►
From YouTube: 12-16-20 City of Boulder OSBT Meeting
Description
12-16-20 City of Boulder OSBT Meeting
A
B
C
D
A
E
A
A
A
D
Sure
so,
thank
you
for
joining
us
tonight
to
strike
a
balance
between
transparent
engagement
and
online
security.
We
will
ask
to
follow
the
these
rules
for
this
meeting.
This
meeting
has
been
called
to
conduct
the
business
of
the
city
of
boulder
activities
that
disrupt
delay
or
interfere
with
the
meeting
are
prohibited.
D
So,
if
you've
signed
into
the
meeting-
and
you
have
something
like
tom's
ipad,
you
can
either
send
a
chat
to
me
and
I
can
rename
you
or
you
can
rename
yourself,
but
I
won't
be
able
to
unmute
you
unless
there's
a
full
first
and
last
name,
no
video
will
be
permitted,
except
for
city
officials,
employees
and
invited
speakers
and
presenters.
All
others
will
participate
by
voice.
Only
the
person
presiding.
This
meeting
will
enforce
these
rules
by
muting.
D
Anyone
who
violates
these
rules,
the
chat
function
is
enabled
to
host
only
so
if
you
have
technical,
zoom
related
questions,
you
can
send
a
chat
to
me
and
a
reminder
that
these
are
not
content.
Questions
just
technical
questions.
Only
please
and
the
host
and
doesn't
and
individuals
designated
by
the
host
will
be
permitted
to
share
their
screen
during
the
meeting
kurt.
Do
you
want
me
to
go
over
raising
hands
and
all
of
that
for
anyone
wishing
to
speak
now
or
when
we
get
to
public
comment.
D
When
we
get
to
public
comment
or
public
hearing,
we'll
ask
we'll
give
a
moment
to
raise
hands,
and
I
will
call
on
you
in
the
order
that
I
see
the
hands
raised
and
again,
you
will
need
to
have
a
full
first
and
last
name.
In
order
for
me
to
unmute,
you
will
have
a
timer
up
on
the
screen.
Please,
when
I
unmute
you
say
your
full,
your
first
and
last
name
and
then,
when
you
begin
your
comments,
the
timer
will
start.
A
Well,
we
can,
we
can
check
again
when
we
get
there
allison,
but
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
so
at
this
point
we
will
turn
to
approval
of
the
minutes,
and
this
is
the
minutes
from
our
meeting
of
november
18
2020
and
I
will
go
through
by
page.
So
does
any
board
member
have
a
suggested
change
or
correction
on
the
first
page
of
the
minutes.
A
F
A
G
A
Thank
you,
okay,
we'll
do
we'll
do
the
roll
call
as
usual
here
karen.
Yes,
this
is
to
approve
the
minutes
hal.
I
approve
dave
yes
and
caroline,
yes
and
kurt
brown
proof,
so
that's
unanimous
leah.
Thank
you
very
much
so
now
we
turn
to
public
comments
for
items
not
identified
for
public
hearing
and
allison
has
described
how
to
sign
on
if
you're
getting
on
late,
you'll
be
given
a
chance
to
raise
your
hand.
E
H
H
H
Then
I
just
want
to
make
two
quick
comments.
Suggestions
first,
I
I
know
you
all
aren't
talking
about
disposal
tonight,
but
I
just
wanted
to
say:
please
do
not
dispose
of
open
space
lands
for
flood
mitigation;
it's
not
necessary
and
not
provided
for
in
the
charter,
and
I
ask
or
urge
you
to
disregard
any
pressure.
You
may
feel
to
advance
cu's
request
for
annexation.
H
D
D
C
E
D
J
J
J
Along
with
the
youth
lady
trusses,
there
were
northern
leopard.
These
are
not
all
plants,
they
were
the
the
lady
tresses,
the
northern
leopard
frog
and
prebose
mountain
jumping
mouse.
There
were
many
other
species
that
prospered
in
the
music
tall
grass
vegetation,
including
a
gention
that
had
not
been
seen
in
over
50
years.
J
Many
many
of
these
species,
especially
the
orchid
and
the
jumping
mouse,
are
vulnerable
to
extirpation,
and
in
these
times
in
which
we
find
ourselves,
it
is
unconscionable
to
allow
any
vulnerable
species
to
be
cast
off
lightly.
Mute.
Ladies
tresses
is
not
amenable
to
impacts,
and
their
habitat
will
likely
be
permanently
compromised,
as
mitigation
for
the
threatened
species
has
not
been
shown
to
be
successful.
J
Similarly,
the
previous
jumping
mouse
preferred
habitat
is
close
to
the
riparian
corridor
and
diminishes
rapidly
with
distance
from
the
water,
as
shown
in
table
1.,
to
the
extent
that
flood
mitigation
will
play
a
role
in
the
overall
project.
As
we
all
agree,
it
should,
I
feel
any
impacts
to
open
space,
and
especially
those
designated
at
state
natural
areas
should
be
left
off
the
table.
J
J
A
K
Okay,
good
evening,
everybody
in
the
1950s
boulder
residents
voted
for
an
historic
tax
to
raise
funds
for
the
purchase
of
land
for
protected,
open
space
lands.
That
would
always
be
part
of
boulder's
legacy
of
of
environmental
stewardship
and
preservation.
Those
funds
continue
to
support
growth
in
osmp
lands.
Growth
that
parallels
pop
bolders
population
growth,
save
south
boulder
wants
to
express
heartfelt
thanks
to
the
osbt
for
its
dedication
in
trying
to
resolve
the
tension
between
the
needs
for
flood
mitigation
and
the
responsibilities
to
protect
our
open
space.
K
We
urge
the
trustees
to
hold
firm
against
disposing
protected,
osmp
lands
for
uses
other
than
those
spelled
out
in
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
and
the
osmp
charter.
To
that
end,
we
urge
the
trustees
not
to
approve
any
flood
design
which
requires
disposal
or
transfer
of
city-owned
open
space
for
land
for
flood
mitigation.
A
use
is
specifically
not
allowed
by
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan.
K
While
we
have
long
supported
the
idea
of
upstream
detention
of
flood
waters,
we
take
issue
with
the
specific
upstream
solution
now
before
the
osbt.
We
do
not
believe
it
is
based
on
the
fresh
look
at
upstream
solutions
which
both
council
and
the
osbt
ask
staff
to
perform.
We
question
the
assumptions
behind
some
of
the
analyses.
K
It
would
do
much
more
damage
to
city-owned
open
space
than
even
earlier
concept
designs
and
virtually
preclude
the
use
of
cu's
oso
lands
for
environmental
preservation,
much
less
for
any
development,
a
use
greatly
desired
by
cu,
but
is
not
your
responsibility
to
provide
it
would
protect
only
against
a
100
year
flood.
Despite
certainty
that
climate
change
will
bring
floods
of
greater
magnitude
in
the
future.
K
Finally,
in
exceeding
to
cu's
demands
that
the
city
relocate
the
cu
tennis
courts
out
of
the
500-year
flood
plane,
it
would
inflate
the
cost
of
flood
mitigation
far
beyond
the
capacity
of
city
resources
to
sustain
equitably
without
adding
one
bit
to
the
flood
protection
levels
for
downstream
residents.
Thank
you
again
for
your
consideration.
C
L
Yeah,
well,
it's
very
illustrative.
This
is
like
12
feet,
12
and
a
half
feet
on
the
left
side
of
these.
These
concrete.
You
know
I
specialize
in
hemodynamics,
you
know,
but
hydrodynamics
are
not
my
speciality.
