The policy shall include the following coverage: Premises Operations; Personal and Advertising Injury; Medical Payments; Liability assumed under an Insured Contract; Independent Contractors; and Broad Form Property Damage. Coverage provided should be at least as broad as found in Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CG0001. C.Automobile Liability Limits. The Operator agrees to provide proof of current liability insurance coverage in compliance with the State of Colorado Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act for all vehicles used while providing services to the City. The City of Boulder should be named as additional insured. The minimum amount of insurance required by the State is $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury or death and $15,000 for property damage. The Operator’s vehicle insurance is the sole coverage for any casualty or liability claims Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 27 of 233 D. Prior to the execution of this Contract by the City, the Operator shall forward Certificates of Insurance, in the form of an insurance ACORD, to the Airport Manager at 3327 Airport Rd, Boulder, CO 80301. E. All insurance policies shall include City of Boulder and its elected officials and employees as additional insureds as their interests may appear. The additional insured endorsement should be at least as broad as ISO form CG2010 for General Liability coverage and similar forms for Commercial Auto Liability. F. The City requires that all policies of insurance be written on a primary basis, non- contributory with any other insurance coverage and/or self-insurance carried by the City. G. The City of Boulder reserves the right to reject any insurer it deems not financially acceptable by insurance industry standards. Property and Liability Insurance Companies shall be licensed to do business in Colorado and shall have an AM Best rating of not less than A- VI. H. Certificates of insurance on all policies shall give the City of Boulder written notice of not less than thirty (30) days prior to cancellation or change in coverage. Section 11. Fire and Other Casualties: The City shall obtain Fire and Casualty Insurance for the entire Terminal Building and allocate the cost to the tenants of the Terminal Building based on each tenant’s percentage of the total square footage in the Terminal Building as determined by the City. The City may pass along to each Tenant of the Terminal Building their share of any rate increases for said insurance as soon as they occur. Section 12. Copies of Insurance Policies to be Furnished by the City. If requested, City shall furnish the Operator with copies of all current insurance policies in the form of an ACORD relating to the Terminal Building within ten days after they become effective and are made available to City. All notices of cancellation, if any, shall be furnished to the Operator at least 30 days before they become effective or within two working days of City’s receipt of such notice. Section 13. Independent Contractor. The relationship between the Operator and the City is that of an independent contractor. The Operator shall supply all personnel, equipment, materials and supplies at its own expense, except as specifically set forth herein. The Operator shall not be deemed to be, nor shall it represent itself as, an employee, partner, or joint venturer of the City. No employee or officer of the City shall supervise the Operator. The Operator is not entitled to worker’s compensation benefits and is obligated to directly pay federal and state income tax on money earned under this Contract. Section 14. Independent Contractor Indemnity. Operator is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor in the conduct of its business and activities hereunder. Operator agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City against any and all claims, debts, demands, or obligations which may be asserted against the City arising by reason of, or in connection with, any act or omission of Operator or any person claiming under, by or through Operator, at Operator's own expense using those attorneys that Operator deems appropriate. If, however, it becomes Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 28 of 233 necessary for the City to defend any action arising by reason of, or in connection with, any act or omission of Operator or any person claiming under, by or through Operator seeking to impose liability for any such claim or demand, Operator shall pay all court costs, witness fees and reasonable attorney fees, including without limitation, reasonable fees at generally prevailing rates for similar services for the office of the City Attorney, incurred by the City in effecting such defense, in addition to any other sums which the City may be called upon to pay by reason of the entry of any judgment, assessment, bond, writ or levy against the City in the litigation in which such claims are asserted. Operator shall be subrogated to any and all amounts paid by it on behalf of the City to any claims that the City may have as a result of said payments to any person or third persons which are the reason or cause of said payments. The City shall not be responsible for the loss of or damage to Operators personal property. Operator shall not be responsible for any environmental contamination that occurred on the Premises prior to its occupancy. Section 15. Airport Access. The City shall provide access to the Airport from the Premises, such as by illustration, common taxiways. Operator shall be responsible for providing access to the Premises, such as by illustration, access ramp facilities, from such common taxiways to specific portions of the Premises, as needed. Section 16. Utilities, Security System and Phone. The City shall provide all the municipal utilities to the Premises that it provides to any other industrial building within the City limits, including without limitation, water and sewer. A.Operator shall pay its share of the utility bills for the Terminal Building on Parcel 1. The City shall obtain and manage the electrical and gas account for the entire Terminal Building and include 39.1% of “J North” and 50% of “J South” costs to Operator’s monthly lease bill. The City may pass along to Operator its share of any rate changes for said utilities as soon as they occur. B.The City shall pay water utility bills for the Terminal Building. C.Participation in a monitored security system (and its associated costs) is at the discretion of the Operator. The City does not maintain entry sensors, motion detector equipment, and associated ADT alarm panels. If Operator elects to subscribe to alarm monitoring service, it is suggested that they add a maintenance agreement to their alarm service plan. D.Operator shall pay for phone line installation, monthly service, and phone line repairs for the self-serve fuel pump credit card machine’s phone line. Section 17. Covenants and Warranties of the City. A.The City covenants it has good right to lease the Premises in the manner described herein and that Operator shall peaceably and quietly have, hold, occupy and enjoy the Premises during the term of the lease, so long as Operator uses the Premises lawfully and in accordance with the Lease. Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 29 of 233 B.The City warrants that the undersigned is authorized to enter into this agreement to obligate the City as provided herein. C.Subject to the understanding stated in Subsection A, the City warrants and represents that the zoning classification of the Airport will allow the activities described in Section 5. Section 18. Maintenance Duties of the Parties. A.City shall maintain and repair all improvements located on its Premises in the Terminal Building that are structural in nature, to include the heating, ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing pipes, electrical wiring, handicapped lift, roof, exterior doors and windows. B.City shall maintain and promptly repair all improvements located on the two fuel facilities that are structural in nature, to include without limitation the underground fuel storage tanks, fuel pipes, filtration systems, fuel pumps, metering for the 100LL self-serve facility, credit card machine, emergency phone, and automatic tank gauge monitors. City shall pay the cost of software maintenance and updates for the self-serve fuel pump and credit card charging system as deemed necessary by the Airport Manager. Operator will pay the cost of technical support and service plans related to software and credit card processing. If repairs are the necessitated by misuse or neglect by Operator, then the City shall have the right to correct the noticed item(s) at Operator's expense. If at any time City's maintenance or repair is deemed by the Operator to be unsatisfactory or untimely, then Operator shall verbally inform the Airport Manager. If situation continues, Operator shall give written notice to City of the unsatisfactory or untimely items. City shall work to promptly correct the noticed item(s). C.City shall maintain all municipal utilities, roads, parking lots, trees and grass, runways and major taxiways serving the Premises and the Airport. D.Operator is responsible for repairs and maintenance of additional improvements made by Operator and not in place at the time of this Lease and Agreement, as well as maintenance of plumbing fixtures solely used by Operator. If at any time Operator's maintenance or repair is deemed by the City to be unsatisfactory or untimely, then the City shall give written notice to Operator of the unsatisfactory or untimely items. Operator shall immediately correct the noticed item(s). If Operator fails to immediately correct any noticed item or to reach agreement with the City for its correction, then the City shall have the right to correct the noticed item(s) at Operator's expense. Operator agrees to reimburse the City for its expense within 30 days of the City's written billing of Operator. E.Operator is responsible for day-to-day upkeep of fuel facilities and purchase of materials and services related to their regular use. This includes, but is not limited to, fuel pump filters, receipt paper, fuel testing equipment, annual inspection of fire extinguishers, spill containment equipment, 55-gallon drums for waste product and trash cans. Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 30 of 233 F.The cleanup of all fuel spills by Operator that occur during the term of this Lease and Agreement, or any renewal thereof, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City at the Operator’s expense. Section 19. Schedule and Managers. Operator shall provide the City in writing with a schedule of the regular hours that Operator will be open for service to the public and the names and addresses of the person or persons who are responsible for managing Operator's operations at the Airport. The Operator shall at all times when it is open to the public have a person or persons managing its operations. Revised schedules and lists of such managers shall be provided to the City within five working days of the occurrence of each revision. Section 20. Report of Change of Ownership. In the event that more than fifty percent (50%) of the stock of the Operator is sold or transferred, in a single transaction or series of related transactions, the Operator shall notify the City in writing of such within ten (10) days from the date of such ownership change, setting forth the name and mailing address of the new owner(s) of such stock. Section 21. Courtesy and Professionalism. Operator and all of its employees shall serve the public and Operator's customers at the Airport in a prompt, courteous and professional manner. Section 22. Signs. Operator agrees that it shall erect no exterior signs nor paint exterior signs upon the Premises or the Airport without the prior written approval of the City Manager which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City reserves the right to remove and install signs on the Premises and the Airport. Signs placed or painted inside the portion of Terminal Building not leased by Operator must be approved in writing by the Airport Manager. Operator must restore Premises to its original condition within ten (10) days after termination of Lease. Section 23. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations. Operator shall comply with all applicable laws of the United States (including regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration), the State of Colorado, Boulder County, and the ordinances and codes of the City, in effect as of the date of this Lease and Agreement or enacted in the future. Operator further agrees that it will use the Premises in compliance with all general rules and regulations adopted by the City for the operation of the Airport. Section 24. Prohibitions on Contracts for Public Services. The Operator certifies that they shall comply with the provisions of section 8-17.5-101 et seq., C.R.S. The Operator shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this contract or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Operator that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this contract. The Operator represents, warrants, and agrees that it (i) has verified that it does not employ any illegal aliens, through participation in the Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program administered by the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, and (ii) otherwise will comply with the requirements of section 8-17.5-102(2)(b), C.R.S. The Operator shall comply with all reasonable requests made in the course of an Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 31 of 233 investigation under section 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If the Operator fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or section 8- 17.5-101 et seq., C.R.S. the City may terminate this contract for breach and the Operator shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City. Section 25. Payment of Taxes, License Fees and Obligations. A.Operator agrees to pay promptly all valid excises, license fees, and permit fees of whatever nature applicable to its operation. Operator further agrees to pay promptly when due all valid bills, debts, taxes, and other obligations incurred in connection with its operation, and not to permit the same to become delinquent and to suffer no lien, mortgage, judgment, execution or adjudication in bankruptcy which will in any way impair the rights of the City under this Lease. Notwithstanding, the foregoing and without violating this section, Operator shall have the right to dispute or litigate such bills, debts, taxes and other such obligations. B.If any real estate or personal property tax shall be assessed by any governmental agency against Operator’s property on the Premises, Operator shall be responsible for and promptly pay such tax. Operator is not responsible to pay the personal property tax on the aircraft owned by its sub lessees and stored on the Premises. Section 26. Non-Discrimination. A.Operator agrees that any services furnished to the public shall be on a fair, equal and non-discriminatory basis. B.Operator agrees to comply with the requirements of any Federal Executive Order barring discrimination. Further, in accordance with these requirements, Operator agrees to not discriminate in any manner against any employee or applicant for employment because of political or religious opinion or affiliation, sex, race, creed, color, sexual orientation, or national origin; and further, Operator agrees to include a similar clause in all subleases and subcontracts, except subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. Operator understands and acknowledges that the City has given to the United States of America, acting by and through the Federal Aviation Administration, certain assurances with respect to nondiscrimination, which have been required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, as a condition precedent to the United States Government making grants in aid to the City for certain Airport programs and activities, and that the City is required under said regulations to include in every agreement or concession, pursuant to which any person or persons other than the City that operates or has the right to operate any facility at the Airport providing services to the public, the following covenant, to which Operator agrees: C.Operator in its operation at and use of the Airport, covenants that it will not, on the grounds of sex, race, color, or national origin, discriminate or permit discrimination against any person or group of persons in any manner prohibited by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21; and in the event of Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 32 of 233 such discrimination, Operator agrees that the City has the right to take such action against Operator as the United States Government may direct to enforce this covenant. Section 27. Vehicle Control. A.With the exception of aircraft refueling trucks and tow vehicles, Operator shall prevent all motor vehicles owned, leased, or used by it from being parked unattended on any part of the Airport apron or taxiway or from driving upon or being on any part of the Runway Environment, as such are depicted on Exhibit A, or as presently constructed or as such areas may be expanded or developed by the City. For purposes of this section, the runway environment shall include the entire area consisting of a north boundary 75 feet north of Runway 8G/26G, an east boundary at the airport property line, a south boundary parallel to the north edge of the aircraft parking ramp, and a west boundary at the airport fence line. B.With the exception of aircraft refueling trucks and tow vehicles, vehicles may be operated on the parking ramp or secondary taxiways around the t-hangars only when (a) loading and unloading for 30 minutes or less, (b) not interfering with or delaying aircraft movement, and (c) the vehicle is not left unattended. Motor vehicles are strictly prohibited from aircraft operation surfaces except as needed in connection with aircraft operations. Violators and Tenant are subject to ticketing and/or towing and termination of this lease. The requirements of this section may be suspended by a written statement of the Airport Manager delivered to Tenant in advance of the condition or incident that would otherwise violate these requirements. Section 28. Right of City to Protect Aerial Approaches. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease, the City reserves the right to take any action it reasonably considers necessary to protect the aerial approaches of the Airport against obstruction. Section 29. Airport Development. The City reserves the right to further develop or improve the landing area of the Airport without unreasonable interference or hindrance to Operator. If the physical development of the Airport requires the relocation of the buildings or improvements on the Premises, the City agrees to provide a comparable location without any unreasonable interruption to Operator's activities or business, to relocate all the buildings or improvements leased by Operator, or provide comparable replacement facilities for Operator at no cost to Operator. Section 30. Operator's Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute the default and breach of this Lease by Operator: A.The vacation or abandonment of the Premises by Operator. B.The failure of Operator to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by Operator hereunder, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of ten days after written notice thereof by the City to Operator. C.The failure by Operator to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions, or provisions of this Lease and Agreement to be observed or performed by Operator. Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 33 of 233 Section 31. Remedies of City. In the event of any material default or breach by Operator under Subsections 30.A or C above, the City shall give 30 days notice to Operator during which time Operator may correct such default or take reasonable steps thereto, thereby abating said default. In the event of any material default or breach by Operator under Subsection 30.B above, the City shall give 10 days written notice to Operator, during which time Operator may pay all such overdue amounts, thereby abating said default. Thereafter, without limiting the City in the exercise of any right or remedy at law or in equity which City may have by reason of such default or breach, the City may: A.Maintain this Lease in full force and effect and recover the rent and other monetary charges as they become due without terminating Operator's right to possession irrespective of whether Operator shall have abandoned the Premises. In the event the City elects not to terminate the Lease and Agreement, the City shall have the right to attempt to re-let the Premises at such rent and upon such conditions and for such a term and to do all acts necessary to maintain or preserve the Premises as the City deems reasonable and necessary without being deemed to have elected to terminate the Lease, including removal of all persons and property from the Premises. Such property may be removed and stored in a public warehouse or elsewhere at the cost of and for the account of Operator. In the event such reletting occurs, this Lease shall terminate automatically upon the new lessee's taking possession of the Premises. Notwithstanding that the City fails to elect to terminate the Lease initially, the City, at any time during the term of this Lease, may elect to terminate this Lease by virtue of such previous default of Operator. B.Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to the City under applicable law, including without limitation, suit for specific performance and damage. C.Upon termination of this Lease hereunder, Operator may remove from the Premises all of its personal property. Title to all items of personal property of Operator which have not been removed from the Premises within 7 days of the termination shall vest in City. D.The City shall be entitled to recover from Operator all damages and expenses incurred by the City by reason of Operator's default, including without limitation, reasonable attorney fees and court costs. E.Terminate the Lease and Agreement and bring suit against the Operator for damages. Section 32. Remedies of Operator. In the event of any default or breach by the City, Operator shall give 30 days written notice thereof to the City, during which time the City may correct such default or take reasonable steps thereto, thereby abating said default. Thereafter, if the default continues, without limiting Operator in the exercise of any right or remedy at law or in equity which Operator may have by reason of default or breach, Operator may, subject to the limits of governmental immunity have any remedy now or hereafter available under applicable law, including without limitation, suit for specific performance and damages. The Operator shall be entitled to recover from City all damages and expenses incurred by the Operator by reason of City's default, including without limitation, reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 34 of 233 Section 33. Right of City to Close the Airport. The City shall have the right to close, vacate or abandon (totally or partially, temporarily or permanently) the Airport for any reason it chooses, including but not limited to, the right to order the Operator to close, vacate or abandon the Premises (totally or partially) on a temporary or permanent basis. If the Airport remains partially closed, vacated or abandoned for a period greater than sixty (60) consecutive days, this shall constitute termination of this Lease and Agreement by the City without default and the obligations of the City and the Operator under the Lease and Agreement shall be automatically extinguished. A.During any Airport closure, vacation, or abandonment of longer than 48 hours, no rent, utilities, insurance or any other fees hereunder shall be due, accruing or payable. B.Paragraph 31.A does not include closure of aircraft movement areas for airport operational purposes, including but not limited to construction, repair, snow events and aircraft crash recovery. Section 34. Right of Operator to Terminate Lease and Agreement. If in Operator’s good faith judgment, Operator is unable to earn a fair and profitable return on its investment to provide services hereunder, Operator shall have the right on 60 days written notice to terminate this Lease and Agreement without default, and the obligations beyond the termination date of the City and Operator under the Lease and Agreement shall be automatically extinguished. Section 35. Assignment and Subletting. Operator agrees that it will not assign or transfer its interest in or rights under this Lease and Agreement, either in whole or in part, or sublet the Premises or any part thereof with the exception of subletting tie-down, as allocated to them by the City, and space for the parking of aircraft in the Terminal Building hangar. The Operator shall not assign this Contract without the written consent of the City, which it may withhold at its sole discretion. Section 36. Lease Subordinate to Agreements with the United States. This Lease is subject to the terms, reservations, restrictions and conditions of any existing or future agreements between the City and the Federal Government, relative to the operation and maintenance of the Airport, the execution of which has been or may be required as a condition precedent to the participation of any Federal agency in the development of the Airport; provided however, any such future agreements shall not detrimentally affect the rights or interest of Operator under this Lease and Agreement. Prior to the effective date of this Lease and Agreement, the City shall provide Operator with the opportunity to review copies of all such agreements in effect at that time. Section 37. Costs and Fees of Litigation. If any party is required to initiate litigation to enforce any of the provisions of this Lease and Agreement or due to the default of the other party, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to all costs of litigation, plus expert and reasonable attorney fees including without limitation, fees sufficient to compensate for the services, if any, of the Boulder City Attorney's Office at generally prevailing rates for similar services in Boulder County. Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 35 of 233 Section 38. Operator’s Duties. A.Professional Standards. The Operator shall fulfill the requirements in Scope of Services according to customary professional standards and in compliance with all applicable national, federal, state, municipal laws, regulations, codes, ordinances, orders and with those of any other body having jurisdiction. B.No Conflicts. The Operator agrees that they have and will undertake no obligations, commitments, or impediments of any kind that will limit or prevent it from providing the services described in Scope of Services. C.Limitation on Public Statements. Contractors, while providing services to the City, are retained to provide information and advice to the City that includes confidential data, work product, and other privileged or confidential information. In order to maintain the fact and appearance of absolute objectivity and professionalism, Operator shall not, without the prior written consent of the City, disclose information obtained as a result of this contractual relationship to any third party when Operator has been notified, verbally or in writing, that such information is confidential. Section 39. Aircraft Tie-downs. A.Operator-owned aircraft stored on permanent tie-down locations on the aircraft parking ramp will be paid for by Operator at a rate of $40 per month per each tie-down location. B.City will allocate tie-downs for the Operator to sub-lease to other aircraft owners and transient users as determined by Operator’s forecasted need and past usage. Allocation will be determined, and adjusted as needed, by the Airport Manager in a separate policy letter. C.Operator shall deliver to the City a monthly tie-down revenue statement within 15 calendar days after the end of each month. Such report shall disclose all revenue collected for tie-downs managed by Operator, and if applicable for rent collection under this Lease and Agreement, for hanger storage. Section 40. Notices to Parties. All written notices to the City or Operator provided for in this Lease shall be mailed to the following addresses until further notice in writing is given as to the change in address: City: Airport Manager Boulder Municipal Airport 3327 Airport Rd Boulder, CO 80301 Operator: Journeys Aviation, Inc. 3335 Airport Rd, Suite A Boulder, CO 80301 Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 36 of 233 Service of any notice required herein shall be considered delivered and served when addressed to a party at the address(es) stated above, duly posted and mailed certified at any United States post office, or delivered in person. Section 41. Amendments to Lease. No changes, alterations or modifications to any of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless contained in a written agreement signed by the parties. Copies of all amendments shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk in the same manner as this lease document. Section 42. Covenants to Run with Land. The agreements and covenants set forth herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the parties, their successors, lenders, representatives and assigns, and all persons who may hereafter acquire an interest in the Airport, or any part thereof. Section 43. Lease may be Recorded. If requested by either party, this lease and any amendments, changes, alterations or modifications may be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder at the expense of the City. Section 44. Entire Agreement. This Lease and Agreement represents the entire and only agreement between the parties regarding lease of the Premises. Any and all prior Lease and Agreements between the Parties are superseded and extinguished by this Lease and Agreement. Section 45. Special Provisions. Operator agrees to the following special conditions: A.Storage of materials not related to providing the services enumerated in this Lease and Agreement is prohibited on the Premises. The Premises must be free of debris and excessive storage such that general safety and fire safety are satisfactory, as determined by City officials. B.Operator is authorized to use the aircraft apron located east of the Terminal Building for the temporary parking of aircraft, parking of fuel trucks, aircraft washing and associated aviation-related activity as deemed by the City. Operator shall not install tie-downs or make modifications in any way without written permission from the City. Parking of personal vehicles is prohibited in this area. Removal of snow from this apron is the responsibility of the City. C.Operator is prohibited from painting, defacing, modifying, or altering any part of the Premises without written permission from the City. D.Fuel. Upon termination of this Lease and Agreement, the City agrees to purchase the aviation fuels in the fuel facilities at wholesale replacement cost. The City shall not be obligated to purchase fuels that are deemed by them to be of a quality that is unmerchantable. E.Operator shall pay for phone services associated with the self-serve fuel facility credit card processing system. F.The following equipment and supplies shall be furnished by the City for use in the Terminal building. Equipment listed below will be repaired or replaced at the City’s expense Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 37 of 233 within a reasonable period of time. The City provides this equipment as an additional service and will not be held liable for downtime resulting from repairs or replacement. 1.Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) computer equipment and one additional display monitor. 2.UNICOM base station radio, microphone, power supply, and roof-top antennae. 3.Computers for public use, located in the flight planning area. 4.Lobby furniture for public use. 5.Door mats at the northwest and northeast entries, to include associated cleaning service. 6.Restroom supplies for the two public restrooms located adjacent to the second floor lobby. Operator shall assist City by monitor supplies and placing orders for additional supplies using a City-approved vendor and ensuring invoices are sent to the Airport Manager. 7.A wheeled fire extinguisher outside the Terminal and another wheeled fire extinguisher at the Self Serve Fuel Facility. Section 46. Authority to Sign. Operator warrants that the individual executing this Lease and Agreement is properly authorized to bind the Operator to this contract. (Signatures on following page) Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 38 of 233 S:\PW\ParkCentral\Tran\Airport\Leases\Journeys\Journeys 9-1-18.docx Initials __________ 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease and Agreement effective the date first written above. JOURNEYS AVIATION, Inc. By: _______________________________ Tracey Spence, Owner STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF BOULDER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a notary public, this ______ day of ________________, 2018, by Tracey Spence. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: _____________________________ (SEAL) Notary Public CITY OF BOULDER _____________________________ Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Attorney’s Office Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 39 of 233 Exhibits: A.Boulder Municipal Airport and Aircraft Operations Area B.Airport Parcel Map C.Floor Plan, Building 3335 Second Floor North D.Floor Plan, Building 3335 First Floor South E.Floor Plan, Building 3335 Second Floor South F.Scope of Services Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 40 of 233 Runway Environment Runway Protection Zone Airport Structures EXHIBIT A Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 41 of 233 14 11 2A 7 9 12 3 4 1F 12B 1D1C1A1B 1E 8B 10B B1 B2 13B5 2B 8A 10A 12A Boul der M unic ipal Airp ort Leas e Pa rcel s I 0 100 200 300 40050 Feet Legend Lease Parcels Residential and Commercial Parcels Map produced by the City of Boulder, Planning and Development Services GIS For informat ion call (303)441-1880 or visit us on the web at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/pwplan/. All rights reserved. The map information contained hereon is intended for the s ole use of the purchaser and may not be copied, duplicated or redistributed in any way, in whole or in part, without the expressed written consent of the City of Boulder.The information depicted is provided as a graphical representation only. While source documents were developed in compliance with National Map Accuracy Standards, the City of Boulder provides no guarantee, express or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon.Printed on Friday, December 02, 2005 © 2005 City of Boulder, Co S U B J E C T T O R E V I S I O N Description Parcel ID #1 Parcel ID #2 Parcel ID #3 Square Footage Boulder Airport Lease Parcel T a 1A 33,000 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel S b 7 33,000 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel R c 1B 33,000 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel Q d 1C 33,000 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel O f 1F 33,000 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel P e 1D 33,000 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel U 3 22,002 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel V 4 17,620 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel F 2 27,403 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel 12A 8,716 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel G 2B 13,366 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel C D 2A 107,099 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel 12B 47,131 Description Parcel ID #1 Parcel ID #2 Parcel ID #3 Square Footage Boulder Airport Lease Parcel T1 T2 8B 23,419 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel W 13 17,554 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel 14 146,600 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel N 11 106,271 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel J 1 30,979 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel 1E 24,403 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel H 9 32,061 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel B1 20,281 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel B2 19,935 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel B5 19,891 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel B5 8A 13,168 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel 10B 30,472 Boulder Airport Lease Parcel E 10A 14,624 Exhibit BAttachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO ServicesCity Council Meeting Page 42 of 233 Rm 202 Rm 206 168 sq ft Rm 207 144 sq ft Rm 208 310 sq ft Boulder Municipal Airport 3335 Airport Rd - Second Floor North Rm 203 Rm 204 Rm 205 Rm 201 412 sq ft 184 sq ft EXHIBIT C Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 43 of 233 56' 7" 72' 7" 95' 7"211' 10" 316' 3" Utility Room 3335 Airport Road First Floor South Boulder Municipal Airport Yellow shaded area depicts leased premises. Blue shaded area is managed by Operator. 4327' 10" EXHIBIT D Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 44 of 233 275' 4"9' 6"29' 0"9' 6"29' 0" 237' 2"9' 6"25' 0"9' 6"25' 0"19' 0"18' 0"19' 0"18' 0"24' 0"5' 6"24' 0"5' 6" 408' 3"35' 6"11' 6"35' 6"11' 6" 6' 8" 507' 0"19' 6"26' 0"19' 6"26' 0" 210' 3"11' 8"18' 1"11' 8"18' 1" 141' 5"7' 10"18' 0"7' 10"18' 0" 93' 2" 416' 8" 17' 4"3' 8"3335 Airport Road -Second Floor South Boulder Municipal Airport Leased Area is Shaded Exhibit E 15 ft x 9 ft (135 sq ft) 15' 0"9' 1"Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 45 of 233 EXHIBIT F City of Boulder - Boulder Municipal Airport Scope of Services for Primary Fixed Base Operator (FBO) 1.PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1. General. 1.1.1. This Scope of Services (SOS) is Exhibit E to the Lease and Agreement between the City of Boulder (hereinafter referred to as City) and Journeys Aviation Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Operator). It dictates minimum services to be provided by the Operator conducting business at the Airport. 1.1.2. These are the minimum levels of service required. The City encourages the Operator to provide additional aviation-related services and level of service within its authority, as stated in the Lease and Agreement. 1.2. Location. Services are to be provided on the premises known as Boulder Municipal Airport at 3300 Airport Road, Boulder, CO 80301, hereinafter referred to as “Airport”. 1.2.1. The Terminal Building is located at 3335 Airport Road on Parcel 1, hereinafter referred to as “Terminal”, and includes the following sub-areas for the purpose of this Scope of Services: 1.2.1.1. Public lobby and restrooms located on the second floor, north side of Terminal. 1.2.1.2. Stairs and foyer on northeast and northwest corner of Terminal. 1.2.1.3. Aircraft hangar, adjacent office/storage rooms, and one hangar restroom in Terminal, as depicted in Exhibit C. 1.2.1.4. Office/storage areas adjacent to the public lobby on the second floor, north side of Terminal, as depicted in Exhibits D and E. 1.2.1.5. Customer service counter and adjacent display area on the east side of the public lobby, as depicted in Exhibit D. 1.2.2. The aviation “Fuel Facilities” consist of the following: 1.2.2.1. Fuel Farm: Located immediately southeast of the Terminal, consists of two 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks and associated infrastructure, to include pipes, pumps, fencing and tank monitoring equipment. Use of adjacent storage shed is authorized for fuel related activity. Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 46 of 233 1.2.2.2. Self Serve: Single 10,000-gallon underground storage tank located west of Building G, and associated infrastructure, to include pipes, pumps and tank monitoring equipment. 2.CRITERIA 2.1. The Operator shall satisfy all requirements set forth by federal, state, and local laws and regulations in the performance of services. Operator is responsible for obtaining all certifications associated with performing services. 3.SERVICES 3.1. Terminal Manager. Operator will perform the following services in conjunction with operating the Airport Terminal. 3.1.1. Maintain lobby, stairs, entryway, hallway and restrooms in a sanitary, professional appearance. Vacuum and spot clean furniture provided by the City. Spot clean and dust computer and electronic equipment provided by the City, to include weather computers, flight planning computers, wheel chair lift and radio equipment. 3.1.2. Remove snow from entryways and sidewalks leading up to entryways on northeast and northwest corners of terminal. 3.1.3. Raise and lower flag(s) in accordance with national regulations pertaining to traditions and weather. City will provide replacement flags that are needed due to normal wear and tear. Neglect of flags shall result in replacement at Operator’s expense. 3.1.4. Operate and monitor Airport UNICOM radio, providing airport status, weather information and other communications as requested by pilots between 8:00 A.M. MST and 5:00 P.M. MST seven (7) days a week, at a minimum. 3.1.5. Provide reception services and airport information in Terminal lobby between 8:00 A.M. MST and 5:00 P.M. MST seven (7) days a week, at a minimum, to greet airport visitors and provide general customer service. 3.1.6. Operator may choose to close for the following holidays: 3.1.6.1. New Year’s Day 3.1.6.2. Easter Sunday 3.1.6.3. Thanksgiving Day 3.1.6.4. Christmas Eve (second half of day) 3.1.6.5. Christmas Day Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 47 of 233 3.1.6.6. New Year’s Eve (second half of day) 3.1.6.7. Other closures must be approved in advance by the airport manager. 3.2. Fuel Facility Manager. Operator will perform the following services in conjunction with operating and maintaining the Airport fuel farm, located on Parcel 1E, and the self- serve fuel facility, located on Parcel 12A. 3.2.1. Order, maintain, test and sell 100LL and Jet-A aviation fuels. 3.2.2. Supply, maintain and operate a fuel trucks for 100LL fuel. Provide “full service” refueling of aircraft between 8:00 A.M. MST and 5:00 P.M. MST seven (7) days a week, at a minimum. 3.2.3. Monitor supply and anticipate demand as closely as possible to ensure adequate, uninterrupted full-service and self-service fuel supply. Maintain no less than 1,000 gallons of 100LL and Jet-A in each of the three tanks at all times. 3.2.4. Print monthly reports from the Automatic Tank Gauge (ATG) monitors located at each facility and retain reports for a minimum of two years. Operator will provide original reports to City or State of Colorado officials when requested. 3.2.5. Remove snow and ice from area within 15 feet north of the self-serve fueling facility to facilitate safe and easy refueling operations. 3.2.6. City shall provide Operator sole use of fuel farm and self-serve fuel facilities and associated infrastructure. 3.2.7. To discourage additional fuel storage tanks on the Airport, Operator will provide bulk pricing to organizations deemed qualified by the City. 3.2.7.1. Bulk fuel shall be reasonably priced and take into account volume, payment method and workload required of Operator. 3.2.7.2. The City shall disallow bulk priced fuel to be resold by the receiving organization and will require that the sole use be in receiving organization’s owned aircraft only. 3.3. Flight Training. Operator will provide the following flight training at the Airport between 8:00 A.M. MST and 5:00 P.M. MST five (5) days a week, at a minimum. 3.3.1. Provide ground training and airborne instruction to the public at a minimum curriculum level for students to be reasonably successful in obtaining a Private Pilot License (PPL) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 3.3.1.1. Providing instruction for higher-level certification (such as commercial pilot, dual-engine rating, instrument rating, etc.) is highly encouraged, although not a minimum requirement. Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 48 of 233 3.3.2. Provide aircraft for rent by students seeking flight instruction. 3.3.3. Staff personnel such that certified flight instructors are available for scheduled flights and instruction between 8:00 A.M. MST and 5:00 P.M. MST five (5) days a week, at a minimum. 3.3.4. Provide flight training rooms and training materials, as appropriate. 3.4. Aircraft Rental. Operator will provide the following aircraft rental services at the Airport. 3.4.1. Provide scheduling for or on-site rental of aircraft between 8:00 A.M. MST and 5:00 P.M. MST seven (7) days a week, at a minimum. 3.4.2. Provide safe, clean and professional appearing aircraft for rental by the public. 3.5. Aircraft Towing. 3.5.1. Operator shall provide aircraft towing/tug services to Airport tenants and transient aircraft between 8:00 A.M. MST and 5:00 P.M. MST seven (7) days a week, at a minimum. Towing equipment shall be provided by Operator and capable of towing aircraft weight and size up to and including the Beech B-200, or equivalent. 3.6. Tie-Down Services. 