Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 3/28/2011 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board Date of Meeting: 28 March 2011 Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Suzanne Lieberman; 303-441-3203 Board Members Present: Bill DeOrco, Chuck Howe, Kate Ryan, Vicki Scharnhorst, Susan lott Board Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator Christie Coleman, Project Manager Consultants Greg Koch, Anderson Consulting Engineers [Boulder Creek Flood Maps] Present: Tim Gablehouse, Gablehouse Calkins & Granber attorneys Critical Facilities Ordinance] Meeting Type: Regular Agenda Item 1 - Call to Order [7:05 p.m.] This meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 24 February Meeting Minutes: Approval of the February 24th minutes will be delayed until the April 18`h meeting. Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment [7:10 p.m.] Public Comment: • Henry Adamski: Concerns regarding availability of the Utility's financial information, as raised at the February 24th meeting. Irregular billing intervals also make water monitors difficult to use. Staff response: Any financial info discussed at WRAB meetings is included in WRAB memos. Annual budget information is available on the City website and at the Boulder Public Library. The 2012 budget will start to be discussed at the April 18`h WRAB meeting. Information on the status of city-wide budgets is posted on the City's finance webpage. Water budgets are calculated daily; can't guarantee the exact read date but there is usually a five-day interval by which the City tries to obtain readings, so a monthly billing cycle can be as few as 27 days and not longer than 33 or 34 days. Agenda Item 4 - Matters from Board and Staff [7:16 p.m.] Matters from Board: DeOreo brought up the below matters: • With March having been a very dry month, what is the projected snowpack? Staff response: No March reading yet, but at the end of February, the snowpack was 120 percent of average. There will be no final decisions on final water supply until early May Iott brought up the below matters: • Requests a staff response regarding the Sunday, March 27"' article in the Daily Camera regarding sewer back-ups. Staff response: Insurance (as an additional policy rider) is an option for the public to cover backups. Staff tries to determine what caused the problem and whether the City was negligent or at least partially liable for the back-ups. The City is tries to reach settlement with the property owner. Staff is not seeing an increase in the number of back-ups, and insurance is always an option for the property owner/renter to cover back-ups. Matters from Staff: Ned Williams brought up the below matters: • City Council meeting tomorrow, March 29`h, for Board & Commission annual appointments • Carol Ellinghouse is retiring at the end of April so the City will determine the need to refill or revise the position. Staff anticipates that Ellinghouse will return on a part-time basis around June. • The City received a new wastewater facility discharge permit from the State of Colorado. The City is in the process of reviewing the permit; preliminary review shows that the City has a temperature reporting requirement and some metal limitations to enforce. WRAB Minutes 28 March 2011 Pagc No. 1 Agenda Item 5 - Recommendation on Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study [7:20 p.m.] Christie Coleman presented item to the board. Greg Koch also fielded questions. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: Staff is currently updating the Boulder Creek floodplain mapping study. The Boulder Creek study extends from approximately three-quarters of a mile east of 61" Street upstream to the mouth of Boulder Canyon west of Boulder's city limits. The primary goal of the floodplain restudy is to accurately define the existing flood conditions for Boulder Creek. The computer and topographic models of the existing regulatory studies are over 20 years old and reflect modeling techniques and field conditions that are no longer accurate. The proposed study uses the current industry standard HEC-RAS (Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis System) computer model produced by the Army Corps of Engineers and more accurate and updated field topography. The new and more accurate modeling identifies several areas of split flow which impact the floodplain status of several structures in the Boulder Creek Drainage Basin. [Sec agenda packet memo for additional information] Interrupted the agenda item to allow Mr. David Lieberman to provide public comment on the [8:16 p.m.] Critical Facilities ordinance agenda item. Lieberman had a recent injury and is not able to stay for the entire meeting. Returned to the Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study agenda item [7:47 p.m.] Public Comment: [8:16 p.m.] • Ted Kowalik: Owns commercial building at 1400 20 Street, southernmost commercial property on the map. Concerns regarding placement of conveyance zone. Concern regarding the southwest portion of the conveyance, question about the breach point. All buildings are progressively elevated, which would push actual conveyance further to the east. • David Leserman: Owns property at 2806 Cordry Court. Data from his engineer, with vary small adjustments, can shrink the high-hazard zone boundary