I
can't
tell
you
what
these
structures
are
under
this
bridge,
but
there's
a
car
on
top
of
I-36.
There's
a
guy
running
there.
L
I
understand
that
the
creek
over
tops
at
800
cfs
at
coming
down
from
93
to
36
and
there's
a
natural
depression
there
at
36,
which
the
flow
can
be
directed
into
the
stream
at
that
point
and
that
it's
an
easy,
simple
solution:
there's
a
bunch
of
other
images
going
downstream
to
baseline
to
arapahoe,
where
there's
a
lot
of
sediment.
This
is
what
happens
as
we've
been
described
many
times.
You
know
when
you've
got
a
mountain,
the
mountains
coming
down
to
the
flood
plain
and
the
eluvian
the
sediment
builds
up.
L
You
need
to
dredge
out
the
sediment
at
baseline
at
arapahoe,
all
along
the
creek,
take
out
the
trees
along
the
sweet
edge,
dig
under
the
highway
and
add
add
cement
to
the
side
posts.
If
you
need
to
according
to
cdot's
requirements,
it's
a
much
more
elegant,
long-term,
efficient,
cheaper
solution.
If
joe
teddy,
you
she
says,
oh
you
have
to
worry
about
the
floodplain.
Well,
we
aren't
going
down
to
mexico.
We
aren't
responsible
for
the
pl
blood,
plain
of
the
like
the
colorado
to
the
to
the
you
know
to
the
gulf.
L
We
aren't
responsible
we're
responsible
for
it
in
our
section
and
we
can
dredge
this
out.
We
can
dig
it
to
a
thousand
year,
followed
plane
and
no
problem,
and
you
know
this
week
at
cu.
South
update
cu
claimed
that
it
was
the
city
that
came
to
them,
that
it
wasn't
that
it
wasn't
them
that
wants
this
annexation.
L
We
wanted
it
because
of
some
land
that
we
want
for
flood
mitigation.
No,
we
don't
need
anything
from
them.
They
can
do
their
annexation
whenever
they
want
it's,
not
our
business.
Our
business
is
the
city
of
boulder,
and
this
flood
mitigation
needs
to
be
done
now
and
alternative
six
needs
to
be
seriously
considered
and
brandon
said
he
was
going
to
chew
on
it
quote,
unquote
from
november
20th.
L
So
what
did
you
chew?
Brandon?
Because
this
is
a
great
option
here
under
this
I-36
here
at
the
south,
boulder
creek
and
no
problem
with
cu?
I
mean
I
could
tell
you.
Cu
needs
to
get
rid
of
about
20
percent
of
its
population
moved
to
the
other
campuses,
because
boulder
is
only
a
hundred
and
seven
thousand.
L
I
Amia,
can
you
hear
me
yep
yes
great?
Well,
I
I
want
to
also
thank
the
open
space
board
of
trustees
and
for
your
service
to
the
community,
and
I
can't
say
it
any
more
eloquently
than
the
previous
speakers
about
the
importance
and
the
uniqueness
and
the
fragility
if
it
is
impacted
negatively
of
our
open
spaces
and
particularly
the
state
natural
protected
area
in
the
unique
species.
I
These
options
are
being
closed
off
and
other
options
are
being
pushed
without
doing
the
due
diligence,
such
as
what
will
cdot
actually
allow
to
be
tied
in
you
know
what
is
the
viability
of
a
water
conveyance
structure
as
proposed?
Where
is
evidence
that
this
works?
We
know
that
we
cannot
replace
these
lands
once
they
have
been
negatively
impacted
based
on
everything
I've
heard
from
your
previous
meetings.
I
These
are
fragile
lands
and
if
they
are
damaged,
they
will
not
be
recovered
and
we
will
go
in
just
the
negative
direction.
We
see
climate
change
coming.
These
lands
are
more
precious
than
ever
every
day,
maintaining
our
flood
plains
and
not
developing
around
them
and
reducing
their
ability
to
hold
and
detain
waters.
Naturally,
it
just
goes
in
the
wrong
direction.
So
I
again
just
emphasize
this
incrementalism
and
the
and
the
rush
to
bad
decisions,
and
I
think
ospt,
you
are
our
last
hope
and
you
have
a
precious
resource
that
you're
stewarding.
I
A
D
A
M
C
N
O
M
A
P
Hey
thank
you.
You
were
doing
such
a
good
job
of
introing.
It
kurt.
I
was
just
leaving
it
to
you.
Thank
you
so
much.
This
is
bethany
cons,
I'm
the
real
estate
supervisor
for
open
space
in
mountain
parks
and
tonight,
as
detailed
in
the
memo
in
your
packet.
This
item
is
a
request
for
approval
and
recommendation
that
city,
a
council
city
council
approved
the
use
of
several
open
space
properties
by
the
city's
innovation
and
technology
department
to
place
fiber
optic
infrastructure,
as
part
of
the
council
approved
community
broadband
project.
Q
Go
ahead
and
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
the
date
on
this
is
not
a
typo
we
actually
presented
to.
This
is
a
subset
of
a
presentation.
We
did
the
council
last
year
on
the
city
broadband
project,
so
I'm
just
going
to
quickly.
I
we,
I
selected
out
the
ones
that
I
think
that
are
relevant
to
this
presentation,
so
we'll
quickly
go
through
this
presentation.
So
if
you
want
to
go
to
the
next
slide,
we'll
I'll
provide
you
a
background
on
the
project.
Q
Talk
about
the
guiding
principles,
give
you
some
timeline
on
it
and
I'll
actually
show
you
a
fiber
map
and
then
well
I'll
leave
room
for
questions
here.
Questions
might
be
more
appropriate
after
the
open
space
staff.
Matt
from
open
space
does
his
presentation,
but
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
next
slide.
Q
So
basically,
what
this
project
was
intended
to
do
was
to
build
a
world-class
telecommunication
infrastructure.
So
what
we
did.
This
is
the
first
phase
of
a
project
that
will
build
basically
build
out
the
core
fiber
infrastructure,
the
backbone
for
what
could
potentially
grow
into
a
city-wide
fiber
to
the
premise
type
fiber
infrastructure.
Q
Q
Explain
that
if
you
don't
know
what
that
is
when
we
get
to
the
the
actual
network
map,
but
what
it'll
do
is
it
brings
extensions
or
fiber
connections
to
key
city
sites
and
community
stakeholder
sites.
So
if
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
next
slide,
what
this
is
the
guiding
principles
behind
this?
I
won't
go
through
each
one
of
these,
but
just
basically
at
a
high
level.
What
we
were
looking
to
do
was
to
bring
some
competition
to
the
market.
Q
When
you
only
have
one
or
two
players
in
the
market,
the
comcast
or
century
lengths
of
the
world,
it
tends
to
kind
of
quash
price
competition.
So
that's
why
you
see
some
high
costs
for
for
broadband
services
in
the
city,
but
one
of
the
key
focuses
that
the
city
had
was
we
really
wanted
to
look
at
building
an
infrastructure
that
was
more
equitable
and
inclusive?
Q
A
lot
of
carriers
will
focus
their
service
deliveries
to
the
high
income
areas
because
that's
where
they
tend
to
get
the
customers
and
the
ones
that
get
left
out
are
the
low
income
communities,
and
so
that
was
one
of
the
key
focuses
for
this
project,
as
well
as
ensuring
that
we
had
what's
called
net
neutrality
and
open
access
it.
Basically,
we
provide
an
open
platform
for
people
to
use.
We
want
to
build
the
infrastructure
that
other
people
can
capitalize
on
and
so
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
next
slide.
