Re_ resolution for Thursday's meeting should be amendedFrom:Steve Pomerance
To:OSBT-Web
Subject:Re: resolution for Thursday"s meeting should be amended
Date:Tuesday, February 20, 2024 3:42:10 PM
External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender.
P.S. In case you don’t know, Frasier Meadows Manor, which was the big safety
concern in the 2013 flood because of all the seniors living there, had flood-
proofed almost all their buildings, as of the last time I looked, which was a few
years ago. And the one big place that wasn’t done could easily be protected
with a wall around the street side, or so it appeared.
On Feb 20, 2024, at 3:31 PM, Steve Pomerance <stevepom335@comcast.net>
wrote:
To the OSBT:
RE the motion proposed by the City staff for the CU South flood
project, such as it is, the 4th paragraph currently reads as follows:
4. The Transfer Area will revert to Open Space and Mountain Parks
Department management if the Flood Project is not fully permitted or
otherwise able to be constructed, or if the Transfer Area is no longer
used or needed by the Utilities Department in the future.
You all should amend this draft motion to DELETE the second part
of the motion:
, or if the Transfer Area is no longer used or needed by the Utilities
Department in the future.
The land should revert to the OSMP department if the Flood Project
fails to gain the necessary approvals or cannot be constructed….end
of discussion.
There is ZERO reason to allow the Utilities Department to “use” or
“need” the land for any purpose other than the flood project. Who
knows what they will come up with? How about gravel storage?
Or???
So it’s clear, I think that this whole flood project is the WRONG
thing to do:
1) It won’t really protect the areas downstream when the next big
flood hits, because the next flood likely will be bigger than this
design is able to contain, because of climate change.
2) It won’t protect the areas from floods from the Viele Lake area
and runoff from surrounding land, because this water will
completely bypass this dam.
3) It would be far cheaper, more secure, and better for everyone to
flood-proof the buildings, install early warning systems, and have
evacuation plans to the extent necessary, and totally avoid the
development of CU South.
4) And CU South is a huge, Downtown-sized development that will
destroy an important natural area’s beauty and create a lot of
unnecessary housing demand, which it will not satisfy.
Regards,
Steve Pomerance