Basically, council's preferred plan may not be doable bc it can't maintain stream flows under U.S. 36. It's also more expensive and destroys more sensitive land.
CU also OK with it. (They weren't with the other one)
WRAB and OSBT (water and open space boards) OK'd the new plan. Planning Board didn't vote.
South Boulder Creek: 27 miles long
136 sq mile watershed area
Headwaters begin at Continental Divide
One of 16 major drainage ways in Boulder
25% of city structures are in the 100-yr flood plain
202 affordable rentals downstream
Also 44 homes that are part of affordable Home Ownership Program
The floodplain for South Boulder Creek was redrawn in 2003
That led to a South Boulder Creek master plan (started in 2010), which ID'd this site as a major priority for flood mitigation bc of how many ppl live downstream
We've been in the preliminary design phase since 2018.
However, staff says these projects often take a decade or more from concept to implementation.
The detention area will store 467 acre feet of water, which is enough to cover 467 football fields in 12 in of water.
There are ways to add in additional protection to the plan with climate change in mind, staff have said.
Nothing new was asked/revealed in recent feedback, staff said, so they didn't change their recommendation for the current plan: Variant 1, 100-yr.
That bugs some people.
That is different from the 2018 Planning Board recommendation of 500-yr; one member had issues with that.
"In general, planning board does not see their role as getting in the way of progress" of protecting life and safety of residents through flood mitigation," Ensign says.
"Their thoughts may not bear fruit," Wallach says, "but if there's a greater than zero chance they might" then can we look at it?
Taddeucci: They're asking for another month. Our staff team needs a little breather, but I think within a month or two, I would not see us being able to work on a parallel track full time.
"That detail may be new information."
With upstream options, that doesn't eliminate the need for the Variant 1, 100-yr features, Taddeucci says.
The Variant 1, 100-yr detention area will hold 467 acre feet.
That was in response to Joseph q that I missed.
Brown: It's possible we've already had modeling and we just need more time to look at it.
We looked at the community design, brought forth, keeping all our infrastructure on CU South. We still needed a flood wall.
"We know we can't keep our infrastructure in the CU South boundary and get the flood wall removed."
Friend: So what's the cost of doing just one model?
Limit cost to what benefits ratepayers; CU is holding flood mitigation hostage.
And since none of them have a song (I assume) council not going to make allowances for them.
Odd, since CU has agreed to build no more than 1,100. Maybe there's a bonus I'm unaware of.
We'll be looking at the "Great Wall of Boulder" and sitting in traffic fumes, she says.
Getting flood protection for residents has been an urgent issue for 20 years. How are we still here 20 years later?
We have 17 years of study... Those recommending more study, more foot-dragging, will continue asking bc they don't want development there.
Don't worry, Claudia, I've got a CU South 101 on deck for ya!
I'm picturing Transformers, obviously.
"Let's not delay life-saving measures ... Consensus is unlikely."
Interesting, since it wasn't on the priority list for acquisition by Boulder or Boulder County.
Proposes that council moves Varant 1, 100-year design forward.
Also: Above tweet should read "TO the extent..."
"But at the same time, we don't know if there's anything there."
He likes the direction council is going and is OK looking at upstream even though "we've looked at it before," so long as it doesn't delay work.
Until that's possible (obviously sarcasm there) we have to do the best we can. This moves us forward.
Supports moving forward with 100-yr design but wants to let community members know "your voices are not being unheard."
Thanks public for their "constructive criticism."