Q
We
started
that
design
in
2019
and
we
gained
the
necessary
funding
to
take
us
to
the
level
of
of
actually
doing
the
build
out
which
we
started
in
2020,
ironically
the
week
before
the
covet
shutdown.
We
started
it
the
first
week
of
march
and
so
the
that
project
is
currently
now
underway.
So
if
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
this
right
here
is
it.
It
looks
really
busy
and
I
apologize
for
the
colors,
but
the
colors
actually
mean
something.
Q
What
they
denote
is
the
the
way
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
build
out
sections
that
we
could
once
they
were
completed.
We
could
actually,
you
know,
turn
the
or
light
the
fiber
up
and
bring
service
delivery
to
those
the
locations
that
are
fed
by
those
those
fiber
runs,
and
so
literally
those
colors
denote
what
you
would
consider
like
a
loop,
a
fiber
loop,
where
we
can
bring
services
to
the
things
that
are
probably
more
relevant
in
in
the
term
that
I
mentioned
earlier,
are
the
fiber
laterals.
Q
So
if
you're
looking
at
this
picture,
the
things
that
are
in
bright,
pink
one,
that's
a
real
obvious
indicator
is
up
in
the
upper
right
hand,
corner
that
gun
barrel
area,
a
lateral
is
essentially
a
a
segment
of
fiber
that
comes
from
the
main
backbone
ring
and
feeds
a
particular
location
or
site,
and
so
that's
part
of
what
we're
going
to
be.
The
the
open
space
group
is
going
to
be
talking
to
you
about.
Q
Are
those
fiber
laterals,
so
the
the
next
slide,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
is
just
for
questions
so,
like
I
said,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
take
questions
now,
but
I
think
what
will
be
more
relevant
is
if
we
go
ahead
and
move
into
the
open
space
teams.
Presentation
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
may
come
as
a
result
of
my
presentation
or
their
presentation.
Q
R
So
it's
important
to
note
up
front
that
the
vast
majority
of
the
cable
route
will
go
through
existing
rights
of
way
or
easements
that
are
allowing
for
such
utilities.
Right
now,
we're
going
to
be
highlighting
the
open
space
properties
where
the
cable
route
diverges
from
those
existing
rates
of
way.
These
properties
are
highlighted
in
the
map
on
the
right,
they're
highlighted
in
yellow-
and
this
was
the
map
that
was
included
with
your
memo.
R
So
the
open
space
properties
that
are
affected
are
the
coslet
genic,
haley
and
gun
barrel
ranch,
and
these
together
are
known
as
the
gun
barrel
hill
area,
thorn,
3,
mccabe
sanchez
and
homes
together.
These
are
known
as
the
red
rocks
area
and
then
lastly,
batch
elder
and
austin
russell.
These
are
known
as
the
chautauqua
area,
so
if
we
could
go
next
slide,
please
thank
you.
R
So
this
is
the
gun
barrel
hill
area,
a
nice
zoomed
in
map,
so
the
broadband
route
follows
the
east
boulder
to
gun
barrel
trail
corridor.
So
you
can
see
this
in
the
map
on
the
right.
The
proposed
broadband
route
lays
directly
on
top
of
the
trail,
but
in
practical
application
it
will
actually
be
parallel
to
the
trail,
but
just
in
that
same
corridor.
So
it's
important
to
highlight
we're
not
actually
they
won't
actually
be
digging
up
the
trail
itself.
R
R
So
red
rocks
area,
the
northern
portion
of
the
cable
route
here,
will
follow
the
red
rocks,
connector,
trail
and
red
rocks
trail
corridors
and
in
the
case
of
red
rocks
area.
There's
an
existing
conduit
on
that
southern
portion
that
can
be
used
which
may
be
used
and
that
greatly
reduces
the
construction
impacts.
R
The
cable
here
will
serve
the
emergency
communications
tower
and
chautauqua
reservoir
infrastructure
next
slide,
so
the
disposal
process
that
we
have
to
go
through
with
this
project.
The
approval
we're
seeking
today
is
to
dispose
of
an
interest
in
open
space
land
in
order
to
permit
the
use
by
another
city
department
for
a
non-open
space
use
prior
to
2016.
R
Osmp
can't
change
the
use
of
this
land
interest,
like
you
typically
would,
with
a
deed
or
transfer
of
an
easement
to
another
party,
so
boulder
revised
code.
Chapter
8811
addresses
this
by
requiring
disposal
procedures
to
be
followed,
even
though
legal
title
to
the
land
will
not
actually
change
so
next
slide.
R
As
far
as
the
construction
methods,
osmp
staff
believes,
this
will
be
pretty
low
impact
and
pretty
minimal
disturbance,
because
they're
able
to
actually
install
these
conduits
and
cables
through
a
boring
process,
they'll
be
using
excess
holes
and
then
drilling
horizontally
and
the
conduits
will
be
located.
30
inches
below
the
surface,
72
inches
below
the
surface.
R
R
R
The
main
benefit
of
this
again
is
to
decrease
those
impacts.
So
the
construction,
the
actual
construction
process
and
the
impacts
from
the
construction
will
be
managed
by
an
interdepartmental
memorandum
of
understanding
between
osmp
and
it
departments.
The
idmou
contains
provisions
regarding
the
best
practices
it
and
their
contractor
must
follow
both
during
the
project
and
afterwards
for
restoration.
R
R
So
next
slide,
please,
as
far
as
the
actual
benefits
to
open
space
from
this
property.
The
use
of
this
fiber
cable
will
benefit
the
city's
open
space
program
by
providing
future
connectivity
and
the
osmp
rangers
use
of
the
emergency
communication
framework
that
the
infrastructure
will
osmp
will
also
benefit
after
the
installation
of
the
backbone
when
broadband
service
lines
to
the
osmp's,
ranger,
cottage
and
foothills
nature
center
are
installed
so
next
slide.
R
So,
although
the
vast
majority
of
the
cable
route
is
through
rights
of
way,
there
are
still
those
parts
of
the
cable
that
leave
the
right-of-way
and
cross
undisturbed
open
space.
As
I
showed
earlier
in
the
maps,
the
cable
routes
run
parallel
to
the
trails
to
cut
down
on
impacts,
the
other
alternatives
that
it
examined
do
not
actually
parallel
the
trails,
they're
less
direct
and
they
thereby
cross
more
open
space,
creating
more
impacts.
R
Rather
than
doing
that
big
hook,
it
seems
like
it
would
be
a
nice
straight
line,
but
it
would
create
a
lot
more
impacts
and
a
lot
more
challenges
so
following
this
trail
cuts
down
on
those
impacts
and,
lastly,
in
order
to
get
the
cable
to
reach
some
of
these
open
space
facilities
such
as
the
foothills
nature
center,
the
ranger
cottage
and
chautauqua
reservoir
infrastructure.
The
only
choice
is
to
cross
open
space
property
outside
of
those
rights
of
way,
so
there
really
aren't
any
other
alternatives
in
those
cases.
R
B
E
F
P
P
So
that
is
located
entirely
surrounded
by
open
space.
The
only
the
only
way
to
provide
upgraded
technology
to
their
monitoring
infrastructure
and
to
that
to
that
utility
that
priority
utility
infrastructure
for
the
city
is
to
go
through
open
space.
There
is
existing
conduit
from
sunshine
hydro
to
the
south
that
they
will
hopefully
be
able
to
use.
That's
existing
mountain
states.
P
Telephone
used
to
have
an
easement
that
now
is,
is
controlled
by
the
city
within
that
open
space,
and
they
do
have
to
continue
the
connection
to
the
north
in
order
and-
and
francis
can
probably
talk
better
about
this,
but
they
have
those
circuits,
those
loops
that
have
to
have
closed
connections
throughout
the
city.