and get it off his property. Concerns regarding getting a conveyance flow through. Gold Run: Had hoped that the City would do a good job figuring out the effect of Gold Run on their neighborhood. Thinks the City's water surface elevations are very believable, but had his own engineer take elevation contours from 1979 that indicated that the water level at his house would be 1.4 feet lower than it is, leaving his house without any water. Lesserman's neighborhood is unnecessarily having to bear a regulatory burden by the developer that the City has enabled. • Mike Finnessey: Owns property at 2810 Cordry Court. This property is his "nest egg," having been a lifelong Boulder resident. Would like the City to therefore look at every possible alternative to diminishing his property's value. • Roy Berger: Owns property at 3354 61" Street. Longtime Boulder County resident, enjoys the bike path but also acutely aware of projects that have been permitted over the years that are now affecting homeowners and their values - Justice Center, Gold Run, elevating the shopping center at 29`h Street, e.g. • Don Rodgers: Owns property at 5789 Indian Road. In the 500-year floodplain. Wasn't expecting his house to even be in the existing 100-year floodplain. Does not understand why the City's regulations are being imposed on the County. • Matthew Strassberg: Owns property at 1611 Grove. Studying aerospace engineering at CU Boulder, has done some modeling and therefore has concerns about the City's ineffective modeling. Requests that the City do more to try to get the high-hazard zone off his property. • Don Weatherly: Owns property on Cordry Court. His property was not in the high-hazard zone in the original study but is now one of four houses in the high-hazard zone as a result of the split flow analysis. Public comment question [no name]: Are maps redrawn when bridges need replacement? The bridge at 61st Street is totally inadequate. The County was going to replace it but ran out of sales tax. Response to public comment questions: [8:50 p.m.] • The City will incorporate the request to notify property-owners newly identified as being in the floodplain in subsequent notifications. • Responses to technical mapping questions at 1400 Arapahoe and 281h Street: Many complicated intersections in modeling hydraulics, including many split flow paths at Folsom that converge. WRAB Minutes 28 March 2011 Page No. 2 Modeling is always difficult when overtopping occurs somewhat distant from the bridge itself. Once downstream on 281 , the flow is much better behaved, shallow, so the conveyance zone can sufficiently narrow. • There is a fundamental difference in the way the high-hazard zone and conveyance zones are defined in Boulder. With the high-hazard zone, a model is run and the property is either in the zone or it is not; with the conveyance zone, the zone can be shifted left and right along a cross- section to minimize impacts on property. However, burdens cannot be shifted from one private property to another, only to publicly-owned property. • The reason the City extended the floodplain study beyond City boundaries at the confluence of Founnile Canyon Creek was that it wanted a logical place for the models to converge, and Fourmile Canyon Creek is the closest location downstream of the City. • At 2810 Cordry Court, the City minimized impacts to property owners, trying to take property owners' concerns to heart while coming up with true and accurate depictions of the flood risks. • At all impacted high-hazard zone properties, the City does not take risks lightly and also looks for flexibilities. • Bridges in the floodplain model must show no negative impacts, and are followed through locally and through FEMA with map updates [The remainder of the responses to public comments questions are included under "Board Comments," below, WRAB discussion included: [9:20 p.m.] • Since the split flow analysis have the properties that have been added to the high-hazard zone or other remapped zones been given any additional notification? Staff response: Yes, everyone within the property had notice for this WRAB meeting. Board member: But the City did not specifically indicate to property owners that used to be "out" of the floodplain that they were now "in," so should probably make an effort to do so in the future. • Supposedly an error in the remapped area of the survey? Staff response: The new survey was incorporated into the split flow analysis, so there is not that much difference in the high-hazard zone because the survey did not change much. • The documents say there will be a small optimization of the conveyance zone to reduce negative effects to Cordry Court, and that this would be implemented. Staff response: The City looks at the ineffective flow boundary imbedded in the conveyance zone calculations and optimizes that. The map reflects the 30-foot boundary change in the conveyance zone, which still meets FEMA standards but constricts the zone as much as possible. • How much faith can be put in the very small elevation changes that map such a large system? Are the changes significant enough? Staff response: In the model representing the floodplain, buildings are shown as obstructions to flow, so City is finding a proper new placement of that particular encroachment. The accuracy of base-mapping now is also