[BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Hogan Pancost Follow-up Responses from Staff

[Young, Mary]

Thank you Edward.

Did the assumptions on potential development assume an annexed property or a property that remained in the county? If assumption is within the county, what is the potential for development?

Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Stafford, Edward <StaffordE at bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:
> 
> The following information is provided as a follow-up to the questions from City Council at the October 10th public hearing and subsequent e-mails and in preparation for the continuation of the topic on Tuesday, October 17th.
> 
> South Boulder Creek Mitigation Project and Floodplain
> 
> Complete information on the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study is available at www.SouthBoulderCreek.com<http://www.SouthBoulderCreek.com>. This plan was accepted by City Council on August 4, 2015, with a unanimous vote for a “Motion to accept the South Boulder Creek Major Drainageway Flood Mitigation Plan,” which included Option D for Regional Detention at US 36, along with the Phase II and Phase III downstream improvements, as the recommended comprehensive alternative to mitigate flood risks associated with South Boulder Creek. The meeting packet for this action is at: https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/129846/Electronic.aspx.
> 
> The flood mitigation study includes information on the changes to the floodplain that could occur with implementation of Phase I (US 36 detention). This is shown on Figure 10-6 of the study and is included as Attachment 1 of this e-mail. No changes to the floodplains on the Hogan Pancost parcel are expected in Phase I. In the neighborhoods to the west of Hogan Pancost, portions of the area currently in the 100-year floodplain would no longer be in the 100-year floodplain and therefore at a lower risk for flood with the completion of Phase I (these are the areas in blue on Figure 10-6).
> 
> Phase II improvements include developing 25 acre-feet of detention at Manhattan Middle School. This detention pond would meter and slow the 100-year flows in Dry Creek Ditch Number 2 so that the current 48" pipe located north of Tenino Avenue and running between the houses would be able to contain the entire 100-year flow. Figure 10-5 (Attachment 2 to this e-mail) shows the Phase II improvements and the expected changes to the 100-year floodplain. Full access to the school would be maintained in a 100-year flood. The current 100-year floodplain surrounds the school site, but if the Phase I improvements are completed then the area on the south and east sides of the school would no longer be in the 100-year floodplain.
> 
> The current FEMA maps and the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study are both based upon the land use plan from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and they assume that the Hogan Pancost site could be developed as low-density residential.
> 
> 
> 2013 Flood Extents and Damages
> 
> Information on the September 2013 flood is available at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/flood/september-2013-flood. Specific information on the website includes:
> 
>  *   The 2013 Flood Extents Map, which was also included in the presentation on October 10th: https://www-webapps.bouldercolorado.gov/pds/flood/Council_Update_Dec3_Urban_Flooding_Extents.pdf
> 
>  *   The Summary Report of Private Property and Resident Flood Impact Survey and Analysis, which includes information about damages by drainage basin. (https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/summary-report-private-property-resident-september-2013-flood-impact-survey-analysis-1-201412031729.pdf?_ga=2.157760121.235244251.1507565285-903483196.1486394208)
> 
> 
> 
>  *   A map of aggregate data for FEMA Individual Assistance Applicants (https://www-webapps.bouldercolorado.gov/pds/flood/Council_Update_Dec3_FEMA_Registered_by_Grid_FEMA.pdf)
> 
> The information used for private property damages and assistance applications is protected data per Federal and FEMA privacy act requirements, and any Personally Identifiable Information cannot be disclosed.
> 
> The following is an aggregate summary of this information for Greenbelt Meadows and Keewaydin Meadows, Keewaydin Meadows 2 and Keewaydin Meadows 3 (shown in the figure below):
> 
> 
>  *   There are 545 private parcels in this area.
>  *   There were 339 parcels that filed a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claim and/or a FEMA Individual Assistance Claim.
>  *   The claims are scattered throughout the area, with a higher density of claims in the northern portion and a lower density in Greenbelt Meadows on the south side.
> 
> 
> [58c5afeeb8964fa1b6c9cd6cbd445424]
> 
> 
> 
> East Boulder Recreation Center Fields
> 
> Parks Department staff provided answers to the questions from the council regarding the use of artificial turf at the East Boulder Recreation Center. Artificial turf fields allow significantly more playability on them with much less maintenance than natural turf. This results in a significant cost savings to the community and more sustainable infrastructure. Unlike with artificial turf, which can be used year-round with minimal maintenance, natural turf fields can only be used during the warmer months when the grass is growing. Natural turf also requires rest periods at regular intervals to make sure the grass isn’t overused and weekly mowing, fertilizing, aerating, etc. The only maintenance required on artificial turf is occasional “sweeping” or “brushing” to make sure all the crumb rubber is “fluffed” and scattered in a consistent pattern across the field for safety standards.
> 
> Perhaps the most important reason for using turf is water savings and efficiency. Artificial turf fields withstand drought and don’t use water. The turf used is pervious, and therefore water does still enter the soil in these locations.
> 
> Staff does not recommend that the artificial turf be replaced with natural turf for all the reasons described above. In fact, the goal is to construct more of these fields in the future due to their sustainability and cost-savings.
> 
> 
> Determining Previous Extents of Wetlands
> Staff has reviewed past records and identified previous maps of wetlands for the Hogan Pancost site, which are included in Attachment 3. The maps include a 1985 map, the 2011 applicant delineation map and the current 2016 delineation map.
> 
> Staff has also contacted our third-party wetlands experts (ERO Resources Corporation) to discuss methods for determining historic wetland areas. They stated that it is not possible to determine if an area is a wetland based on aerial photography and provided the following:
> 
> 
> •                     An aerial photograph can be used to determine if there is a potential for a wetland to occur.
> 
> •                     It is not possible to determine if there is/was wetland potential from a black and white photograph.
> 
> •                     When looking for a potential wetland area, based on an aerial, they are looking for change in vegetation color, water ponding and water sources. Tree cover does not matter, as wetlands may or may not have trees.
> 
> •                     Determining whether or not an area is actually a wetland can only be completed by a field visit and looking for specific plant types, soil and hydrology.
> 
> If you have further questions or request for additional information on these topics please feel free to contact Edward Stafford at StaffordE at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:StaffordE at bouldercolorado.gov> or for other questions related to the Hogan Pancost application you can contact the case manager, Karl Guiler at GuilerK at bouldercolordo.gov<mailto:GuilerK at bouldercolordo.gov>.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> Edward Stafford, P.E., PTOE
> Development Review Manager - Public Works
> [PDS_lock]
> O: 303-441-4276
> StaffordE at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:lastnamef at bouldercolorado.gov>
> 
> Public Works
> 1739 Broadway| Boulder, CO 80306
> Bouldercolorado.gov<http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/>
> 
> <Responses to Council Questions on Hogan Pancost.pdf>
> <Attrachment 1 - Figure 10-6 SBC Flood Mitigation.pdf>
> <Attrachment 2 - Figure 10-5 SBC Flood Mitigation.pdf>
> <Attrachment 3 - Wetlands Mapping.pdf>
> <image003.jpg>
> <image004.png>