Those
were
all
the.
Q
S
F
P
Q
Q
Yes
and-
and
I
apologize
I'm
not
as
familiar
with
all
the
open
space
properties,
so
I
I
wanted
the
open
space
to
have
to
start
it,
but
I
can
explain
the
boring
process.
So
essentially,
what
happens
is
there's
a
hole
that
gets
opened
up
and
you
may
have
seen
this
in
you
know
along
the
street,
but
it's
basically
a
little
bit
larger
than
what
you
would
see
with
the
typical
handhold
like
like
you
see
in
the
sidewalks,
and
it
is
a
lateral
boring.
Q
Essentially
what
happens
is
that's
the
entry
point
for
the
boring,
but
it's
also
ultimately
becomes
the
point
where
we
install
a
handhold
after
the
fact
and
the
handhold
is
intended
for
not
only
the
installation
but
if
there's
ever
any
future
need
to
do
a
repair
or
something
like
that,
but
the
because
of
what
we're
talking
about.
It's
very,
very,
very
unlikely
that
we'll
ever
have
to
disturb
this
once
it's
in
place.
Q
The
only
reason
we
would
ever
do
that
is,
if
somehow
or
another
somebody
comes
along
and
cuts
fiber,
you
know
and
obviously
the
way
open
space
is
controlled.
That's
very
unlikely
that
that
would
happen,
which
is
why
matt
in
his
presentation,
he
said,
if
we
needed
to,
we
could
actually
bury
the
hand,
holds
because
it's
really
intended
to
be
that
initial
install
and
then
for
any
future
maintenance
that
might
need
to
get
done.
F
Q
F
Q
F
Q
A
And
so
francis
just
to
continue
that
example.
Obviously
the
route
up
to
the
water
tank
there
by
chautauqua
has
a
lot
of
turns
in
it,
so
you
guys
have
already
figured
out
how
many
boreholes
or
hand
holes
you're
going
to
need
for
that.
Can
you
just
tell
us
for
that
length
how
many
installation
holes
you'll
need.
Q
E
P
Q
P
Yep,
the
above
ground
disturbance
will
be
where
the
hand
tools
eventually
are
yes
and
on
chautauqua
the
chautauqua
route
there
again
the
the
areas
that
cross
open
space,
both
near
the
ranger
cottage
in
that
island
and
then
along
the
the
road
up
to
the
water
tank
and
emergency
tower.
I'm
counting
one
two,
three
four
five
six
seven
hand
holes.
A
E
A
S
G
So
this
is
a
question
for
bethenny
and
matt.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
the
provision
of
access
for
it
for
this
particular
project.
My
question
relates
to
the
actual
language,
as
you
know
bethany.
So
what
I
want
to
find
out
is:
why
do
we,
what
before
we
get
there?
What
rights
are
we
actually
transferring
from
the
open
space
ownership
to
the
I.t
department,
and
why
do
we
have
to
do
that
in
order
for
this
project
to
be
completed.
P
So
so
we
need
to
transfer
the
right
to
use
it
to
be
able
to
place
these
conduits
and
the
the
handholds
and
to
use
the
open
space
for
this
broadband
infrastructure.
So,
in
order
to
do
that,
we
again
as
matt
specified
there.
We
cannot
use
what
what
is
a
normal
easement.
You
know
you've
probably
seen
an
access,
easement
or
a
utility
line,
a
water
line,
a
pipeline
easement.
We
can't
use
that
to
transfer
from
one
city
department
to
another,
because
ever
the
land
itself
is
owned
by
the
city
of
boulder.
P
P
You
know
2016
through
the
the
ordinance,
and
you
know,
requirement
to
abide
by
the
charter
provision,
even
if
it's
another
city
department
that
you're
transferring
that
use
so
again,
compare
this
to
a
comcast
as
as
francis
compared
it
to.
If
comcast
were
to
approach
us
for
the
same
type
of
use,
they
would
be
requesting
a
an
easement
which
is
a
disposal
of
open
space
through
section
177
of
our
charter,
and
so
we
would
have
to
comply
with
that
that
same
section,
so
this
is
again
making
it
apply.
M
G
M
P
E
G
P
I
think
dave
I
would
compare
8811
to
the
the
word
transfer
there
of
of
the
actual
mechanism
versus
that
that
we're
tran
we're
transferring
the
land
itself
so
that
we
are
transferring
a
right
in
our
land
to
another
city
department,
whether
it's
use,
whether
it's
management,
whether
it's
the
you
know,
kind
of
some
sort
of
interest
in
that
land.
So
use
the
word
I
I
would.
I
would
carry
or
analyze
the
word
transfer
as
that,
the
the
mechanism,
so
the
idmou
is
being
carried
out
in
order
to
transfer
a
permitted
right
to
I.t.
G
It's
a
it's
a
permitted
access
and
part
of
my
problem,
bethany
and
dan-
and
you
know
this
bethany-
is
that
those
lands
were
purchased
with
open
space
funds
for
specific,
open
space
purposes,
and
so
well,
I
don't
see
it
as
you
know,
kind
of
just
other
city
property,
there's
in
fact
a
context
for
the
ownership
and
management
of
these
particular
lands
and
it
from
my
perspective,
it's
different
than
part.
You
know,
city
parks
or
or
other
city
city-owned
lands.
G
T
Just
quickly,
following
up
what
you're
saying
dave,
I
I'd
kind
of
express
it
differently,
but
you're
gonna
find
me
very
sympathetic
to
your
viewpoint
on
that.
I
think
that
the
charter
is
ample
in
its
own
language.
On
this
particular
topic,
it's
a
clearly
a
conveyance.
I
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
reference.
What
I
feel
was
actually
just
a
clarifying
ordinance,
and
so
I'm
going
to
support
you
on
that
one.
But
my
attention
and
question
on
this
is
a
little
bit
more
about
the
memorandum
of
understanding.
T
I
feel
like
that's
where
the
important
action
on
this
deal
is
and
bethany.
What
I'm
wondering
I
mean
tell
me
if
this
is
just
an
oversight
or
if
there's
an
intentional
element
to
it,
there
isn't
anything
written
into
the
mou
about
the
ultimate
responsibility
for
cleanup,
there's,
discussion
of
abandonment
and
different
things,
and
but
you
know
me
living
as
a
as
a
young
person
in
society
I
visualize
in
30
years,
although
these
seem
like
very
important
connections
now
that
they
will
probably
look
about.
You
know
cro-magnon
in
30
years.
P
And
and
and
how
it
will
be
it
if
you
notice
the
termination
and
abandonment
paragraph
in
the
in
the
the
the
draft
has
is,
is
very
much
you
know
in
in
in
draft
form,
and
so
absolutely
there
will
be.
You
know,
because,
anytime
you
deal
with
any
kind
of
pipeline
any
kind
of
conduit.
There
is,
do
you
you
know,
could
it
be
abandoned
in
place
by
permission?
Should
it
be
torn
out?
A
P
P
So
I
I
I
don't
know
that
I
can
answer
that,
because
you
know
you
guys
had
had
tasked
me
with
trying
to
find
instances
where
pipelines
utilities
by
another
city
department
had
been
placed
with
you
know,
and
what
that
mechanism
was,
and
I
haven't
been
able
to
find
it.
I
can
say
and
and
and
dave
this
might
be
during
your
duration,
it
might
be
even
prior
many
paved
paths
were
built
on
open
space
that
have
always
been.
They
were
constructed,
improved
and
managed
by
transportation.
P
They
had
nothing
to
do
open
space,
never
constructed
them.