3.6.1. Operator shall provide tie-down services to transient aircraft requesting a tie- down parking spot. Services include providing tie-down ropes, charging daily and/or nightly rates, and tracking pilots’ contact information in case of emergency. 3.6.2. Operator shall also provide monthly or longer-term tie-down services at its discretion. Monthly tie-down rates are charged at $40/month, in accordance with Boulder Revised Code (BRC 1981) Section 4-20-1. Operator may provide additional services associated with tie-down space rental. 3.6.3. Tie-down spaces are allocated to the Operator in accordance with the Lease and Agreement. 3.7. Staffing. The parties agree that Operator may, at its option, fulfill some or all of its required personnel staffing with employees, contract labor, or independent contractors. 4.COMMUNICATION WITH CITY The notification obligations of this section do not require written notification as otherwise set forth in the Leases and Agreement. Operator shall: Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 49 of 233 4.1. Verbally notify airport manager as soon as practical of defective equipment owned or maintained by the City. 4.2. Notify airport manager as soon as practical when services cannot be provided as agreed upon in this Scope of Services, or Lease and Agreement, and provide anticipated date/time that service(s) will be restored. 4.3. Implement measures and immediately notify Airport Manager of any dangerous (or potentially dangerous) situations discovered on the Airport. This includes, but is not limited to, fuel or oil spills, vehicle or aircraft accidents, personal injuries, noxious fumes, suspicious personnel, and criminal acts. 4.4. Upon request by City, provide FAA airworthiness certifications for all aircraft operated by or used in conjunction with Operator-provided services to the public. 4.5. Upon request by City, provide copy of certificates for all certified flight instructors or ground instructors employed by or scheduled by the Operator. Attachment A - Lease and Agreement for Primary FBO Services City Council Meeting Page 50 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 1235 opposing “Initiative #108” a dangerous attempt to amend the Colorado constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulatory authority P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C arl Castillo, Policy Advisor RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 1235 opposing “Initiative #108” a dangerous attempt to amend the Colorado constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulatory authority AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 51 of 233 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 1235 opposing “Initiative #108” a dangerous attempt to amend the Colorado constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulatory authority PRESENTER Mayor Jones EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its July 23, 2018 business meeting, council directed the City Manager to develop a resolution opposing Initiative #108, a dangerous attempt to amend the Colorado constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulatory authority. That resolution is included here as Attachment A for council’s consideration. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt Resolution 1235 opposing “Initiative #108,” a dangerous attempt to amend the Colorado constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulatory authority ATTACHMENTS A.Proposed City Council Resolution 1235 Item 3D- Resolution 1235 City Council Meeting Page 52 of 233 RESOLUTION 1235 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING “INITIATIVE #108,” A DANGEROUS ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO DRASTICALLY LIMIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY FINDINGS 1. Initiative 2017-2018 #108 (Initiative #108) is currently being circulated for signatures in a well-funded effort to place a measure on the November 2018 general election ballot that would amend the Colorado Constitution. It is sponsored by the Colorado Farm Bureau but funded by oil and gas corporations– primarily Anadarko, Noble and Extraction. It is being put forth as an insurance policy against any local or state regulations they oppose. Unfortunately, the implications of Initiative 108 go far beyond oil and gas regulations. If passed, Initiative 108 would constrain, if not paralyze, the ability of both state and local governments to regulate any activities on private property by making such regulation prohibitively expensive for the taxpayer. 2. Initiative #108 would substantially expand constitutional takings requirements for public compensation of private property owners. In doing so, it would severely limit the ability of Colorado’s state and local governments to regulate the use of private property – and activities on private property – or even to do anything that might indirectly, unintentionally, or minimally affect the fair market value of any private property. 3. Article II, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution – which has been a part of the Constitution since statehood in 1876 – states in pertinent part that “Private property shall not be taken or damaged, for public or private use, without just compensation.” This “takings clause” is generally the same language as, and has been interpreted consistently with, the takings clause in the US constitution. Under the current language, the property owner does not have a right to seek compensation from the public unless two conditions exist: (1) his investment backed expectations for the property must be substantially diminished by the regulation; and (2) the property owner must suffer a “unique” (rather than generalized) burden or impact from the regulation. In other words, the point of current “takings” law is to provide compensation only to those property owners who are uniquely forced to bear “public” burdens that, in all fairness, should be borne and paid for by the public as a whole. 4.Initiative #108 would completely change that concept, and greatly expand the right of individual owners of private property to be compensated by the public. By its language, it would require the government – i.e., the taxpayers – to compensate private property owners for virtually any decrease whatsoever in the fair market value of their property (even if temporary or incidental) traceable to any government law or regulation. Attachment A Item 3D- Resolution 1235 City Council Meeting Page 53 of 233 5. If Initiative #108 were to become the law, the ability of our state and local governments (cities, towns, and counties) to adopt – let alone attempt to enforce – reasonable regulations, limitations, and restrictions upon or affecting uses of and activities on private property would be drastically diminished. Laws, ordinances, and regulations designed to protect public health and safety, the environment, our natural resources, public infrastructure, and other public resources would all be placed in severe jeopardy. Zoning, density limitations, and planned development would be directly impacted. Inherently dangerous or environmentally damaging activities would become prohibitively costly for our state and local governments to attempt to limit or regulate in the public interest. Even indirect and unintended impacts upon fair market value could give rise to claims for compensation by private property owners. This could include virtually any law or regulation that could impact the value of a business operation upon the property and thus, indirectly, the short-term market value of the property itself (e.g., arguably minimum wage requirements, waste disposal requirements, drainage requirements, noise restrictions, safety codes, laws affecting or permitting activities upon neighboring property, etc.). Virtually any arguable impact upon fair market value – however reasonable or justified or minimal or incidental or temporary – resulting from state or local government action could trigger a claim for public compensation from a private property owner. 6. Similar “takings initiative” efforts have been attempted and defeated in other states. Although cost estimates have not been completed for Colorado, the fiscal impact for similar language in the State of Washington was estimated at $2 billion dollars for state agencies and $1.5 billion for county governments over the first six years. There were $4 billion dollars in claims in Oregon before the residents repealed the takings initiative two years after its passage. RESOLUTION The Boulder City Council opposes Initiative #108 and, if permitted qualified for the ballot, strongly urges a vote of NO this November. Resolved this 7th of August, 2018 ____________________________________ Mayor Attest _______________________ City Clerk Attachment A Item 3D- Resolution 1235 City Council Meeting Page 54 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8275 amending Title 9, “Land Use C ode,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone the property located 2505 and 2525 4th Street, and a portion of the property located at 311 Mapleton from Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) to Public (P), consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use of Public (case no. LUR2017-00028). P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8275 amending Title 9, “Land Use C ode,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone the property located 2505 and 2525 4th Street, and a portion of the property located at 311 Mapleton from Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) to Public (P), consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use of Public (case no. LUR2017-00028). AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 55 of 233 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8275 amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone the property located 2505 and 2525 4th Street, and a portion of the property located at 311 Mapleton from Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) to Public (P), consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use of Public (case no. LUR2017-00028). Applicant: Michael Bosma Property Owner: Mapleton Hill Investment Group PRESENTERS: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Jim Robertson, Director of Planning, Housing + Sustainability Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner, Planning Housing + Sustainability EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) rezones the property located at 2505 and 2525 4th Street, and a portion of the property located at 311 Mapleton from Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) to Public (P), consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of Public. On July 17, 2018, the City Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 8275. This rezoning request was submitted concurrent with a request for Site and Use Review approval also approved by City Council on July 17, 2018 on a vote of 5-4. On May 31, 2018 the Planning Board recommended that City Council approve the ordinance on a vote of 5-1. Refer to the rezoning Ordinance 8275 in Attachment A. In the case of the rezoning, note that there are no conditions of approval as the findings for approval must be based solely on a request meeting the criteria for rezoning. Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 56 of 233 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – The proposed rezoning supports a diverse and sustainable economy by allowing for redevelopment under public zoning, including residential options. •Environmental – The proposed locations of the rezoning are a portion of a developed site and the proposed rezoning is consistent with city policies promoting infill and compact development. •Social – The proposed rezoning will permit development consistent with public zoning, including the intended congregate care use if consistent with the Use Review criteria. A congregate care uses would help support a special needs population of seniors. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – no fiscal impacts are anticipated •Staff time – The Rezoning application was done under normal staff time. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK By a vote of 5-1 the Planning Board recommended City Council approve the rezoning. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Required public notice was given in the form of written notification, newspaper notification, email contacts as well as mailers several separate occasions with dates and purpose of notification as follows: •August 2016 for notification of receipt of the related Site Review Application •March 2017 for notification of Good Neighbor Meeting •April 2017 for notification of receipt of the related Use Review application •April 2017 for the Rezoning Application •July 2017 for notification of Good Neighbor Meeting •Aug. 2017 for notification of Design Advisory Board •Jan. 2018 for notification of Open Space Board of Trustees public hearing consideration of OS-O Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to: Adopt Ordinance 8275 amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone the property located at 2505 and 2525 4th Street, and a portion of the property located at 311 Mapleton from Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) to Public (P), consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use of Public. Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 57 of 233 •Feb. 2018 for notification of Planning Board & City Council public hearing consideration of OS-O •June 2018 for notification of the City Council public hearing consideration of the Site and Use Review applications and Rezoning application. While the land use code requires written notification to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject site and a sign was posted on the property for at least 10 days, staff expanded the notification for the first Good Neighbor Meeting to include residents up to Broadway given the size of the site and the public interest. Altogether, a total of approximately 2,800 mailings were sent. In addition, the applicant re-posted the sign on the property on several separate occasions, as either vandalism or weather compromised the original sign postings on the site. A public notice was published in “News From City Hall” on the Daily Camera Newspaper website. Therefore, all notice requirements of section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981 have been met. At the Planning Board hearing for the rezoning and related applications there were approximately 32 members of the public who spoke; many spoke in opposition, but nearly as many spoke in support of the project. At the City Council public hearing consideration of the rezoning and related applications there were approximately 67 persons who spoke, with approximately half in favor of the related applications and half opposed. BACKGROUND The areas proposed for rezoning are part of the larger 15.77 acre property, formerly the privately-owned Boulder Memorial Hospital, that contains a number of existing buildings associated with the site. The larger areas proposed for rezoning are developed with two medical office buildings on the parcels commonly addressed as 2505 and 2525 4th Street respectively. A small sliver of land adjacent to the existing Seventh Day Adventist Church is also proposed for rezoning to correct and “clean up” a mapping discrepancy between the land use map and the zoning map. In November 2015, the Planning Board reviewed the Concept Plan for this project and generally indicated overall support for the application. Attachment A provides the board’s comments and an analysis of how the applicant responded to those comments. The City Council did not call up the Concept Plan. The minutes of the Planning Board’s Concept Plan hearing and a discussion on how the application responded to the Concept Plan comments are provided herein. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and south; and to the west is City of Boulder Open Space with the Centennial and Sanitas Valley trailheads and parking located west of the site on Sunshine Canyon Road. As shown in Figure 1, Site and Surroundings, the Mapleton Hill neighborhood is located east of 4th Street. It was established in the late 1880s at about the same time the Boulder Sanitarium was established with many of the residences built to support the doctors and staff that worked at the hospital. The Knollwood neighborhood is to the south of Mapleton Avenue and was built in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. To the north is the Trailhead subdivision, the former site of the Boulder Junior Academy school, that began construction in 2014 with on-going build out on individual lots. Further to the north is the Newlands neighborhood that was built out primarily in the first half of the 20th Century. Mapleton Avenue Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 58 of 233 is classified as a two-lane arterial where on-street parking is permitted adjacent to the site. Mapleton Avenue becomes “Sunshine Canyon Road” just west of the site which ultimately connects to the town of Gold Hill; 4th Street is a two-lane local street and on-street public parking spaces are permitted, lining the street adjacent to the property. BVCP Land Use Designation As shown below in Figure 1, the property located at 2505 and 2525 4th Street and 311 Mapleton Ave. has a BVCP land use designation of Public, which is defined in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as follows: “Public/Semi-Public land use designations encompass a wide range of public and private nonprofit uses that provide a community service. This category includes municipal and public utility services such as the municipal airport, water reservoirs, and water and wastewater treatment plants. Public/Semi- Public also includes: educational facilities, including public and private schools and the university; government offices such as city and county buildings, libraries, and the jail; government laboratories; and nonprofit facilities such as cemeteries, churches, hospitals, retirement complexes and may include other uses as allowed by zoning.” Zoning As shown in Figure 2, the property located at 2505 and 2525 4th Street and 311 Mapleton Ave. is split-zoned with the majority of the site being zoned Public (P) and an approximately 2.48-acre area on the northeast corner of the property designated as Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) where two existing medical buildings are located. A small sliver of land on the south side of the site adjacent and to the west of the existing Seventh Day Adventist Church is also zoned RL-1 inconsistent with the land use designation. While the origin of these inconsistencies has not been clearly ascertained, it appears that the two parcels on 4th Street were zoned Public up until the 2005 Comprehensive Rezoning that the city undertook. However, there is no written record of the need or intent of such a change at that time, only the map was changed. The ‘P’ zone district is defined as “public areas in which public and semi-public facilities and uses are located, including without limitation, governmental and educational uses.” The land use code does not define the terms “public” or “semi- public” under the Land Use Code section 9-6-1, B.R.C. 1981. Uses allowed by right or through Use Review include not only public and semi-public uses but also housing and institutional-type uses such as private universities, hospitals, and medical and dental clinics and offices. A Congregate Care use is allowed in the “P” zoning district through Use Review. That allowance is not defined to be specific to “public” or “semi-public” congregate care uses only. The RL-1 zone is defined as: “Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities” (section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. 1981. The existing surgery center in this location was established in the 1980s through a Special Review. As a part of the proposed project the Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 59 of 233 Figure1: Existing BVCP Land Use Figure 2: Existing Zoning applicant is requesting to rezone those portions of the property that are not consistent with the BVCP land use designation of “Public.” SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REZONING As noted above, there are two parcels located along 4th Street that currently contain existing medical facilities with the zoning designation of Low Density Residential - 1 that are inconsistent with the “Public” Land Use Designation. In addition, there is a small area of land adjacent to the Seventh Day Adventist Church that was found to be inconsistent with the land use. This zoning change is viewed as a “clean up item” that can be evaluated through the same rezoning ordinance. Images of the built context of these areas is shown below in Figures 3a, b, c. The comparison of the BVCP, existing zoning and proposed rezoning are shown in Figure 4 with the majority of the site screened back to emphasize just those areas proposed for rezoning. Figure 3a: 2505 4th Street (west) Figure 3b: 2525 4th Street (north) Figure 3c: 311 Mapleton (southeast) Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 60 of 233 ANALYSIS As stated under the Land Use Code section 9-2-19(e), “Criteria,” B.R.C. 1981: “The city’s zoning is the result of a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of the city’s present and future land use allocation needs. In order to establish and maintain sound, stable and desirable development within the city, rezoning of land is to be discouraged and allowed only under the limited circumstances herein described. Therefore, the city council shall grant a rezoning application only if the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and, for an application not incidental to a general revision of the zoning map, meets one of the following criteria:” In this case, criterion 1 is relevant to the rezoning which states: “The applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map.” Given that the Land Use Map identifies the site as “Public” the rezoning of these areas to “Public” would come into compliance with the BVCP map. The “Public” Land Use designation is defined as follows: “Public/Semi-Public land use designations encompass a wide range of public and private non- profit uses that provide a community service. This category includes municipal and public utility services (e.g., the municipal airport, water reservoirs and water and wastewater treatment plants). It also includes: education facilities (public and private schools and the university); government offices such as city and county buildings, libraries and the jail; government laboratories; and nonprofit facilities (e.g., cemeteries, places of worship, hospitals, retirement complexes) and may include other uses as allowed by zoning.” The “Public” zoning designation is defined as follows: Public areas in which public and semi-pubic facilities and uses are located, including without limitation, governmental and educational uses.” The “Residential – Low 1 zoning designation is defined as follows: Single family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. The RL-1 zoning is not consistent with the “P” land use designation. The “Public” zoning district would make the zoning consistent with the Land Use Map. The Land Use Code section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. states, “Each zoning district established in section 9-5-2, “Zoning Districts,” B.R.C. 1981, is intended for a predominant use, but other uses designated in section 9-6-1, “Schedule of Permitted Land Uses,” B.R.C. 1981 may be allowed by use review if a particular use is demonstrated to be appropriate in the proposed location.” Among the uses that “may be allowed by use review…” is Congregate Care. Further in reviewing section 9-6-1, B.R.C.1981, Schedule of Permitted Uses it can be noted that there is a wider variety of uses permitted in the “P” zoning district rather than the RL-1 zoning district, and medical offices as exist today are not permitted uses today. Therefore, staff finds that the rezoning is necessary for the parcel to come into compliance with the land use designation. Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 61 of 233 Figure 26: Existing Land Use, Existing Zoning and Proposed Rezoning Figure 4 Proposed Rezoning Areas (Those areas of the property located at 2505 and 2525 4th Streets and 311 Mapleton with inconsistencies between BVCP Land Use and Zoning) (A) Existing BVCP Land Use (B) Existing Zoning (C) Proposed Rezoning Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 62 of 233 Because the application came into the city in 2016, staff reviewed the application based upon the standards in place at the time. Given that the 2015 comprehensive plan update was adopted during the review, staff evaluated consistency of the rezoning based on the relevant policies and goals of both the 2010, and the recently adopted, 2015 BVCP as follows: • Land Use Map Descriptions: The land use designations should be used to guide future zoning decisions. Specific zoning dictates the development standards or specific properties and there may be changes as part of a general rezoning of the city or through the adopted rezoning process in the Land Use Code. (p. 111, v.2010) In this case, the land use designation is “Public” which is most consistent with “Public” zoning. The Land Use Map designations are the portion of the BVCP that most directly addresses zoning goals of the city. • Core Value 2010 and 2015: Compact, contiguous development and infill that supports evolution to a more sustainable urban form. The area of the property that is proposed for rezoning is considered an infill site as it has been developed for decades as medical offices and as a part of the larger hospital site. The proposed rezoning renders the existing uses more consistent with the Land Use Code and BVCP Land Use Map. • Goal - Community Well-Being and Safety (v.2015) As noted in the introduction of Section 9, Community Well-Being and Safety, “Boulder is a fluid and growing community with caging demographics. The city and county proactively anticipate and plan for emerging social trends and issues and consider challenges faced by different demographic and socio-economic groups including: Supporting the ability of a growing older population to age well in our community...” The rezoning of those areas of the site to “Public” zoning, that permits Congregate Care through Use Review, helps to address the needs of the growing population of older citizens and allow community members an option to remain a resident of Boulder as they age. • Policy 2.03 (v. 2010 and 2015) Compact Development Pattern Similar to the Core Value noted above, the intent of this policy is to ensure that, “development take place in an orderly fashion, take advantage of existing urban services, and avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered development.” Unlike “greenfield development” (land that has never supported development) the property planned for rezoning has been developed for decades as medical offices. The intent is to come into consistency with the land use map that has identified this area for development and redevelopment under a “public” land use designation. The zoning that coincides with this Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 63 of 233 designation is “Public.” The Public zoning permits Congregate Care, the existing and historic medical clinic, medical office and hospital uses as by-right uses or through a Use Review. • Policy 7.06 (v. 2010 and 2015) Mixture of Housing Types The proposed “P” zoning would allow for a broader variety of housing types than the current RL-1 zoning. In keeping with this policy, the applicant is providing three detached independent living units, that vary from the other attached units planned on the site and are consistent with the intent to, “provide a mix of housing types.” • Policy 8.01 (v. 2010 and 2015) Providing for a Broad Spectrum of Human Needs Section 8 of the 2010 BVCP, regarding human services, notes that in Boulder there is an increasingly diverse community and the “aging of the population” and there are stated goals to ensure basic needs are met that include “management of chronic or situational disabilities (e.g., care and treatment).” In this case, the intent of the congregate care use is to provide management of a continuum of care for aging member of the community who may need assistance with daily living over time. In addition, a “P” zone allows for a broader variety of housing types and housing services than RL-1 allowing to meet a broader spectrum of human needs than single family dwellings that typically dominate the RL-1 zones. The proposed rezoning on the property is consistent with the policies and goals of the BVCP and is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning through second reading of Ordinance 8275. Approved By: ______________________________ Jane S. Brautigam City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A: Ordinance 8275 Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 64 of 233 ORDINANCE 8725 AN ORDINANCE REZONING ANY PARCEL OF LAND OR PORTION THEREOF CURRENTLY WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL – LOW 1 (RL-1) ZONING DISTRICT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 15.77-ACRE PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS 311 MAPLETON AVENUE, 2505 4TH STREET, AND 2525 4TH STREET TO THE PUBLIC (P) ZONING DISTRICT AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 9-5, “MODULAR ZONE SYSTEM,” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO FINDS: A.A public hearing before the Planning Board of the City of Boulder was duly held on May 31, 2018, in consideration of rezoning any parcel of land or portion thereof which currently has a zoning designation of Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) and is located within the 15.77-acre property generally known as 311 Mapleton Avenue, 2505 4th Street, and 2525 4th Street, City of Boulder, County of Boulder, State of Colorado and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein from the Residential – Low 1 (RL- 1) zoning district to the Public (P) zoning district. The area of land to be rezoned is hereafter collectively referred to as the “Property”. B.The Planning Board found that the rezoning of the Property from the Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) to the Public (P) zoning district is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, is necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map, and meets the criteria for rezoning as provided in Chapter 9-2, “Review Processes,” B.R.C. 1981. C.The Planning Board recommended that the City Council amend the zoning district map to include the Property in the Public zoning district as provided in Chapter 9-5, “Modular Zone System,” B.R.C. 1981. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attachment A - Ordinance 8275 Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 65 of 233 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Chapter 9-5, “Modular Zone System,” B.R.C. 1981, and the zoning district map forming a part thereof are amended to include the Property within the Public (P) zoning district. Section 2. The City Council finds that the rezoning of the Property from the Residential – Low 1 (RL-1) to the Public (P) zoning district is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, is necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map, and meets the criteria for rezoning as provided in Chapter 9-2, “Review Processes,” B.R.C. 1981. The City Council adopts the recitals as a part of this ordinance. Section 3. The City Council has jurisdiction and legal authority to rezone the Property. Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. The rezoning of the Property bears a substantial relation to, and will enhance the general welfare of, the Property and of the residents of the City of Boulder. Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attachment A - Ordinance 8275 Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 66 of 233 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 19th day of June, 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynette Beck City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of August, 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynette Beck City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attachment A - Ordinance 8275 Item 2E- 2nd Reading Rezone 311 Mapleton City Council Meeting Page 67 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only, Ordinance 8264 submitting to the registered electors of the C ity of Boulder at the municipal coordinated election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, the question of authorizing the city council to impose an oil and gas pollution tax at the rate of up to $6.90 per barrel of oil and up to $0.88 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas for oil or gas extracted within the Boulder city limits and expenditure of the full tax proceeds and any related earnings notwithstanding any state revenue or expenditure limitation; setting forth the ballot title; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details. P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T T homas Carr, City Attorney RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8264 submitting to the electors of the City of Boulder at the regular municipal coordinated election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, the question of authorizing the city council to impose an oil and gas pollution tax at the rate of up to $6.90 per barrel of oil and up to $0.88 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas for oil or gas extracted within the Boulder city limits and expenditure of the full tax proceeds and any related earnings notwithstanding any state revenue or expenditure limitation; setting forth the ballot title; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 68 of 233 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only, Ordinance 8264 submitting to the registered electors of the City of Boulder at the municipal coordinated election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, the question of authorizing the city council to impose an oil and gas pollution tax at the rate of up to $6.90 per barrel of oil and up to $0.88 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas for oil or gas extracted within the Boulder city limits and expenditure of the full tax proceeds and any related earnings notwithstanding any state revenue or expenditure limitation; setting forth the ballot title; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details. PRESENTERS Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tom Carr, City Attorney Mary Ann Weideman, Deputy City Manager Cheryl Pattelli, Chief Financial Officer Jim Robertson, Director, Community Planning and Sustainability Kendra Tupper, Chief Sustainability Officer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oil and gas extraction imposes significant environmental, public safety, health and infrastructure costs on a community. Communities generally use general tax revenue to address these impacts. This agenda item asks council to consider a ballot measure that would impose a pollution tax on oil and gas operations in the City of Boulder. There are Item 2F- Oil and Gas Pollution Tax City Council Meeting Page 69 of 233 currently no active wells in the city. Approval of this measure would allow a pollution tax to be in place if oil and gas operations come to the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce and order published by title only, Ordinance 8264 submitting to the electors of the City of Boulder at the regular municipal coordinated election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, the question of authorizing the city council to impose an oil and gas pollution tax at the rate of up to $6.90 per barrel of oil and up to $0.88 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas for oil or gas extracted within the Boulder city limits and expenditure of the full tax proceeds and any related earnings notwithstanding any state revenue or expenditure limitation; setting forth the ballot title; specifying the form of the ballot and other election procedures; and setting forth related details. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic: Oil and gas extraction activities can impose a significant burden on a community. If such operations occur in Boulder, the proposed tax will help to offset the impacts on the community. • Environmental: As is discussed in more detail below, oil and gas operations can have a significant detrimental effect on the environment. The proposed tax would provide funding to address and mitigate those effects. • Social: Oil and gas operations can affect the health and viability of a community. The proposed tax would provide funding to address and mitigate those effects. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal: None. • Staff Time: The staff time needed to complete the background work for ballot issues will be completed with existing staff resources. BACKGROUND The city council recently extended the moratorium on the acceptance of applications under the open space oil and gas rules on use review applications for new “mining industries” under the land use code. Still, there is considerable concern in the community about potential oil and gas development within the city limits. Additionally, there are significant environmental and human health costs that result from oil and gas Item 2F- Oil and Gas Pollution Tax City Council Meeting Page 70 of 233 development, which are typically borne by local municipalities or individual community members. This proposed ballot measure would place a new tax on oil and gas developers to cover the projected costs of these environmental and health impacts. Assigning an appropriate monetary value for these externalities will balance economic versus environmental and social interest and represent a portion of the true societal costs of oil and gas development. In the best-case scenario, there would be no oil and gas development within city limits, so no revenue would be collected from this tax. But if oil and gas development does take place, those profiting from these activities would pay a share of the societal costs. While other local jurisdictions are also considering a similar tax 1, staff has only found one example of a local municipality taxing this industry to cover the societal costs associated with oil and gas development. In 2013, Boulder County adopted an Oil and Gas Road Deterioration and Roadway Safety Fee, which is designed to recoup the incremental costs to the County transportation system resulting from the impacts of oil and gas development.2 The County’s fee is assessed per well and per well pad: • Roadway Deterioration Impact Fee: $17,300 per well • Roadway Deterioration Impact Fee: $700 per well pad • Roadway Safety Impact Fee: $17,300 per well • Cost of Project Delay (Poor Road) Impact Fee: $8,600 per well • Cost of Project Delay (Road Safety) Impact Fee: $8,000 per well Local governments do, of course, impose other taxes on oil and gas development, including sales, construction use and property taxes. While these taxes pay the cost of existing government services, they would not cover the additional impacts created by oil and gas development. Colorado’s severance tax was enacted in 1977. Taxes are collected by the Department of Revenue. The tax is imposed on the production or extraction of metallic minerals, molybdenum, oil and gas, oil shale, and coal, but it currently ranks among the lowest in the country because the state provides an ad valorem tax credit and has a generous stripper well exemption.3 Further, a 2016 Colorado Supreme Court decision allowed for even more tax deductions for the oil and gas industry.4 At a high level, Colorado imposes the following severances taxes: 1 Lafayette, CO is actively considering this as a 2018 ballot measure. Broomfield and Longmont are following these efforts closely for future consideration. 2 Boulder County Staff Report on the Impact Fee Study, May 16, 2013: https://assets.bouldercounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/dc-12-0003-staff-report-to-bocc- 20130516.pdf 3 Memo from Colorado Legislative Council Staff, January 12, 2018, “Effective Severance Tax Rates on Oil and Gas”: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/interested_persons_memo_on_severance_taxes.pdf 4 “BP wins severance tax deduction in Colorado Supreme court ruling”, May 10, 2016, The Denver Post. https://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/10/bp-wins-severance-tax-deduction-in-colorado-supreme-court- ruling/ Item 2F- Oil and Gas Pollution Tax City Council Meeting Page 71 of 233 • Two to five percent based on gross income for oil, gas, carbon dioxide and coalbed methane. • Four percent of gross proceeds on production exceeding 15,000 tons per day for oil shale. • When accounting for the ad valorem tax credit and stripper well exemptions, oil and gas developers pay only about 0.3 percent in effective severance tax.5 More detail on Colorado severance tax rates and use can be found here: https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/legislative-council-staff/severance-tax Cost of Environmental and Human Health Impacts Future monetary costs of the vast environmental and human health impacts related to local oil and gas development are extremely difficult to quantify. The potential impacts are summarized in the table below. DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES • Threats to rivers and streams • Habitat loss and fragmentation • Contribution to global warming – on the extraction side, this is caused primarily from methane leaks in fracking operations, and leaks at natural gas storage and processing facilities.6 • Freshwater consumption DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION • Surface and groundwater contamination and cleanup • Water treatment costs BROADER ECONOMIC IMPACTS • Value of residents’ homes at risk • Farms in jeopardy • Tax impacts to economic sectors that are unique to the area and oppose these activities (i.e. agritourism, outdoor recreation, and residential and agricultural property taxes) HEALTH PROBLEMS • Worker injury, illness and death from fires, toxic chemicals, spills, silicosis, etc. • Increased cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses from the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including known and potential carcinogens • Increased risk of cancer 7 • Increased chance of high risk pregnancy and premature babies when living near extraction sites 5 Colorado Department of Revenue, U.S. Energy Information Administration: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/interested_persons_memo_on_severance_taxes.pdf 6 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states that methane has a comparative impact 25 times greater than carbon pollution over a 100-year period. 7 A 2018 Colorado School of Public Health study concluded that people who live within 500 feet of a well in Colorado may experience a lifetime excess cancer risk eight times higher than EPA’s upper acceptable levels. Item 2F- Oil and Gas Pollution Tax City Council Meeting Page 72 of 233 • Stress, sleep issues, and high blood pressure caused from noise from the drilling itself, the gas compressors, and other heavy machinery PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES • Road and bridge damage • Increased demand for water • Cleanup of orphaned wells • Emergency response needs • Social dislocation and social service costs • Earthquakes from wastewater injection PUBLIC SAFETY • Response to fires and explosions A 2018 report by Dr. Paul Chinowsky, founder of Resilient Analytics, estimated that the City of Boulder would incur up to $36 million in costs between now and 2050, dealing with the impacts from climate change. However, these costs do NOT include any human health impacts. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the social costs of carbon and methane (assuming a three percent discount rate) are summarized in the table below. These costs quantify the impact that these emissions have on health, well-being, and quality of life in terms of dollars. Social Cost of Carbon ($/metric ton of CO2e) Social Cost of Methane ($/metric ton CH4) 2015: $36 2050: $69 Average: $52.75 2015: $1,000 2050: $2,500 Average: $1,725 Combining the social cost of carbon with the estimate of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per barrel of oil, yields estimates of the social costs by volume extracted. However, CO2e only covers the impacts of global warming – it does not include the costs to society from things like oil spills, fires, explosions, water contamination, increased cancer risk, increased respiratory ailments, etc. Staff assumes that these unaccounted impacts would at least double the social cost for oil. The social cost of methane does cover most of the societal impacts from methane leaks and emissions, and also reflects the higher global warming potential compared to CO2. Social Costs per Barrel of Oil Social Costs per Mcf (thousand cubic feet) of Natural Gas Global Warming Equivalent 0.43 metric tons CO2/barrel 8 0.02 metric ton CH4/Mcf 10 8 EPA Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator - Calculations and References: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references 10 The average methane emissions natural gas production, processing, transmission, storage, and distribution from the U.S. Department of Energy. Item 2F- Oil and Gas Pollution Tax City Council Meeting Page 73 of 233 Social Cost (using average cost) $23/Barrel* * Only includes global warming impacts True Social Cost (Social Cost doubled)9 $46/Barrel Social Cost (using average cost) $35/Mcf Proposed Tax Rate The true social cost of these fossil fuels is particularly significant when considering the sale price for these fuels. If the city were to set the tax rate at the true social cost, it would be 40 percent and 480 percent of the sale price of oil and natural gas respectively. With that in mind, staff proposes a much lower rate, which represents only 15 percent and 2.5 percent of the true social cost of these fuels. The scaling factors were chosen such that the proposed tax rate is roughly 12 percent of the sale price. Because the social cost of natural gas is higher relative to its sale price, it has a lower scaling factor. Oil Natural Gas Sale Price $58/barrel $7/Mcf True Social Cost $46/barrel $35/Mcf Scaling Factor 15% 2.5% Proposed Tax Rate $6.90 $0.88 Use of Funds Staff proposes that any funds generated from this tax be dedicated to the costs created by oil and gas extraction operations with any remainder going to the general fund. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Proposed ordinance 9 To account for the fact that CO2e only covers the impacts of global warming – it does not include the costs to society from things like oil spills, fires, explosions, water contamination, increased cancer risk, increased respiratory ailments, etc. Staff assumes that these unaccounted impacts would at least double the social cost for oil. Item 2F- Oil and Gas Pollution Tax City Council Meeting Page 74 of 233 K:\CCCO\o-8264-1st rdg-2875.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 8264 AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF BOULDER AT THE MUNICIPAL COORDINATED ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2018, THE QUESTION OF AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL TO IMPOSE AN OIL AND GAS POLLUTION TAX AT THE RATE OF UP TO $6.90 PER BARREL OF OIL AND UP TO $0.88 PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET OF NATURAL GAS FOR OIL OR GAS EXTRACTED WITH THE BOULDER CITY LIMITS AND EXPENDITURE OF THE FULL TAX PROCEEDS AND ANY RELATED EARNINGS NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE REVENUE OR EXPENDITURE LIMITATION; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE; SPECIFYING THE FORM OF THE BALLOT AND OTHER ELECTION PROCEDURES; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. A municipal coordinated election will be held in the city of Boulder, county of Boulder and state of Colorado, on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Section 2. The official ballot shall contain the following ballot title, which shall also be the designation and submission clause for the issue: Ballot Question No. ___ Imposition of an Oil and Gas Pollution Tax SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $0 IN 2019 AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE GENERATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF AN OIL AND GAS POLLUTION TAX AT THE RATE OF UP TO $6.90 PER BARREL OF OIL AND UP TO $0.88 PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET OF NATURAL GAS FOR OIL OR GAS EXTRACTED WITH THE BOULDER CITY LIMITS COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2019, AND SHALL REVENUE FROM THE TAX BE USED TO FUND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION IN THE CITY OF Attachment A - Proposed ordinance City Council Meeting Page 75 of 233 K:\CCCO\o-8264-1st rdg-2875.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BOULDER AND WITH THE REMAINDER USED BY THE GENERAL FUND AND SHALL ALL EARNINGS THEREON (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION? FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE ____ Section 3. If this ballot measure is approved by the voters, the City Council may adopt any necessary amendments to the Boulder Revised Code to implement this change. Section 4. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, such decision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The tax established by this measure is intended to be authorized under any lawful means of taxation, including license taxation pursuant to city of Boulder Charter Section 122. Section 5. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 6. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. Attachment A - Proposed ordinance City Council Meeting Page 76 of 233 K:\CCCO\o-8264-1st rdg-2875.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 7th day of August 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of August 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk Attachment A - Proposed ordinance City Council Meeting Page 77 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to authorize the C ity Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Boulder C ounty to equally share costs arising from the climate change litigation P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T T homas Carr, City Attorney, 303-441-3020 RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Staff requests council consideration of this matter. Staff takes no position on what action council should take. If council wishes to authorize the Memorandum of Understanding, council should take action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to allow for cost-sharing with Boulder C ounty in substantially the same form as attached. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 78 of 233 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Boulder County to equally share costs arising from the climate change litigation PRESENTERS Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 18, 2018 the City of Boulder along with Boulder County and San Miguel County filed a complaint against Exxon Mobile and Suncor Energy arising from the defendants’ contribution to human-caused climate change. To support San Miguel County, which has fewer than 8,000 residents, Boulder County agreed to San Miguel’s financial exposure to no more than $5,000, in the unlikely event that a court orders the plaintiffs to pay an adverse party’s attorneys’ fees. Boulder County has requested that the city share in this responsibility. The purpose for this agenda item is to seek council consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding to allow for cost-sharing. Item 2G- Climate change litigation MOU City Council Meeting Page 79 of 233 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter. Staff takes no position on what action council should take. If council wishes to authorize the Memorandum of Understanding, council should take action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to allow for cost-sharing with Boulder County in substantially the same form as attached. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – Human-caused climate change has had and will continue to have increasing negative impacts on the world economy. If successful, this litigation could alter the trajectory of this trend. • Environmental – Human-caused climate change is perhaps the most serious risk to our environment. Cooperative attempts to reduce human impacts are crucial to altering this course. • Social – None identified. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal - Budgetary impacts to the city organization could be significant if attorneys’ fees are awarded. Although staff believes that it is unlikely that such fees would be awarded, the effect of the Memorandum of Understanding would be to increase the city’s liability from one-third to one-half. • Staff time – Implementing this Memorandum of Understanding will not affect city staff resources. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None. PUBLIC FEEDBACK None. BACKGROUND Under the general rule in American courts, each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees. In Colorado a state statute provides courts with the discretion to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party. C.R.S. § 13-17-102(1). The law provides, however, that “[n]o attorney or party shall be assessed attorney fees as to any claim or defense Item 2G- Climate change litigation MOU City Council Meeting Page 80 of 233 which the court determines was asserted by said attorney or party in a good faith attempt to establish a new theory of law in Colorado.” C.R.S. 13-17-102(7). Staff does not believe that it is likely that the climate change litigation will result in an award of attorneys’ fees against the plaintiffs. In fact, staff believes that the complaint is meritorious and that the city will prevail. It is also very difficult to predict the size of any such award, which would depend on the billing rates for the defendants’ attorneys and the number of hours worked, which in turn depends on how long the case proceeds. Attorneys’ fees would be much more substantial after a trial or appeal than after a motion to dismiss. It is fair to say, however, that in the unlikely event that a court awards attorneys’ fees the number would be substantial. While very supportive of the litigation, the San Miguel County Commissioners, because of their small population, were concerned about the impact of such an award on their community’s financial viability. As a condition of joining the suit, the Boulder County Commissioners agreed to pay any attorneys’ fee awarded against San Miguel County above $5,000. Boulder County staff have approached the city and asked that the city consider agreeing to share this obligation. The rationale is that if San Miguel County had not joined the suit, the city would have been responsible for half of any potential exposure. Since San Miguel County would not have been able to participate without Boulder County’s agreement to limit San Miguel County’s exposure, the city received the benefit of reducing its exposure from a half to a third. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding would restore the status quo ante. It is likely that the total amount of the defendants’ attorneys’ fees will not increase because of San Miguel County’s participation. The only reason that the amount would increase would be if the defendants conduct extensive discovery of each party. The fees devoted to discovery from San Miguel County would be fees that would not have been incurred if San Miguel County was not a party. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Item 2G- Climate change litigation MOU City Council Meeting Page 81 of 233 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOULDER, BOULDER COUNTY, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTY REGARDING BOULDER DISTRICT COURT CASE No. 2018CV030349 THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is entered into by and between THE CITY OF BOULDER, a body corporate and politic, (“City”), the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY, a body corporate and politic, (“BC BOCC”) and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, COLORADO, a body corporate and politic, (“SMC BOCC”), together referred to as “the Parties”. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Parties are plaintiffs in Boulder County District Court case number 2018CV030349 (the “Litigation”); WHEREAS, the Parties intend to work cooperatively and support each other with respect to the Litigation; WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that they have different levels of resources with respect to contributing to the Litigation; WHEREAS, the Parties are being represented by EarthRights International on a pro bono basis and The Hannon Firm, LLC on a contingency fee basis and therefore do not anticipate incurring out-of-pocket expenses except as explicitly provided in those fee agreements; WHEREAS, the Parties believe that the Litigation is meritorious; and WHEREAS, as with any lawsuit, inherent risks are involved with this Litigation and the Parties wish to manage those risks in a sensible and responsible manner; NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES UNDERSTAND AS FOLLOWS: 1. In the unlikely event that a court enters a final order requiring the Parties to pay some or all of an adverse party’s attorneys’ fees incurred in the Litigation (including any appeals), the SMC BOCC will contribute $5,000 to such an award, with the remainder to be equally divided between the City and the BC BOCC. 2. As governmental entities in the state of Colorado, the Parties are each subject to Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR"). The Parties do not intend to violate the terms and requirements of TABOR by the execution of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement does not create a multi-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or obligation within the meaning of TABOR and, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, all payment obligations are expressly Attachment A - Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Item 2G- Climate change litigation MOU City Council Meeting Page 82 of 233 2 dependent and conditioned upon the continuing availability of funds beyond the term of the current fiscal period. Accordingly, the financial obligations of the Parties payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available in accordance with the rules, regulations, and resolutions of the Parties and applicable law. Upon the failure to appropriate such funds, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated. 3. The term of this MOU shall commence on the date it is approved by all parties and shall expire upon the withdrawal of any of the Parties from the Litigation. 4. This MOU shall not affect the City’s or the BC BOCC’s obligations with respect to any additional plaintiffs in the Litigation. CITY OF BOULDER _____________________________ City Manager ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney Attachment A - Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Item 2G- Climate change litigation MOU City Council Meeting Page 83 of 233 3 BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO acting by and through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ______________________________ BY: , Chair ATTEST: _________________ , Chief Deputy Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF BOULDER ) Acknowledged, subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ___________, 2018 by __________, as Chair of the Board of Commissioners of Boulder County and by ________, the Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: __________ ____________________________ Notary Public Attachment A - Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Item 2G- Climate change litigation MOU City Council Meeting Page 84 of 233 4 SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, COLORADO acting by and through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ______________________________ BY: Kris Holstrom, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Carmen Warfield, Chief Deputy Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SAN MIGUEL ) Acknowledged, subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ___________, 2018 by Kris Holstrom, as Chair of the Board of Commissioners of San Miguel County and by Carmen Warfield, the Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel County, Colorado. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: __________ ____________________________ Notary Public Attachment A - Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Item 2G- Climate change litigation MOU City Council Meeting Page 85 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C ity Council discussion and consideration of a request for funds for the City of Boulder to make a contribution to the Charles and Mildred Nilon Endowed Teacher Education Scholarship in the amount of $10,000. P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J ane Brautigam AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 86 of 233 Item 2H-Scholarship Discussion CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 AGENDA TITLE : City Council consideration of a request for funds for the Charles and Mildred Nilon Endowed Teacher Education Scholarship in the amount of $10,000. PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The University of Colorado- Boulder has established a new scholarship in honor of Charles and Mildred Nilon. The scholarship is designated for education students who are pursing teacher licensure and are committed to advancing educational opportunities in under-resourced schools, especially those that serve African-American communities. Charles and Mildred Nilon made significant contributions to the city of Boulder community. As the university’s first black professor and first black librarian, respectively, they inspired students and colleagues and as advocates for affordable housing in Boulder, they challenged the status quo on campus and in the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Motion to direct the city manager to allocate $10,000 from the City’s Contingency Fund as a donation to the Charles and Mildred Nilon Endowed Teacher Educatio n Scholarship. City Council Meeting Page 87 of 233 Item 2H - Scholarship Discussion BACKGROUND Charles Nilon joined the CU English Department in 1965 and Mildred Nilon joined the library in 1962. Among their many important contributions, Charles spearheaded and serve as the chairperson for the University’s Black Studies program that became part of the University’s Department of Ethnic Studies. Charles and Mildred were active on and off campus in organizations such as the United Black Action Committee, the United Black Women of Boulder Valley and Housing for Everyone through Local Programs (HELP). Victims of housing segregation in Boulder, they effectively began a change in Boulder’s segregated housing pattern. The articles below describe their significant contributions to our community. http://www.dailycamera.com/lifestyles/ci_29567954/cu-prof-forerunner-affordable- housing-cause https://www.colorado.edu/education/2017/10/09/new-education-scholarship-continues- legacy-cu-boulder-luminaries -charles-and-mildred City Council Meeting Page 88 of 233 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : August 7, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to direct staff to proceed with the next steps of preliminary design and landowner negotiations for one flood mitigation concept variation regarding South Boulder C reek P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Molly Scarbrough, Public Works Senior Project Coordinator RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to direct staff to proceed with the next steps of preliminary design and landowner negotiations for one flood mitigation concept variation regarding South Boulder C reek AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments Attachments G - K City Council Meeting Page 89 of 233 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 7, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion to direct staff to proceed with the next steps of preliminary design and landowner negotiations for one flood mitigation concept variation for the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Phase 1 Project PRESENTERS: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities Douglas Sullivan, Utilities Principal Engineer Kurt Bauer, Engineering Project Manager Molly Scarbrough, Senior Project Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information about the South Boulder Creek Phase 1 flood mitigation project concept evaluation in order for council to provide direction on next steps. Over the past 80 years, South Boulder Creek (SBC) has flooded significantly six times, with overtopping of US36 occurring in 1969 and 2013. During the September 2013 flood, South Boulder Creek experienced the highest amount of reported property damage—approximately $38 million—of all of the city’s 15 major drainageways. While no fatalities occurred in 2013 as result of flooding of SBC, life safety remains the primary objective of flood mitigation efforts in this and other drainageways. The current SBC flood mitigation project stems from 2003, when the city began a remapping study for the SBC floodplain. The study, adopted by the city in 2008 and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2010, formally recognized the flood risk from overtopping of US36 during a large storm event: more than 660 structures and 1,600 dwelling units are located and more than 3,500 people live in the South Boulder Creek 100-year floodplain north of US36. Following the remapping study, the city partnered with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District to develop the South Boulder Creek Major Drainageway Flood Mitigation Plan (“SBC Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 90 of 233 Master Plan”) for mitigation of associated flood hazards. As the master planning process progressed, options focusing on flood mitigation on a portion of CU South property rose to the top, based on their potential to address flooding in the West Valley and direction from OSBT that the project should avoid constructing flood mitigation structures on OSMP land. The University of Colorado Boulder (CU) was engaged in the process and stated that they would be willing to allow a portion of the property to be used for flood mitigation if the entire property was annexed into the city. After an extensive review and public process, City Council accepted options for each of three phases for SBC flood mitigation on Aug. 4, 2015 (for Phase 1, this was identified as “Option D”). A community conversation on land use designations and the future of CU South was then undertaken as part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update. The update, approved in 2017, included a set of CU South Guiding Principles intended to guide a future agreement between the City of Boulder and CU for the site’s long-term uses and for flood mitigation. These principles expanded upon the previous objectives for the flood mitigation project in the SBC Master Plan. In 2016, the city hired an engineering consulting firm, RJH Consultants, Inc. (RJH), to provide engineering services for preliminary design for the Phase 1 project. RJH’s work was put on hold during the BVCP update to ensure the outcomes of that process could be incorporated into the design development. Following approval of the BVCP update, the city with the RJH consultant team began developing and evaluating refinements to the SBC Master Plan concept that incorporated additional objectives specified in the CU South Guiding Principles. Out of this effort came three concepts, with variations for retaining or removing the CU levee and for designing to a 100- and 500-year storm event, for a total of 10 concept variations. In April 2018, the project team began a community engagement process to receive feedback on the draft project evaluation criteria as well as the concept variations being explored. Engagement included two public open houses, online feedback opportunities, three meetings with an ad-hoc group of interested community members, and board and commission meetings. In June and July 2018, staff presented to the Water Resources Advisory Board (which advises council on matters related to Utilities projects) and the Open Space Board of Trustees (which considers potential impacts of the project on city OSMP land and has final approval authority if disposal of OSMP land is required). On Aug. 2 staff will present to the Planning Board (which advises council on project consistency with the BVCP and on future annexation agreements). All of flood mitigation concepts evaluated by the project team meet the project criteria established through the SBC Master Plan and CU South Guiding Principles and therefore any of these concepts could move forward into preliminary design to meet the purpose of the project to prevent overtopping of US36 during a major storm event. Out of the public process, three of the ten project variants have received conditional acceptance by advisory boards and landowners, including WRAB, OSBT and the University of Colorado Boulder, and reflect preferences Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 91 of 233 provided by the community through a project questionnaire. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Aug. 2 and may provide additional input, which staff will share in the presentation to council. While some groups have set conditions that sometimes go above and beyond what was originally envisioned in the project criteria, and while some members of the community continue to have strong reservations about moving forward with any of the flood mitigation concepts at this time, staff recommends council consider the three variants that align with the advisory board, landowner and community recommendations. These three variants are: •Variant 1, 100-year flood (without CU levee) •Variant 2, 100-year flood (without CU levee) •Variant 2, 500-year flood (without CU levee) The proposed use of property owned by the University of Colorado has triggered a broad range of community concerns and added significant complexity to the public process for the project. While the project concept avoids controversial removal of existing homes or acquisition of easements from numerous property owners (which is often required for flood mitigation projects in the city and has sometimes resulted in flood mitigation projects designed to less than a 100- year flood design standard), CU’s interest in annexation has resulted in many community members who are not necessarily directly impacted by flood mitigation engaging in the process. Although an annexation agreement would involve a substantial public process, there are some concerns in the community about advancing those negotiations. Also, while this project has benefitted from many years of study and extensive community engagement, some community members have expressed concerns that some options have not been adequately considered and have put forth suggestions for additional objectives for the project that may be difficult to meet in combination with the existing project criteria. Based on the analysis of the flood mitigation concepts presented to date—both by the consultants and by community members—staff believes that the concepts presented by the project team are the most feasible given the project criteria and constraints. Staff has also heard many community members express frustration at the length of the process to date. However, there is always the possibility, as with any project, that a new and better design might be found with further study. In this memo, staff has presented a recommendation to move one of the three project variants that have risen to the top into preliminary design and landowner negotiations. Because of the above considerations, however, the analysis section also presents two alternate options for council to consider: revise the project criteria and conduct further study of potential flood mitigation concepts, or discontinue work on this project and direct resources to other high- priority flood mitigation efforts. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 92 of 233 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to direct staff to proceed with the next steps of preliminary design and landowner negotiations for one flood mitigation concept variation for the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation Phase 1 project. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic: The flood mitigation concepts’ construction costs range from $30–35 million dollars, or a minimum of $33.74–40.4 million with costs for additional restoration recommended by OSBT included. Once completed, approximately 1,100 dwelling units and 260 other structures will be removed from the regulatory floodplain and would no longer require the associated mandatory flood insurance on federally backed mortgages. Properties would still be able to obtain flood insurance, but at a significantly discounted rate (an average of approximately $465 per year compared to an average of $1,200 per year). The project would also significantly reduce anticipated property damage from flooding. For example, approximately $38 million in property damage occurred in the South Boulder Creek floodplain from the 2013 flood event. If several storm events were to occur over the life of the flood mitigation infrastructure, there could be substantially more savings from avoided property damage. •Environmental: The project would result in direct environmental impact to wetlands and federally threatened and endangered species from the construction of flood mitigation structures. The OSBT provided recommended conditions for each of the concepts to mitigate potential impacts to these resources and achieve a net Open Space benefit. In addition, the project would require permits from several federal regulatory agencies that would require mitigation. Attachment A, Figure 5 identifies the degree to which each concept would have direct environmental impacts. There are also significant natural resources within the city- owned Open Space in the project area. These resources include populations of two federally threatened species—the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and the Ute ladies’- tresses orchid—as well as stands of mesic tallgrass prairie; high-functioning wetlands; habitat for declining grassland and riparian bird species; and habitat for declining populations of amphibians and native fish species. If council directs staff to move forward with the project, during preliminary design the project team will work with OSMP staff and regulatory agencies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these natural resources. •Social: The primary purpose of the project is to protect lives by reducing the risk of flooding. Once completed, the project is expected to mitigate flood risk for approximately 2,300 people, 1,100 dwelling units and 260 structures during a 1 percent probability design storm Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 93 of 233 (100-year flood). The project would also prevent flooding of US36, Foothills Parkway and South Boulder Road, all identified as critical emergency response routes, as well as other transportation corridors. By preventing flooding on these corridors, these ingress and egress points in the city will remain open, residents will be better able to evacuate if needed and first responders will be better able to help community members who might be affected by flooding in areas in and beyond the SBC floodplain. BACKGROUND The South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Phase 1 Project carries forward and builds upon several previous studies, community input, board recommendations and council decisions extending from 2003 to present. Attachment B, Figure 1 includes a timeline showing these past efforts in relationship to the current Phase 1 project concept evaluation phase and anticipated next steps. This project and the design concept for flood mitigation have been referred to by a few different names over the years. In this memo and in recent communications, the term “SBC Phase 1 project concept” is used to describe the location and phase of the project, since three phases of flood mitigation are included in South Boulder Creek Master Plan. The term also describes the stage of the current project, which is to determine which flood mitigation variation to move forward into the next steps of preliminary design. Figure 1: South Boulder Creek Master Plan Phases Phase 1 of the SBC Master Plan is the subject of this memo. The SBC Master Plan was accepted by City Council on Aug. 4, 2015, and identified a preferred option called “Option D” for Phase 1. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 94 of 233 Flood History and Mapping Significant flooding within the South Boulder Creek watershed has occurred in 1938, the 1950s, 1969 and in 2013, with overtopping of US36 occurring in both 1969 and 2013. During the 2013 flood event, which was estimated to be between a 50- and 100-year flood for South Boulder Creek, this drainageway saw the greatest reported property damage in all the city’s 15 major drainageways at approximately $38 million. Estimated limits of the 2013 flooding in comparison to the FEMA 100-year floodplain are presented as Attachment C. The current project began in 2003 with the city initiating a floodplain remapping study for the South Boulder Creek floodplain, which was adopted by the city in 2008 and by FEMA in 2010 and formally recognized the flood risk from overtopping of US36 during a large storm event. The revised 100-year floodplain was developed based on a theoretical design storm that produces the greatest peak flow at US36 with a one-percent chance of occurring in any given year. More than 660 structures, 1,600 dwelling units and 3,500 people are located within the 2010 South Boulder Creek FEMA 100-year floodplain north of US36. In addition, portions of US36, Foothills Parkway and Table Mesa Dr./S. Boulder Road—all designated by the City of Boulder as critical emergency response routes—are predicted to be flooded in a 100-year flood event. South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Master Plan Following the remapping study, the city in partnership with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) initiated a flood mitigation master planning effort in 2010 for the South Boulder Creek watershed. The city contracted with CH2M Hill to perform the study. Mitigating flooding directly along the main stem of South Boulder Creek was found not to be feasible due to critical habitat issues, land constraints along the creek and the storage volume that would be required to reduce main stem flooding. To address the South Boulder Creek flood hazard most effectively, the evaluation focused on preventing overtopping of US36 during a major storm event (Phase 1), improvements within the West Valley (Phase 2) and mitigation measures near Arapahoe Avenue (Phase 3). Conceptual flood mitigation alternatives for all three phases were developed, evaluated and presented to the public, boards and City Council in a series of 16 meetings. For Phase 1, the parameters were narrowed through the public process to focus on alternatives that would store enough water to prevent overtopping of US36 without constructing any permanent structures on OSMP lands. After extensive review of potential options and input from the OSBT and the WRAB, City Council unanimously accepted the recommendations of the study on Aug. 4, 2015. The final plan recommended flood mitigation improvements in three phases: 1) Regional stormwater detention at US36 -Option D (the subject of this memo); Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 95 of 233 2) West Valley improvements, including stormwater detention at or near Manhattan Middle School and at Foothills Parkway and Baseline Road, and enlarging the capacity of Dry Creek No. 2 Ditch; and 3) Stormwater detention at Flatirons Golf Course. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update The accepted SBC Master Plan concept for the Phase 1 regional stormwater detention would require construction on a portion of the CU South property. This property is currently located outside of city limits, within Boulder County, and owned by CU. CU has stated that it would like this property to be annexed into the city limits, and with annexation, CU will agree to use a portion of the property for flood mitigation. As a result, an extensive review of the existing land use designations for this property was undertaken and publicly discussed for two years during the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update. This process resulted in the creation of the CU South Guiding Principles, which are intended to guide a future agreement between the City of Boulder and CU for the site’s long-term uses. Through these community discussions, a balance of future land uses was defined to achieve significant flood mitigation benefits for downstream residents and transportation corridors, ensure continuation and enhancement of recreation on the site, provide open space protections and habitat restoration, and provide long-term development by CU, predominantly housing for university faculty, staff and non-freshmen students. The BVCP update, including the CU South Guiding Principles, was approved by the four approval bodies (Planning Board, City Council, Boulder County Planning Commission and the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners) in 2017. Phase 1 Concept Evaluation Following acceptance of the SBC Master Plan, the city conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP) and a competitive consultant selection process. Selection criteria included hydraulic modeling and analysis and High Hazard Potential dam design experience. The city selected the RJH Consultant team (RJH) to provide engineering services for preliminary design of the Phase 1 SBC flood mitigation project, as they were determined to have the best project qualifications. The project consultant team includes several additional subconsultants: Muller Engineering to provide expertise on hydrology, DHI to perform flood modeling, Corvus Environmental to provide environmental analysis and permitting services and Architerra for landscape architecture services. (Throughout this memo, “project team” refers to city staff working in conjunction with the consultant team.) Once the BVCP update was approved, the project team was tasked with providing peer review and evaluation of the prior work done by CH2M Hill on the SBC Master Plan Option D and Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 96 of 233 further concept development and evaluation to achieve project goals for regional detention at US36 based on the CU South Guiding Principles. These guiding principles include: •Developing and evaluating detention storage alternatives that consider removal of the existing CU levee; •Developing and evaluating detention storage alternatives based on a long-duration storm event and a 500-year FEMA storm event, in addition to the 100-year FEMA design storm; •Conducting groundwater assessments to collect information necessary to verify feasibility and for design of any necessary conveyance systems; and •Seeking opportunities for ecological restoration and improvement. The initial phase of consultant work included engaging the community in review and feedback on the concepts to identify a preferred alternative to move forward into preliminary design. The project team established draft project baseline criteria that would need to be met to construct the Phase 1 flood mitigation project and reviewed them with the public at the April 23 open house. The criteria were modified based on public feedback, resulting in the following baseline criteria for the Phase 1 project: •At a minimum, a concept variation must prevent overtopping of US36 during a FEMA 100-year design storm. •A concept variation must be permittable by regulatory agencies (FEMA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). •A concept variation must be acceptable to the State Engineers Office, as the concepts would be considered high-hazard potential dams and need to meet stringent design criteria. •Groundwater impacts from the project can be mitigated to maintain current groundwater conditions. •Existing floodplains upstream and downstream of the project cannot be negatively impacted. •Landowners must be willing to allow construction of the concept. The project team used these baseline criteria and CU South Guiding Principles to vet potential flood mitigation ideas. Ideas determined not to meet the baseline criteria were not carried further into concept level design. As a result, the project team developed and evaluated three stormwater detention concepts: 1)The Master Plan Concept (Option D) with and without the CU levee 2)Variant 1 designed to avoid impacts to Viele Channel with and without the CU levee 3)Variant 2 that would store flood waters on OSMP land along South Boulder Creek (without CU levee only) Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 97 of 233 The project team evaluated all three concepts against 100-year, 500-year, and long-duration storm flood scenarios, resulting in a total of 10 concepts and scenarios evaluated (Note that the volume of water from the long-duration storm would be less than the 100-year FEMA design storm, so any solution that mitigates for a 100-year storm or more would mitigate for a long- duration storm.). These concepts, which were also presented at the June and July 2018 WRAB and OSBT meetings, are presented in Attachment A, Figures 1-6. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK The following boards and commission have a role in SBC flood mitigation plans: •Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB): advises council concerning capital improvement projects and master plans conducted or proposed by the Utilities Division; •Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT): has purview over considering whether potential impacts of the project on city Open Space land have been or could be adequately avoided, minimized or mitigated, and has final approval authority if disposal of OSMP land is required; and •Planning Board: advises council concerning consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including the CU South Guiding Principles; advises council regarding annexations. Feedback on Previous Studies and Plans As outlined above, South Boulder Creek and the CU South property have been included in several previous planning and public engagement processes, most recently in the SBC Master Plan in 2015 and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update adopted in 2017. WRAB, OSBT and Planning Board were actively involved in these processes and were essential in finalizing the recommendations in those plans. This previous feedback has led to the concepts that the project team is bringing forward for Phase 1 SBC flood mitigation. Below is a brief summary of feedback from these previous studies and plans. South Boulder Creek Master Plan On May 13, 2015, OSBT was asked to provide a recommendation on the SBC Master Plan because of the potential effects on OSMP land from some of the options considered in the study: The OSBT provided the following recommendation to council: •Accept the SBC Flood Mitigation Plan, specifically Option D for regional stormwater detention at US36 (single berm using Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right of way and requiring no disposal of OSMP land, which lessens environmental impacts to Open Space land). Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 98 of 233 •This recommendation was conditioned upon staff returning to the OSBT in the event staff determined construction could result in non-trivial impacts to Open Space. On May 18, 2015, WRAB voted to recommend that City Council accept the SBC Master Plan, including Option D for Phase 1 regional stormwater detention at US36. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Update On April 12, 2017, OSBT provided the following input and recommendations related to CU South: •Recognized important Open Space values on the CU South property, •Endorsed protecting and enhancing high potential Open Space values on CU South, and •Recognized that a close working partnership between the university and the city, combined with broad community input, can accomplish very significant benefits for OSMP charter purposes, in addition to accomplishing critically important flood mitigation in this area. On July 13, 2017, after eight board meetings, Planning Board unanimously approved the CU South Guiding Principles and amendments to the site’s land use designation, which were then adopted by the four approval bodies and included in the BVCP. Feedback on Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Concept Evaluation On February 14, 2018, staff requested feedback from OSBT on whether to pursue additional study and evaluation of a potential design configuration that could potentially affect city Open Space property more than the original SBC Master Plan concept (Option D). OSBT provided feedback that the project team should further develop and evaluate the example alternative and other similar designs that could potentially inundate a greater portion of OSMP land than Option D, but also potentially provide net open space benefits to OSMP. On June 25, 2018, at a joint meeting of WRAB and OSBT, staff presented background information and a summary of project concepts. The memo and associated attachments provide extensive information about the project concept variations considered. Staff then returned to each board separately in July for their deliberations and recommendations to council. Open Space Board of Trustees Recommendation to City Council On July 11, 2018, staff provided responses to questions and feedback provided by the trustees at the June 25 joint board meeting. City staff’s understanding and initial capture of the motion language is provided in Attachment D. The meeting minutes including the motion language have not yet been approved by the board and will be considered at its August meeting. The Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 99 of 233 information below is a bulleted summary of the board motions regarding the South Boulder Creek Flood mitigation project concept evaluation: •Recommend City Council advance one or both of the following, with conditions: o Variant 1 (100- and 500-year variations) o Variant 2 (100- and 500-year variations) •Provided statement of preference for Variant 1 •Provided statements regarding: o Importance of groundwater conveyance system o Potential future need for disposal of OSMP property o OSBT interest in involvement in OS-O annexation discussions •Recommend City Council direct staff to investigate an upstream storage concept, based on a concept that was recommended by community members at the July 11 board meeting OSBT included the following recommended conditions for advancing either the Variant 1 or Variant 2 concepts: •Remove CU levee and restore underlying land as part of project design at project cost •Work collaboratively with OSMP staff to avoid or minimize impacts •Collect additional information to identify and clarify mitigation and compensation measures •Seek OSBT input at 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent design milestones to ensure Open Space concerns are getting addressed •Groundwater conveyance system should be tested, operated, maintained and replaced as needed to ensure full functioning in perpetuity •Develop and implement a long-term monitoring and maintenance agreement •Convey (transfer ownership for permanent protection of) 40 acres west and north (inside) of CU levee o Restore 3 acres for each additional acre of OSMP land subject to ponding beyond the 100-year event. Current project estimates: Variant 1: 17.4 acres restored at approximately $1.74 million. Variant 2: 47 acres restored at approximately $4.7 million. o Realign Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 and secure water rights •Convey 44 acres east and south (outside) of CU levee •Support permanent Open Space protection of remaining OS-O land use designation on CU South through annexation Additional recommended conditions for Variant 2 concepts include: •Modify or realign the city’s sanitary sewer that runs along South Boulder Creek to allow for OSMP projects to open up the floodplain •Provide for enhanced wildlife passage under US36 beyond current concepts Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 100 of 233 WRAB Recommendation to Council On July 16, 2018, staff presented responses to questions and feedback provided by the boards at the June 25 joint board meeting. In addition, the project team presented a limited review of an upstream concept presented by community members at the July 11 OSBT meeting, which was recommended by OSBT for further study. The project consultant’s opinion based on very limited review was that significantly more storage would be needed to meet the project objectives than was apparent in the community members’ drawing of the concept, and the concept would need to be modified to address the criteria developed through the public process and the recommendations from OSBT. This information could not be included in the July 16 memo because the agenda packet was published on Friday, July 6, before the OSBT meeting in which the upstream storage concept was presented by community members. However, the presentation is available on the project web page (www.southbouldercreek.com) and an audio recording of the meeting on the WRAB website, and more information is provided later in this memo. Ci ty staff’s understanding and initial capture of the motion language is provided in Attachment E.The meeting minutes including the motion language have not yet been approved by the board and will be considered at their August meeting. The information below is a bulleted summary of the board motions regarding the South Boulder Creek Flood mitigation project concept evaluation: •Recommend City Council direct staff to move one project concept variation into the next steps of preliminary design and discussions with landowners •Provided statement of preference for Variant 2, 500-year as presented by staff •Also indicated support for: Variant 2 100-year or Variant 1 100-year (in order of preference) •Recommend City Council table from further discussion Master Plan 100-year and 500- year concepts •Recommend City Council not direct staff to develop an upstream storage concept design, because it would cause delays on the project and because of the possibility of additional permitting challenges and the potential for the need for increased infrastructure PUBLIC FEEDBACK The public provided extensive feedback during the SBC Master Plan and BVCP update process leading to City Council acceptance of the SBC Master Plan on Aug. 4, 2015, and the BVCP update, including the CU South Guiding Principles adopted in July 2017. Public engagement for this stage of the project began in April 2018 and has included two public open houses, online feedback opportunities, three meetings with an ad-hoc group of interested community members, and board and commission meetings. Property owners and residents in the Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 101 of 233 South Boulder Creek Master Plan study area have been notified of public meetings regarding the Phase 1 flood mitigation project using postcards, emails, social media (Nextdoor), Daily Camera ads, and the project webpage. The first community-wide engagement for the SBC Phase 1 project concept evaluation occurred at a public open house on April 23, 2018, attended by approximately 125 community members. The purpose of the open house was to provide the community with the background and status of the project, review the project design concepts being considered and get feedback on draft evaluation criteria. A questionnaire provided to attendees and made available online received 122 responses. The results of the questionnaire, including a summary of written comments, are provided on the project webpage: www.southbouldercreek.com. Below is a table showing the percent of respondents indicating a criterion was either “very important” or “important.” Table 1: Public Feedback on Draft Phase 1 Project Evaluation Criteria % very important or important Criteria 95% Reduce the flood risk to as many people as possible 69% Minimize time required to design, permit and construct 58% Minimize environmental impacts 56% Integrate flexibility into the design approach to anticipate future changing climate conditions 41% Improve riparian connectivity and opportunities for habitat restoration 32% Minimize maintenance and operation requirements / costs 28% Limit dam size (height, length and footprint) to the extent possible 26% Minimize construction cost Respondents were asked to rate the draft evaluation criteria on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not important to very important. When asked to identify the one evaluation criterion that was most important to them, 43 percent of respondents indicated that “reducing the flood risk to as many people as possible” was most important, and 25 percent indicated that “minimizing the time required to design, permit, and construct the project” was the most important. Twenty percent (20 percent) did not respond to this question. Based on comments made at the open house, staff added an additional criterion evaluating the complexity of mitigating for groundwater impacts. A second open house was held on June 7, 2018, to inform the public about the evaluation of the flood mitigation concept variations. Approximately 70 community members attended, and the project team received 58 responses to a questionnaire on the concept variations that was provided Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 102 of 233 at the open house and on the project website. A written summary of the questionnaire results, including written comments, is available on the project webpage. Figure 2 below illustrates which concept variation was preferred by questionnaire respondents. The Variant 2 500-year without CU levee concept was most preferred, followed by a large number of respondents indicating no preference between the concept variations. Staff heard from some community members at the open house that while they did not have a preference on concept variations, they were concerned about the timeline of the project and wanted something done as soon as possible. Figure 2: South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Variation Most Preferred Figure 3 on the following page indicates which factors were important to the questionnaire respondents when choosing the concept variation they liked best. Respondents were able to select more than one factor. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 103 of 233 Figure 3: Factors for Selecting the Preferred South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Concept Ad-hoc Community Group Between March and May 2018, city staff and the consultant project team met three times with an ad-hoc group of nine community members who wanted to discuss the consultant’s scope of work and technical details about the project design concepts being considered. The project team and the ad-hoc group discussed the scope of work, project process and schedule; plans for community engagement; the design storm; feasibility of other options suggested by the group; and preliminary evaluation of the project concept variations developed by the consultants. A summary of each meeting is on the project webpage. Public Comment at WRAB and OSBT Meetings Public comments were provided at the joint WRAB/OSBT meeting on June 25, 2018, the OSBT board meeting on July 11, 2018, and the WRAB meeting on July 16, 2018. Attachment F provides draft meeting minutes with a summary of public comment from each of those meetings, and also includes emails provided to the OSBT and WRAB board email addresses between June 13, 2018, and July 17, 2018, regarding the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Number of ResponsesImportant Factors for Selecting the Preferred Concept Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 104 of 233 Several recurring themes emerged from the public comments at the WRAB and OSBT meetings: •Concerns raised by community members who were affected by the 2013 flood. and who live in the area and whose flood risk would be reduced as a result of the project. They expressed the urgency of the project from a life safety perspective and the need to continue without further delay. •Concerns about the potential impacts to sensitive habitat in the State Natural Area on existing city Open Space land, specifically: o Interest in reducing the need for groundwater conveyance systems in the concepts because of community members’ uncertainty around the ability to maintain current groundwater conditions that support critical wet meadow habitat; o Interest in reducing additional inundation and potential resulting sedimentation; o Interest in reducing the need for the flow restriction at US36 in the Variant 2 concept. •Interest in protecting and conserving open space on CU South to mitigate for potential project impacts on the adjacent city Open Space land, protect existing habitat and wildlife corridors, and protect the site from future development by CU Boulder. •Interest in not releasing outflows from the project into Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 or Viele Channel north of US36 because of concerns that it would increase flooding downstream. Although the project includes a baseline criterion that the project cannot increase flows downstream, the fact that some of the concepts show release of outflows into Viele channel is concerning to some members of the public. •Interest in the project team studying an “upstream storage concept” proposed by community members as way of using a less structured and more natural approach to flood mitigation and addressing some of the concerns listed above. •Concerns raised about future development on CU South. Feedback on the project and the ability of the variants to address this feedback are discussed in the analysis section below. ANALYSIS Recognizing that: 1) the SBC Phase 1 project offers an opportunity to significantly reduce flood risk, 2) there is alignment on some of the concepts, but there are differences of opinion on some elements of the project across the community that inherently conflict with each other, and 3) there are community concerns and interests related to CU South that are beyond the scope of the flood mitigation analysis, the project team has analyzed three broad options for next steps: 1) Moving a Concept into Preliminary Design 2) Continuing to Study Potential Concepts 3) Considerations for Discontinuing Work on Regional Detention at US36 Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 105 of 233 Staff recommends moving one of the project concept variations into the next steps of preliminary design and associated landowner negotiations. The three project concept variations presented in the next section are consistent with the project criteria, guiding principles, and prior direction and have the most acceptance among the boards and commissions, landowners and community members who participated in the online questionnaire. Recommended Option: Moving a Concept into Preliminary Design Through the community engagement and board and commission feedback process, three concepts have risen to the top and are described in detail below: Variant 1, 100-year flood; Variant 2, 100-year flood; and Variant 2, 500-year flood. All of the variants are presented without the CU levee, based on the recommendation from OSBT and the fact that the levee does not affect the performance of the concepts. The advisory boards and landowners have indicated conditional support for all three of these options: WRAB, CU and community members who participated in a questionnaire indicated a preference for Variant 2 500-year flood, and OSBT indicated a preference for Variant 1. A summary of alignment is presented in Table 2, which also includes OSBT conditions on the options. Table 2: OSBT, WRAB, CU1 and Community2 Alignment on Recommendations Acceptable Preferred OSBT Recommended Conditions Concept Cost with OSBT Recommended Enhancements V1 100-year without CU levee OSBT •Remove CU levee •Convey 84 acres of OS-O to OSMP •3:1 enhancement ratio •Realign Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 $33.74 million3 (includes $1.74 for enhancement) V2 100-year without CU levee $34.7 million4 (includes $4.7 million for enhancement) V2 500-year without CU levee WRAB, CU, community •Same as above •Modify/realign sanitary sewer line •Enhance US36 wildlife passage at flow restriction $40.4 million4 (includes $5.4 million for enhancement) 1 See CU’s letter dated July 19, 2018 (Attachment G) 2 As described in the public feedback section above, 43 percent of the community who participated in the June 2018 questionnaire preferred variant 2 500-year flood, 31 percent did not have a preference and the rest of participants were divided evenly across the other concepts. 3 Does not include cost for other OSBT recommended conditions for Variant 1, including property acquisition or realignment of Dry Creek Ditch No. 2. 4 Does not include cost for other OSBT recommended conditions for Variant 2, including property acquisition, realignment of Dry Creek Ditch No. 2, enhanced wildlife passage at US36, or modifications to the existing sanitary sewer line. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 106 of 233 In contrast to the areas of alignment and OSBT conditions outlined in the table above, WRAB, OSBT and CU differ on the following points: •While OSBT stated that they could support both the 100-year and 500-year concepts for Variants 1 and 2, WRAB and CU did not support the Variant 1, 500-year flood concept. •WRAB requested both Master Plan concepts be removed from consideration; CU requested that the 500-year Master Plan concept be removed; and OSBT’s motion did not mention the Master Plan concepts but did not designate them as preferred or acceptable. •OSBT requested that staff evaluate and consider the upstream concept presented by community members at the July 11 OSBT meeting. WRAB has recommended that City Council not direct staff to evaluate this option, because it would cause delays on the project and because of the possibility of permitting and infrastructure impacts that would be unacceptable. Attachment H Figures 1-3 present diagrams of the OSBT conditions by concept. Based on an initial review, the project team has determined that it could be possible to meet the OSBT recommended conditions for Variants 1 and 2; however, many of the conditions are dependent upon reaching an agreement with CU through annexation. These include the OSBT recommendations for permanent protection of portions or all of the OS-O land use designation area on CU South, restoration of areas within OS-O, and realignment of the sanitary sewer line onto CU South property. In addition, realignment of Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 and securing water rights would involve agreements with both CU and the ditch company, and potentially other water rights holders. In CU’s July 19 letter to council (Attachment G), CU reiterates its offer for use of up to 80 acres of land to aid in the city’s flood mitigation project. Because Variant 1 and Variant 2 would use less than 80 acres for flood mitigation on CU South, the remaining acres offered could potentially be considered by CU for use in addressing some of OSBT’s recommended permanent protection and restoration conditions for the project. However, CU would likely consider these recommendations within the context of other considerations the city would be looking for during the annexation process. Some of the other OSBT-recommended conditions echo considerations that were already contemplated through the CU South Guiding Principles, such as removal of the CU levee, and through city project engineering practices, such as working to avoid or minimize environmental impacts and developing a long-term monitoring and maintenance agreement for flood mitigation features, including groundwater conveyance systems. Environmental concerns such as habitat and species impacts would also be addressed through the permitting process. If the direction from council is to move forward with one of the concepts, the project team will work during preliminary design to enhance wildlife passage through design of the flow restriction for Variant 2; however, creating a new passage under US36 is unlikely to be feasible. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 107 of 233 The following presents an analysis of the three concepts that OSBT, WRAB and CU recommend considering. Variant 1 100-year Figure 4: Variant 1 100-year Concept Figure 5: Rendering of the Variant 1 100-year Concept Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 108 of 233 Major features of the Variant 1 100-year concept include: •A flood wall located along the south side of US36 and a dam within the CU South parcel to contain flood waters. The floodwall is designed to be located within the CDOT right of way to address OSBT concerns about not creating any non-trivial impacts to city Open Space. •A portion of the proposed dam realigned south of where Viele Channel flows through the CU South parcel to avoid the need to convey Viele Channel flows under the detention area (modification of Master Plan concept). •Vehicular access to CU South from Table Mesa Drive via a ramp over a portion of the dam. •An overtopping spillway along the flood wall that would be designed to discharge floodwaters that exceed the design storm (either 100-year or 500-year flood event) without impacting the integrity of the dam. Water over the spillway would flow in the same way floodwater does today: onto US36 and if great enough, into the West Valley. •A groundwater conveyance system to ensure groundwater flows through the floodwall to minimize impacts to the hydrology of wetlands and Ute ladies tresses orchid habitat on OSMP land. •A portion of fill on CU South, as shown in the SBC Master Plan. •An area of excavation to provide storage capacity, which would need a groundwater cutoff wall to eliminate pooling of water. •An outlet pipe constructed under US36 to drain the ponded area, which would discharge on the north side of US36, likely into Viele Channel, and onto South Boulder Creek north of South Boulder Road. •There are no anticipated outflow releases to Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 north of US36 from this concept. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 109 of 233 Variant 2 100-year and 500-year Figure 6: Variant 2 100-year Concept Figure 7: Variant 2 500-year Concept Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 110 of 233 Figure 8: Rendering of the Variant 2 Concept Variant 2 was initially identified by the consultants from an engineering perspective as a potentially less expensive and less structural option. Key differences between the Variant 1 100- year flood concept and the Variant 2 concepts include: •Variant 2 concepts would place the majority of flood water storage on OSMP property along South Boulder Creek flooding high quality wetlands, Prebles meadow jumping mouse habitat and Ute ladies’ tresses orchid habitat. •Excavation on CU South land would not be needed. •The earthen dam would be located further east within the CU South parcel. •Construction of a structure would be required at the upstream side of the US36 bridge to restrict flows and detain floodwaters north of US36 and prevent negative impacts to downstream floodplains. The Variant 2 storage area would fully drain through the creek channel without an outlet pipe and would not require work on the north side of US36 to convey flows from the outlet pipe back to South Boulder Creek. The flow restriction may impact South Boulder Creek hydrology, geomorphology and riparian habitat as well as restrict the movement of wildlife upstream and downstream of US36. Similar to Variant 1, the flood wall along the south side of US 36 within CDOT right of way would require a groundwater conveyance system, and the spillway configuration is the same as Variant 1. The 500-year variation of this concept would have a larger dam and taller floodwall than the 100-year variation. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 111 of 233 Evaluation Summary of the Three Concepts All three of the concepts are believed to meet the project baseline criteria (see page 8 or Attachment A for a list of baseline criteria). Table 3 presents a summary evaluation of these three concepts against the evaluation criteria used to compare concepts (see page 13 for public feedback on these evaluation criteria). Attachment A Figures 5 and 6 present the full summary matrix. Table 3: Evaluation Summary Based on current information and the concept-level evaluation, the following conclusions can be made. Many of these issues were of concern to the public and boards. •Level of flood protection: o Variant 2, 500-year flood would provide flood mitigation for an estimated 4,100 people, 1,900 dwelling units and 730 structures. o Variant 1, 100-year flood and Variant 2, 100-year flood would provide flood mitigation for an estimated 2,300 people, 1,100 dwelling units and 260 structures. o All concepts would keep US36 and Foothills Parkway passable during a major storm event, with Variant 2, 500-year flood providing a greater level of protection. o Attachment I Figures 1-3 present the anticipated downstream flood benefits for 100-year concepts with a 100-year event, 100-year concepts with a 500-year event and a 500-year concept. •Projected costs: o When evaluating only the cost of the flood mitigation project, Variant 2, 500-year flood has the greatest estimated cost ($35 million), versus $32 million for Variant 1, 100-year flood, and $30 million for Variant 2, 100-year flood. o With the increase in costs from the habitat restoration conditions recommended by OSBT, Variant 2, 500-year flood has the greatest estimated cost ($40.4 Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 112 of 233 million) versus $33.74 million for Variant 1, 100-year flood and $34.7 for Variant 2, 100-year flood. o It is unclear at this time whether the costs for the additional OSBT recommended conditions for property acquisition, realigning Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 and moving the sewer line could be part of the annexation negotiation process with CU or if it would be part of the project costs. •All three concepts could likely be designed and constructed on a similar timeframe, estimated to be three to four years following preliminary design and securing agreements with property owners. •All three concepts would require a groundwater conveyance system, as all include a floodwall along US36. The excavation area in Variant 1 may also require a groundwater conveyance system, but this would need to be confirmed in preliminary design. •Both Variant 2 concepts would drain back to South Boulder Creek south of US36 via surface flow with gravity, whereas Variant 1 would need to be drained by a pipe that would discharge to the north side of US36. It is believed even with these discharges that Variant 1 could meet the requirement of not increasing the downstream floodplain without modifications to Viele Channel and would not affect Dry Creek Ditch No. 2. •All three concepts include removal of the existing CU levee and therefore have equal opportunities for habitat connectivity and enhancement in the OS-O land designation area on CU South to the South Boulder Creek riparian area. •All three concepts would have similar anticipated direct environmental impacts to federally threatened and endangered species habitat and wetlands from the construction and permanent placement of flood mitigation structures. In addition, the following impacts could occur: o The Variant 2 concepts would store most of the floodwaters on OSMP lands and would therefore have the potential for additional sedimentation on OSMP lands. (While some sediment deposition is healthy for riparian areas, excessive amounts can have negative impacts on sensitive vegetation. The associated sediment deposition could result in direct and indirect impacts to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat, Ute ladies’-tresses orchid habitat and other high value resources on OSMP land.) The OSBT recommended conditions were developed to address these potential impacts. o State water rights laws require ponded water to drain within 120 hours. The length of time of inundation of OSMP land for all concepts will likely be less than 72 hours. Further study will be conducted during preliminary design on the length of inundation and the degree to which fine sediments will likely drop out during that time. •The Variant 2 concepts require a flow restriction at the US36 bridge. At this concept level stage of design, the project team does not believe this would significantly increase risk of debris blockage and could be constructed within the CDOT right of way. However, The Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 113 of 233 flow restriction may impact South Boulder Creek hydrology, geomorphology and riparian habitat as well as restrict the movement of wildlife upstream and downstream of US36. All three concepts described above would meet the primary purpose of the project to prevent overtopping of US36 during a 100-year storm and would be able to meet the other project baseline criteria. WRAB recommended that council move only one concept forward into the next steps of preliminary design. If council selected more than one concept variation to move forward into preliminary design, it would significantly increase the design costs and could also significantly delay the project (design typically can be 10 percent of estimated project costs). In addition, if more than one concept variation is selected, it would increase the project timeline as discussions with CU to reach an agreement would need to be delayed until a specific flood mitigation alternative was finally selected. This is the case because the area for flood mitigation affects trade-offs for other annexation agreement topics, such as parameters for future development, protection of open space and transportation access. Alternative Option 1: Revise the Project Criteria and Continue to Study Potential Concepts As described above, the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation master planning and corresponding Phase 1 concept development has been an evolutionary process. It is the project team’s assessment that the concept variations presented in the memo reflect the best alignment among advisory boards, landowners and the community that is likely to be achieved based on the established criteria and guiding principles. These concepts would achieve project goals that were developed during the SBC Master Plan, CU South Guiding Principles, and community engagement efforts. However, if the parameters and criteria used to develop and evaluate options change, this would likely create opportunities to reevaluate options previously eliminated from consideration as well as explore new options. An example of such an option is the upstream storage concept presented to OSBT by community members. The project team has concerns about the ability of the concept to address the established criteria and the additional objectives set by OSBT. Proponents of the concept have concerns about the extent of concept modifications that the project team has identified as potentially necessary to meet these criteria and objectives. At the July 11, 2018, OSBT meeting, community members presented a concept that would use more of the southern portion of the CU South parcel for flood storage in a series of smaller berms. Based on this idea, the OSBT included a motion recommending consideration of an upstream storage concept. Specifically, the OSBT recommended consideration of an upstream storage concept that would work to: Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 114 of 233 •Eliminate the US36 floodwall (eliminating the need for a groundwater conveyance system) •Reduce sedimentation and inundation impacts on OSMP land •Avoid the need for a flow restriction at the US36 bridge •Minimize impacts on OSMP land •Consider project permit-ability During deliberations, staff indicated that similar ideas had been considered through the SBC Master Plan process and more recently by the project team and that the concept could require flood mitigation structures on OSMP land to channel water into or out of the berms on CU South, which was counter to previous OSBT direction. At the July 11, 2018, meeting, during deliberations, some OSBT members indicated that staff could consider putting permanent structures on OSMP land if needed to meet the other stated objectives for evaluating the upstream storage concepts. A slightly updated version of the upstream storage concept was presented by community members to WRAB on July 16, 2018. The figure below shows the community members’ upstream storage concept that was presented to WRAB. Figure 9: Resident Upstream Storage Concept, Emailed to WRAB July 12, 2018 * SNA = State Natural Area N Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 115 of 233 The concept as shown above includes an inlet berm to direct flood waters into a series of detention ponds located in the southern portion of the CU South parcel, in a portion of the former gravel pits on the site. The concept as shown removes the existing CU levee and has berm heights matching the ground elevation at the base of where the levee had existed (berm heights range from 7 feet to 15 feet). The community members recognized the potential need for storage directly upstream of US36 to capture additional spill flows from the creek, as indicated on the figure. Consultant Review of Upstream Storage Concept Presented by Community Members The project team has completed an initial evaluation of this concept for the FEMA 100-year event (the 500-year storm event has not been evaluated) and has the following initial assessment, which would need to be confirmed following a more detailed evaluation should council provide the direction to conduct further study: •The upstream storage area would be able to capture some but not all of the stormwater volume needed to prevent overtopping of US36 during a 100-year event. A floodwall, and the associated cutoff wall and groundwater conveyance system under it, would be needed to store stormwater just upstream of US36 to avoid overtopping of US36. However, the upstream storage would reduce the required storage volume located just upstream of US36, which would reduce the maximum height of the floodwall from the Variant 2 concept by approximately 4 feet (from 17 feet to 13 feet). •A flow restriction at the US36 bridge would still be needed to ensure downstream flows do not exceed existing conditions and thereby cause negative downstream impacts. However, because of the volume of water stored just upstream of US36 would be less than Variant 2, flows at US36 would not need to be restricted as much as Variant 2, and therefore the size of the flow restriction opening could be larger. •The area of inundation on OSMP land would be less than for the Variant 2 concept with the estimated maximum ponding shown in the figure below by the dark blue shading. •Spillways and drainage pipes would be required at each of the upstream berms, but cutoff walls and corresponding groundwater conveyance systems are not anticipated. •Although the concept does not propose structures on OSMP land the inlet berm at the far south end of the upstream detention areas—needed to divert flood waters into the storage areas—would impact Preble’s mouse and other sensitive habitats on the CU South property and could be more challenging to permit than the Master Plan, Variant 1 or Variant 2 concepts. Attachment J, which displays areas with the highest density of sensitive ecological features on CU South property as having “high conservation value,” shows the area where the inlet berm is proposed as having high conservation value. In addition, the berms in the upstream storage area could preclude much of this area from being available to mitigate resources impacts on OSMP lands as recommended by OSBT. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 116 of 233 Although storage volumes needed to prevent overtopping of US36 during a 500-year storm event have not been evaluated for this concept, based on professional judgement it is estimated that the floodwall and earthen dam near US36 would likely need to be higher and the ponding on OSMP land would be greater than shown for the 100-year event. In addition, the dam and berms in the upstream storage concept would likely be considered a High Hazard Potential Jurisdictional dam by the State Engineer’s Office due to the volume of stored water. For this reason, the height of the proposed dam on the west side would likely need to be higher than what is assumed in the community members’ concept and described above. To meet State Engineer’s Office standards, all High Hazard Potential Jurisdictional dams would need to withstand a Probable Maximum Flood event, which is an is an extreme flood event with peak flows that are more than twelve times larger than the FEMA 100-year event. Figure 10: Community Members’ Upstream Storage Concept as Evaluated by the Project Team The community members’ concept could reduce the amount of inundation on OSMP land and the height of the floodwall compared to Variant 2 to be able to meet the project purpose of preventing overtopping of US36 during a 100-year storm event. However, it would not be able to meet other OSBT-stated objectives for evaluating this concept, including eliminating the US36 floodwall and flow restriction at US36. Consultant’s Variation to Meet Project and OSBT Objectives To better meet the project purpose and the new OSBT objectives, the project team developed a draft variation to the community members’ upstream concept. Specifically, the consultants developed a variation that stores more stormwater in the southern portion of the CU South parcel to accomplish the following: DRAFT Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 117 of 233 1) Increase the likelihood that the US36 floodwall could be eliminated and replaced by an earthen embankment (eliminating the need for a cutoff wall and groundwater conveyance system) 2)Eliminate the need for flow restriction at US36 3) Further reduce the amount of inundation and corresponding sedimentation potential on OSMP land. In this draft concept, this large upstream storage area has a large dam system that would appear to be approximately 50 feet tall from inside the storage area and approximately 20 feet from outside of the storage area. In addition, to try to address OSBT’s previous direction to avoid flood mitigation structures on OSMP land, a piped outlet is shown to drain the upstream storage area, rather than constructing a berm or channel on OSMP land to release stormwater from the storage on CU South back to South Boulder Creek. The consultant’s variation is presented below. Figure 11: Project Team Upstream Storage Concept July 2018 The project team has completed an initial evaluation of this variation for the FEMA 100-year event and has determined the following, which would need to be confirmed following a more detailed study should council provide that direction: •The upstream storage area would be able to capture the majority of stormwater volume needed to prevent overtopping of US36 during a 100-year storm event. The reduction in required storage volume located just upstream of US36 would reduce the maximum height of the US36 floodwall from the Variant 2 concept by approximately 8 feet (from 17 feet to 9 feet). This reduction may be sufficient to eliminate the need for a cutoff wall and groundwater conveyance system under the floodwall. DRAFT Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 118 of 233 •The area of inundation on OSMP land would be reduced such that it would be less than for the Variant 2 concept and less than the inundation that occurs during a 100-year storm event under existing conditions. •The need for flow restriction upstream of the US36 bridge would be eliminated. •Stormwater flow in the South Boulder Creek main stem downstream of the project would be reduced as compared to the existing condition, which may provide additional flood mitigation benefits. •Although this variation does not propose structures on OSMP land the inflow rundown structure at the far south end of the upstream detention areas to divert flood waters into the storage areas would impact Preble’s mouse habitat on the CU South property and could be more challenging to permit than the Master Plan, Variant 1 or Variant 2 concepts. Attachment J, displays areas with the highest density of sensitive ecological features on CU South property as having “high conservation value” and shows the area for the inflow rundown as having high conservation value. In addition, the dams on the upstream storage area would likely preclude enhancing the area to provide riparian connectivity to South Boulder Creek. Similar to the community members’ upstream concept, the 500-year event has not been evaluated for this concept. It is, however, estimated that the floodwall and earthen dam near US36 would likely need to be higher and the ponding on OSMP land would be greater than shown for the 100-year event. As described above for the community members’ upstream storage concept, the consultant’s variation would also likely be considered a High Hazard Potential Jurisdictional dams by the State Engineer’s Office. To meet State Engineer’s Probable Maximum Flood design requirements, it is estimated that the height of the proposed dam on the west side of the community members’ concept and the height of the proposed dam for the consultant’s concept would be similar (i.e. top of dam elevation would be about the same for both concepts). Clarification of Project Criteria Needed for Studying Additional Concepts Should council direct staff to develop an upstream storage concept or other concepts, a clear set of revised project objectives would be needed. Any combination of storage configuration has tradeoffs, and no single concept will likely meet all of the OSBT’s stated objectives while still meeting the current project purpose of preventing overtopping of US36 during a 100-year storm event at a minimum. In addition, State Engineer’s Office requirements for designing for a Probable Maximum Flood may reduce the ability to meet other stated community interests for this concept to provide a more natural, less structured approach. Any concept would also need to be able to be permitted from the environmental regulatory agencies’ perspective. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 119 of 233 If there is council support to revise the project objectives, additional public engagement is recommended to attempt to gain community acceptance on any new or revised objectives. A trade-off for this approach could be community fatigue: some in the community have put in extensive time already attending meetings and answering questionnaires, and some have also expressed concern that the project has taken this long. Once the new objectives for the project were defined, it is estimated that the consultant’s development and evaluation of a new upstream storage concept would take approximately 8 weeks to complete to the same level as the other concepts. Tasks would include: multiple hydraulic model runs, including evaluation of the 100- year, 500-year, and long-duration storms and Probable Maximum Flood; to confirm concept layout, environmental analysis to identify likely impacts; development of concept-level cost estimates; and completion of the evaluation matrix. In addition, once the consultant analysis is complete, the information would then be presented for public feedback, followed by presentations to boards and council. This series of public, board and council meetings could take several months. Any further changes to the project objectives during review of the new concepts may increase this estimated timeframe. Alternative Option 2: Considerations for Discontinuing Work on Regional Detention at US36 After eight years and more than $2 million dollars spent studying flood mitigation concepts for SBC, there continue to be competing interests regarding elements of the project and the path forward. The number of options under consideration, and the criteria and objectives used to evaluate concepts, have continued to expand and contract. There are inherent conflicts between different approaches that may not be able to be resolved. At the same time, there are 14 other creeks in the city where flood mitigation resources could be redirected. Therefore, council may direct staff to suspend work on this project and shift resources to other flood mitigation efforts that may have more chance for success in the near-term. There are other areas of the city where the impacts of flood mitigation have been determined to be unacceptable. The city previously decided not to pursue mitigation of flood risks on the main stem of South Boulder Creek due to the significant environmental and property impacts involved. The city has elected not to pursue construction of 100-year improvements to contain Boulder Creek for similar reasons. A recently accepted mitigation plan for Gregory Creek focused on only a 10-year storm due to the significant property acquisition needs to accommodate a larger event. If mitigation does not proceed for SBC, the city would continue to work with residents in the South Boulder Creek floodplain to provide education and outreach related to flood risk. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 120 of 233 Previous Studies and Changing Objectives for the Project As the project has moved through the various studies and processes—from development and acceptance of the SBC Master Plan, the BVCP update and CU South Guiding Principles to the Phase 1 concept evaluation phase—boards and council have provided different parameters and objectives for designing the project, and members of the public have also provided new input and different options at each stage. As a result, many different concepts for regional detention at US36 have been developed and vetted by the public, boards, commissions and landowners. During each of these studies and plan updates, additional feedback has been incorporated into the evaluation of alternatives to reflect the community’s values and objectives to the extent possible. For example, 15 specific alternatives were studied during the SBC Master Plan to address flood mitigation for South Boulder Creek, including 7 concepts specifically developed for regional detention at US36. However, the SBC Master Plan did not include options for mitigating to a 500-year flood. Then, through the CU South Guiding Principles process, a number of additional considerations were identified, including mitigating to a 500-year flood and a long duration storm event and removal of the CU levee. Following council acceptance of Option D in the SBC Master Plan and approval of the guiding principles, the RJH consultants conducted a peer review of the previous Master Plan concept and has evaluated an additional nine variations to meet these additional considerations. The concepts were also evaluated against baseline criteria and other criteria reviewed with and informed by the public specifically for the concept evaluation phase of the project. Because of the complexity of the flood mitigation project, any concept will require a balance between multiple community interests. As new stakeholder interests and objectives for the project continue to be added to the objectives already identified through multiple past public processes related to this project, the likelihood of being able to find a solution to reduce the risk of overtopping US36 and flooding approximately 2,500 people in the 100-year floodplain and two critical transportation corridors (US36 and Foothills Parkway) downstream, and also fully meet all other added project objectives, becomes more challenging. Effects of Discontinuing Work on SBC Flood Mitigation to the Future of CU South Protecting residents from future flooding events was a primary driver for development of the CU South Guiding Principles to guide a future annexation agreement between the City and CU Boulder. If the Phase 1 flood mitigation project is discontinued, the immediate driver for annexation of CU South in the short-term would be removed. CU South is located within Area II of the BVCP, making it eligible for annexation. The property will continue to be owned by CU Boulder, and although CU currently allows public access on the property, there is no protected public access or open space for the long-term. While CU has indicated it does not have immediate plans to develop the site, it has expressed interest in adding water and sewer services for the existing university-related athletic uses on the site, which could Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 121 of 233 be provided with annexation. In the future, the university has stated that it will also explore additional housing for university needs, with potentially some recreation and academic facilities. If the decision is made not to pursue a SBC flood mitigation project at this time, CU Boulder will continue to own the CU South property and would likely time a future annexation application with when they have greater certainty regarding future plans for the property. CU could also explore other ways to support future development without annexation. If the Phase 1 flood mitigation project is removed from consideration on CU South, it is unclear how the CU South Guiding Principles, which were developed through two years of community discussion and were based on the flood mitigation project as a primary driver, would apply to a future annexation application. The balance of uses on the site envisioned by the community through development of the Guiding Principles, including areas for flood mitigation, university housing and other development, protected open space, and recreational uses may need to be reassessed with a future annexation application that did not include flood mitigation. NEXT STEPS Direction provided at the Aug. 7, 2018, meeting will affect the project schedule and next steps. If City Council recommends a South Boulder Creek flood mitigation concept variation to move forward into the next steps of preliminary engineering and property owner negotiations, then the project will proceed through the following next steps, as shown in Attachment B, Figure 2: •Sept. 6, 2018, Planning Board meeting: Staff will present a draft future annexation and community engagement process for CU South to Planning Board. •Sept. 20, 2018, City Council meeting: Staff will present a draft future annexation and community engagement process for CU South to City Council for discussion. •Fall 2018 Community Engagement around future annexation of CU South: Staff will proceed with community engagement per the feedback from the Sept. 20 City Council meeting. •Fall 2018/Spring 2019 Updates on the Flood Mitigation Preliminary Design: Staff will provide regular updates to boards and the community regarding project progress. During preliminary design phase of the project, the staff and consultant project team will: o Continue to collect and evaluate groundwater and geotechnical data o Design specific elements of the selected concept variation o Revise concept cost estimates o Secure necessary permits and approvals o Secure agreements with property owners o Develop design plans for construction •Spring 2019 Planning Board and City Council meetings regarding CU South annexation: Planning Board and City Council will consider a draft annexation agreement between the City of Boulder and CU Boulder. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 122 of 233 •Following completion of preliminary design and agreements with the property owners to use the land for flood mitigation, the project team will proceed with final design and construction of the project, which combined is anticipated to take approximately three to four years. If council directs staff to continue evaluating flood mitigation concepts, then staff would develop a community engagement strategy and additional steps for engineering analysis and concept evaluation. If council directs staff to discontinue work on regional detention at US36, then Utilities staff will redirect staff resources and funding designated for South Boulder Creek Phase 1 flood mitigation preliminary design to other flood mitigation projects. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Figure 1 – Master Plan Concept Variations and Rendering Figure 2 – Variant 1 Concept Variations and Rendering Figure 3 – Variant 2 Concept Variations and Rendering Figure 4 – Rendering of US36 Bridge Restriction Concept Figure 5 – Evaluation Matrix Figure 6 – Evaluation Summary Matrix Attachment B: Figure 1: South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Timeline Figure 2: Phase 1 Project Timeline Attachment C: Estimated limits of the 2013 flood compared to the FEMA 100-year floodplain Attachment D: Draft July 11, 2018 OSBT Board Motion language Attachment E: Draft July 16, 2018 WRAB Board Motion language Attachment F: Public Comments from OSBT and WRAB meetings regarding the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project Attachment G: July 19, 2018 Letter from CU to Mayor Jones and Members of Boulder City Council. Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 123 of 233 Attachment H: Figure 1 – Variant 1, 100-year Concept Summary of OSBT Recommended Conditions Figure 2 – Variant 2, 100-year Concept Summary of OSBT Recommended Conditions Figure 3 – Variant 3, 500-year Concept Summary of OSBT Recommended Conditions Attachment I: Figure 1 – Downstream Flood Benefits 100-Year Concepts with 100-Year Storm Figure 2 – Downstream Flood Benefits 100-Year Concepts with 500-Year Storm Figure 3 – Downstream Flood Benefits 500-Year Concepts with 500-Year Storm Attachment J: Site Conservation Suitability Analysis CU South, created by Biohabitats Nov. 2016 Item 4A - South Boulder Creek Phase 1 Flood Mitigation Next Steps City Council Meeting Page 124 of 233 Master Plan Concept 100-Year without CU levee 500-Year without CU levee 100-year Rendering Attachment A: Figure 1Attachment A - Detention Concepts City Council Meeting Page 125 of 233 Variant I Concept 100-Year without CU levee 500-Year without CU levee 100-year Rendering Attachment A: Figure 2Attachment A - Detention Concepts City Council Meeting Page 126 of 233 Variant 2 Concept 100-Year without CU levee 500-Year without CU levee 100-year Rendering Attachment A: Figure 3Attachment A - Detention Concepts City Council Meeting Page 127 of 233 Attachment A: Figure 4US36 Bridge Existing ConditionsVariant 2 Rendering of US36 Flow Restriction ConceptAttachment A - Detention ConceptsCity Council Meeting Page 128 of 233 South Boulder Creek Evaluation of US36 Regional Stormwater Detention Concepts (August 3, 2018)Baseline Criteria that must be met for any concept:1 Variant 2 concept requires removal of the existing CU levee3 There are 636 structures, 1,630 dwelling units, 3,520 people in the existing * Concept must prevent overtopping of US36 during a FEMA 100‐year design storm at a minimum2 Note: all concepts are able to accommodate long‐duration storm volumes 100‐yr floodplain north of CU South* Concept must be able to be permittable by regulatory agencies (FEMA, EPA, USACE, USFWS)4There are 1,209 structures, 2,519 dwelling units and 5,440 people in the * Concept must be acceptable to State Engineers Office existing 500‐yr floodplain north of CU South* Land owners (CU, CDOT and OSMP) must be willing to allow construction of the concept * Groundwater impacts from the project can be mitigated to maintain current groundwater conditions* Existing floodplains upstream and downstream of the project cannot be negatively impactedConcepts100‐Year Facilities 500‐Year FacilitiesMaster Plan Variant 1 Variant 2 Master Plan Variant 1 Variant 2% of Public Responses Stating Very Important or ImportantCriteria Description ScoringWith CU Levee2Without CU Levee2With CU Levee2Without CU Levee2Without CU Levee1, 2With CU Levee2Without CU levee2With CU Levee2Without CU levee2Without CU levee1, 2Structures260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260Dwelling Units1100 11001100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100People2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300Cost per Dwelling Unit $38,000 $39,000 $29,000 $29,000 $27,000 $41,000 $41,000 $31,000 $32,000 $32,000Structures530 530 500 500 470Dwelling Units1300 1300 1150 1150 1100People2800 2800 2500 2500 2400Cost per Dwelling Unit$32,000 $33,000 $28,000 $28,000 $27,000Structures730 730 730 730 730Dwelling Units1900 1900 1900 1900 1900People4100 4100 4100 4100 4100Cost per Dwelling Unit$24,000 $24,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,00056%AdaptabilityAnticipated level of effort to modify the concept in the future to accommodate potential changes in climate and corresponding flood flowsWorst, better, best Worst Worst Worst Worst Best Worst Worst Worst WorstBest69%Design, Permitting, and Construction ScheduleAnticipated time to design, permit and construct the conceptWorst, better, best Better Better Better Better Better Better Better Better Better BetterNot specifically askedGroundwater Mitigation ComplexityAnticipated degree of complexity to mitigate for potential groundwater impacts from the conceptWorst, better, best Better Better Better Better Best Better Better Better Better Best26%Project CostAnticipated project cost (does not currently include costs for habitat enhancement or outlet flow work north of US36)Opinion of Probable Project Cost$42M $43M $32M $32M $30M $45M $45M $34M $35M $35M32%Maintenance/OperationsLong‐term operation and maintenance requirementsWorst, better, best Worst Worst Best Best Best Worst Worst Best Best BestMaximum Height (ft) 2626252526 2828333330Length (ft) 3440 3440 1840 1840 2600 3480 3480 1900 1900 3200Footprint (acres) 10.6 10.6 7.3 7.3 9 11.6 11.6 8.3 8.3 11.328%Dam Height, Length and Permanent FootprintHighest elevation of dam from existing ground level, length of dam and footprint area of the dam (see schematics). Approximate number of buildings, dwelling units and people no longer in existing 100‐year floodplain3Downstream Flood Benefits during a 100‐year storm event, by conceptApproximate number of buildings, dwelling units and people no longer in extg 500‐year floodplain 4Downstream Flood Benefits during a 500‐year storm event if a 500‐concept is built95%Downstream Flood Benefits during a 500‐year storm event if a 100‐year concept is builtApproximate number of buildings, dwelling units and people no longer in existing 500‐year floodplain 4Attachment A: Figure 5Attachment A - Detention ConceptsCity Council Meeting Page 129 of 233 * Existing floodplains upstream and downstream of the project cannot be negatively impactedConcepts100‐Year Facilities 500‐Year FacilitiesMaster Plan Variant 1 Variant 2 Master Plan Variant 1 Variant 2% of Public Responses Stating Very Important or ImportantCriteria Description ScoringWith CU Levee2Without CU Levee2With CU Levee2Without CU Levee2Without CU Levee1, 2With CU Levee2Without CU levee2With CU Levee2Without CU levee2Without CU levee1, 258%Direct Impacts to Federally Threatened and Endangered Species HabitatArea of occupied Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse and Ute Ladies' Tresses Orchid habitat anticipated to be permanently filled or excavated with the concept5Acres0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.370.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.3758%Direct Open Water and Wetland ImpactsArea of existing open water and wetlands anticipated to be permanently excavated or filled with the conceptsAcres6.8 6.8 3.8 3.82.26773.83.82.4641%Improved Riparian ConnectivityConcept's ability to provide improved connectivity to South Boulder Creek riparian area (by removing the CU levee)Worst, better, best Worst Best Worst Best Best Worst Best Worst Best BestNot specifically askedTotal Difference in Area of Inundation on OSMP land from Existing ConditionsChange in land area inundated on OSMP land over existing conditions (ponding time of 120 hours or less)Acres5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 15.5 11.4 11.4 11.7 11.7 17.9Advisory Board and Landowner Acceptance Considerations7Recommended by Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB)WRAB recommendations on advancing the conceptsPreferred, Yes, NoNoNo Yes Yes YesNoNoNoNo PreferredRecommended by Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)OSBT recommendations on advancing the concepts with conditionsPreferred, Yes, NoNoNoNoPreferred8Yes8NoNoNoPreferred8Yes8Acceptable to the University of Colorado (CU)CU's statement of acceptability Preferred, Yes, NoYesYes Yes Yes YesNoNoNoNo PreferredTotal Difference in Area of Inundation on OSMP Land from Existing ConditionsChange in land area inundated on OSMP land over existing conditions (maximum retention time of 72 hours)Acres5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 15.5 11.4 11.4 11.7 11.7 17.9Inundation area on OSMP land compared with SBC Master Plan conceptInundation area on OSMP land compared with SBC Master Plan conceptSame, Greater, Greatest Same Same Same Same Greatest Greater GreaterGreater Greater GreatestPotential for OSMP disposal of land Potential need for project construction that could require disposal of OSMP landWorst, better, best Better Better Better Better Better Better Better Better Better BetterOpportunity for habitat restoration on CU South inside the CU leveeOpportunity for habitat restoration on the CU South parcel in land use category OS‐O, inside the existing CU levee. (Not currently included in project costs)Yes, NoNo Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes YesChange in land required for flood mitigation (acres), per BVCP land use designation on CU South 9 Parks, Urban Other (PK‐U/O) (65 acres currently)Acres‐16‐16 ‐25 ‐25 ‐51‐10 ‐10 ‐20 ‐20 ‐51 Public (PUB) (129 acres currently)Acres0 0000 + 36 + 36 + 36 + 360 Open Space‐Other (OS‐O) (119 acres currently)Acres + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 6 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 195 Direct impact from concept6 Uncertainty around the flow constriction configuration may result in additional impacts to critical habitat and wetlands7 Planning Board did not make a recommendation regarding any of the specific concept variations in this table, but did recommend that the final project be designed for the 500‐year flood.8 Recommended with conditions9 + = more acres are required for flood mitigation in that land use designation; ‐ = fewer acres are requried for flood mitigation in that land use designation. Attachment A - Detention ConceptsCity Council Meeting Page 130 of 233 Attachment A: Figure 6South Boulder Creek US36 Detention Concepts ‐ Summary EvaluationAugust 3, 2018Baseline Criteria that must be met for any concept:* Concept must prevent overtopping of US36 during a FEMA 100‐year design Storm at a minimum* Concept must be able to be permittable by regulatory agencies (FEMA, EPA, USACE, USFWS)* Concept must be acceptable to State Engineers Office* Land owners (CU, CDOT and OSMP) must be willing to allow construction of the concept* Groundwater impacts from the project can be mitigated to maintain current groundwater conditions* Existing floodplains upstream and downstream of the project cannot be negatively impactedConcepts100‐Year Facilities500‐Year FacilitiesMaster PlanVariant 1 Variant 2 Master PlanVariant 1 Variant 2CriteriaWith CU Levee2Without CU Levee2With CU Levee2Without CU Levee2Without CU Levee1, 2With CU Levee2Without CU levee2With CU Levee2Without CU levee2Without CU levee1, 2Downstream Flood BenefitsBetter Better Better Better Better Best Best Best Best BestAdaptablity for Climate ChangeWorst Worst Worst Worst Best Worst Worst Worst Worst BestProject CostWorst Worst Best Best Best Worst Worst Better Better BetterDesign, Permitting, and Construction ScheduleBetter Better Better Better Better Better Better Better Better BetterLong‐Tem Operations and Maintenance RequirementsWorst Worst Better Better Best Worst Worst Better Better BestGroundwater Mitigation ComplexityBetter Better Better Better Best Better Better Better Better BestRiparian Connectivity and Habitat Enhancement Opportunities Worst Best Worst Best Best Worst Best Worst Best BestLength, Height and Size of DamBetter Better Best Best Better Better Better Best Best BetterDirect Environmental ImpactsWorst Worst Better Better Best Worst Worst Better Better BestAdvisory Board and Landowner Acceptance Considerations3, 4Recommended by Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB)No No Yes Yes YesNo No No No PreferredRecommended by Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT)NoNo NoPreferred5Yes5No No NoPreferred5Yes5Acceptable to the University of Colorado (CU)YesYes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Preferred1 Variant 2 concept requires removal of the existing CU levee2 Note: all concepts are able to accommodate long‐duration storm volumes4 Planning Board did not make a recommendation regarding any of the specific concept variations in this table, but did recommend that the final project be designed for the 500‐year flood.5 Recommended with conditions3 Preferred alternative indicated by dark blue, rankings by blue shadingAttachment A - Detention ConceptsCity Council Meeting Page 131 of 233 South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Timeline20172010South Boulder CreekFloodplain MappingStudy 2015Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan CU South Guiding PrinciplesSouth Boulder CreekFlood Mitigation Master Plan 2003 - 2008 | Study adopted by FEMA in 2010South Boulder Creek Phase 1 ProjectConcept EvaluationPreliminary DesignFinal DesignConstruction201720Attachment B: Figure 1Attachment B - Project TimelineCity Council Meeting Page 132 of 233 ϮϬϭϵͲϮϬϮϮWƵďůŝĐKƉĞŶ,ŽƵƐĞϭApril 23, 2018WƵďůŝĐKƉĞŶ,ŽƵƐĞϮJune 7, 2018Ě,ŽĐDĞĞUJŶŐƐMarch-May5JNFMJOFJTCBTFEPOCFTUJOGPSNBUJPOBWBJMBCMFBUUIJTUJNFBOEXJMMCFTVCKFDUUPDIBOHFhƉĚĂƚĞĚ:ƵůǇϯ͕ϮϬϭϴ^ŇŽŽĚŵŝUJŐĂUJŽŶĐŽŶĐĞƉƚĞǀĂůƵĂUJŽŶ&ĂůůϮϬϭϳʹ^ƵŵŵĞƌϮϬϭϴ&ŝŶĂůĞƐŝŐŶΘŽŶƐƚƌƵĐUJŽŶŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇΘŽƵŶĐŝů/ŶƉƵƚĚǀŝƐŽƌǇŽĂƌĚŽƵŶĐŝůĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶĐĞƉƚAug. 7, 2018tZΘK^d:ŽŝŶƚ DĞĞUJŶŐJune Ϯϱ, 2018K^dFeb 14, 2018^ƵŵŵĞƌϮϬϭϴʹ^ƉƌŝŶŐϮϬϭϵWƵďůŝĐŝŶƉƵƚŽŶĂŶŶĞǆĂUJŽŶ^ƚĂīƵƉĚĂƚĞƐŽŶƉƌĞůŝŵ͘ĚĞƐŝŐŶWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇĚĞƐŝŐŶWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚ^ĞƉƚ͘ϲŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͗ĂŶŶĞǆĂUJŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶSept. ϮϬ, 2018WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂUJŽŶƌĞ͗ĂŶŶĞǆĂUJŽŶƉƉƌŽǀĂůĨƌŽŵƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐĂŶĚĐŽƵŶĐŝůƚŽƵƐĞůĂŶĚĨŽƌŇŽŽĚŵŝUJŐĂUJŽŶWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚAug. 2tZƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂUJŽŶJuly 16, 2018K^dƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ July 11, 2018ŽĂƌĚƵƉĚĂƚĞƐ4PVUI#PVMEFS$SFFL'MPPE.JUJHBUJPO1IBTF1SPKFDU5JNFMJOFAttachment B: Figure 2Attachment B - Project TimelineCity Council Meeting Page 133 of 233 2013 Flood Limits VS FEMA 100‐year Floodplain1Frasier MeadowsCU SouthArapahoeAve.55thS. BoulderRoad.Hwy 93Foothills Pkwy2013FEMA 100‐yearAttachment CAttachment C - 2013 VS FEMA 100-YearCity Council Meeting Page 134 of 233 DRAFT ONLY The information below is city staff’s understanding and initial capture of the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) motions regarding Item IV. South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation discussed at the July 11, 2018 OSBT meeting. The meeting minutes including the following motion language have not yet been approved by the board and will be considered at its August 11, 2018 meeting. A video record of this item (minute 25:31) is available at: http://boulderco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=858 July 11, 2018 OSBT motions regarding the South Boulder Creek Phase 1 flood mitigation (1)Karen Hollweg moved the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend that City Council advance one or both of the following South Boulder Creek flood mitigation 100 or 500- year concepts to preliminary design: 1) Variant 1 and/or 2) Variant 2. These recommendations are conditioned on the terms shown in Attachment A, as revised. Curt Brown seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent. Revised Attachment A Attachment A: Recommended Concept Advancement Terms Variant 1 and Variant 2 (100-Year or 500-Year Facility) Concepts The following terms are recommended in order to advance all concepts. 1. Remove the CU levee and restore underlying land as part of project design at project cost. 2. OSMP and Public Works staff continue to work collaboratively to avoid and minimize city open space impacts (e.g., flooding, structures, vegetative damage, introduction of potentially damaging species) throughout preliminary design and construction. 3. OSMP and Public Works staff develop additional information through preliminary design, to both staffs’ satisfaction, on projected sedimentation, groundwater flow, debris accumulation, and required vegetative maintenance on city open space in order to identify and clarify additional mitigation and compensation measures. 4. OSMP and Public Works staff conduct a review and assessment of 30%, 60%, and 90% design plans to ensure that all open space concerns are getting addressed and return to OSBT for their input at each stage before advancement through preliminary design to construction. 5. Criticality of Groundwater Conveyance: All proposed flood control variants include a floodwall along US-36 with a foundation to bedrock, as required by the State Engineer. This wall, however designed, has the potential to intercept the flow of ground water that supports critical wet meadow ecosystems above and below the highway. These ecosystems provide habitat for two listed species and are one of the rarest ecotypes in Boulder County and the state. Attachment D Attachment D - OSBT Motion Language City Council Meeting Page 135 of 233 DRAFT ONLY The information below is city staff’s understanding and initial capture of the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) motions regarding Item IV. South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation discussed at the July 11, 2018 OSBT meeting. The meeting minutes including the following motion language have not yet been approved by the board and will be considered at its August 11, 2018 meeting. A video record of this item (minute 25:31) is available at: http://boulderco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=858 Impacts to wet meadows from short-term, infrequent inundation can be compensated by enhancement of adjacent lands. However, permanent degradation of the wet meadow ecosystem due to disruption of the underlying groundwater regime cannot be compensated or offset by anything other than additional mature wet meadows, which simply cannot be created using the higher, mined lands of CU South. Creation of new wet meadow habitat, particularly in an arid region, has proven so far to be impossible to accomplish at any price and over long time frames. Compensation for this risk is simply not possible; hence, it must be avoided. Therefore, just as the mechanical outlet works are essential to the functioning of this flood control project, so also must the proposed groundwater conveyance system work fully for as long as the floodwall is in place. As with the outlet works, it must be tested, operated, maintained and as necessary replaced to ensure its full functioning continuously in perpetuity. The project plan, SOP, and long-term budget must be developed to achieve this goal, based upon previous experience with similar systems. 6. In order that the project results in clear net benefits for open space, acquire portions of CU South OS-O property and water rights in Dry Creek Ditch #2 for permanent OSMP ownership and management, as follows: a.Convey approximately 40 acres of land to the west and north of the CU levee as part of the project. b.Provide project funding to restore three acres for each additional acre of OSMP land subject to ponding under the 100-year storm event with the constructed project, not to exceed $100,000 per acre. Based upon current project estimates: Variant 1: 17.4 acres restored at approximately $1.74 million. For Variant 2: 47 acres restored at approximately $4.7 million. c. Incorporate realignment of the Dry Creek Ditch #2 west of the restoration area to the extent practical and acceptable to the ditch board and CU and convey sufficient water rights in Dry Creek Ditch #2 to support the restoration goals in 6b; 7. In order to consolidate management of the South Boulder Creek floodplain lands, acquire and convey to OSMP the 44 acres of CU South lands between the existing CU Attachment D - OSBT Board Motion Language City Council Meeting Page 136 of 233 DRAFT ONLY The information below is city staff’s understanding and initial capture of the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) motions regarding Item IV. South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation discussed at the July 11, 2018 OSBT meeting. The meeting minutes including the following motion language have not yet been approved by the board and will be considered at its August 11, 2018 meeting. A video record of this item (minute 25:31) is available at: http://boulderco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=858 levee and OSMP lands to the east and south, with subsequent management and any restoration to be funded by OSMP. 8. Public Works Department supports OSMP efforts through annexation to convey and/or permanently protect CU South’s remaining OS-O acreage to the west and north of the CU levee for long-term protection and possible restoration (approximately 35 acres). 9.Develop and implement a Monitoring and Maintenance Agreement between OSMP and Public Works to address long-term needs to keep the project functional and within design parameters. Two additional mitigation elements would be implemented under Variant 2 10. Modify or realign the city’s sanitary sewer that runs along South Boulder Creek to allow for OSMP projects to open up the floodplain, as part of preliminary design and construction. 11. Provide for enhanced wildlife passage under US36 beyond current concepts as part of preliminary design and construction. (2)Karen Hollweg moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees state that, while both variants have impacts to Open Space, the preferred option is Variant 1 based on Open Space values. Variant 2 is less desirable because it would impact Open Space and Mountain Parks resources of higher significance and on a more frequent and long-term basis. Curt Brown seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent. (3)Karen Hollweg moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend that City Council request development of an upstream storage concept design that could work separately or in concert with Variant 1 and/or 2. Principal objectives would include enabling the flood wall along US 36 to be removed, reducing the sedimentation and inundation impacts on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands, avoiding the need for a flow restriction at the US 36 bridge, minimizing other impacts on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands, and taking account of the project’s permit-ability. Curt Brown seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent. Attachment D - OSBT Board Motion Language City Council Meeting Page 137 of 233 DRAFT ONLY The information below is city staff’s understanding and initial capture of the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) motions regarding Item IV. South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation discussed at the July 11, 2018 OSBT meeting. The meeting minutes including the following motion language have not yet been approved by the board and will be considered at its August 11, 2018 meeting. A video record of this item (minute 25:31) is available at: http://boulderco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=858 (4)Andria Bilich moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees state that, “the Open Space Board of Trustees has a significant interest in the future of the OS-O portion of the CU South property and how this area may impact existing city open space and how this acreage may further city open space purposes and services. Therefore, OSBT requests that City Council seek OSBT input, at such a time deemed appropriate during annexation negotiations with CU, regarding decisions affecting the future of any of the land on CU South property with OS-O land use designation. Curt Brown seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent. (5)Curt Brown moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees make the following statement regarding Groundwater Conveyance: Critical wet meadow habitat upstream and downstream of US-36 depends upon uninterrupted groundwater flow. Loss of this rare ecotype due to groundwater disruption would not be acceptable under the OSMP Charter. To date, creation of new, compensatory, wet meadow habitat, particularly in an arid region, has proven impossible to accomplish at any price and over long time frames. Therefore, full and continuous functioning of a robust groundwater conveyance system in perpetuity is a critical component of any flood control variant, as detailed in Attachment A. We also judge that this clear commitment to successful operation of the groundwater conveyance system in perpetuity will be critical to obtaining environmental permitting for the project. Andria Bilich seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent. (6)Tom Isaacson moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees make the following statement, “The proposed flood mitigation concepts raise important and potentially complex disposal issues under section 177 of the City Charter, with respect to storage of flood waters on Open Space land, the construction of flood detention facilities, or both. Those issues include (1) whether the concept would require a disposal, (2) whether a disposal should be approved, and (3) the detailed terms of any such disposal. OSBT believes that the disposal issues are best addressed after the number of concepts has been narrowed and the preferred concept(s) have been more fully designed and specified. In Attachment D - OSBT Board Motion Language City Council Meeting Page 138 of 233 DRAFT ONLY The information below is city staff’s understanding and initial capture of the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) motions regarding Item IV. South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation discussed at the July 11, 2018 OSBT meeting. The meeting minutes including the following motion language have not yet been approved by the board and will be considered at its August 11, 2018 meeting. A video record of this item (minute 25:31) is available at: http://boulderco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=858 the event that one or more concepts proceed to preliminary design, OSBT intends to work with city staff to identify the point in the process at which such concept(s) have been sufficiently designed and specified such that OSBT can then make a fully-informed decision on any disposal questions. Karen seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight was absent. Attachment D - OSBT Board Motion Language City Council Meeting Page 139 of 233 DRAFT ONLY The information below is city staff’s understanding and initial capture of the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) motions regarding South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation discussed at the July 16, 2018 WRAB meeting. The meeting minutes including the following motion language have not yet been approved by the board and will be considered at its August meeting. An audio record of this item can be accessed from the WRAB website: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards- commissions/water-resources-advisory-board July 16, 2018 WRAB motions regarding the South Boulder Creek Phase 1 flood mitigation 1.The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council table from further discussion the so‐called Master Plan approach to mitigating flood hazards in the West Valley area of the South Boulder Creek waterway. Motion: Vincent Seconded: Ryan Vote: 4‐0 2.The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that the City Council not request development of an upstream storage concept design. The Water Resources Advisory Board has concluded that the upstream storage concept introduced at this late stage would cause undue delay. Further, there is the potential for additional permitting challenges and the potential for the need for increased infrastructure. Motion: Ryan Seconded: Oeth Vote: 4‐0 3.The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council direct staff to move one project concept variation into the next steps of preliminary design and discussions with landowners. The project concept variation that the Water Resources Advisory Board supports and recommends is Variant 2, 500‐year as presented by staff because it is economically efficient on a per capita basis, retains access to US 36 and Foothills Parkway, best protects public safety, provides the most downstream flood benefits, and provides the most adaptability to accommodate potential changes in climate and corresponding flood flows. The Water Resources Advisory Board would also support, in order of preference: Variant 2 100‐year or Variant 1 100‐year. Motion: Oeth Seconded: Ryan Vote: 4‐0 4.The Water Resources Advisory Board recognizes that mitigating flood risks in one area of town to the 500‐year level is a major policy change that has a number of implications. We want to minimize the risk of loss of life and limb during storms and floods, in all areas of town, to the highest level possible. However, we will never be able to achieve the 500‐year level of safety everywhere else in town. We will be unlikely to achieve the current practice to target the 100‐year level for most of the other 14 waterways. Some waterways will receive only the 10‐year level of safety. Currently, some waterways have only the 2‐year level of safety. Furthermore, the people living along the other 14 waterways will shoulder the vast majority of the costs to mitigate the flood risk for the West Valley. And yet it is possible, justifiable and appropriate to mitigate to the 500‐year level for the West Valley area because of the economic efficiencies of expanding protection here, and the benefits that go beyond the neighborhood, including maintaining access to vital transportation corridors during major storm events. Motion: Vincent Seconded: Rose Vote: 4‐0 Attachment E Attachment E - WRAB Motion Language City Council Meeting Page 140 of 233 Public Comments Regarding the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project This attachment provides the following information: 1.Public Comments provided during the June 25, 2018 Joint Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) and Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) Meeting 2.Public Comments provided during the July 11, 2018 OSBT Meeting 3.Public Comments provided during the July 16, 2018 WRAB Meeting 4.Emails sent to the OSBT email address between June 13, 2018 and July 11, 2018 regarding the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project. 5.Emails sent to the WRAB email address between June 13, 2018 and July 17, 2018 regarding the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project. Attachment FAttachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 141 of 233 Public Comment at the Joint WRAB and OSBT Meeting Regarding the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation. Chuck Howe: Frasier Meadows community was heavily impacted by the 2013 floods. There is a high degree of immobility within the population that lives within the flood plain. We need to think about the tools available to respond to flooding when much of the population in heavily affected areas is not very mobile. Jim Wolf: Frasier Meadows. Big deal for City of Boulder because it’s such an important addition to the safety to the community. Very big deal for people who live in South Boulder and the Frasier Meadows community. The orange shirts we’re wearing are to indicate to you how important it is to us. We lost a lot in 2013, property, cars, but we got lucky; we didn’t lose a life. Flooding happening all over the world. We’re going to be looking at another four years of worrying that it might happen again before the berm or fix is in place. If you could speed it up, it’d be even better. Louise Bradley: Appreciates the difficulty of the decisions before the boards. The decision is urgent. She came to Boulder in the 50’s. During the flood, it was difficult for the less mobile to evacuate. Residents of Frasier meadows are deeply concerned about the safety of their friends and loved ones if there is another large event. Mary Jane Hall: In September 2013, Frasier Meadows and residents were deluged with devastating damages to property and loss of feeling safe in our homes. We are waiting for measures to be taken ASAP. Our priority is for action to be taken. It is frustrating to know anything productive may not occur in the next 5 years. Any rain event locally brings fear for us. Action less risky than inaction. Edith Stevens: Chose to cede time to Ruth Wright. Kathie Joyner: Qualla Drive. Here to ask for quick action. Thanks to both boards to move this along, to actually start to look at preliminary design phases more than 4.5 years later. All of the options meet the baseline criteria. Most important to us: prevent flood waters from overtopping US 36. Asking you to provide option recommendations to council that have the least amount of environmental impacts, that have the least number of environmental permitting issues, that are the most likely to be acceptable to all land owners, and that can be implemented quickly, relative to other options. At risk every day. Waited almost 5 years to see relief from a known threat. As council member Sam Weaver mentioned: “Let’s not let the perfect get in the way of good.” There is no perfect. Unnecessary delays leave people at risk. David Maguire: It has been five years since the last flood. We sit and wait for the next and for the waters to come over US36. The highest responsibility of government is to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. Residents are not experts who can evaluate plans, we are in harm’s way and desire only options that can be implemented quickly and provide safety. Laura Tyler: Difficult to do public speaking and difficult to relive other people’s experiences from 2013. Please move as many options forward as possible. It will save lives. It doesn’t take much to flood our neighborhood. It’s been five years and we know we’re in danger. Elmar Dornberger His house was flooded in 2013. No one died but he did have to have shoulder surgery because he was injured while trying to rescue his house. Any time it rains or there is snowfall, his nervous system gets revved up. He was recently on a vacation that was not really a vacation, as he received a flood alert on his phone while he was in another country. there was no one to care for his house, and he was afraid of what he might find when he got home. Please take action quickly before there is another flood. Clinton Heiple: Here to advocate for flood protection for south Boulder. All projects include building on land owned by CU. Confident CU didn’t buy this land to serve as a permanent dog park for the neighborhood. They could fence it now if they wanted to. They want something in return for it. What they want in return is water and sewer service, and the obvious way to do that is for the city to annex the land. Five years, lots of meetings, but no shovels of dirt moved so far. Don’t need another flood with people killed in order to get action. There will be another flood, we just don’t know when. We need action. Don Cote: All of Boulder loves the open space and waterways that surround us, but they become hazardous when flooding. The community has a responsibility as a whole to protect itself from floods. The City failed to do so in 2013. Please move the flood mitigation forward as soon as possible, before there is another flood. Allyn Feinberg: Involved in area since middle 90’s when CU bought the property. Was on City Council then. Question to focus on is open space. From her background as a trustee for 10 years, this is a concern. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 142 of 233 All of the options impact significant open space. It seems like aiming all of the inundation at open space, which is high value property, makes any of the options undesirable. Are there any other options that would store more water on CU to consider, to keep Open Space land from being overwhelmed? Steve Pomerance: Was lead council member in the 80s on flood control when we did all the big flood control projects on the major creeks. One of the principles that we operated under was that detention is unlikely to be the ultimate solution. Concerned with detention approach. What happens if, and when the detention pond is overtopped? Longer saturation storms, combine that will fill creeks and reservoir. End up with over 500-year flood amounts and in about an hour, it would fill up the detention pond. Need to think about and do more work on: not using these design storms but use reasonable worst case. Start looking at how to deal with it being overtopped and the channel and damage downstream. Soleine Tholance: Lives in one of the neighborhoods affected in 2013. Now that there are mitigation options on the table, every month that passes without protection leaves thousands of residents in harm’s way. Ben Binder: Talking about blockage of the restricted flow under US 36. One of the concerns. Elephant in the room. In 2013, CU’s gravel pit was low and dry. In 1996, it was determined that hundreds of homes were built in the floodplain. Speaker showed pictures of what happens from blockage in an underpass from Fort Collins. Karl Anuta: Reminded of Murphey’s law. 60-year resident of Boulder. This last weekend’s rains make it clear that something has to be done promptly. With Variant 2, there is an opportunity to improve the habitat for mice and orchids. It also provides the option to prevent damage to people. Less cost for city and saves most land for CU, which should make annexation faster. Urges the boards to approve Variant 2. Nick Vinson: Recently had a small amount of rainfall, and in about 15 minutes noticed several trash bins washing up in our yards and about half a foot of water come into driveway. That’s a foreshadowing of what’s going to happen. Afraid of starting a family here until we get this figured out. Ruth Wright: Has been an advocate of the 500-year criteria for a long time. In 1938 had a 200-year flood. This is comparatively recent. 100-year mitigation is not adequate. The detention in the plan is temporary (24-72 hours). Variant 2 has the highest promise. It has approximate detention storage for all variants. She does not understand why this plan is restricting flow through the underpass. Is there any construction on Open Space? If so, disposal is required. Gwen Dooley: One suggestion: Don’t even bother with the 100-year flood; only bother with the 500-year flood. It’s the only one that will save lives and that’s the most important thing. The mice can jump out of the way. Karla Rickansrud: Has been a resident of Boulder for 28 years. Lived on the hill during the flood. Had friends living in an area with heavy flooding. She tried to bring them some food, as they were having trouble with their basement, which had 5-6 feet of water in it. Her friends had catastrophic damage to their house and ultimately moved because they were traumatized. Now she works at Frasier. Every time it rains or hails there is PTSD in the neighborhood. She appreciates the difficulty of doing things in Boulder because of the educated public and because of the idea that somehow our city staff haven’t considered all the possibilities. We don’t need more study; we don’t need more data points. Please act now. Gordon McCurry: Professional hydrologist speaking on my own behalf. Encouraged that additional alternatives are being offered and Variants 1 and 2 are good alternatives. Suggest several modifications to variants. Consider upstream detention could decrease OSMP impacts. Much of flooding in 2013 occurred also because of inflow from western tributaries. For Variant 2, the superior alternative, recommend considering mitigation for Viele Channel and Anderson Ditch as well, which come together right behind the RTD park-n-ride. That would decrease some of the real risk that Frasier Meadows incurred. Ground water is a significant issue. I would encourage moving ground water issues ahead as fast as possible. It may mean that current alignment along US 36 isn’t feasible or is feasible but cost-prohibitive. Lynn Segal: CU has no limit to the height of their buildings. We should not be doing anything for CU‘s benefit, they can add density in their core. She went to water festival. Learned about groundwater recharge from a man named Gordon. Can we get a consult from him and other citizen experts? We need this and not just in a public comment setting. Need to establish an alluvium. We should do something with groundwater recharge. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 143 of 233 Public Comment at the OSBT July 11, 2018 Meeting Regarding the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation. Kay Forsythe, Boulder, said she appreciates the protection of Open Space; right now, however the people who live and work at Frasier Meadows feel like the endangered species. People were lucky in 2013 that no one lost their lives. She asked the Board to present to City Council a variety of options for flood mitigation. Don Cote, Boulder, showed a video from the flood in 2013 at Frasier Meadows. He said they would like to have peace and security in their remaining years. Please consider a balance in protecting Open Space as well as the security of human lives. Crif Crawford, showed a video from the flood in 2013. He said this flood completely destroyed the entire first floor of Frasier Meadows. Over 50 patients had to be moved either by wheelchair, walker, or by being carried or led by staff or Frasier residents. Although no lives were lost during the flood, the trauma of the event severely affected the lives of patients and staff. Gordon McCurry, Boulder, said he has been studying the South Boulder Creek flood area for many years, and showed a revised option for Variant 2. He asked the Board to consider this option and recommend it to City Council. Pat Billig, Boulder, said the Trustees role is to protect resources. She said she is concerned about the terms in Attachment A as they are all dependent on CU South, which the City of Boulder does not own. She said OSMP is not here to adapt to engineering concerns; it should be the other way around. Please explore alternatives. Ruth Wright, Boulder, said she hopes the Board will not retreat from 500-year flood criteria. Why are the options shown proposing building on Open Space lands; please minimize or eliminate the impact on these precious lands. She said she hopes the Board will send the city and consultants this message and insist they do it right. Jonathan Carroll, Boulder, showed a video from the 2013 flood. Urged the Board to consider any and all options deemed acceptable and continue moving forward. Jeff Rifkin, Boulder, said Variant 2, with the modifications proposed by Gordon, is the obvious choice. This would eliminate the hazards to neighborhoods as well as protect maximum amount of Open Space land. Steven Telleen, Boulder, said he supports Variant 2 with the modifications proposed by Gordon. Any flood mitigation should be based on current best practice. High hazard dams and approaches have regularly failed over the last hundred years. What works is using strategies to basically slow and divert the flood waters; this relieves some of the pressure and puts water back. From an ecological perspective, flooding is natural and healthy for natural riparian areas. Ray Bridge, Boulder County Audubon Society, said thank you to staff for efforts on evaluating the actual effects on Open Space. He urged the Board to recommend to City Council the modifications that Gordon proposed for Variant 2. He noted that no data has been provided to evaluate any of the designs; need to look at potential impacts on Open Space. Kathie Joyner, Boulder, said the responsibility to preserve and protect Open Space lands that OSBT holds, makes this Board an important piece of the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project. After years of study, confident that staff have provided several viable options. The more quickly we move to the preliminary design phase, the better. She asked the Board to recommend as many options as possible to council so they will have the maximum flexibility in their conversations. Jim McMillan, Save South Boulder, said he supports the study of the upstream option that was sent to the Board on behalf of their group. We should be exploiting natural features that exist there today while maintaining wetlands. He noted that he has yet to hear about environmental change as part of these conversations. He encouraged the Board to take a science-based decision and support continuing the study. Do not make decisions without data. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 144 of 233 Margaret LeCompte, Save South Boulder, said they stand for effective flood mitigation. Why would we study mitigation options where there are critically protected lands; the options suggested are expensive and expose risks to habitat as well as threaten the lives of South Boulder residents. She said she believes that neither the Master Plan or proposed Variants have any chance of being implemented. The Board needs to think outside of the box; please consider Gordon’s proposed plan. Ken Beitel, Boulder, said there are amazing wetlands and wildlife in the proposed area; he urged the Board to support Gordon’s proposed upstream option instead. This option allows for more area for flood water retention as well as lessening the threat to those downstream. Having an independent contractor may also be favored as the perception is city staff are trying to move the process along too quickly. Edie Stevens, FOBOS, said as members of the Open Space Board you are entrusted with the preservation of endangered species. Citizens are ultimately responsible for the preservation or the destructive of this area. Hope we will work together that will protect both people as well as the biodiversity. Think globally, act locally. Mike Chiropolos, Save South Boulder, said the goal should be for a maximum benefits approach; for lives, for CU and for Open Space. You should only build where it is high, and it is dry, and it is appropriate. Reclaim, restore, re-wild this corridor. Catherine Sundvall, Boulder, said she learned how to create a living sponge which allowed her to turn her property into a wetland-type area with rain gardens and habitat. Do not look at an option that would increase water through dry ditch #2. Recommend looking into options using gravel puts and retention ponds to create solutions. Ellen Franconi, Boulder, when CU purchased that land there was concern about what they would do; could not believe they might build housing units. Didn’t understand the term for Variances. Curious if one of those options limit building on this land. Jacklyn Ramaley, Boulder, said she is concerned with Variant 2 and the potential devastating impacts to Open Space. Open Space is committed to managing this property with the goal to preserve and protect. Consider lasting environmental impacts and decisions being made today. She said to please consider all upstream alternatives that could possible reduce downstream and potential damage. Natural eco systems are very difficult to restore and expensive. Rachel Friend, Boulder, said flash flooding in South Boulder Creek is an urgent health and safety issue. Please move forward with as many options as possible, and no more modifications or delays. Suzanne DeLucia, Boulder, said whatever decision is made needs to provide maximum protection for residents. Decisions made in haste may cause more damage in the long run. No additional carrying capacity in South Boulder Creek. Urge the board to consider gordon option. Pete Ornstein, Boulder, expressed his support for Variant 2. Dry creek ditch 2 is incapable of handling increased water. Like the 500-year variant on variant 2 seems cost effective and a good way to address climate issues. Support Gordon’s options for upstream flood control. Molly Davis, Boulder, said flood caused severe damage to her land and property. Job as Trustees is to work for the common good and protection of Open Space. Job is to protect the natural resources. Ben Binder, Boulder, said city staff is minimizing the restrictions on the US36 underpass. Why not use gravel pits for detention; tremendous amount of opportunity in this area. so many problems with Alternative D. suggest you eliminate the work being done on the master plan; look at Gordon opportunities. Ted Ross, Boulder Water Keeper, said current options presented are not ideal. Voice of watershed is saying step back, think about it, and maybe look at it again. Charter is clear, protect open space. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 145 of 233 Leonard May, Boulder, emphasized that both variances would use a major area of Open Space land. Believe that its important to recommend to city council that any further design work must evaluate impacts on open space property. As Trustees’ your responsibility is to protect land purchased with Open Space funds. Amy Siemel, Boulder, said a designated state natural area is very special. Tall grass area contains sensitive habitat and flood water on this meadow could be disastrous. Once precious land is gone, its gone. Adopt variant 2 provided data proves this is the best option. Revisions: Take flood waters from further upstream. Detain flood water on OS-O. take opportunity to reduce scope of high hazard dam. Laura Tyler, Boulder, said the deadline on this project is the next flood. Move as many options forward as fast as you can. Harlin Savage, Save South Boulder, said Open Space is one of the things we love most about Boulder and the strong conservation effort that most of us share. Please consider how the choice of a flood mitigation concept will affect neighbors. She asked the Board to consider the upstream solution proposed which would shift water to old gravel pit. Allow flood waters to move in a more natural way. Fail to future generations. Michael Tomlinson, Boulder Rights of Nature, Boulder Water Keepers. University behavior has been an insult to the citizens and the university community. In 100 years, the way we are treating these other species will be thought about how we thought about racism previously. Look at the upstream model by Gordon and please use gravel puts. Linda Jourgensen, Boulder, said she re-read the Open Space Charter recently and saw nothing in there regarding flood control issues. There is a precedent that should not be set; to allow flood control on state land that we promised to protect. Lynn Segal, Boulder, said she is interested in Gordon’s upstream solution. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 146 of 233 Public Comment at the WRAB 7/16/18 Meeting Regarding the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Jaclyn Ramaley: Concerns for cost of restoration and outcomes. There has been no real discussion of cost of restoration and for maintaining and monitoring the restorations in the future. Restoration is not easy and in discussion thus far has just assumed that restoration is possible. This is not always the case. Sometimes things just don’t come back. More attention needs to be paid to the realities of the cost and difficulties of restoration. Patricia Carden: Lived in Boulder for 36 years, but wasn’t here in 2013 when former home sustained major costly damage. Unconscionable that south Boulder remains in documented floodplain, has been recognized as such by the city, has sustained flood damage, continues to be studied, and in spite of approval of a plan, south Boulder residents are still vulnerable. Great respect for your role as board members. Well studied issue, and yet another option offered tonight. Action now please Chuck Howe: Former WARAB member. Frasier Meadows Retirement Community did suffer substantial damage in the last flood and the concern remains unmitigated thus far. Looking at Variants I & II they appear capable of mitigating damage to US 36 & both seem well thought out. Give main consideration to Variants I & II and move them forward. Raymond Bridge: Speaking on behalf of Boulder County Audubon Society. Plan and variants ignore BVCP requirements. Plans in line with BVCP have not been studied. Quick 4-day study of the upstream option review had a lot of bias in the analysis. Drains and pumps that have to be maintained in perpetuity are expensive. Urge you to recommend to Council that Gordon McCurry’s option be studied. Rachel Friend: Her street was particularly hard hit with flash flooding during the 2013 event. She is gob smacked by the amount of time and planning in the last week that City staff has put into the upstream variant. Why is staff spending so much time on this variant this late in the game? Her neighborhood has been waiting in harm’s way for 5 years for resolution. Though the individual presenting the upstream plan is knowledgeable, his plan is five years too late. There are good variants from city staff already on the table. The study of law specifies that once a danger is known, there is a duty to mitigate that danger. Move forward with only Variants I & II. They are recommended by city engineers. Recommend them to City Council with all speed. Don Cote: Your task is to assist the city to move forward on this project. Every aspect of project has been probed. Engineers have already ruled out options that have no chance of being permitted. A new proposal tonight has been ruled out before. The options provided before you have been vetted. Crucial you complete this task rather than discussing failed solutions. Choose an option or set of options to assist the Council to move forward on the preliminary design phase. Please don’t embarrass yourselves as OSBT did. Jon Carroll: Street and neighborhood was flooded. Miracle that no one was seriously hurt or killed. A group of very competent city engineers and staff have reviewed the variants before the board and they are ready to go. A new option has been presented to the board which has permitting issues and may take six months longer to get to the same place the current variants are now. Please move forward very quickly with the existing variants from staff. We have waited too long already. Harlin Savage: Unbelievable what I’m hearing today. I was here to present an upstream option that looks very different than what was presented today. I want to know why the city and RJH haven’t looked at this before in the previous years. The city isn’t managing its project. The proposal we are presenting is for upstream flow that uses the gravel pits, as presented by Dr. McCurry. Patricia Billig: Former OSBT trustee. We are here now because this started wrong. Agree with what Harlin said. At the OSBT meeting it was obvious that they had not had a seat at the table when this started, when the baseline criteria were developed. Nothing in the criteria about protection of habitat, or that the Colorado State Wildlife area is involved. No discussion about the difficulty of restoring habitat. What is needed to move forward is for WRAB to take the opportunity to team up with OSBT and get this thing done right. Margaret LeCompte (handout): Master plan concept for south Boulder. City staff have already considered it the most expensive and what you are considering does not reflect plans provided by citizens. Why are we wasting time looking at this $45 million project which constitutes only 1/3 of the original plan? You have before you Ruth Wright’s list of fatal flaws in the master plan project. Staff are refusing to look at the upstream options just by saying they can’t be permitted. That is irresponsible. This started in the 1990s when CU purchased this property which had minimal development potential. CU violated reclamation plan by draining the land and claimed it dry. In 2013, when city contracted with CH2MHill. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 147 of 233 The city and consultants produced a plan that in no way infringed on CU’s development plan. Re-examine upstream solution using the quarry pit. Allyn Feinberg: Speaking on behalf of Plan Boulder County. Thanks to WRAB for holding two public hearings and gathering input from the various interests at length. We do not support either Variant I or II in their current forms due to the impact to Open Space Land. Both variants use a major slot of Open Space land for storage in flood events. This property has been purchased with substantial funds for Open Space use because it has two (endangered) listed species, has very high quality rare habitat and has been designated as a state natural area because of its ecological importance. The initial work done by the new engineering has not adequately dealt with limiting impacts on Open Space use of the high functioning wet meadow ecosystem for flood retention. To better address the impacts to Open Space while protecting the life/safety of the downstream residents, Plan Boulder recommends careful consideration of using the upstream flood plain for more detention as suggested by Gordon McCurry and Ruth Wright and supported for consideration by OSBT. The updated comp plan approved in 2017 on flood plain preservation recommends natural over structural means. Suzanne DeLucia: Thank you for watching out for me. We are all traumatized from the 2013 floods. Decision needs to protect all citizens and not make matters worse. Variant 1 does have the potential to make things worse. Decisions made in haste can have this potential. In 2013, I did flood, but it was from groundwater flooding, and any decision must include citizens on both sides of the highway. Dr. McCurry’s option is for variant 2 with modifications, including upstream solutions. We believe this is a win-win proposal. Ken Beitel (Pool): Thanks to board and staff for thoughtful consideration. His house took on water during the flood so he has the deepest regard and understanding of the need to protect the populace going forward. Also represents a advocating for the proposed Meadowlark Open Space. This is very wildlife rich area, as is the bench. There are wetlands all through the bench and the neighbors there have a fair bit of concern about additional building in that area. There are already crumbling foundations in that area. A proposed additional 1000 apartments in that same area would be bad. There has been much discussion about the plan needing to satisfy CU. There is concern from the community that the staff is primarily looking after CU’s interests before the community. Would like to see an independently studied option. Gordon McCurry could do this and he would be fair and would give the community full faith that all options have been considered. His option would allow for full 308 acre Protected Open Space. It would also protect the people downstream better. There is a fair bit of risk in the structures proposed in variants I II. If a cottonwoods clogged the channel, a structure could fail causing catastrophic damage downstream. The proposed upstream option would avoid this hazard. Gordon McCurry (Pool): Applaud staff and RJH for looking at this idea for the past few days that was presented on Wednesday. This idea came about as we started to understand the master plan concept and the two variants proposed and found technical flaws, both hydrological and ecological impacts. So, we looked at whether something else could be modified that could reduce those impacts. The handout tries to get at that concept. This is an evolving idea and has evolved since the last time we talked about it. If RJH can do what they did in a few days, imagine what they can do in a few weeks. We recommend that the board recommend to City Council that they move forward with an upstream option and evaluation of the concept design level, which is said to take about 8 weeks. For the upstream storage, groundwater impacts, if there is a need for cut-off walls, the cut-off walls can discharge water downstream into that very important large state natural area land. There are wet meadows, so groundwater impacts will have dampened out by the time they get to 36. Instead of looking at what isn’t permittable, look at it backwards. For example, what size of detention would be needed at 36 that would need a cut-off wall, and then what would be needed further upstream, and then think about what kind of berm upstream would be needed and permittable. Thank you for the out-of-the-box thinking. Mike Chiropulus (Pool): Environmental attorney. Representing Safe South Boulder. OSPM mission to preserve and protect the land resources that characterize Boulder. Concerned that we don’t pit existing OSMP resources against the awesome potential of these 308 acres. Don’t pit neighborhoods against neighborhoods. Looking for a win win solution for everyone. WRAB mission goes to CEAP study and recommendations with respect to the Boulder Valley Comp Plan and the departmental master plans. Recommend that the board study the upstream solution. Do an independent objective assessment. Let’s dig into it and see what it looks like. Let’s wait until the Army Corps and 404 permit analysis has been done. They would say that you didn’t consider the citizen solution that should have been done. Citizen solution always gets laughed out of the room but is often the correct answer. Also recommend the board hold out for Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 148 of 233 a floodplain solution that provides a margin of error. Do the key studies first before making the final recommendations. Informed recommendations, studies that are needed before final recommendations. Nature based resiliency is the cutting edge. Ruth Wright (Pool): The simple issue before you is detention on the upstream side of 36 and then letting the water flow through, under, over into the valley in a controlled manner. Number 1 is detention, so there is adequate detention so water won’t go over the spillway. Every option shows water going over the spillway, pushed up against 36, then goes over spillway and down into the West Valley. My major issue is the 100 year versus the 500 year. I’ve long been proponent of using the 500-year flood level for mitigation. The 100-year level is the regulatory flood. The trouble is that it was used to regulate the floodplain before it gets developed. But the west valley was never regulated that way. It was developed first. The regulatory flood shouldn’t be used after-the-fact for protection. The government let development happen. Now it could be argued that government needs to prevent loss of life and property. Yes, 500-year is more expensive, and yes, there are other needed mitigation projects. If we mitigate for 100-year but see a larger flood, how much money would have been wasted? I’m not proposing any of the variants, but it seems a combination of what we want to do: mitigate to the 500 level, use some of CU South to best advantage, minimize open space damage, consider upstream storage. Dr. McCurry’s upstream storage isn’t the total answer, but it is part of it. We should consider it as a safety factor. What are the flood flows for a 500-year storm at 36? I’ve sent out a detention chart that shows 500 year is way better for flood protection. Steve Tuber: Within the floodplain area though house is slightly above it. His basement is not. Endorsing the last several speakers. Completely agrees with Dr. McCurry’s approach. Applauds the city taking a stab at some type of upstream protection but now we need some creative thinking and some adaptive thinking to look at hybrid of some of the different ideas like Variant 2 and upstream storage to get the right solution. The plan to use Dry Creek Ditch #2 is asking for a huge additional investment and shifting the risks of flood impacts if using the ditch for retaining flood waters. This does not make sense. Must find a different way of releasing or retaining flood waters. Elmar Dornberger: Was one of the flooded houses on Qualla Drive. Thanks for coming to our neighborhood meeting recently. Our street has no escape route. We were told that last time we had a flood. No route onto my roof or attic. I would like to come to another meeting again to talk about the environment and the mouse and whatever else there is to protect, but I don’t know if I have another 6 months. I might be alive or not alive. Please help us to protect us. Jim McMillan: Save South Boulder Coalition. Fully supports the recommendation to creatively develop an upstream option that achieves dual options of community safety and environmental stewardship. Urging WARAB to consider two additional points. First, high hazard dam approach is both environmentally disruptive and has a higher carbon footprint than upstream solutions that exploit the detention potential of the former Flatirons gravel pit. Boulder is committed to preventing climate change and should not be using high carbon footprint options. Secondly international best practices consider the entire river basin. They intensify efforts to restore natural flood zones and reactivate natural wetlands and floodplains to retain water and alleviate flood impacts. Human use should be adapted to existing hazards and foreseeing rare event risks. Non-structural measures and availing of existing topology can provide better solutions over longer terms. An upstream solution provides the best flood prevention with the least impact to Boulder Valley’s ecological resources. Jeff Rifkin: One of the many neighbors along Dry Creek Ditch. Many problems related to the ditch and have two sump pumps. Phase one doesn’t help with ditch problems, but phase two is. But we’ve been told phase two isn’t likely to happen. Variant one could make Dry Creek Ditch issues worse. We support Dr. McCurry’s option or Variant 2 for further study and preliminary design, but regardless, don’t sacrifice our neighborhood for the option. Kathie Joyner: Understand that WRAB purview for flood mitigation projects is to find a balance between community equity, prioritization of needs throughout Boulder and financing. After the years of analysis and vetting, we encourage the board to send as many options as feel viable to Council tonight. The years of study that have gone into these options by expert staff and consultants are significant in both time and money. We are confident that viable options in both Variants 1 and 2 are available. All of which have been evaluated to meet the baseline criteria of this project. We live on a daily basis with the possibility of another event. The length of time weighs on us. We understand the need to do all the preliminary work but urge the board to move forward all viable options that that move a solution forward as quickly as possible. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 149 of 233 Dan Johnson: I was on this board 2012-2017 and watched earlier procedures. In 2015, board approved downstream option – Option G. It’s similar to what is being considered now. In 3 years, not much has happened. I encourage the board to move as quickly as possible. In 2015, many options were evaluated, several upstream options, some much further upstream than what is shown in your graphic. Those options were studied and ruled out in 2012 and 2015. Don’t need to go through it again. Have to consider the cost. This is only one part of the project; there are two other projects downstream. There’s only so much funding. If we spend all the money on this project, we won’t have money left for the other projects. I am a civil engineer and practice in water resources. What I find is that a lot of questions come up about groundwater transfer system. Those are common. I’ve done a lot of those in the past. They aren’t that expensive to do, and yes, there will be maintenance. There is maintenance of the spillway, the outletworks, and other systems. And since it’s a dam regulated by the state, those requirements for maintenance exist. From the standpoint of engineering, those call all be taken care of. Steven Telleen: Hearing the same term for two different paradigms. Upstream solution. The two paradigms are basically the old model of single dam, constrained channels which fails at a much higher rate than we would like and causes lots of damage. The newer paradigm (Room for the River) is a series of cascading berms that create catchments within the floodplain. This latter has a couple of advantages. Spreads the overflow as it moves down. Reduces pressure on the downstream channels, and if one berm fails it is not as catastrophic as structure failure in the old paradigm. Gordon McCurry’s concept is along the lines of the newer paradigm. Tim Johnson: Not an engineer, geologist or environmentalist. CEO of Frasier and I take care of people. To date, no one has died in a flood at Frasier, but in 2013, that nearly changed. I helped carry a 90-year-old resident out from her bed. She would have died if she was left in her bed that night. Fifty-four residents, actually nearly 100 residents could have died that night. There are approximately 3,500 residents living in that area. I am responsible for 504 of those residents. In total, 100 residents were evacuated. Some never came back to their homes. Please move expeditiously with the previously proposed variant plans. Ben Binder: Master plan concept has been thoroughly vetted but has three major problems. Obstructs groundwater under 36, blocks Vielle Channel and was designed to retain floodwaters in excavated pits under the water table. To correct these problems would cost over $10 million and this option should be eliminated. The restricted underpass under US 36 for South Boulder Creek. Consultants said that there is low probability of blockage, but this is just handwaving and will not work. Use common sense to turn down that option. Variant II should be eliminated due to potential for underpass blockage. Go with Variant I with some upstream detention. Richard Riley: Speaking in favor of variants 1 and 2. Ask that you send them to City Council. Staff are competent and diligent, and I have confidence in their work. I am confident that the variants will save lives. When this flood happens again, there could be hundreds or thousands of people in harm’s way. Make this expeditious and send variants 1 and 2 to City Council. Amy Siemel (pool): A designated state natural area is a special place. It took millions of dollars and much community work to achieve this. Diverse ecosystem of threatened and endangered animals and plants. Trails through this area are forbidden. To retain flood waters there could be disastrous. Restoration is not always possible. Recommend that City Council aggressively pursue an upstream solution that covers the following recommendations: Divert waters upstream into the CU South floodplain. Make use of the old gravel pits to detain flood waters. Take the opportunity to reduce the size and scope high hazard dam. Nonstructural flood mitigation strategies create less inherent risk and cost less for the taxpayers. Natural structure mitigation is more effective. Last summer a set of guiding principles for flood mitigation was adopted as part of the comp plan update. These guiding principles should be considered during board deliberations. Michael Thomason: We were surrounded by flooded homes. I represent Boulder Rights of Nature and Boulder Water Keepers. This watershed, habitat, these meadows and wetlands are not just water resources; we are one species and codependent on a healthy ecosystem. The city staff have been overly deferential to the university. The university has not behaved responsibly to its constituents or its own community. Please examine Gordon McCurry’s option and use those gravel pits. Laura Tyler: South Boulder Creek Action group. Advocates for those whose health and safety of those whose lives and property are threatened when 36 overtops. OSBT recommended moving Variants I &II forward to council. Wholeheartedly supports this. The project will save lives. Please act quickly. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 150 of 233 Molly Davis: Former OSBT member when Option D was advanced. To knowingly flood a protected area is against our charter. We cannot get money for damage we create intentionally. We spent 50 years assuring citizens that we would protect the land. Are we doing that? I have environmental questions. Our assurances and directions to the solutions were to provide a 72-hour elimination and now it has gone up to 120 hours. Many of our flooded areas cannot that type of sustained flooding. Concerned about construction impacts and what will be done to minimize them. Concerned about modeling to make sure it fits criteria. We don’t have the same flood every time. It’s not always based on deluging; it’s based on groundwater rising, hydrology, topography and other things. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 151 of 233 From:Catherine Raveczky To:OSBT-Web Subject:Concerns about Flood Mitigation for South Boulder Date:Monday, July 9, 2018 5:57:41 AM Dear Open Space Board, I hope this letter finds you doing well and enjoying your summer! To begin, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to consider flood mitigation for South Boulder. I’m writing this letter as a resident of Greenbelt Meadows and one who suffered extensive damage during the 2013 flood. I understand that you will vote on proposals for Phase I of South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project on July 11th. I’m deeply concerned about the impacts of this project on our neighborhood and would like to urge you to reconsider the Master Plan and Variant 1 which would create an outlet tunnel into the Dry Creek Ditch. My home backs up to this ditch and I’m very concerned the ditch does NOT have the capacity to handle the outflow created by this mitigation during a flood. I understand that Variant 2 would divert this water to OSMP. While this would alleviate the concerns of flooding to our neighborhood this would possibly damage sensitive habitat. However, I recently learned of a modification to Variant 2 proposed by Dr. Gordon McCurry. This plan would store water in a cascading series of smaller detention ponds farther south from the detention ponds suggested by Variant 2. I would like to strongly suggest this modification to Variant 2 be studied and considered. It would not only provide protection from flooding for the West Side and avoid flooding sensitive OSMP land, but it would also eliminate any addition flood hazard to our neighborhood. Thank you for your time! Enjoy the rest of your summer, Catherine Raveczky 53 Illini Court Boulder, CO 80303 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 152 of 233 Scarbrough, Molly From:George Craft <gcrafty@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, July 5, 2018 7:42 PM To:OSBT-Web Cc:laura@sbcreekactiongroup.org; Deb Craft Subject:Flood mitigation proposals To the Open space Board of Trustees: As long time residents of South Boulder, we are critically aware of the need for flood mitigation for South Boulder Creek, and the need is NOW! 5 years have passed since the devastation of 2013, and little or nothing has been done. Please accept as many of the flood mitigation designs as possible. We support the "orange shirts" who testified at your recent meeting. Thanks, George & Deb Craft gcrafty@yahoo.com Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 153 of 233 From:Bonnie Strand To:OSBT-Web Subject:Mountain View United Methodist Church OSBT Input Date:Monday, July 9, 2018 10:48:42 AM Attachments:image.png Dear Open Space Board of Trustees members, Thanks for your work, study, meetings, patient discussion as Boulder works to lessen its future flood risk. My name is Bonnie Strand. While I now live in Louisville, I grew up in Boulder's Keewaydin Meadows in its very early years and have attended Mountain View United Methodist Church for the last 51 years :). I now chair its Board of Trustees; that responsibility gives me perhaps a very small glimpse into how your role feels :). We appreciate the study work that has been done to address our mutual futures re: flooding. As you have heard before, our church was severely impacted in 2013. We love our church community and of course our building as well. We welcome allvisitors to worship and our various other congregational activities. However, ourchurch building is not just ours -- it is also used by a number of community groups. There with Care uses our kitchen weekly to prepare meals for families with a severelyill member. Suzuki Strings uses our building for lessons and recitals. Boulder YouthOrchestra calls our building home. We have hosted numerous concerts (BoulderBach Festival, Cantabile Singers and others) in the past and hope to do so in thefuture. We provide free space for AA, NA, MA and other groups with social justice missions. We have a close and caring relationship with Frasier Meadows RetirementCommunity directly east of us. We want what is best for our southeast Boulderneighbors, who suffered so much in 2013. Please understand that health and safety are critical community issues. We ask thatyou accept as many of the flood mitigation design variations as possible to expediteflood mitigation for our neighborhood. Thank you for listening to many voices, andthank you for careful study. Now it is time to move forward. Regards, Bonnie Strand Mountain View United Methodist Church Board of Trustees Chair Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 154 of 233 From:Amanda Wember To:OSBT-Web Subject:Please help our neighborhood - we may flood away! Date:Thursday, July 5, 2018 5:56:09 PM Dear Boulder Open Space Board of Trustees: Unfortunately I will not be in town when you meet on 7/11, but I would like to make sure you get my feedback on the flood mitigation proposed for South Boulder Creek. It is clear that we need flood mitigation on South Boulder Creek. The health and safety of our neighborhoods is of the utmost importance. Please take action! I want to voice my concern that the flood mitigation proposed only takes into account certain neighborhoods that are impacted by the South Boulder Creek and even though I’ve reached out to City staff I cannot get any security that someone will take the flooding of my neighborhood and neighbors into account in this very large project that is proposed to be undertaken. Every time there is a rain of any proportion [many time each year], the water flows over and under Foothills and Baseline to flood the drainage ditch and overflow into our neighborhood. Every time. This is very stressful to the neighbors and creates a stressful living situation right here in Boulder. I am not asking for much. I am only asking that you consider our neighborhood when you decide about how to move forward with flood mitigation. Respectfully, Amanda Wember 801 Crescent Drive Boulder, CO 80303 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 155 of 233 From:D Maxwell To:OSBT-Web Subject:So Boulder Creek Flood mitigation Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 2:02:41 PM Attachments:SBCAG-Banner.png Dear OSBT Representatives, Thank you for your work as Trustees of Boulder open space. It goes without saying that public health & safety are critical issues, and flood mitigation for our community includes these critical issues. As you meet together this Wednesday, please accept as many of the flood mitigation design variations as possible to expedite flood mitigation for our neighborhood. Lessons learned from the September 2013 flooding should not be ignored and our family appeals to you for heightened scrutiny of these important issues. Thank you for your support The Maxwell family Diana Maxwell Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 156 of 233 From:Joan and George Peters To:OSBT-Web Subject:South Boulder flood mitigation Date:Thursday, July 5, 2018 8:02:24 PM Please consider as many options as possible at your upcoming meeting to keep the process going. Lucky; no flood yet! Thank you. George and Joan Peters Frasier Meadows Retirement Community Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 157 of 233 From:Jim To:OSBT-Web Cc:laura@sbcreekactiongroup.org Subject:South Boulder Creek flood mitigation Date:Saturday, July 14, 2018 8:44:03 AM Please don’t delay flood relief for my home any longer by considering a proposed option that has a low likelihood of success. Property and possibly lives will only be saved by having a remedy in place before the next flood. I do not support the Upstream Variant proposed by OSBT. I do support variants I and II that OBBT moved to recommend to council. James Henry 5412 White Place Boulder CO 80303 Sent from my iPad Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 158 of 233 From:External-Howe-Charles To:OSBT-Web Cc:flood@sbcreekactiongroup.org Subject:Dire need for flood protection from South Boulder Creek. Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 12:48:37 PM Ladies & Gentlemen of OSBT: the threat of catastrophic flooding from South Boulder Creek remains unmitigated. Action is needed on one or more of the mitigation variations that have been suggested. Please expedite action. Cheers! Chuck (Charles W. ) Howe, Econ Prof Emeritus, 92 North, Frasier Meadows Retirement Community, Boulder. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 159 of 233 From:Rachel Friend To:OSBT-Web Subject:Flood mitigation Date:Thursday, July 5, 2018 4:26:17 PM Attachments:SBCAG-Banner.png Dear OSBT board members, I am writing in regards to your upcoming July 11, 2018 hearing on flood mitigation for South Boulder Creek. Specifically, I urge OSBT to accept as many of the proposed variations as possible for South Boulder creek food mitigation. Our neighborhood needs flood mitigation ASAP, as it is a critical Health & safety issue for residents in the area. Accepting maximal design variations will increase the flexibility of the other groups who also have to approve of planning — which ultimately will expedite flood mitigation for our neighborhood. THANK YOU so much for all your time and work on this critical issue! Gratefully, Rachel Friend Qualla Drive/Frasier Meadows neighborhood resident Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 160 of 233 From:joynermcguire@comcast.net To:OSBT-Web Subject:please move quickly on flood mitigation Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 4:40:30 PM Dear OSBT board members, We understand you will be making recommendations to Council tomorrow night on alternative(s) to move forward to preliminary design for the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation projects. We are hopeful that you find that one/some of these options have the potential to result in net benefits to OSMP lands by way of enhancement/restoration potential. We ask that you recommend as many options to Council as the board feels comfortable with to allow for maximum flexibility in the Council’s final choice for a preliminary design. As you know, we “downstreamers” have a vested health and safety interest in your recommendations and are hopeful that they will result in the City moving forward as quickly as possible on project implementation. Best regards, Kathie Joyner Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 161 of 233 From:Gabriele Sattler To:OSBT-Web; WRAB Cc:Gaby41@aol.com Subject:South Boulder Creek Flodd Mitigation Date:Thursday, July 12, 2018 11:15:57 AM Dear Trustees/Board members; I was unable to attend yesterday's meeting but would like to add my opinion towards your planning options. I live in Greenbelt Meadows where we finally succeeded to ward off a big development which would have very negatively impacted our chances to survive another flood. In your flood mitigation concepts for South Boulder Creek, we oppose Alternative D, now called the Master Plan. We also find the other options for the 500 year flood to be extremely problematic, because they place too great a burden for water detention on critically important Open Space and Mountain Parks lands. Instead of storing floodwaters on OSMP lands, we are asking OSBT to support the Upstream Solution which puts that burden on the old gravel pits at the South end of the property. Variant 2 out performs the other options also because Variant 1 and the Masterplan have a critical weakness which will be difficult to solve, expensive and possibly impossible to address. THat is that they are designed to discharge retained flood water to one or another of the ditches or channels which crisscross Boulder and in some cases our neighborhood. The recipient ditch/channel must convey the entire discharge back to SBC within a limited time frame (we understand no more than 120 hours/5 days) due to Colorado water law requirements. As proposed and shared at the wo open houses in April and June, City staff assumed that Dry Creek Ditch #2 would be a conveyance. However, after we sent a a list of detailed questions asking how City Staff had assessed the ditch's capacity to convey the discharge to SBC, they all but acknowledged that the assessment remains to be done and that an alternative ditch/channel might be preferable. City staff also acknowledged that if either of these two options are selected, modification and reconstruction to the recipient ditch/channel would be needed. This is partly necessary because federal requirements are that no additional harm may occur to surrounding neighborhoods(ours).The whole set up looks as if another flooding in our area would be a real possibility. Frazier Meadows wants their flooding problem solved as quickly as possible. I urge you to take the time to choose the best solution for ALL the neighborhoods involved which might under certain circumstances face another flood, if the wrong alternative is chosen. I also would like you to take into consideration that any kind of dam along side Rt. 36 will impact our neighborhood of Greenbelt Meadow with an additional noise factor, adding to the car noises on South Boulder Road and the one we hear from Rt. 36. The dam would bounce back all the noise from this big traffic artery into our neighborhood. As it is now, instead of opening windows at night to let the night air cold down my house I have to run the air conditioning, since the traffic noise from these two arteries makes a restful sleep impossible. At the same time we are pressured to save electricity. Problems like that should be part of your planning. When you plan big projects like this, please do not only concentrate on the immediate technical difficulties, but think also how such an enormous project impacts people who have to live with the out come. And one more thing. A lot of people will be inconvenienced, the project will cost a lot of money and all that, so that the University gets what it wants. How would it be to tell them, no annexation! Would this not solve a problem faster and cheaper? Sincerely, Gabriele Sattler Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 162 of 233 From:External-Howe-Charles To:OSBT-Web Subject:The orange shirts said it all!! Date:Thursday, July 5, 2018 4:20:12 PM Please expedite flood control on South Boulder Creek. The next flood can come at any time. Cheers! (Professor Emeritus) Charles (Chuck) Howe, former WRAB member. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 163 of 233 From:George Craft To:OSBT-Web Cc:flood@sbcreekactiongroup.org Subject:Flood mitigation on South Boulder Creek Date:Friday, July 13, 2018 9:18:04 PM We support flood mitigation for South Boulder Creek as soon as possible for the reasons of health and safety. We urge you to recommend to City Council Flood Variant I and Flood Variant II. We oppose the Upstream Flood Variant because we feel it is not permitable and unlikely to succeed. We support the "orange shirts" of the SB Creek Action Group. Thanks, George & Deb Craft gcrafty@yahoo.com Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 164 of 233 From:LS To:OSBT-Web Subject:Flood Mitigation Date:Thursday, July 5, 2018 6:58:35 PM Attachments:SBCAG-Banner.png OSBT Members we need flood mitigation NOW! This is a critical issue that could potentially impact south boulder resident's health and safety. It's raining today and as with every day following the flood, when the rain comes, many of us fear a repeat (or worse ) episode of the last catastrophic event. PLEASE accept as many of the flood mitigation design variations as possible to expedite flood mitigation for our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and support. The Sims Family Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 165 of 233 From:Karla Rikansrud To:OSBT-Web Subject:OSBT & WRAB meeting Date:Monday, July 9, 2018 5:27:47 PM Greetings, I attended the meeting of your two boards last month. I wore an orange t-shirt and work @ Frasier. I wanted to ensure you know that I am not an engineer and do not care which engineering solution you select. My highest priority - & I believe that of Frasier residents and our neighbors – is to pick a solution SOON & then IMPLEMENT – SOON. Since all other Boulder flood engineering projects are geared to the 100-year flood, it makes perfect sense that solution would be best in this situation too. Nothing will be left standing after a 500-year flood anyway. HEALTH & SAFETY are the #1 priorities. Thank you. Karla Karla Rikansrud VP for Philanthropy and Social Responsibility Frasier Make a gift that pays you income for life. Ask me how! O: 720-562-4306 www.frasiermeadows.org This electronic message may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and entity named as recipients in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message, and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on the information it contains. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 166 of 233 From:Stephen Tuber To:OSBT-Web; WRAB Cc:Case, Leah; WRABSecretary; Suzanne De Lucia; jeff rifkin; Mike S; Pete O.; Gordon McCurry; neighbors SEBoulder; Bauer, Kurt; Council Subject:Public Comment: S. Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Date:Saturday, July 7, 2018 4:27:10 PM Dear Trustees/ Board Members - We offer these comments to you as your neighbors and long time members of the Boulder community. They are for your upcoming public hearings and decisions on recommendations to the City Council regarding the proposed options for Phase 1 of the South Boulder Creek (SBC) flood mitigation project. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend your meetings which are scheduled for July 11 and 16, 2018 respectively. Please include these comments in your public records. We live at 5375 Kewanee Dr. in southeast Boulder, within the outer bounds of the SBC floodplain. Our home is not technically in the 100-year floodplain because of its slight elevation (approximately 5-6 feet) above Kewanee Dr. on our south and Kewaydin Meadows Park which abuts our property on the north. The street and park, as well as the Dry Creek Ditch #2, which is about 40 yards to our east, are all within the 100-year floodplain. In September 2013 we had two feet of water in our basement which came from the elevated groundwater levels associated with that rain event and associated flooding. We strongly support the Variant 2 option with the capacity to retain a 500-year frequency flood event. Regardless of which option is selected, a significant amount of Open Space will be affected, so we also support enhancements and improvements to Variant 2 which could substantially mitigate impacts to the sensitive area (i.e., wetland meadows) adjoining SBC. We urge you to support consideration of enhancements needed to mitigate environmental impacts during the engineering and design of whichever option is selected. WHY VARIANT 2? The other two options (i.e., the Master Plan Variant and Variant 1) have a critical weakness that will be difficult to solve, expensive and possibly impossible to address. That is that they are designed to discharge retained flood waters to one or another of the ditches or channels that crisscross Boulder. The recipient ditch/ channel must convey the entire discharge back to SBC within a limited timeframe (no more than 120 hours/ 5 days) due to Colorado water law requirements. As proposed and shared at the two open houses in April and June, City staff assumed that Dry Creek Ditch #2 would be the conveyance. However, after we sent a list of detailed questions asking how City staff had assessed that ditch's capacity to convey the discharge to SBC, they all but acknowledged that the assessment remains to be done and that an alternative ditch/ channel might be preferable. City staff also acknowledged that if either of these two options are selected, modification and reconstruction to the recipient ditch/ channel would be needed. This is partly necessary because federal requirements are that no additional harm may occur to surrounding neighborhoods. The risk to the City and those of us near these ditches and channels is that modifications will not be sufficient to actually avoid flooding damage caused by the discharge of the retained waters. In that event, the City would have spent tens of millions of dollars only to have moved the impacts of SBC flooding from one neighborhood to another, and it would be in non-compliance with FEMA requirements. Variant 2 does not suffer from this fatal design flaw. It would discharge directly back to SBC on the southwest side of US 36 using a gravity flow. Other factors in its favor are: Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 167 of 233 It is the least expensive to construct (per information obtained at the June open house) It will be the least expensive to operate and maintain because no outlet, syphon, ditch or channel would have to be maintained with a capability of conveying the flood retention discharge The total area of temporary inundation during a flood is substantially less than the other options (though a larger area of open space would be affected) It is the most cost effective when measured against the “cost-per-dwelling-unit” (per June open house information) The constructed flow restriction for SBC on the southwest side of US 36 would provide some protection to homes and occupants near SBC from flood flows that remain in the SBC main channel It is potentially more protective to sensitive open space lands by reducing the duration of high velocity flood waters, thereby reducing destructive scouring of those areas (please see footnote* at bottom for further discussion) WHY 500-YEAR CAPACITY? While impossible to quantify, the risk of a >100 year flood event is becoming greater every year as a result of climate change. In the last year the Earth has experienced heretofore unseen levels of intensity from hurricanes, rainfalls, etc. Lest we all forget, some areas of Boulder County did experience a >100 year flood in 2013 even though that was NOT the case for the SBC drainage. Our understanding is that the SBC flood was estimated to be between a 50- and a 75-year flood. However, the St. Vrain River flooding from Lyons to Longmont was estimated at the time to be a 250- year flood. One of us drove through Lyons about a month after the flood, and the devastation was magnitudes worse than what was occurred in Boulder. The River’s channel was easily four-to-five times wider than it had been, and the flood had scoured the entire width of the new channel down to bedrock. The flood ripped out all of the water related infrastructure and destroyed any structures that were anywhere near the River. Further downstream, the flood destroyed much of the open space improvements that Longmont had made, shifted the River’s channel, took out bridges and other structures, etc. So, not only can it happen here, it has happened very close to here very recently. Assuming that the next SBC flood will be the same magnitude as the 2013 flood is a mistake. Based on the previous two points, we strongly suggest that for SBC flood mitigation, we should build it once and build it right. It would be horrible if Council decides we that we need a 500 year retention structure AFTER a >100 year flood happens and US 36 has overtopped, massive property damage has occurred, people have died, and the 100-year retention structure has been damaged in the process. It is more cost effective to build the retention structure one time than to build it in two stages. It is more cost effective on a cost per dwelling unit basis to build the larger structure (i.e., the cost per dwelling unit is less) if we are interpreting the June 7 Open House information correctly, and The June 7 data regarding structures-and-people protected VASTLY understates the numbers of protected structures and people that will be affected in a catastrophic event. This is because that analysis only counts those structures and occupants that are currently in the 100 and 500 year floodplains. To put this in context, neither my neighbors nor I live in the floodplain. But in a catastrophic event our lives would all be Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 168 of 233 completely disrupted. This would be true for thousands of other structures and their occupants in southeast Boulder. A comprehensive analysis of benefits and costs would tilt far more toward the benefits of the larger retention structure. There is a minimal additional environmental "footprint" from the larger retention structure: 3-or-less feet higher and 3-or-less acres needed. The maximum area of inundation is greater than for the 100-year retention, but only in relationship to the actual flood event. I.e., if you have a 500-year retention structure, and there is a 100-year flood, then the area of inundation should be close to, if not precisely the same as the inundation with a 100-year structure and 100-year flood event.). Conversely, the only time maximum inundation of open space lands would occur would be during a 500-year flood. We suggest that in those circumstances, everyone’s greatest concern should be for the safety of the people downstream. The larger structure would be more resilient. It is common in matters of safety to add some redundancy or extra capacity for a very simple reason — systems under stress don’t always respond in the way they are designed to respond. In this situation areas where flows are restricted could well become clogged with debris, sending more water into the retention area than the 100-year-sized dam could hold. In that case overtopping and flooding damage would occur. Extra retention capacity also gives the City staff more time to remove blockages before overtopping occurs. WHY ARE ENHANCEMENTS NEEDED FOR VARIANT 2? There is a strong possibility that, by using the existing abandoned gravel pits in the SBC floodplain south of the retention structure, that much of flood flow can be captured and slowed, and much of the debris and sediment load can be settled out before the flows reach the retention structure. Note: this may already be part of the Variant 2 Concept. There is an area on the maps which were distributed at the June open house that is labeled “Reserve Area for inflow and Restoration.” However we have not heard any discussion of how this area would be managed or modified. The suggested enhancements could reduce the size of the retention structure needed to retain a 500-year (or 100-year) flood Allowing settling upstream would be protective of the sensitive open space areas that would be inundated briefly during a flooding event As your neighbors, we implore you to make the safety of your fellow citizens and neighbors your highest priority. Most of you probably do not live in he SBC floodplain. But the principles that apply here should be the same as those applied in creating defensible space to protect western Boulder from fires. We believe strongly that some carefully limited and fully mitigated impacts to open space are justified when it comes to public safety and protecting Boulder from major calamities. We hope you agree and make recommendations that are protective of your neighbors and that satisfy your mandated responsibilities. Sincerely Linda and Stephen Tuber *Environmental concerns seem to be focused on the potential for harmful siltation on the fragile wetland meadow in the State Ecological Area from the inundation created by the retention structures. However, scouring of the SBC channel and the related redepositing of a significant portion of the excavated material on the meadow during a >100-year flood may Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 169 of 233 present a greater threat given the meadow’s proximity to SBC. (Please see the discussion above regarding the impacts of 2013 flooding of the St. Vrain River for a description of the utter destruction that a >100-year flood has on natural and human systems.) If scouring of the SBC channel is a threat to the meadow ecosystem, then Variant 2 may actually be more protective since it will inundate that area most quickly. This is because the retention dam is significantly closer to SBC than under the other options, and there will be a constructed flow restriction on SBC on the southwest side of US 36. The benefit of the inundation is that it will reduce the flood's velocity in the SBC channel, possibly reducing scouring impacts. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 170 of 233 From:Gary Wockner To:OSBT-Web Subject:South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 12:30:37 PM Attachments:2018 07 30 - Open Space Board of Trustees.pdf Attached letter regarding the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation at the July 11, 2018 Trustee Meeting. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 171 of 233 J uly 30, 2018 Open Space Board of Trustees City of Boulder 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80301 Dear Trustees, The purpose of this communication is to express an opinion on the topic of South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project Concept Evaluation discussion that will be occuring at the Open Space Board of Trustees Meeting that is scheduled for Wednesday July 11, 2018. The fundamental challenge is that a ‘bell can not be unrung’ and our current reality is that large portions of the City of Boulder were developed without a clear understanding or plan for long term flood management. This development in at risk areas creates a community and social demand that constrains options and alternatives in other areas of civic planning. In a perfect world flood mitigation, open space preservation and CU development would all be possible in the South Boulder Creek watershed in a reasonable and cost effective manner, but given the impact of prior development decisions it is hard, if not impossible, to find a way to accomplish all three of those objectives at this time. While the desire and creativity to service all three objectives is laudable, sooner or later very hard decisions will have to be made prioritizing and compromising one of these objectives in order to provide a reasonable solution for the other two objectives. It is the opinion of the Waterkeeper Alliance and the constituent members of that organization here in Boulder that the essential mission, purpose and value of the Open Space organization is to preserve and protect the health and environmental integrity of the watershed and we strongly encourage you to maintain that perspective as these discussions continue. Sincerely, Ted Ross Boulder Waterkeeper Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 172 of 233 From:External-Howe-Charles To:OSBT-Web Subject:The orange shirts say it all: protection now!! Date:Thursday, July 5, 2018 4:35:18 PM Cheers! Chuck Howe (prof meritus and former WRAB member). Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 173 of 233 From:Richard To:OSBT-Web Subject:Flood control on CU-South property Date:Sunday, July 8, 2018 9:28:48 PM Attachments:eijcklppnimpnjke.png Virus-free. www.avast.com Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 174 of 233 From:Andy Schwarz To:OSBT-Web Subject:I SUPPORT Variants I and II of the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation Date:Sunday, July 15, 2018 5:44:26 PM Attachments:image1.png Dear WRAB, I SUPPORT Variants I and II of the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation and OPPOSE the Upstream Variant proposed by OSBT. We need flood mitigation NOW! Health & safety are critical issues for my neighborhood. Hank you for your time, Andy Schwarz Qualla Drive Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 175 of 233 From:Ruth Wright To:External_Kevin_Bracy_Knight; Isaacson, Tom; Curt Brown; Andria Bilich; Hollweg, Karen; OSBT-Web; isaacbracyknightt@bouldercolorado.gov; Isaacson, Tom; Brown, Curt; Andria Bilich; Hollweg, Karen Subject:OSMP Public Hearing - South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation July 11,2018 Date:Wednesday, July 11, 2018 1:13:43 AM Attachments:South Boulder Creek - OSMP Hearing 7-11-18pdf.pdf Dear Members of the OSMP Board, With only 2 minutes to speak, I decided to send you some thoughts and attachments in advance. You should reject the Master Plan Options. The main difference between Master Plan Options and CH2MHIlls Option D is that it includes a siphon to take care of the Veile Channel flows. The major flaw in Option D, and now in the Master Plan Options, is that it requires excavation on CU South. The CU/City meetings were summarized in the CH2MHill report. They showed that in order to maximize the development potential of CU South, CU asked and the City agreed, that the footprint of the proposed detention pond be minimized. Minimizing the footprint meant less detention, so the solution was excavating a hole in the ground to make up it up. (An additional benefit was that the excavated material would be used as fill to elevate key areas of the CU property). The problem of groundwater levels was raised but ignored. My analysis was that since the groundwater levels on the graveled mine on CU South had already created some small ponds, that the excavated hole would fill with groundwater and would already be full of water when flood waters came. Our the present consultant agrees with that analysis. His solution is still to excavate (dig a hole), but surround it by a permanent impenetrable wall down to bedrock to block prevent groundwater infiltration -- in effect creating a permanent empty reservoir for the floodwaters I may be wrong, but I believe the cost of creating that reservoir is what makes the Master Plan Options the most expensive. See my first attachment, Evaluation Criteria – Costs. This chart also shows various other interesting criteria for evaluating the options, such as Adaptability for Climate Change. Also see my clumsy little cartoon of the reservoir with the wall around it. Since I have never seen a sketch, or even a description of what the reservoir would look like, I used my limited imagination. You should reject the Variant 1 Options. The major change from Option D and the Master Plan Options is a different solution for the Veile Channel flows – a Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 176 of 233 Realigned Portion of Proposed Dam. Otherwise these options appear to have the same fatal flaw as the Master Plan Options. If you look closely at the at the pictures of the Varian 1 Options, there is a mottled orange section in the dark blue which the index at the bottom right identifies as “Approximate limit of excavation.” Only Variant 2 is left. At the joint meeting of the OSMP and WRAB Boards, I stated that Variant 2 has the most promise, but that the “devil is in the details”. The next attachment is a copy of the FEMA map showing the 500-year floodplain on CU South. And the next attachment shows that same area, plus more, designated as Open Space Other on the Comp Plan adopted by the City Council and the County Commissioners in July 2017. (The Comp Plan also has Guiding Principles for the Flood Mitigation Area) So our elected officials set the stage to use the Open Space Other area to play a significant role in the flood mitigation. Now see the next attachment regarding the Maximum Detention Storage Volumes. My main goal from the start was to obtain a high volume of detention storage on the upstream side of US 36 because flood waters that overflowed the detention capacity would go over the spillway onto US 36 and flow downhill right into the West Valley and Frasier Meadows. So this chart really gave me hope that a solution was imminent. The various options also included removing the CU berm. At long last the gravel pit would be put to good use for detention and floodplain storage. But no, the “devil is in the details”: Variant 2 puts most of the detention and floodplain storage on Open Space land! On land that is a State Natural Area. And closing off part of the underpass to detain flood waters means that sediment will settle out, damaging endangered species. This is one way to kill the project, or at the least, throw an enormous obstacle in its path. WHY ?? DON’T ACCEPT IT ! Instead insist that the consultant modify Variant 2 by removing some of the CU berm and letting the floodwaters flow to the gravel pit which 12 feet below the rest of the valley, using some of it for detention and floodplain storage. The more upstream storage, the better – more natural and less cost. LET’S GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME. My last attachment just shows how the CU berm protected CU South during the 2013 flood, while raising havoc on the residents and property in the West Valley. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 177 of 233 Sincerely, Ruth Wright Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 178 of 233 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 179 of 233 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 180 of 233 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 181 of 233 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 182 of 233 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 183 of 233 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 184 of 233 From:Elmar Dornberger To:OSBT-Web Subject:Re: Flood mitigation for South Boulder Creek Date:Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:17:34 PM Attachments:SBCAG-Banner.png Dear Board Members We need flood mitigation NOW! Health & safety are critical issues for our neighborhood. We are in SUPPORT of Variants I and II that OBBT moved to recommend to Council. We OPPOSE the Upstream Variant proposed by OSBT because it does not appear to be permittable. The South Boulder Creek Actions Group values expediency and only supports flood mitigation projects that have potential to succeed. We ask you to accept as many of the flood mitigation design variations as you can to expedite flood mitigation for our neighborhood. Yours, The Dornberger Family 4890 Qualla Dr. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 185 of 233 From:Raymond Bridge To:OSBT-Web Subject:South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Date:Wednesday, July 11, 2018 9:35:49 AM July 10, 2018 Open Space Board of Trustees: Boulder County Audubon Society agrees that appropriate flood mitigation on South Boulder Creek is a critical city priority, but experience proves that lives will be endangered, not saved, by an ill-advised rush to construct a poor design. If we had built the then-current recommendation 15 years ago, the West Valley would have had exactly the same flooding in 2013 as the residents suffered in fact. Nobody would have been safer. We think that analysis could be speeded up by committing to removal of the CU levee and to using the 500-year flood as a basis for design. In the face of climate change, this is the minimum event that should be considered for design. Boulder County Audubon Society is grateful to the OSMP staff for its work on analyzing environmental impacts for this meeting, which were ignored by the utilities staff and their consultant prior to the joint meeting with WRAB. Your responsibility as trustees is to protect designated OSMP lands & the South Boulder Creek State Natural Area. Note that the high-functioning wetlands and native grasslands that they preserve are among the best mitigation of flood hazards that we have (see Houston, Harvey), so there is no contradiction for you to follow the Open space charter. Our current flood hazards are the result of ill- conceived development in the flood plain. We urge you to make several points to City Council: ·Any further pursuit of the Master Plan, Variant 1, or Variant 2 must include serious analysis of impacts on the affected open space, including analysis of sedimentation (especially fine-grained sediments deposited as a result of flood events); effects of construction activities; effects on listed species and species of concern; and degradation of the existing wet meadows and native grasslands. The presentation at the June 25 joint meeting was completely inadequate in this respect. OSBT should make that clear to Planning Board and City Council that this analysis identifies many issues that need to be addressed before proceeding with design. ·Artificial deadlines and schedules should not drive decisions. The only way to get a good result is to take the time needed to do it right. The late lamented Option D was rushed through and proved to have significant design flaws. Real analysis of open space impacts must be done before you can recommend that City Council advance any of the designs. Moving forward without that analysis will be a waste of money and is likely to cause delays in the long run. And OSBT must have an ongoing say in decisions regarding how the project will impact OSMP lands, as you have stated in the Board Packet. ·Hand-waving about enhancing open space values by some hypothetical activity on CU property does not make up for failure to analyze predictable and “unknown” impacts on OSMP lands. ·Disposition of OSMP property is the responsibility of the Trustees in the first instance, before it can go to City Council. Definition of what constitutes “Disposal” Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 186 of 233 is also a board responsibility. The City Attorney’s office in the past has taken positions that violate the charter and are untenable. ·Any property acquired for Open Space as part of the flood mitigation plan, and any restoration costs must be paid for as part of the project cost, and any restoration project management must be done as part of the project. We know from experience with the Granite property that this type of restoration is expensive and time consuming, and OSMP cannot assume take on these uncovered expenses and responsibilities. · Important as flood mitigation is, it is not an open space purpose under the charter. ·As the Guiding Principles in the BVCP state: the CU site will provide areas for construction, maintenance, storage… Variant 2, instead of using the CU site, shifts the lion’s share of the flood mitigation to OSMP lands. That is not what the community envisioned or what Council approved in 2017. Raymond Bridge, Conservation Chair Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 187 of 233 From:annie brown To:OSBT-Web Subject:We need flood mitigation -- NOW! Date:Thursday, July 5, 2018 4:55:08 PM Attachments:image.png Hi, Our home had over 4 feet of water in it after the 2013 floods. I still suffer from PTSD every single time it rains, not to mention we have still not financially recovered. Please accept as many of the flood mitigation design variations as you can to expedite flood mitigation for our neighborhood. Sincerely, Annie -- Annie Schwartz Brown 303/241-0282 aboulderkitchen.com Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 188 of 233 From:Mike Leahy To:OSBT-Web Subject:Flood Mitigation Now Date:Saturday, July 7, 2018 10:23:16 AM Attachments:SBCA Group.png To Boulder’s Open Space Board of Trustees, Please understand we need floor mitigation NOW! Health & Safety are critical issues. We need you to accept as many of the flood mitigation design variations as you can. We need this for our neighborhood now! It has been almost five years since the flood of 2013, and we need your help in getting this done. Thanks, Mike & Ruth Leahy Boulder, CO 80303 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 189 of 233 From:jeff rifkin To:Case, Leah Cc:Suzanne De Lucia Subject:letter to OSMP Board Date:Saturday, July 7, 2018 2:10:13 PM Attachments:letter to OSMP.docx Dear Leah, I sent the attached letter from the President of SEBNA (South East Boulder Neighborhood Association) to each of the OSMP Board members. It is a request to vote on a modification to Variant 2 of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project. The letter also includes an explanation of the modification we are requesting and why we believe that it is a preferable solution not only for our neighborhood, but also for OSMP. Could you please forward a copy to all appropriate OSMP staff ahead of this weeks meeting? Thank you very much. Sincerely, jeff rifkin Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 190 of 233 Dear Open Space Board, On July 11th, you will be voting on one of three recommended proposals for Phase I of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project. SEBNA (South East Boulder Neighborhood Association) represents two neighborhoods, Greenbelt Meadows and Keywaydin Meadows that are both impacted by flooding in the South Boulder Creek Drainage. Many of our members live either along the Dry Creek Ditch (a designated High Hazard flood zone), or very close to South Boulder Creek and are potentially impacted by choices made about how the flood is handled during Phase I of this project. While we understand that flooding in our neighborhood will not be addressed until Phase II of the mitigation project, we want to be certain that implementation of Phase I does not create additional flooding in our neighborhoods. Two of the three proposed options, the Master Plan and Variant 1, store water west of a new berm and employ a an outlet tunnel into the Dry Creek Ditch. As we learned during the 2013 flood, due to the construction of the soccer fields at the East Boulder Rec Center, and the fill deposited on the Hogan Pancost property, the geography along the Dry Creek Ditch has changed since the FEMA flood map was created and the map is no longer accurate. During the 2013 flood, the Ditch not only overtopped it’s banks to the east, but also into our yards to the west. According to the FEMA map, this shouldn’t have occurred. The ditch is not owned by the City and regardless, is poorly maintained. At the April Town Hall meeting, someone from the community asked the question: “does the ditch have the capacity to handle the outflow during a flood?” and an engineer for the City authoritatively answered “yes!” The capacity of the ditch depends upon when it was last maintained and what was done during the maintenance. In reality, the answer to that question is not yes, at best, it’s maybe, and right now, likely no. But since the City doesn’t own the ditch, we can never be certain of it’s capacity. We have also heard discussion about using the Viele Channel as a possible output of the detention pond, in addition to, or instead of, the Dry Creek Ditch. But the flood engineers were apparently unaware that the Viele Channel and the Dry Creek Ditch cross/intersect at Manhattan and South Boulder Roads and that the Dry Creek Ditch is often diverted into the Viele Channel. So any flooding of the Viele Channel, upstream of this crossing has the potential to further increase flood water in the Dry Creek Ditch. Variant 2 detains floodwater on the east side of a new berm and avoids using either the Viele Channel or the Dry Creek Ditch. For SEBNA then, this is an obvious choice for our support. For OSMP though this choice poses problems since it potentially floods sensitive land that you are obligated to protect. Of course the other two options do as well. Having decided that Variant 2 was the preferable option with regard to avoiding the creation of any additional hazards to our neighborhood, we are still concerned about the possible damage from siltation to the sensitive habitat on your property. To our surprise, we learned of a modification to this option proposed by Dr. Gordon McCurry. It uses a North-South running berm like Variant 2, but instead of storing all of the water in a large detention pond just south of Highway 36, it stores much of the water further south in a cascading series of smaller detention ponds. This significantly reduces the size of the single detention pond in the present Variant 2 proposal and possibly even eliminates it. Using cascading detention ponds allows silt in the flood water to deposit out in the upstream ponds before the water Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 191 of 233 reaches the lowest pond. This modification also eliminates another concern with Variant 2, the single point of failure - clogging up with flood debris - at the detention ponds output, referred to as the US36 Flow Restriction. Below is a figure showing this concept. While this modification needs to be “studied,” it provides the possibility of a win-win solution for everyone. It provides protection for the West Side, the primary intent of Phase I, while avoiding damage to the sensitive OSMP land and eliminating any additional flood hazard to our neighborhoods. After considerable dialog and debate, SEBNA is formally supporting the idea of Variant 2 with modification. We ask that you too give the idea a fair consideration and that you too will support Variant 2 with modification. Sincerely, Suzanne De Lucia President, Southeast Boulder Neighborhood Alliance (SEBNA) Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 192 of 233 From:South Boulder Creek Action Group To:OSBT-Web Subject:Please accept all the flood mitigation alternatives Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 1:50:27 PM Attachments:SBCAG-Banner.png Dear Trustees, Thank for you for your past support of flood mitigation on South Boulder Creek. Please continue to support this important civic project by moving to accept all the flood mitigation alternatives presented at your meeting this Wednesday, July 11th. All the flood mitigation alternatives you are being asked to review will provide protection to our neighborhood from the next 100 year flood event and will mitigate the impacts of a larger event. In addition, each has the potential to support Open Space values by restoring wetlands on the currently degraded CU South property while increasing connectivity and access to existing Open Space. Save our neighborhood! Support habitat restoration at CU South and increased access to Open Space. Move to accept! Thank you, Laura Laura Tyler on behalf of the South Boulder Creek Action Group Laura@sbcreekactiongroup.org www.SouthBoulderCreekActionGroup.com Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 193 of 233 From:COMCAST Mail To:OSBT-Web Subject:SBC Flood Mitigation now Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:49:14 AM Attachments:image1.png Dear OSBT Board members, Thank you for your dedication and service to the Boulder community. As a resident within the flood plain of South Boulder, I am very discouraged about the length of time it is taking to resolve this situation and to bring piece of mind with regard to living in continued vulnerability. I urge you to decide upon a plan that can be mutually agreeable and enable moving this project into the next phase immediately following the August 7 City Council Meeting. Sincerely, Pat Carden from my iPhone Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 194 of 233 From:Andy Schwarz To:OSBT-Web Subject:South Boulder Creek Flood Protection Date:Tuesday, July 10, 2018 1:30:23 PM Dear OSBT, I am writing you to let you know of my support to approve the proposed land use change at CU South as outlined in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Flood mitigation at CU South is very critical to our health and safety to my neighborhood. Thank you, Andy Schwarz Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 195 of 233 From:Don Cote To:OSBT-Web Subject:South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Date:Saturday, July 14, 2018 10:10:15 AM Attachments:image.png image.png don cote 4840 Thunderbird Drive #282 Boulder CO 80303 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 196 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:Stephen Tuber <tubersteve@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, July 7, 2018 4:27 PM To:OSBT-Web; WRAB Cc:Case, Leah; WRABSecretary; Suzanne De Lucia; jeff rifkin; Mike S; Pete O.; Gordon McCurry; neighbors SEBoulder; Bauer, Kurt; Council Subject:Public Comment: S. Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Dear Trustees/ Board Members ‐ We offer these comments to you as your neighbors and long time members of the Boulder community. They are for your upcoming public hearings and decisions on recommendations to the City Council regarding the proposed options for Phase 1 of the South Boulder Creek (SBC) flood mitigation project. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend your meetings which are scheduled for July 11 and 16, 2018 respectively. Please include these comments in your public records. We live at 5375 Kewanee Dr. in southeast Boulder, within the outer bounds of the SBC floodplain. Our home is not technically in the 100‐year floodplain because of its slight elevation (approximately 5‐6 feet) above Kewanee Dr. on our south and Kewaydin Meadows Park which abuts our property on the north. The street and park, as well as the Dry Creek Ditch #2, which is about 40 yards to our east, are all within the 100‐year floodplain. In September 2013 we had two feet of water in our basement which came from the elevated groundwater levels associated with that rain event and associated flooding. We strongly support the Variant 2 option with the capacity to retain a 500‐year frequency flood event. Regardless of which option is selected, a significant amount of Open Space will be affected, so we also support enhancements and improvements to Variant 2 which could substantially mitigate impacts to the sensitive area (i.e., wetland meadows) adjoining SBC. We urge you to support consideration of enhancements needed to mitigate environmental impacts during the engineering and design of whichever option is selected. WHY VARIANT 2? The other two options (i.e., the Master Plan Variant and Variant 1) have a critical weakness that will be difficult to solve, expensive and possibly impossible to address. That is that they are designed to discharge retained flood waters to one or another of the ditches or channels that crisscross Boulder. The recipient ditch/ channel must convey the entire discharge back to SBC within a limited timeframe (no more than 120 hours/ 5 days) due to Colorado water law requirements. As proposed and shared at the two open houses in April and June, City staff assumed that Dry Creek Ditch #2 would be the conveyance. However, after we sent a list of detailed questions asking how City staff had assessed that ditch's capacity to convey the discharge to SBC, they all but acknowledged that the assessment remains to be done and that an alternative ditch/ channel might be preferable. City staff also acknowledged that if either of these two options are selected, modification and reconstruction to the recipient ditch/ channel would be needed. This is partly necessary because federal requirements are that no additional harm may occur to surrounding neighborhoods. The risk to the City and those of us near these ditches and channels is that modifications will not be sufficient to actually avoid flooding damage caused by the discharge of the retained waters. In that event, the City would have spent tens of millions of dollars only to have moved the impacts of SBC flooding from one neighborhood to another, and it would be in non‐ compliance with FEMA requirements. Variant 2 does not suffer from this fatal design flaw. It would discharge directly back to SBC on the southwest side of US 36 using a gravity flow. Other factors in its favor are: It is the least expensive to construct (per information obtained at the June open house) It will be the least expensive to operate and maintain because no outlet, syphon, ditch or channel would have to be maintained with a capability of conveying the flood retention discharge Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 197 of 233 The total area of temporary inundation during a flood is substantially less than the other options (though a larger area of open space would be affected) It is the most cost effective when measured against the “cost‐per‐dwelling‐unit” (per June open house information) The constructed flow restriction for SBC on the southwest side of US 36 would provide some protection to homes and occupants near SBC from flood flows that remain in the SBC main channel It is potentially more protective to sensitive open space lands by reducing the duration of high velocity flood waters, thereby reducing destructive scouring of those areas (please see footnote* at bottom for further discussion) WHY 500‐YEAR CAPACITY? While impossible to quantify, the risk of a >100 year flood event is becoming greater every year as a result of climate change. In the last year the Earth has experienced heretofore unseen levels of intensity from hurricanes, rainfalls, etc. Lest we all forget, some areas of Boulder County did experience a >100 year flood in 2013 even though that was NOT the case for the SBC drainage. Our understanding is that the SBC flood was estimated to be between a 50‐ and a 75‐year flood. However, the St. Vrain River flooding from Lyons to Longmont was estimated at the time to be a 250‐year flood. One of us drove through Lyons about a month after the flood, and the devastation was magnitudes worse than what was occurred in Boulder. The River’s channel was easily four‐to‐five times wider than it had been, and the flood had scoured the entire width of the new channel down to bedrock. The flood ripped out all of the water related infrastructure and destroyed any structures that were anywhere near the River. Further downstream, the flood destroyed much of the open space improvements that Longmont had made, shifted the River’s channel, took out bridges and other structures, etc. So, not only can it happen here, it has happened very close to here very recently. Assuming that the next SBC flood will be the same magnitude as the 2013 flood is a mistake. Based on the previous two points, we strongly suggest that for SBC flood mitigation, we should build it once and build it right. It would be horrible if Council decides we that we need a 500 year retention structure AFTER a >100 year flood happens and US 36 has overtopped, massive property damage has occurred, people have died, and the 100‐year retention structure has been damaged in the process. It is more cost effective to build the retention structure one time than to build it in two stages. It is more cost effective on a cost per dwelling unit basis to build the larger structure (i.e., the cost per dwelling unit is less) if we are interpreting the June 7 Open House information correctly, and The June 7 data regarding structures‐and‐people protected VASTLY understates the numbers of protected structures and people that will be affected in a catastrophic event. This is because that analysis only counts those structures and occupants that are currently in the 100 and 500 year floodplains. To put this in context, neither my neighbors nor I live in the floodplain. But in a catastrophic event our lives would all be completely disrupted. This would be true for thousands of other structures and their occupants in southeast Boulder. A comprehensive analysis of benefits and costs would tilt far more toward the benefits of the larger retention structure. There is a minimal additional environmental "footprint" from the larger retention structure: 3‐or‐less feet higher and 3‐or‐less acres needed. The maximum area of inundation is greater than for the 100‐year retention, but only in relationship to the actual flood event. I.e., if you have a 500‐year retention structure, and there is a 100‐year flood, then the area of inundation should be close to, if not precisely the same as the inundation with a 100‐year structure and 100‐ year flood event.). Conversely, the only time maximum inundation of open space lands would occur would be during a 500‐year flood. We suggest that in those circumstances, everyone’s greatest concern should be for the safety of the people downstream. The larger structure would be more resilient. It is common in matters of safety to add some redundancy or extra capacity for a very simple reason — systems under stress don’t always respond in the way they are designed to Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 198 of 233 respond. In this situation areas where flows are restricted could well become clogged with debris, sending more water into the retention area than the 100‐year‐sized dam could hold. In that case overtopping and flooding damage would occur. Extra retention capacity also gives the City staff more time to remove blockages before overtopping occurs. WHY ARE ENHANCEMENTS NEEDED FOR VARIANT 2? There is a strong possibility that, by using the existing abandoned gravel pits in the SBC floodplain south of the retention structure, that much of flood flow can be captured and slowed, and much of the debris and sediment load can be settled out before the flows reach the retention structure. Note: this may already be part of the Variant 2 Concept. There is an area on the maps which were distributed at the June open house that is labeled “Reserve Area for inflow and Restoration.” However we have not heard any discussion of how this area would be managed or modified. The suggested enhancements could reduce the size of the retention structure needed to retain a 500‐year (or 100‐year) flood Allowing settling upstream would be protective of the sensitive open space areas that would be inundated briefly during a flooding event As your neighbors, we implore you to make the safety of your fellow citizens and neighbors your highest priority. Most of you probably do not live in he SBC floodplain. But the principles that apply here should be the same as those applied in creating defensible space to protect western Boulder from fires. We believe strongly that some carefully limited and fully mitigated impacts to open space are justified when it comes to public safety and protecting Boulder from major calamities. We hope you agree and make recommendations that are protective of your neighbors and that satisfy your mandated responsibilities. Sincerely Linda and Stephen Tuber *Environmental concerns seem to be focused on the potential for harmful siltation on the fragile wetland meadow in the State Ecological Area from the inundation created by the retention structures. However, scouring of the SBC channel and the related redepositing of a significant portion of the excavated material on the meadow during a >100‐year flood may present a greater threat given the meadow’s proximity to SBC. (Please see the discussion above regarding the impacts of 2013 flooding of the St. Vrain River for a description of the utter destruction that a >100‐year flood has on natural and human systems.) If scouring of the SBC channel is a threat to the meadow ecosystem, then Variant 2 may actually be more protective since it will inundate that area most quickly. This is because the retention dam is significantly closer to SBC than under the other options, and there will be a constructed flow restriction on SBC on the southwest side of US 36. The benefit of the inundation is that it will reduce the flood's velocity in the SBC channel, possibly reducing scouring impacts. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 199 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:Catherine Raveczky <craveczky@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 9, 2018 5:59 AM To:WRAB Subject:Concerned about flood mitigation for South Boulder To whom it may concern, I hope this letter finds you doing well and enjoying your summer! To begin, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to consider flood mitigation for South Boulder. I’m writing this letter as a resident of Greenbelt Meadows and one who suffered extensive damage during the 2013 flood. I understand that you will vote on proposals for Phase I of South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project on July 11th. I’m deeply concerned about the impacts of this project on our neighborhood and would like to urge you to reconsider the Master Plan and Variant 1 which would create an outlet tunnel into the Dry Creek Ditch. My home backs up to this ditch and I’m very concerned the ditch does NOT have the capacity to handle the outflow created by this mitigation during a flood. I understand that Variant 2 would divert this water to OSMP. While this would alleviate the concerns of flooding to our neighborhood this would possibly damage sensitive habitat. However, I recently learned of a modification to Variant 2 proposed by Dr. Gordon McCurry. This plan would store water in a cascading series of smaller detention ponds farther south from the detention ponds suggested by Variant 2. I would like to strongly suggest this modification to Variant 2 be studied and considered. It would not only provide protection from flooding for the West Side and avoid flooding sensitive OSMP land, but it would also eliminate any addition flood hazard to our neighborhood. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 200 of 233 Thank you for your time! Enjoy the rest of your summer, Catherine Raveczky 53 Illini Court Boulder, CO 80303 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 201 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:Suzanne De Lucia <sdelucia@frontrangebusiness.com> Sent:Monday, July 9, 2018 9:34 AM To:WRAB Cc:neighbors SEBoulder Subject:CU South - Support For Variant 2, With Modifications Attachments:letter to OSMP.docx Categories:Council-Board Dear Water Resources Advisory Board, My name is Suzanne De Lucia and I am President of the South East Boulder Neighborhood Association (SEBNA). Attached is a letter which we sent to the Open Space and Mountain Parks Board explaining our support for Variant 2, with modifications as a win‐win for all parties involved. I know that several of our members have contacted and possibly even met with you already, so you may already be familiar with the reason for our involvement in the option selected for the Phase I flood mitigation of South Boulder Creek. In short, the Dry Creek Ditch, a high hazard flood feature running through our neighborhood is used as the spillway for both the Master Plan and Variant I. Whether the ditch has adequate capacity for this or not, these two options have the potential of making an already dangerous feature more dangerous. The ditch is literally a few tens of feet from the back doors of a number of our members who live along it. With that in mind, we ask that you decide on an option that doesn't increase the flood risk to our neighborhood; that is Variant 2 with modifications. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Suzanne De Lucia President of the South East Boulder Neighborhood Association Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 202 of 233 Dear Open Space Board, On July 11th, you will be voting on one of three recommended proposals for Phase I of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project. SEBNA (South East Boulder Neighborhood Association) represents two neighborhoods, Greenbelt Meadows and Keywaydin Meadows that are both impacted by flooding in the South Boulder Creek Drainage. Many of our members live either along the Dry Creek Ditch (a designated High Hazard flood zone), or very close to South Boulder Creek and are potentially impacted by choices made about how the flood is handled during Phase I of this project. While we understand that flooding in our neighborhood will not be addressed until Phase II of the mitigation project, we want to be certain that implementation of Phase I does not create additional flooding in our neighborhoods. Two of the three proposed options, the Master Plan and Variant 1, store water west of a new berm and employ a an outlet tunnel into the Dry Creek Ditch. As we learned during the 2013 flood, due to the construction of the soccer fields at the East Boulder Rec Center, and the fill deposited on the Hogan Pancost property, the geography along the Dry Creek Ditch has changed since the FEMA flood map was created and the map is no longer accurate. During the 2013 flood, the Ditch not only overtopped it’s banks to the east, but also into our yards to the west. According to the FEMA map, this shouldn’t have occurred. The ditch is not owned by the City and regardless, is poorly maintained. At the April Town Hall meeting, someone from the community asked the question: “does the ditch have the capacity to handle the outflow during a flood?” and an engineer for the City authoritatively answered “yes!” The capacity of the ditch depends upon when it was last maintained and what was done during the maintenance. In reality, the answer to that question is not yes, at best, it’s maybe, and right now, likely no. But since the City doesn’t own the ditch, we can never be certain of it’s capacity. We have also heard discussion about using the Viele Channel as a possible output of the detention pond, in addition to, or instead of, the Dry Creek Ditch. But the flood engineers were apparently unaware that the Viele Channel and the Dry Creek Ditch cross/intersect at Manhattan and South Boulder Roads and that the Dry Creek Ditch is often diverted into the Viele Channel. So any flooding of the Viele Channel, upstream of this crossing has the potential to further increase flood water in the Dry Creek Ditch. Variant 2 detains floodwater on the east side of a new berm and avoids using either the Viele Channel or the Dry Creek Ditch. For SEBNA then, this is an obvious choice for our support. For OSMP though this choice poses problems since it potentially floods sensitive land that you are obligated to protect. Of course the other two options do as well. Having decided that Variant 2 was the preferable option with regard to avoiding the creation of any additional hazards to our neighborhood, we are still concerned about the possible damage from siltation to the sensitive habitat on your property. To our surprise, we learned of a modification to this option proposed by Dr. Gordon McCurry. It uses a North‐South running berm like Variant 2, but instead of storing all of the water in a large detention pond just south of Highway 36, it stores much of the water further south in a cascading series of smaller detention ponds. This significantly reduces the size of the single detention pond in the present Variant 2 proposal and possibly even eliminates it. Using cascading detention ponds allows silt in the flood water to deposit out in the upstream ponds before the water Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 203 of 233 reaches the lowest pond. This modification also eliminates another concern with Variant 2, the single point of failure ‐ clogging up with flood debris ‐ at the detention ponds output, referred to as the US36 Flow Restriction. Below is a figure showing this concept. While this modification needs to be “studied,” it provides the possibility of a win‐win solution for everyone. It provides protection for the West Side, the primary intent of Phase I, while avoiding damage to the sensitive OSMP land and eliminating any additional flood hazard to our neighborhoods. After considerable dialog and debate, SEBNA is formally supporting the idea of Variant 2 with modification. We ask that you too give the idea a fair consideration and that you too will support Variant 2 with modification. Sincerely, Suzanne De Lucia President, Southeast Boulder Neighborhood Alliance (SEBNA) Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 204 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:Gordon McCurry <gmccurry@mccurryhydro.com> Sent:Thursday, July 12, 2018 6:01 PM To:WRAB Cc:sdelucia@frontrangebusiness.com; jeff rifkin (jkchinkin@gmail.com) Subject:RE: CU South - Support For Variant 2, With Modifications Attachments:letter to OSMP.docx; handout_Variant_2_modification_07-12-18.pdf Dear WRAB members, I am providing you an update to the map included in the letter to OSBT included in Suzanne’s email, sent to you on Monday and described in her email below. Please use the attached map as it supersedes the one in the letter to OSBT and reflects the current thinking on a concept for upstream storage of flood waters from South Boulder Creek. I will be presenting this to you on Monday evening’s WRAB meeting. Thanks, Gordon Gordon McCurry, Ph.D., P.G. Principal Hydrologist McCurry Hydrology, LLC 303-520-1349 gmccurry@mccurryhydro.com www.mccurryhydro.com ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Subject: CU South ‐ Support For Variant 2, With Modifications Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:34:00 ‐0600 From: Suzanne De Lucia <sdelucia@frontrangebusiness.com> To: WRAB@bouldercolorado.gov CC: neighbors SEBoulder <neighbors@seboulder.org> Dear Water Resources Advisory Board, My name is Suzanne De Lucia and I am President of the South East Boulder Neighborhood Association (SEBNA). Attached is a letter which we sent to the Open Space and Mountain Parks Board explaining our support for Variant 2, with modifications as a win-win for all parties involved. Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 205 of 233 I know that several of our members have contacted and possibly even met with you already, so you may already be familiar with the reason for our involvement in the option selected for the Phase I flood mitigation of South Boulder Creek. In short, the Dry Creek Ditch, a high hazard flood feature running through our neighborhood is used as the spillway for both the Master Plan and Variant I. Whether the ditch has adequate capacity for this or not, these two options have the potential of making an already dangerous feature more dangerous. The ditch is literally a few tens of feet from the back doors of a number of our members who live along it. With that in mind, we ask that you decide on an option that doesn't increase the flood risk to our neighborhood; that is Variant 2 with modifications. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Suzanne De Lucia President of the South East Boulder Neighborhood Association Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 206 of 233 Dear Open Space Board, On July 11th, you will be voting on one of three recommended proposals for Phase I of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project. SEBNA (South East Boulder Neighborhood Association) represents two neighborhoods, Greenbelt Meadows and Keywaydin Meadows that are both impacted by flooding in the South Boulder Creek Drainage. Many of our members live either along the Dry Creek Ditch (a designated High Hazard flood zone), or very close to South Boulder Creek and are potentially impacted by choices made about how the flood is handled during Phase I of this project. While we understand that flooding in our neighborhood will not be addressed until Phase II of the mitigation project, we want to be certain that implementation of Phase I does not create additional flooding in our neighborhoods. Two of the three proposed options, the Master Plan and Variant 1, store water west of a new berm and employ a an outlet tunnel into the Dry Creek Ditch. As we learned during the 2013 flood, due to the construction of the soccer fields at the East Boulder Rec Center, and the fill deposited on the Hogan Pancost property, the geography along the Dry Creek Ditch has changed since the FEMA flood map was created and the map is no longer accurate. During the 2013 flood, the Ditch not only overtopped it’s banks to the east, but also into our yards to the west. According to the FEMA map, this shouldn’t have occurred. The ditch is not owned by the City and regardless, is poorly maintained. At the April Town Hall meeting, someone from the community asked the question: “does the ditch have the capacity to handle the outflow during a flood?” and an engineer for the City authoritatively answered “yes!” The capacity of the ditch depends upon when it was last maintained and what was done during the maintenance. In reality, the answer to that question is not yes, at best, it’s maybe, and right now, likely no. But since the City doesn’t own the ditch, we can never be certain of it’s capacity. We have also heard discussion about using the Viele Channel as a possible output of the detention pond, in addition to, or instead of, the Dry Creek Ditch. But the flood engineers were apparently unaware that the Viele Channel and the Dry Creek Ditch cross/intersect at Manhattan and South Boulder Roads and that the Dry Creek Ditch is often diverted into the Viele Channel. So any flooding of the Viele Channel, upstream of this crossing has the potential to further increase flood water in the Dry Creek Ditch. Variant 2 detains floodwater on the east side of a new berm and avoids using either the Viele Channel or the Dry Creek Ditch. For SEBNA then, this is an obvious choice for our support. For OSMP though this choice poses problems since it potentially floods sensitive land that you are obligated to protect. Of course the other two options do as well. Having decided that Variant 2 was the preferable option with regard to avoiding the creation of any additional hazards to our neighborhood, we are still concerned about the possible damage from siltation to the sensitive habitat on your property. To our surprise, we learned of a modification to this option proposed by Dr. Gordon McCurry. It uses a North‐South running berm like Variant 2, but instead of storing all of the water in a large detention pond just south of Highway 36, it stores much of the water further south in a cascading series of smaller detention ponds. This significantly reduces the size of the single detention pond in the present Variant 2 proposal and possibly even eliminates it. Using cascading detention ponds allows silt in the flood water to deposit out in the upstream ponds before the water Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 207 of 233 reaches the lowest pond. This modification also eliminates another concern with Variant 2, the single point of failure ‐ clogging up with flood debris ‐ at the detention ponds output, referred to as the US36 Flow Restriction. Below is a figure showing this concept. While this modification needs to be “studied,” it provides the possibility of a win‐win solution for everyone. It provides protection for the West Side, the primary intent of Phase I, while avoiding damage to the sensitive OSMP land and eliminating any additional flood hazard to our neighborhoods. After considerable dialog and debate, SEBNA is formally supporting the idea of Variant 2 with modification. We ask that you too give the idea a fair consideration and that you too will support Variant 2 with modification. Sincerely, Suzanne De Lucia President, Southeast Boulder Neighborhood Alliance (SEBNA) Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 208 of 233 Proposed modification of Variant 2 (7/12/18) CU South Property Variant 2 Dam 500-Year Floodplain SBC State Natural Area Modified dam and berms Inlet berm Outlet berm storage storage storage •Minimizes impact to SNA land •Sediment drops out in upstream ponds •Uses existing gravel pits for storage in multiple small basins •Decreases size of dam along Rt 36 & related ground-water impacts •CU berm can be removed •Blockage at Rt 36 underpass minimized Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 209 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:mk forsythe <mikekayforsythe@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, July 14, 2018 4:53 PM To:WRAB Subject:Flood mitigation discussion Residents of Frasier Retirement Community need your support to assure our safety. I’m sure you’ve heard how unlucky our neighborhood was in the 2013 flood, and how lucky we were that no one was killed! We need to feel and be safe now. Our community SUPPORTS Variants I and II that OBBT moved to recommend to Council. We OPPOSE the Upstream Variant proposed for further study by OSBT because it does not appear to be permittable. Please help us. Thank you, Kay & Mike Forsythe 4840 Thunderbird Drive, Boulder Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 210 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:South Boulder Creek Action Group <laura@sbcreekactiongroup.org> Sent:Sunday, July 15, 2018 6:42 PM To:WRAB Subject:Support Variants I and II Dear Water Resources Advisory Board, You’ve heard from me and others representing the South Boulder Creek Action group at your meetings a number of times this year. We advocate for the health and safety of people whose lives and property are threatened when floodwaters from South Boulder Creek overtop U.S. 36. The Open Space Board of Trustees moved to accept flood mitigation Variants I and II at their meeting last Wednesday. We SUPPORT this decision and encourage you to also recommend these two well‐vetted flood mitigation options to Council. The OSBT also recommended that Council direct staff to produce a Concept Design for a citizen‐generated concept proposed and promoted by Ben Binder, Gordon McCurry, and members of Save SoBo. You have likely heard about this design as it’s been around for awhile. We are calling it the Upstream Variant. We OPPOSE further development of the Upstream Variant because it does not appear to be permittable. We value expediency and only support flood mitigation projects that have potential to succeed. Thank you, Laura Laura Tyler on behalf of the South Boulder Creek Action Group Laura@sbcreekactiongroup.org www.SouthBoulderCreekActionGroup.com Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 211 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:Rachel Friend <rachelkfriend@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:56 AM To:WRAB Subject:Fwd: Flood mitigation for South Boulder Creek Dear Boulder Water Resources Advisory Board: You will hold a hearing on flood mitigation for South Boulder Creek tomorrow, and I am writing to support flood mitigation in the most expeditious manner possible. Due to the critical safety issues involved, further delays could cause loss of lives. Of the options promoted by OSBT for consideration by City Council, I support all the options contained in Variants I and II, but I OPPOSE the Upstream Variant. I strongly oppose the Upstream Variant because it has not been vetted, it has not proven to be permit‐able (in fact ‐ it quite likely is not), and it will cause delays in implementation. It's too late in this game to introduce new variants, when you have perfectly acceptable options available to act on (i.e., proceed to design phase, rather than lingering even longer in the concept phase) right now. I would ask you to accept all of the Variant I and II design variations, to expedite flood mitigation for our neighborhood. Sincerely, Rachel Friend Qualla Drive ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Rachel Friend <rachelkfriend@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM Subject: Flood mitigation for South Boulder Creek To: council@bouldercolorado.gov Dear Boulder City Council members, I live in the Frasier Meadows neighborhood, on a street that was particularly hard hit (with flash flooding) during the 2013 flood. At the OSBT meeting last night, it was suggested that the City consider looking at yet another permutation of a flood mitigation plan. As you lead up to your August meeting which will decide whether the current plans should proceed to design phase — finally inching us closer to a real fix for the problem — I want to emphasize that there will never be a perfect solution. What we do know is that: during 100+ year storm events, S Boulder Creek overtops US 36 in such a powerful way that it Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 212 of 233 puts 1000s of lives in my neighborhood in harms way; you hired excellent engineers who put together trustworthy plans that will significantly mitigate the risks, are permit‐able, and do not increase flood risks anywhere else. I hope that city council will not go down a rabbit hole, chasing an elusive “perfect” mitigation plan, instead of taking the “good enough,” that is already on the table. If you chase after the idea presented yesterday — by the time you finish researching that idea, someone will likely trot out a newer concept and insist that it simply MUST be considered, and then you’ll have to chase down that one. And so on and on and on... When a known danger is present, we have a duty to act expeditiously to remove the danger. 5 years of planning was already a long time to not remove the known danger; further delays only increase the chance that people will die in the flood to come, because mitigation will not have been accomplished in time. I fervently hope this board does not let it come to that. Please do not let great, or perfect, be the enemy of good. In this case, lives depend on good. Sincerely, Rachel Friend Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 213 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:A Adams <adams_amanda1@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 8:55 AM To:WRAB Subject:flood mitigation Dear Water Resources Advisory Board Members, I live at 4935 Qualla Drive and strongly support the ongoing flood mitigation efforts being undertaken with respect to South Boulder Creek. I am reaching out to express my support for Variants I and II that OBBT moved to recommend. I OPPOSE the Upstream Variant as it does not appear that this proposal will be able to move forward and I favor expediency with respect to this issue, given the significant health and safety issues involved. Thank you, Amanda Adams 4935 Qualla Drive Boulder, CO 80303 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 214 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:Bonnie Strand <bstrand695@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 3:08 PM To:WRAB Subject:South Boulder Creek flood control plans Dear Water Resource Advisory Board members, Thanks for your work, study, meetings, patient discussion as Boulder works to lessen its future flood risk. My name is Bonnie Strand. While I now live in Louisville, I grew up in Boulder's Keewaydin Meadows in its very early years and have attended Mountain View United Methodist Church for the last 51 years :). I now chair its Board of Trustees; that responsibility gives me a sense of the responsibility you are feeling as you work for Boulder's future. We appreciate the study work that has been done to address our mutual futures re: flooding. As you have heard before, our church was severely impacted in 2013. We love our church community and of course our building as well. We welcome all visitors to worship and our various other congregational activities. However, our church building is not just ours -- it is also used by a number of community groups. There with Care uses our kitchen weekly to prepare meals for families with a severely ill member. Suzuki Strings uses our building for lessons and recitals. Boulder Youth Orchestra calls our building home. We have hosted numerous concerts (Boulder Bach Festival, Cantabile Singers and others) in the past and hope to do so in the future. We provide free space for AA, NA, MA and other groups with social justice missions. We have a close and caring relationship with Frasier Meadows Retirement Community directly east of us. We want what is best for our southeast Boulder neighbors, who suffered so much in 2013. Please understand that health and safety are critical community issues. We ask that you accept as many of the flood mitigation design variations as possible to expedite flood mitigation for our neighborhood. Thank you for listening to many voices, and thank you for careful study. Now it is time to move forward. Regards, Bonnie Strand Mountain View United Methodist Church Board of Trustees Chair Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 215 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:David McGuire <dmcguirepm@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 7:03 AM To:WRAB Subject:South Boulder Creek Board Members, It has been nearly 5 years since the 2013 flood devastated many of our neighborhoods from flood waters coming over US36. The highest responsibility and moral obligation of government officials is to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. While we are grateful to your board for past support during the Comprehensive Plan process, there are over 3,000 of us staring down the barrel of a known lethal threat that is pointed at us across US36 and we are fortunate it has not gone off again in the last 4.5+ years. Collectively speaking residents of the city are not experts who are equipped to intelligently analyze complex flood control plans and recommend a solution. We in harm’s way only desire to have an option recommended by professional staff and consultants that can be put in place quickly and that both offers us basic protections enjoyed by other parts of the city and can be permitted without delay. Please apply the same courage you have displayed in the past to save lives in our community when guiding this important flood control project forward. Our lives depend on it. Thank you… David McGuire 4960 Qualla Drive Boulder, CO 80303 303 249‐6027 mobile Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 216 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:joynermcguire@comcast.net Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 9:13 AM To:WRAB Subject:SBC flood mitigation Good morning, Board Members, Thank you for all your support through the years in moving this project along to where it is today. We understand your board’s purview for flood mitigation projects can be a real balancing act between community equity/fairness, the prioritization of needs throughout Boulder and the financing for all these projects. With the incredible backlog of flood mitigation projects that you must prioritize, we do appreciate that South Boulder Creek is at the top of that list. After the years of analysis/vetting, we would like to encourage you to please move forward with Variants I and/or II as presented to you by staff. The years of study that have gone into these options by expert City staff and consultants is significant on both a time and money scale. We are confident that they have reached viable options, all of which meet the baseline criteria established for the project. First, and most importantly to us, both these variants would prevent water from overtopping US36 in a 100‐yr. event. Second, all of them are believed to be permittable by regulatory agencies. As we all know, permitting can take a significant chunk of time in the best of circumstances, and we urge you to support only options that staff and consultants have already established as permittable. Otherwise, we will be looking at still more delay…and more time that we “downstreamers” remain exposed to a known threat which we know will occur again. We appreciate that you are all volunteers and your board’s mission is a big responsibility. Thank you again for all your past and future support. Best regards, Kathie Joyner On behalf of the South Boulder Creek Action Group 303 263‐4835 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 217 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:kaye howe <kayehowe@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 4:23 PM To:WRAB Subject:Flood Mitigation in South Boulder Variants I and II The South Boulder Creek Action Group and the residents of Frasier Manor have worked tirelessly to find the flood mitigation approach that can succeed in protecting people’s homes and lives. Those of us deeply concerned with the lives and property of these Boulder citizens who were so deeply impacted by the 2013 flood, support Variants I and II. These deeply responsible citizens have spent years educating themselves, spent time beyond count organizing themselves and attending meetings, all to defend their neighborhood, families and friends against the next flood, an event we all know could happen at any moment. I do not know what else they can do to convey the urgency of this decision to you. You bear the burden, this evening, of recommending the way to protect people’s lives, and to do that now. There comes a point when withholding that recommendation could be a hauntingly tragic mistake. Kaye Howe Vice President Frasier Board Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 218 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:Kirk Cunningham <kmcunnin@juno.com> Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 1:38 PM To:WRABSecretary Subject:Comments for this evening's meeting of WRAB on So. Boulder Creek Phase 1 flood mitigation WRAB members; As the Conservation Chair of the Indian Peaks Group of the Sierra Club (Boulder County), I have followed various aspects of the CU South land use controversy, and, in particular, the vital issue of how that property's proposed annexation and development by the University affects flooding hazard in downstream portions of the city. At previous times. we have stated the opinion that any proposal that uses the southern portion of that property inside the existing berm for flood storage is likely cheaper for the city and more protective of downstream residents than the proposed reservoir adjacent to the intersection of South Boulder Road and US 36 in "Option D". At its joint meeting Monday night with the WRAB, the Open Space Board of Trustees endorsed two flood control variants involving some of CU South as well as a dam along US 36, and also passed along a proposal (the "upstream proposal") by a local expert for a series of small water storage areas on the existing South Boulder Creek floodplain that would not involve some of the problems of a large dam along the highway. Our suggestion to WRAB is that it carefully consider the initial expense and ongoing cost to the city of building and maintaining the siphon system required to prevent the dewatering of valuable wetlands east of the highway in variant proposals. We do not believe that an estimate of that cost is included in the documents that you will be considering this evening, but it does need to be part of any decision. The "upstream proposal" should undergo a more detailed evaluation. Thank you for your consideration of these opinions. Kirk Cunningham, Conservation Chair Indian Peaks Group, Sierra Club 977 7th St Boulder CO 80302 303‐939‐8519 / kmcunnin@juno.com Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 219 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:Pete Palmer <allison.palmer@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 2:09 PM To:WRAB Subject:Red herring Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been closely engaged in detailed discussions with the city officials in charge of the planning for a berm (dam) to protect citizens on the north side of Highway 36 from ever again being flooded by heavy rains coming down South Boulder Creek and/or the West Valley. Several of us spent a month or two right after the 2013 flood walking the whole area from just east of Eldorado Springs to Highway 36 and discovering the details of the flood pathways that devastated the residents north of Highway 36 and west of Foothills Parkway. Some of us also met with the city officials and the engineering firm that is exploring options for that dam. At last week’s meeting of the Open Space Board, the consensus of most of us was that the original Plan D could be improved by several alternatives, called Variants I and II at both the 100 and 500yr levels of severity of a flood-producing rainfall in the South Boulder Creek and West Valley drainages. Those alternatives were accepted as possibilities by the Open Space Board. However, at that meeting, another idea was floated that is somewhat analogous to a poison pill. This idea suggested a series of small berms across Open Space upstream and in the West Valley to help contain flood waters. There was enough lobbying regarding this idea for it to be given credence even though it would obviously impact Open Space in a significant way. It is extremely unlikely to fly, but it can slow down or derail the development of one of the four options represented by the 100 and 500yr Variants I and II plans. Please look carefully at that plan and its motivators, as there is significant expense that can be better used to proceed with the Variant I and II plans, and it could be a waste of time (a delaying tactic) as well as a waste of money to even consider it. We seemed to be close to a consensus on the Variant I and II plans before this wild card appeared. I hope your deliberations will not be distracted by the upstream bermlets. Thanks for your consideration. A. R. (Pete) Palmer (retired Professor of Geology [Stony Brook University], and current resident of Frasier Meadows) Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 220 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:steve_karakitsios@keysight.com Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 8:28 AM To:WRAB Subject:Support Flood Mitigation Variants I and II Hello, We have a house at 4990 Qualla Drive that had the basement flood from floor to ceiling, during to 2013 flood. This was a long, expensive, and traumatic rebuilding process. Every time it rains, our stress level and fear for human safety are heightened. Boulder did not report flood related deaths for the 2013 flood. We feel there were post flood related deaths resulting from the stress surviving the event. This would be hard to track but it did happen. The next flood event will happen. I don’t believe Boulder will be as fortunate in reporting no loss of life due to flood. Please support flood mitigation Variants I and II. These plans have gone through a long period to study/present/recommend but the choice is obvious to protect life and property for South Boulder Creek residents. Thank You, Steve Karakitsios Keysight Technologies AE Applications Engineer 303‐662‐4325 9780 South Meridian Boulevard Englewood, Colorado 80112 Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 221 of 233 Davis, Kaaren From:joynermcguire@comcast.net Sent:Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:53 AM To:WRAB Subject:thank you for your thoughtful deliberation and recommendations Dear WRAB members, Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of cost, timing and the health and safety of residents in your deliberations regarding the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project last night. We realize you have multiple considerations in play on all these choices you must make. We appreciated the discussion about the time that analyzing/vetting another option—Upstream Option—would take. While two months of analysis doesn’t sound like a lot, everything else that goes with such a decision‐‐necessary public engagement opportunities, coming back to boards and Council again, etc.‐‐surely adds considerable time to that process. As you can imagine, after almost five years since the 2013 flood, we are very concerned that this project not be delayed any longer than absolutely necessary. Thanks again for your time and effort on this complicated and lengthy project. It is much appreciated by us “downstreamers”! Best regards, Kathie Joyner Laura Tyler On behalf of the South Boulder Creek Action Group Attachment F - Public Comments City Council Meeting Page 222 of 233 July 19, 2018 Dear Mayor Jones and Members of Boulder City Council, Thank you for the personnel and resources the city has dedicated to finding a reasonable set of choices to immediately begin to address the flood situation. We appreciate the city staff for their attention to detail, gathering input from stakeholders and reviewing the options with CU. After review, we find all scenarios acceptable with the exception of two: o Master Plan, 500-year o Variant 1, 500-year In both of these cases, we lose significant portions of the land designated as Public under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan where we hope to place housing for faculty, staff, graduate students and upper level undergraduates. These two options also make access to the site more difficult and expensive to build. Our preferred flood mitigation concept is Variant 2, 500-year, but CU can work with any of the remaining alternatives. The university remains open to the removal of the berm by the city if that is deemed most beneficial by the city. The original mining company created the berm and it does not serve an active purpose for the university. As you know, the university has offered the use of up to 80 acres of its land to aid in the city’s flood mitigation project. We stand ready to engage on this with the city and urge the city council to quickly move forward to begin planning flood mitigation with one of the four remaining options that the city staff and consultants have provided. All are well-vetted options that are able to pass the strict permitting bodies and preserve as much open space as possible. Further delay by continued preliminary study will endanger lives and property for the additional amount of time utilized as well as consume more resources. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Let us know if you have further questions or how we might assist in this phase of flood mitigation project selection. Sincerely, Frances Draper Vice Chancellor for Strategic Relations and Communications University of Colorado Boulder Attachment G Attachment G - Letter from CU City Council Meeting Page 223 of 233 Variant 1, 100 year Concept OSBT Summary of ConditionsNOSMPPK‐UOCU SouthRemove CU levee and restore habitatConvey 44 acres to OSMPRealign Dry Creek DitchConvey 40 acres to OSMP*OS‐O**PUBRestore 17.4 acres*Floodwall/DamEstimated floodstorage pondingProposed Conveyanceto OSMP* Specific locations to be determined during preliminary design** Total OS‐O land area on CU South is 117 acres (70 acres west of CU levee, 47 acres east of levee)Attachment H: Figure 1Attachment H - OSBT Recommended ConditionsCity Council Meeting Page 224 of 233 Variant 2, 100 Year Concept OSBT Summary of ConditionsNPUBPK‐UOCU SouthOSMPRemove and restore CU leveeConvey 44 acres to OSMPRealign Dry Creek DitchOS‐O**Convey 40 acres to OSMP*Restore 47 acres*Enhance wildlife corridor at flow restrictionRealign/modify sanitary sewer line* Specific locations to be determined during preliminary design** Total OS‐O land area on CU South is 117 acres (70 acres west of CU levee, 47 acres east of levee)Floodwall/DamEstimated floodstorage pondingProposed Conveyanceto OSMPAttachment H: Figure 2Attachment H - OSBT Recommended ConditionsCity Council Meeting Page 225 of 233 Variant 2 500‐Year Concept OSBT Summary of ConditionsNOSMPPUBPK‐UOCU SouthEnhance wildlife corridor at flow restrictionRealign/modify sanitary sewer lineRemove and restore CU leveeConvey 44 acres to OSMPRealign Dry Creek DitchOS‐O*** Specific locations to be determined during preliminary design** OS‐O land area = 117 acres (70 acres west of CU levee, 47 acres east of levee)Convey 40 acres to OSMP*Restore 54 acres*Floodwall/DamEstimated floodstorage pondingProposed Conveyanceto OSMPAttachment H: Figure 3Attachment H - OSBT Recommended ConditionsCity Council Meeting Page 226 of 233 Anticipated Downstream Flood Benefits100‐Year Concepts with 100‐Year Storm1NStructures no longer in 100‐yr floodplainPost‐project 100‐year floodplainArea no longer in 100‐year floodplainUS36 DetentionFoothills Pkwy55thArapahoeS Boulder RdBaselineAttachment I: Figure 1Attachment I - Downstream Flood BenefitsCity Council Meeting Page 227 of 233 Anticipated Downstream Flood Benefits100‐Year Concepts with 500‐Year Event2NUS36 DetentionFoothills Pkwy55thArapahoeS Boulder RdBaselineStructures no longer in 100‐ or 500‐yr floodplainPost‐project 500‐year floodplainArea no longer in 100‐ or 500‐year floodplainAttachment I: Figure 2Attachment I - Downstream Flood BenefitsCity Council Meeting Page 228 of 233 Anticipated Downstream Flood Benefits 500‐Year Concepts with 500‐Year Event3NUS36 DetentionFoothills Pkwy55thArapahoeS Boulder RdBaselineStructures no longer in 100‐ or 500‐yr floodplainPost‐project 500‐year floodplainArea no longer in 100‐ or 500‐year floodplainAttachment I: Figure 3Attachment I - Downstream Flood BenefitsCity Council Meeting Page 229 of 233 Site Conservation Suitability Analysis Attachment JAttachment J - Site Conservation Suitability Analysis City Council Meeting Page 230 of 233 Flood Mitigation Concepts Over BVCP Land Uses Master Plan 100‐Year ConceptMaster Plan 500‐Year ConceptVariant 1 100‐year ConceptVariant 1 500‐year ConceptAttachment K - Flood Mitigation ConceptsCity Council Meeting Page 231 of 233 Flood Mitigation Concepts Over BVCP Land Uses Variant 2 100‐Year Concept Variant 2 500‐Year Concept Attachment K - Flood Mitigation ConceptsCity Council Meeting Page 232 of 233 Community Members’ Upstream Storage Concept Over BVCP Land Uses and Project Team’s Analysis and Modification of Concept Over BVCP Land Uses Community Members’ Concept Project Team’s Analysis of Community Upstream Storage Concept Project Team’s Modification of Concept to Meet OSBT Objectives Attachment K - Flood Mitigation ConceptsCity Council Meeting Page 233 of 233