1997-07-10_REVISION - M1981302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Revised 07/06/97 Minutes-June 26-27, 1997 Page 25 Ms. Bunin spoke to the Board and said that if the Board chose not to accept this Amendment as it is, that does not have any bearing on any safety issues concerning the berm as it currently is. The current berm is just going to sit there until some other amendment gets approved, so there would be no compromise of any safety issues even if the current Amendment is not accepted. If the current Amendment were to be accepted, there would be an approval process for a physical structure that has extremely significant—not only the berm, but the whole basinflood plain implications. She sees it as a problem with the Board possibly overstepping its' jurisdiction into the realm of other decision making bodies that really should have the time to review and comment on the current flood plain studies and data. The 1982 letter that stated that there was a berm in the channel, but it was approved by the County. The berm that was approved by the County was not the berm that is on the property at this time. The berm is higher and the County took legal action in October and November of 1996 and issued a Notice of Violation to Western Mobile to stop it from adding to that berm. The channel that is specifically in that Permit Application with the County is on the east or outside of the berm, it is not the channel that is in the revised Amendment. Ms. Bunin thought about the negative consequences, for all the parties involved, if the Amendment didn't get approved. She doesn't see a compromise with public safety, the berm will basically stay as it is, so that wouldn't be a drawback. Their could be significant long-term increase in public safety because there would be space for the flood plain training process to occur without having important features already pre-determined. The University of Colorado has stated that they do not have plans for the property for the next 30 years, so as the property owner, they should not be impacted. Western Mobile could meet their commitments as stated in a letter from 1982, where they stated: "We are committed to high quality reclamation for this site". Ms. Bunin encourages the Board to remind Western Mobile about that and to allow the opportunity, to what she feels would be safer, better planning for all the stakeholders and to utilize the newer flood information that has been provided in the last year with the newest information in the next couple of months. Mr. Ernst asked if the height of the berm was not approved and asked if the width of the berm had increased. Ms. Bunin responded that the County issued a Permit for up to a maximum of five feet above creek level, but the berm is well above that. The berm is wider is certain areas. Mr. Ernst asked if she thought it was a better design than what was approved. Ms. Bunin replied yes, for flood control.