They've
never
managed
those
paved
paths,
some
of
which
you
guys
know.
We've
we've
disposed
of
to
transportation
during
the
the
e-bikes
approvals,
but
and
some
of
which
still
lie
on
open
space
and
are
still
managed
by,
and
so
those
right
now,
as
you
might
imagine,
are
somewhat
conflicting
with
the
8811
language
ordinance.
So
I
can
say
in
that
situation
they
were
done
and
and
I've
never
even
been
able
to
find
a
management
agreement.
Saying
transportation
will
manage
them.
P
It
just
has
happened,
and
so
I
think
you
know,
while
this
adds
a
great
deal
of
process
to
this,
to
how
the
city
departments
work
together.
I
also
firmly
believe
it
provides
some
clarity,
and
you
know
a
paper
trail
approval
trails
to
to
this
sort
of
to
this
sort
of
conveyance
transfer
permission.
However,
you
want
to
phrase
it,
and
so
you
know
management,
and
you
know,
and
and
you
know,
another
complication
you've
probably
seen
is
greenways.
P
U
M
This
2016
resolution
didn't
happen.
I
think
what
we're
saying
is
that
this
is
sort
of
the
way
that
we
would
like
to
consummate
this
type
of
thing,
no
matter
what
process,
and
in
fact,
up
until
eight
weeks
ago,
we
weren't
sure
you
know:
do
we
treat
this
more
like
a
license
agreement
or
disposal
and
doing
the
analysis
with
cao
we
determined?
No,
we
need
to
probably
we
need
to
use
this
mechanism,
but
the
idmou
itself
is
something
like
this
is
just
how
it
should
be
done.
M
Maybe
it
wasn't
done
this
way
in
the
future
in
the
past,
but
going
forward
regardless
of
how
we
need
to
treat
it
with
from
an
approval
standpoint
or
whether
we
use
the
disposal
process.
The
actual
agreement
itself
is
just
the
smart
way
to
make
sure
that
there's
an
understanding
of
who's
doing
what
and
something
what
we
would
have
done,
regardless
of
what
type
of
approval
process
we
needed
to
go
through.
F
The
legal
title
will
not
be
changed
or
the
underground
easement,
and
so
I
think
this
action
is
very
parallel
to
granting
easements
to
corp
corporations
or
utilities
and
and
that's
the
way
I'd
like
to
handle
it.
I
don't
see
this
I'm
in
agreement
with
with
dave,
and
I
think
hal
as
well,
that
I
don't
see
a
need
for
transferring
anything,
because
all
those
things
that
you
have
listed
still
remain
with
osmp
and
the
land
is
still
being
both
used
and
managed
by
osmp
under
charter
provisions.
F
S
S
F
P
We
did
take
transfer
out
of
obviously
the
the
motion
language
and
things
like
that.
So
I
think
I
think
8811
is
saying
the
transfer
of
open
space
lands
to
another
department.
So
if
you
then
tie
it
has
to
comply
with
section
177.
If
you
then
go
into
the
charter
and
and
look
at
that
open
space
land
is
any
interest
in
real
property
purchase
or
lease
with
the
sales
and
use
tax.
P
So
in
order
to
transfer
any
interest
in
open
space
land,
so
we
are
giving
permission
for
the
use
of
you
know
four
inch
circle
under
open
space,
and
you
know
30
by,
however
many
inches
hand
holes
and
for
and
for
it
to
be
able
to
manage
those
areas
of
open
space
that
don't
conflict
with
open
space
purposes.
But
we
our
we
are
via
an
ammo,
an
idmou
rather
than
an
easement.
P
Transferring
conveying
and
I
and
I
get
that
you
know-
8811
did
not
pull
down
all
of
the
language
of
177,
but
it
does
say,
comply
with
177,
which
says
no
land,
no
open
space
land
again
go
up
to
that
definition
of
any
interest
can
be
sold,
least
traded
or
otherwise
conveyed.
So
we
are
conveying
a
use
of
open
space
land
via
this.
This
process
does
that
I
mean.
Does
that
circular?
P
F
Difference
between
the
difference
between
your
explanation,
bethany
and
mine,
is,
I
start
with
the
charter
you're,
starting
with
eight
eight
eleven,
and
I
think
eight
eight
eleven
is
outside
of
what
we're
doing
it's
not
relevant
to
what
we're
doing
we're
strictly
working
from
the
charter
and
permitting
an
underground
use
and
even
even
either
matter.
Francis
said
that
these
handholds
would
be
underground,
so
it's
an
underground
use
just
like
easement
would
be
so
I
don't
think
that
is
even
relevant.
F
P
M
P
T
I
I
would
be
happy
to
clarify
a
little
bit
of
the
viewpoint
of
why
we
don't
want
it
in
there,
if
that
is
vague.
For
any
reason.
The
reason
that
I
think
a
trustee
would
be
concerned
that
it's
in
there
is.
It
gives
undue
importance
to
a
piece
of
legislation
which
was
merely
meant
to
clarify
the
charter,
and
it
is
more
susceptible
to
changes
in
politics.
P
P
P
G
So
I
I
want
to
just
muddy
the
waters
a
little
more
before
we
actually
do
anything,
and-
and
so
I
really
do
have
a
problem
with
the
use
of
the
word
disposal
in
actions
like
this.
I
fail
to
understand
why
two
city
departments
can't
have
a
memorandum
of
understanding
between
them
without
a
formal
disposal
action.
G
P
Do
you
mean
not
having
to
come
to
border
council?
Let's
say:
if
there's
a
you
know,
the
northern
pipeline
easement
was
60
feet
wide
for
a
very
large
pipeline,
so
if
or
or
the
interceptor
sewer
line
that
the
city
was
proposing,
which
you
know
potentially
through
open
space,
that
was
again
a
60-inch
underground
pipeline.
P
M
M
V
One
nuance
to
our
analysis
in
determining
that
disposal
is
required
is
the
language
in
charter
section
176,
and
that
says
that
open
space
land
may
not
be
improved
after
acquisition,
unless
the
improvements
are
necessary
to
protect
or
maintain
the
land
or
to
provide
for
passive
recreational
use.
So
the
key
here
is
that
open
space
land
may
not
be
improved
after
acquisition.
V
The
installation
of
this
fiber
optic
cable
is
an
improvement.
It's
not
the
traditional
sense
that
one
would
think
of
like
enhancing
the
value,
but
it
actually
could
in
some
ways
enhance
the
value
of
the
land,
but
it
is
a
change
in
the
use
of
the
land.
It's
a
change
in
the
utility
of
the
land,
so
it
is
an
improvement
to
the
land.
So,
in
order
to
comply
with
the
charter
that
says,
we
cannot
improve
the
land
after
acquisition.
V
The
only
way
to
do
that
is
to
go
through
a
disposal
process.
Since
the
city
is
the
fee
holder
of
the
land
and
that
doesn't
change
the
title
is
in
city
of
boulder.
Then
they
have
developed
this
process
of
8-8-11
help
when
we
have
uses
going
to
from
open
space
used
by
a
different
purpose
for
non-open
space
purposes.
V
A
And
I
think
it's
clear
that
this
change
does
provide
more
protection
for
the
resources
it
ensures
that
things
will
come
through
the
board
and,
while
I
know
we're
all
a
little
bit
leery
about
calling
something
at
disposal
when
it's
not
as
obvious
what's
being
transferred,
I
I
do
think
it
adds
some
more
protection.
So
I
guess
I'm
okay
with
with
that
other
questions.
Before
we
go
to
the
public
yeah
caroline.
