Laserfiche WebLink
At the informal hearing on May 6th, the Division seemed to be arguing that this was a <br /> technical revision because the berm was in existence sometime prior to the reclamation plan. This <br /> berm was an existing man-made land feature,but the Division cannot have it both ways. If it was <br /> existing, then in order to be a technical revision, it would have to have been part of the approved <br /> plan. Western Mobile cannot technically revise something on a plan which does not exist on that <br /> approved plan. However, if Western Mobile wants to now bring this berm in, they must do so as <br /> an amendment. <br /> In addition, the City, the County of Boulder, and other interested persons indicated at the <br /> informal conference the berm was an issue of significance to them as members of the public. From <br /> a public policy perspective, it would seem inappropriate to make something so controversial as this <br /> berm a mere technical revision. <br /> Logically, the proposed amendment and the proposed technical revision should be heard <br /> together in one hearing. Your regulations are structured so that this cannot occur unless the applicant <br /> agrees. Please remember that it is the applicant who created this problem. They chose to not include <br /> the berm in their amendment request, and instead submitted it separately as a technical revision, <br /> knowing that it was extremely controversial, and knowing that there are no notice requirements <br /> associated with the technical revision process. However, their proposal clearly fits within the <br /> definition of "Amendment"and Western Mobile should be required to re-submit the berm issue in <br /> the amendment format and process. Any other action would circumvent state statutes, regulations <br /> and the appropriate local and federal processes for floodplain management, and could harm <br /> community efforts for responsible risk management of flooding hazards and continued encroachment <br /> into the 100-year floodplain. Government should not allow a private corporation to dictate the flood <br /> mitigation measures required to remediate a hazard created by the private interest, and should not <br /> accept the ongoing responsibility of forever maintaining such a privately induced mitigation system <br /> to protect against this hazard. <br /> Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Please call if you have any questions. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Sue Ellen Harrison <br /> Assistant City Attorney <br /> KAALPHA\CM\AM\LDMG.IAX 3 <br />