twice as good as it was in the 1980s. • How much flow is coming through the bridge/flow direction/flow down Arapahoe and gradient? Staff response: The conveyance zone was originally designed that way because it is the corridor that needs to be left open so that if the flood fringe is encroached, there is no more than a six-inch rise in a 100-year water surface elevation. Board member: Why does the conveyance go through so many building to the south and what is the obstruction? Staff response: There is no obstruction; the bridge is undersized and overtopping does not happen right at the bridge so the water must be transitioned back to the creek as quickly as possible. • Conveyance zone modeling substantially different from floodplain modeling. Discussion regarding how much water flows through at every point in terms of cubic feet per second. • Do the regulations placed by the City apply to the County, too? Staff response: No, not the high- hazard zone regulations, but the conveyance and floodplain zone regulations will apply because the high-hazard zone is a City construct only. Board Comments: • Board member: Can there be a cross-section right down the middle of the road? Staff response: The cross-section reflections obstructions of the roadway and the median, with the median overtopped at 1.5 feet, which is based on as-built survey information (versus planned survey information). A full survey would not make a substantial difference in how things are mapped, WRAB Minutes 28 March 2011 Page No. 3 only slight changes in how the conveyance is shown. Fine-tuning of the system is always possible but not sure it would be sufficient to make a difference in the high-hazard zone analysis. However, staff is willing to entertain the possibility of tweaking the model again to provide the best accuracy possible, though that does not guarantee that that will change things. • Board member: Why hasn't the City been able to come up with Lesserman's pre-Gold Run engineering calculations? Staff response: Lesserman used 1929 pre-construction data, but the City took the elevations from approved FEMA floodplain maps and studies, and did not try to recreate what has happened the last 30 years. Pre- and post-Gold Run studies indicate that the water surface elevation has not changed much (approx. 12-18 inches). • One board member understands how heartbreaking the process can be, and hopes the public understands the City's intention to protect public health, safety and welfare. ' Hopes that the public in the floodplain get flood insurance regardless. • One board member thinks the new model could be used with the pre-Gold Run topography to demonstrate impacts from the Gold Run development. Staff response: Not intending to run the model with previous topographic information. The topography along the entire corridor has changed over decades, depending upon the map accuracy and development activity. • One board member raises Lesserman's more fundamental question about whether Boulder even needs the high-hazard zone (IiHZ). The impacts of the high-hazard zone in terms of the regulatory burdens are extreme compared to the probability of any highly significant damage. Another board member states that the HHZ is a City of Boulder requirement that affects all drainageways located in the City. Staff response: The HHZ is a separate issue and that portraying the flood risk more accurately is the primary focus of this study. The city could review the need for a HHZ or possible mitigation strategies in the future, but these are separate from the flood mapping study. Motion: Moved by Scharnhorst; seconded by Ryan: Move to recommend approval of the Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study with the incorporation of additional work to determine if it improves accuracy, inclusive of the revised split-flow research, which has been done between these areas of Folsom and 301h to allow staff to go forward and work with the process of the City with the idea of going forward to FEMA and regulatory adoption. Discussion of Motion: Howe is very uneasy about voting until WRAB sees the results of additional analysis. Iott suggests a joint meeting with Planning Board. DeOreo is also unwilling to approve the floodplain mapping without all of the flows, cross-sections, and locations of divided flows. Motion fails 2:3 with Howe, Iott and DeOreo opposing. Next Steps: Staff will return to the board at the May or June meeting. Staff requests that WRAB outline areas it is interested in revisiting prior to approval. Those items are: 1. Better display of floodplain to indicate the exact location of the divided flow and how much water is in each division. 2. Location of each cross section and if new ones, better defined at the problem areas, e.g. Folsom and Arapahoe, the 28'h Street area, and Cordry Court. 3. Delineation of conveyance zone east of 28"' Street. 4. Also revisit 1611 Goss Grove property. Staff also requested advice on public notification. The City sent out 2,000 postcards to everyone in the floodplain in anticipation of the March meeting. Re-do mailings or just newspaper? The board suggested that only those properties that are newly impacted by now being in a more restricted/regulated zone be individually contacted. Scharnhorst and Howe will be absent from the June meeting, so staff will try to bring the issue back to WRAB at the May, July, or August WRAB meetings. Agenda Item 6 - Recommendation on Critical Facilities Ordinance [9:59 p.m.] Christie Coleman presented item to the board. Tim Gablehouse also available for questions. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: The city, through its Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan, Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan and direction from City Council has identified a need to protect critical land uses in the 500-year flood lain. WRAB Minutes 28 March 2011 Page No. 4 This proposed ordinance addresses that need by proposing to protect critical land uses and mobile populations in the city's 100- and 500-year floodplains. Critical facilities are classified as essential services, at-risk populations and hazardous materials facilities. Examples of these types of uses include hospitals, schools, buildings containing hazardous materials and fire stations. Mobile Populations represent land uses accommodating people not familiar with Boulder's flood threat or the area they occupy. Examples of mobile population facilities include hotels, restaurants, theaters and dormitories. Complete definitions of critical facilities, essential services, at-risk populations, hazardous materials and mobile populations are included in the proposed ordinance presented in Attachment A. This attachment also incorporates updates and revisions to the proposed ordinance based on feedback received since January 2011 from facility managers, members of the public and city staff. [See agenda packet memo for additional information] Public Comment: [10:22 p.m.] • John Tayer: With Roche Colorado. ❑ Tayer read a letter on behalf of Dan Powers, Boulder Chamber of Commerce, who had to leave the meeting. Appreciate that the City is attempting to minimize damage and save lives but Roche is concerned about the proposed scope of restrictions within the 500-year floodplain. Requests that the City consider the broader context of tradeoffs and realistic expenses. The Boulder advanced flood warning system is already one of the strongest in the country; therefore, mitigation is unnecessarily stringent. Found the economic analysis by the Sanitas Group helpful but that their hypotheticals provided a baseline for discussion, not for relevant cost projections, e.g. shelter plans without expenses for staff training, failing to include actual costs for structural improvements, and public confusion about insurance purchase. ❑ Roche requests the need for further engagement of subject properties to get real-world feedback and is willing to work with the City and the Chamber of Commerce to do so. Notion that just a continent is sufficient to trigger an ordinance too much of a burden; would rather see a 50% permit threshold. Request for the City to make the exemption for secured hazardous facilities from ordinance provisions more explicit Concerns regarding inconsistencies on the controlling threshold for flood protection c Request for reference to FEMA standards for the floodplain, i.e. make it explicit that mapping is defined according to FEMA standards • Chuck Wellman: Frazier Meadows. Confused as to which part of population triggers protection because the bulk of their campus is assisted living. All buildings are interconnected. Staff response: Ordinance is on a building-by-building basis meant for modifications. Planning and Development Services has a definition of what counts as part of the definition of "buildings." WRAB discussion included: [10:45 p.m.] • Clarification on hazardous substances being "secured" • Chemicals listed under Sub-Section A are airborne released; other chemicals are not hazardous in closed containers Board Comments: • If a permit is obtained but no major changes are made, could the same engineering report be used? Staff response: Yes. • In the ordinance, on Page 10, sub-paragraph 17c, the floodplain is mentioned but throughout the ordinance, staff is very specific regarding floodplain typo. Request to be more specific about floodplain type on Page 10. Motion: Moved by Scharnhorst; seconded by Ryan: Move to make a recommendation to the Planning Board and City Council that the proposed Critical Facilities Ordinance, as slightly amended, be adopted. Motion passes: 5-0. Agenda Item 7 - Discussion on Future Schedule 110:55 p.m.] April 18, 2011 meeting: Election of WRAB officers; recommendations on rules and regulations to be used in a drought; begin discussion on utilities budget; water utility master plan; update on revision to water and ditch rights ordinance (not likely to be ready by April). At least two WRAB members will be absent from WRAB Minutes 28 March 2011 Page No. 5 the June meeting. Agenda Item S - Adjournment [11:04 p.m.] There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Motion to adjourn by: DeOreo; Seconded by: Scbarnhorst Motion Passes 5:0 Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next WRAB meeting will be - Monday, 18 April at 7:00 p.m., at the 13`h Street Conference Room located at 1720 IP Street, unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board. APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY: Boar Chair Board Secretary ' 1' Date Date An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Water Resources Advisory Board web page. WRAB Minutes 28 March 2011 Page No. 6