V
V
Improvements
to
real
property
and
improvement
to
real
property
is,
in
addition
to
real
property,
whether
permanent
or
not,
especially
one
that
increases
its
value
or
utility,
and
what
we're
doing
here
is
increasing
the
utility
of
the
land.
The
land
right
now
is
only
being
utilized
for
open
space
purposes.
V
We,
you
know
we
have
these
colorado
court
of
appeals,
decisions
that
have
told
us
that
there
doesn't
have
to
be
an
increase
in
the
value,
but
I
can
give
you
an
example
of
how
it
might
be
an
increase
in
the
value
say,
for
instance-
and
this
would
never
happen
but
say
that
that
the
osbt
and
city
council
decided
to
sell
off
a
chunk
of
open
space
land
to
a
developer.
I
know
this.
V
So
let's
say
that
this
was
a
sewer
line
instead
of
a
fiber
optic
cable,
it's
a
sewer
line
that
would
be
put
in
and
then
open
space
goes
to
sell
the
land
well
when
they,
which
would
never
happen
but
for
purposes
of
this
example
when
they
sell
the
land
they
could
say,
but
look
there's
already
sewer
installed
into
it,
so
it
inc,
so
you
buyer
would
not
have
to
install
new
sewer
line.
So
in
that
sense
it's
an
it
improves
the
value
it
enhances
the
value
of
the
land,
not
for
anything
we
would
ever
do.
T
I
don't,
I
don't
think
that
anyone
disagrees
that
this
is
a
disposal
process
for
me
to
just
even
further
clarify
while
you're
here
janet.
This
is
very
helpful
for
me.
I'm
a
big
student
of
boulder's
history
and
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
for
many
decades
section
or
I
should
say
for
many
years
at
least
section
177
stood
on
its
own
with
the
words
otherwise
conveyed
being
very
clear
to
everyone
that
inter-departmental
transfer,
conveyance,
etc
was
effectively
a
disposal.
M
V
V
P
P
So,
as
far
as
what
the
consideration
or
what
value
would
be,
it
would
actually
cost
more
to
get
an
appraisal
of
that
than
it
would
the
compensation
to
get
that
that
we
might
get
from
it.
For
this
minimal
amount
of
length
and
and
easement
easement
type
interest
necessary
or
use
of
the
open
space
land
and
again,
because
we
continue
to
be
able
to
utilize
and
have
have
ultimate
control
over
or
over
the
you
know,
and
it
doesn't
impact
our
open
space
purposes
or
use
of
the
property.
P
Well,
the
this
this
infrastructure
has
gone
through
like
valmont
bike
park,
a
considerable
distance
through
belmont
bike
park.
They
have
not
gotten,
you
know
they
have
not
received
any
payment
for
it
for
for
that
interest
going
through
there,
it's
gone
under
boulder,
creek
path
in
other
areas
that
are
owned
and
managed
by
transportation
park.
So
no,
there
has
been
no
changing
of
you
know
of
funding
or
compensation
from
I
teach
those
departments.
Q
And
that
is
correct.
The
only
compensation
that's
gone
out
is
when
we've
had
to
do
any
like
through
ditch
agreements
and
those
kinds
of
things,
but
for
the
most
part
this
is
recognized
to
be
a
community
benefit,
as
bethany
pointed
out
it.
You
know
it's
serving
a
huge
public
safety
purpose
in
the
case
of
another
department,
we're
bringing
activity
to
the
traffic
signals
which
will
enhance
transportation,
it'll,
be
a
significant
improvement
to
transportation.
F
F
Q
Well,
but
I
will,
I
will
second
what
bethany
said:
the
the
the
benefit
that's
getting
brought
to
open
space
in
connecting
those
two
facilities.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
very
costly
process
to
to
to
lay
that
that
fiber,
especially
when
you're
starting
from
scratch-
and
that's
the
only
thing
you're
doing
so-
it's
a
significant
enhancement.
You
know
for
those
locations
to
bring
that
connectivity.
There.
A
E
A
D
And
then
I'm
seeing
lynn,
siegel
and
I'll
just
go
over
again
in
case
anyone
joined
late
that
if
they
want
to
raise
their
hand
to
speak
now,
they
can
go
to
the
participants
icon
box
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen
and
open
that
box.
And
then
they
should
see
a
button
to
raise
hand
and
if
you're,
calling
in
by
phone,
you
can
press
star
nine
to
indicate
that
you
wish
to
speak.
A
U
U
Provided
that
doesn't
reference
the
city
code,
but
only
provides
the
right
of
the
use
of
the
land
without
any
transfer
of
ownership.
Thank
you
very
much.
Actually,
just
one
other
thing
that
I'd
also
like
to
talk
about
is
no
one's
really
asked
why
the
water
treatment
facilities
need
broadband
access.
U
L
Well,
this
is
an
interesting
thought.
What
if
the
next
thing
on
the
agenda
is
the
flood?
What
if
a
flood
comes
through
and
eviscerates
and
takes
out
and
exposes
the
fiber,
you
know
36
inches
down
or
something
and
a
cow
is
walking
across
it
and
gets
entangled
and
killed
on
open
space
or
or
someone
gets
somehow
harmed
by
the
fiber,
and
that's
that
that
could
be
a
detriment
janet
to
it's,
it's
being
on
the
space.
L
But
what
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
francis
was
talking
about
competitive
value
and
the
internet
of
things,
and
I
of
course
value
these
things,
but
I
was
very
dependent
upon
us,
municipalizing,
the
electric
supply
and
the
fiber
optic
network
simultaneously
within
the
next
couple,
five
years
or
so
until
excel
swooped
in
and
and
undid
10
years
worth
of
work
with
bob
yates
and
people
on
the
council
that
were
brainwashed,
I
feel
into
getting
us
out
of
that
situation
and
into
a
franchise.
Again.
L
I
am
planning
on
with
our
new
electronic
petition
gathering
to
see
something.
I
would
hope
that
I'm
the
first
to
sign
a
petition
to
get
off
of
excel
energy
in
november
of
2021
and
to
municipalize
again
not
wait
until
2025.,
so
I
would
approve
of
this
use.
Let's
call
it
use,
provided
that
we
can
municipalize
and
purchase
our
own
fiber
optics,
because
I
don't
know
who's
going
to
be
using
those
fiber
optics
francis,
and
I
don't
know
how
this
competition
is
going
to
be
beneficial
to
me
as
a
citizen
of
this
community.
L
If
I
don't
own
it-
and
I
don't
want
bob
yates
from
level
three
and
his
buddies
from
zao
group
that
were
involved
in
this
fiasco
about
excel
and
having
a
personal
interest.
Somehow
there
was
a
group.
I
would
rather
see
us
owning
this
benefit
in
exchange
for
this
use
and
compensation
effectively,
and
also,
I
would
not
want
to
have
anything
to
do
with
5g,
if
that's
somehow
a
leverage
point
because
of
the
health
damages
of
that
issue.
So
those
are
my
comments.
B
B
The
other
thing
is
that
I
it
seems
like
you,
have
a
fits
all
solution.
You've
got
two
two
inch
conduits
going
everywhere
and,
as
I
understand
it,
one
conduit
can
hold
442
circuits,
so
you've
got
you
know,
potentially
884
circuits,
going
up
to
the
wastewater
treatment
plant
and
it
seems
like
overkill
to
me.
B
A
Okay,
then
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
return
this
issue
to
deliberation
by
the
board.
I
think
dan
at
this
point.
Let's
make
sure
we
understand
what
the
language
change
is
that
we're
proposing,
and
so
maybe
you
could
you
or
bethany
could
tell
us
what
you
think.
The
cleanest
way
is
to
do
this.
