Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 07/30/97 Minutes -July 23, 1997 Page 16 <br /> technical and public hearings. They have evaluated three engineering studies both with and without <br /> the levee and also the downstream areas and they have been in communication with the City, <br /> County and Urban Drainage. Ms. Green clarified what Mr. Lang had to contribute in regards to the <br /> issue before the Board. Mr. Lang stated that the changes to the berm consist of elevating it a couple <br /> of feet, adding some work rock at some critical areas and tree removal. The Urban Drainage <br /> support the concept of keeping the berm because there is a number of flood mitigation issues <br /> involved on South Boulder Creek flood plain. He stated that he and other experts could look at a lot <br /> of different options, but they agree that the levee system is the best mitigation measure. <br /> Mr. Cattany asked Mr. Lang in his review, does the berm as it would be modified in the provision, <br /> adequate in flood control. Mr. Lang responded that yes it would be as the engineer that was under <br /> contract with Flatiron, Leonard Rice, did a hydrology, a hydrologic and a stability review and he <br /> was impressed with the tightness of the material. Also, Flatiron is going on record to add four foot <br /> of free board rather than three foot of free board which will give it a five hundred flood protection <br /> not a hundred flood protection. There has been quite a bit of engineering on the whole issue and he <br /> thinks that the Board's decision is very important as he understands that the Permit allows that <br /> construction to take place. <br /> Ben Bender, citizen, introduced himself and asked Mr. Lang how the alignment was determined and <br /> when they are designing a levee for protection of downstream users, do they normally take the <br /> convenient path or other things taken into consideration. Mr. Lang hazarded a guess that it was <br /> probably determined by the gravel company as it was on the outer limits of the property and stated <br /> that there are two designs characteristics that go into levee alignment. One is the hydrologic <br /> engineer must create a conveyance system and the other real estate. The real estate condition <br /> always determines the final alignment as it needs to be the most"useable" for the users. <br /> Mr. Schwarz wanted to clarify the definition of "affected land" that the berm was in the Permit <br /> boundary at the time the original Permit was issued and it fits the definition of affected land as set <br /> forth in the rules. The 1982 letter to Mike Hart that was referenced is a letter that was introduced at <br /> the June hearing and that document was unsigned and there is a question as to whether that is an <br /> official document that has validity at all. The issue of public concern is not one of the "tests" that <br /> goes into whether or not a change is a TR or an amendment. They appreciate that there is public <br /> concern, but there is also process to address that public concern. <br />