There
we.
P
E
P
E
A
F
F
A
F
P
P
F
L
P
C
F
A
I
E
A
F
A
T
F
Q
Yes,
yes,
I
can,
I
can
speak
to
to
both
of
them.
I'll.
Take
your
last
question
about
the
the
water
treatment
plant,
so
the
the
the
gentleman
who
mentioned
the
the
number
of
strands
of
fiber
that
could
potentially
go
through
that
conduit
was
fairly
accurate,
but
that
is
not
what
we
would
necessarily
bring
to
those
to
those
water
treatment
plants
or
to
those
towers.
Q
There'll
be
just
enough
to
manage
signal
telemetry
and
security
cameras
and
those
kinds
of
things,
because
that's
what
you
know
some
of
the
interest
in
bringing
it
to
the
to
those
tanks
and
as
far
as
the
hell's
question
related
to
the
the
potential
private
ownership,
so
the
city
will
never.
The
intent
is
for
the,
for
this
project
is
to
create
an
open
network,
an
open
access
network.
We
would
never.
Q
We
would
potentially
use
it
as
leasing
opportunities
to
to
facilitate
I'm
going
to
just
use
this
as
an
example.
If,
for
whatever
reason
we
wanted
to
ensure
this,
these
particular
this
one
particular
area.
We
wanted
to
enhance
their
broadband
services
and
we
we
partnered
with
an
entity
that
would
offer
to
do
that
service.
We
want.
We
want
to
be
able
to
provide
them
the
ability
to
to
all
that
service.
Q
What's
done
with
it,
moving
forward
is
part
of
what
we're
calling
like
the
phase
two
of
the
project
where
we're
gonna
go
back
to
council
and
say
what
is
the
vision
for
for
this
for
this
infrastructure?
What
is
it
that
we
want
to
do?
What
kind
of
services
do
we
want
to
offer,
and
that
type
of
thing?
So
you
know
that's
basically
the
the
intent
behind
that
is
to
to
allow
someone
like
if
there
was,
and
also
if
there
was
a
larger
business,
for
example,
let's
just
say,
ibm
wanted
to.
Q
Build
a
larger
facility
someplace
and
we
happen
to
have
fiber
that
was
running
right
by
there,
rather
than
have
them
born
to
the
street,
because
real
estate
underneath
the
streets
is
really
really
tight.
You
talk
to
anybody
in
the
utilities
group
and
they'll.
Tell
you
that
it
it
it
freaks
them
out
anytime,
anytime
at
any
time
anytime.
Anyone
is
boring
in
the
streets,
because
the
potential
of
hitting
utility
infrastructure
is
very
high,
and
so
it
it
also
serves
to
to
limit
potential
future
damage.
G
G
P
P
G
A
A
A
E
F
E
V
V
So
excuse
me
this
the
board
approves
the
disposal
and
recommends
that
city
council
approve
the
disposal
and
the
disposal
is
to
authorize
a
use
or
to
permit
a
use
a
non-open
space
use.
So,
like
bethany
said
those
those
words
were
purposefully.
It
was
perfect,
purposefully
drafted
that
way,
so
it
complies
with
the
charter.
A
G
E
G
V
So
the
reason
that
it
says
the
osmp
lands
identified
on
attachment
b,
attachment
b
has
a
defined
term
called
open
space
properties
and
that
has
open
capital,
o
space
capital
s
properties
and
there's
an
exhibit
that
identifies
the
open
space
properties.
So
the
language
is
supposed
to
be
cons.
I
mean
it's
identifying
what
is
in
the
motion
and
also
there's
not
any
such
thing
as
osmp
lands.
V
A
M
We
just
go
ahead
being
in
the
real
estate
realm
for
the
first
few
years
here
and
working
closely
with
janet.
The
crafting
of
the
motion
is
something
that
perhaps
would
take
a
day
working
back
and
forth
on
in
order
to
address
like
janet
would
see
certain
things,
and
we
certainly
see
you
know
it's
your
motion,
but
going
back
to
the
original
motion.
E
G
A
A
F
C
F
F
T
A
F
S
A
A
A
M
Yeah
thanks
kurt
just
I've
just
got
a
couple
of
minutes
of
introductions
and
I'm
going
to
go
over
to
others,
mainly
joe.
I
just
wanted
to
also
those
folks
that
may
be
tuning
in
for
the
first
time.
This
fall
just
a
reminder
that
this
is
actually
the
second
of
two
meetings
in
which
we're
dedicating
towards
spending
time
on
talking
about
an
upstream
flood
mitigation
project
analysis.
M
Last
month
november
18th.
In
fact,
we
we
did
a
couple
of
things
in
regards
to
this
project.
First
staff
provided
a
pretty
robust
presentation
on
the
analysis
of
an
upstream
flood
mitigation
project
that
was
aimed
at
addressing
the
questions
that
were
that
were
laid
out
in
the
osbt's
june
3rd
2020
motion.
M
At
that
same
meeting,
we,
the
board,
asked
a
lot
of
clarifying
questions
and
received
staff
responses
and
third,
we
also
had
a
public
hearing
in
which
we
heard
from
members
of
the
public
about
the
upstream
flood
mitigation
work.
That
staff
has
been
working
on
at
tonight's
meeting
after
today,
after
staff
provides
a
high-level
summary
of
how
it
addressed
some
of
the
osbt's
questions
and
clarification
requests
that
emerged
out
of
the
november
meeting.
We
will
turn
our
attention
to
board
deliberations
as
tonight.
M
If
a
flood
mitigation
project
continues
to
proceed,
that
requires
any
use
of
open
space
properties.
A
disposal
consideration
by
this
board
and
council
would
be
needed
and
though
any
potential
osb
council
disposit
disposal
requirements
may
relate
to
the
potential
annexation
of
the
cu
south
property
that
right
now
there
is
no
time
frame
yet
for
when
an
osb
when
ospt
may
be
asked
to
consider
disposal.
M
So
I'm
going
to
turn
things
over
to
joe,
but
before
I
do
just
a
couple
of
high
level
agenda
sort
of
how
we're
thinking
this
discussion
tonight
will
work.
As
I
said
earlier,
staff
will,
and
mainly
joe
tatayucci
from
utilities,
will
provide
a
summary
of
how
the
staff
responded
to
some
of
the
board's
questions
and
clarifying
questions
that
had
at
the
november
meeting
joe
will
also
provide
a
high
level
overview
of
the
timeline.
M
As
we
know
it
now
for
the
flood
mitigation
project,
staff
will
then
entertain
any
clarifying
questions
that
the
board
may
have
on
the
further
work
and
the
refinements.
We
did
to
the
memo
and
to
your
questions
that
you
had
at
the
november
18th
that
we
answered
after
that
meeting
and
then
we'll
turn
things
over
to
kurt,
who
will
lead
the
board
through
a
discussion
and
hopefully
culminating
in
the
development
of
feedback
that
will
be
able
to
pass
on
and
provide
counsel.
X
Thank
you,
dan,
just
a
mic
jack.
Can
everybody
hear
me?
Okay,
yes,
okay,
great,
so
I'm
here
with
brandon
coleman
brandon
is
our
utilities
engineering
project
manager
he's
also
on
screen
for
the
video
and
brandon.
If
you
don't
mind
pulling
up
our
our
powerpoint
presentation
and
then
we
can
get
going
on
things
and.
B
X
So
here's
our
agenda
for
tonight
dan
just
hit
the
highlights
of
it,
mostly
I'm
going
to
focus
on
how
we
address
the
feedback
from
the
november
meeting
I'll
talk
briefly
about
the
overall
project
schedule
and
then
we'll
respond
to
any
clarifying
questions.
The
board
has
prior
to
your
deliberation
and
before
we
flip
to
the
next
slide,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
start
with
the
highlights
of
how
we
addressed
your
changes
and
there
were
a
few
different
themes.
You
asked
us
to
break
out
the
environmental
impacts
by
landowner.
X
So
if
you'll
go
ahead
and
flip
to
the
next
slide
brandon,
so
one
of
the
board's
comments
was
to
break
out
the
environmental
impacts
by
landowner
and
we
did
so
in
table.
1
in
the
memo
that
was
put
out
for
tonight's
meeting,
and
so
for
each
category,
we
have
the
osmp
the
cu
and
the
total
impacts,
and
we
presented
this
in
a
little
different
way
from
what
we
did
in
november
and
switched
the
rows.
E
X
X
Certainly
don't
expect
anyone
to
be
able
to
read
this
on
the
screen
as
it
sits
now,
and
this
was
revised
from
the
november
discussion
and
all
of
the
info
is
there
in
the
in
the
packet,
and
we
have
some
backup
slides.
If
you
want
to
talk
about
any
of
the
specific
categories
in
this
trade-off
table
in
more
detail
next
slide,
so
you
you
gave
us
feedback.
The
board
did
on
the
wording
in
several
areas
of
our
memo.
X
The
board
also
mentioned
the
groundwater
conveyance
system
and
that
we
need
to
document
that
it
will
be
fully
functional
for
the
duration
of
of
the
dam's
existence
on
the
property.
So
we
attempted
to
address
that
and
then
we
had
further
explanation
of
the
different
types
of
of
impacts
and
how
those
relate
to
this
project.
So
we
tried
to
address
those
as
well.
I
think
there
were
a
number
of
other
comments,
but
those
were
some
of
the
the
primary
themes
next
slide
brendan.
X
We
also
tried
to
speak
to
it
in
the
memo
and
I
would
say
the
the
biggest
realization
that
we
had
after
discussing.
It
is
that
if
we,
if
we
took
away
the
levy
and
tried
to
make
use
of
additional
pipes
or
capacity
under
us-36,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
match
the
variant.
1
100
flood
effectiveness,
because
we
wouldn't
have
any
controlling
features
that
would
guarantee
the
the
water
would
go
along
a
certain,
east-west
flow
path
and
make
its
way
into
the
whatever
structures.
X
X
B
E
B
X
So
that's
kind
of
that's
kind
of
the
highlights
of
the
schedule
and
again
we
can.
We
can
talk
more
about
that
in
detail.
If
the
board
has
questions
and
so
brandon,
if
you
can
flip
one
more
slide
so
that
that
was
what
we
had
in
terms
of
the
presented
materials.
Certainly
there's
there's
a
lot
to
unpack.
I
know
one
of
the
public
commenters
mentioned
the
level
of
detail
in
the
memo.
X
Look
a
little
deeper
at
the
upstream
alternatives,
compare
it
to
the
variant
one
and
bring
the
board's
feedback
back
to
city
council
which
we'll
be
doing
on
january
5th,
so
that
that's
what
we
had
in
terms
of
prepared
information.
We've
got
plenty
of
black
backup
slides.
If,
if
you
want
to
get
into
any
of
the
details,
and
so
with
that
I'll
I'll
flip
it
back
to
you
kurt
for
any
comments
or
board
questions.
A
A
A
T
Y
Good
evening,
everyone
don
d'amico
open
space
mountain
park
yeah
there.
There
are
quite
a
few.
You,
ladies
trust,
his
workers
on
the
cu
property
they're
kind
of
scattered
about.
I
would
say
that
the
majority
of
the
orchid
habitat
actually
lies
along
the
base
of
the
levee.
The
cu
levy
on
the
inside
and
other
orcas
are
just
kind
of
scattered
around.
Y
T
Y
F
I'd
like
to
stick
with
you,
ladies
choices,
habitat
and
table
one.
I've
noticed
that
the
the
table,
although
it
talks
about
permanent
project
footprint
it
the
footnote,
indicates
that
it
includes
temporary
construction
related,
permanent
and
direct
and
indirect
impacts.
All
of
the
above,
and
I'm
wondering
why,
under
you,
ladies
tress's
habitat,
for
instance,
under
variant,
one,
the
potential
indirect
impact
of
loss
of
you,
ladies
trusses
habitat
north
of
highway
36
with
variant
one
is
not
considered
and
not
shown
in
the
table.
Y
F
Y
Y
A
And
karen
there's
two
things
going
on
here:
I
think
the
big
numbers
we're
seeing
under
the
upstream
project
for
impacts
all
relate
to
the
small
levy
that
keeps
the
water
from
going
west
and
that
that
fragments
the
habitat.
So
I
don't
think
those
are
trying
to
be
a
description
of
the
impact
on
habitat
from
groundwater
and
eruption.
F
G
M
N
M
Groundwater
system
could
be
maintained
under
both
very
on
upstream
and
a
variant
one,
and
those
numbers
would
reflect
that
we're
assuming
it
could
work.
If
we
wanted
to
reflect
on
the
north
side
of
36,
then
we
got
to
be
consistent
and
say:
okay
anywhere,
there's
a
groundwater
conveyance
system.
Let's
assume
it's
not
going
to
work,
then,
let's,
let's
do
the
impacts
fully
for
both
upstream
and
variant.
One
like
we
couldn't
just
add
the
north
side
of
36
in
it
without
saying,
okay,
the
upstream
groundwater
conveyance
is
going
to
fail
as
well.
M
G
T
E
G
T
G
G
A
A
A
G
So
my
view
is
that
I
think
you
know
eventually
pretty
quickly.
We
ought
to
get
to
focus
on
variant
one,
and
I
think
that
then
comes
back
to
karen's.
Concern
is
look,
you
know
if
variant,
one
is
the
priority
or
the
primary
project.
That's
on
the
table
for
us
to
look
at
then
that's
the
concern.
We
have
that
the
information
pertaining
to
variant
one
be
as
accurate
as
possible.
A
E
A
Y
So
the
the
45
acres
is
the
land
to
the
west
of
the
levy,
the
proposed
levy
for
the
upstream
option,
and
our
assumption
is
that
a
levee
would
cut
off
access
to
prebles
from
the
creek
it's
kind
of
core
habitat,
it's
critical
habitat
to
the
area.
On
the
other
side
of
the
levee.
It
would
be
difficult
for
them,
based
on
the
height
and
the
slope
of
the
levee.
E
Y
Y
There
was
a
science
team
that
was
made
up
of
experts
from
fish
and
wildlife
service,
boulder
county
city
of
boulder
national
park
service.
They
all
got
together
and
they
they
looked
at
habitat
that,
in
their
best
professional
opinion
in
some
research
studies
that
showed
that
rebels
not
only
use
habitat.
Y
You
know
immediately
adjacent
to
riparian
areas
but
further
further
out
into
more
music
habitat,
including
music
tall
grass,
wetlands
and
even
even
upland
grasslands,
so
that
that
was
a
that
was
a
process
that
again
was
was
vetted
through
this
science
team
and
then
that
information
was
actually
incorporated
into
the
county
comp
plan
and
the
boulder
county
habitat
conservation
plan.
The
draft
plan
for
the
mouse.
Y
As
you
know,
you
know
trebles,
I
can't
speak
for
them,
but
but
they
I
mean
from
a
habitat
perspective,
they
tend
to
not
really
distinguish
between,
say
a
riparian
area
like
south
boulder
creek
and
some
of
the
more
developed
ditches
that
actually
have
shrubby
vegetation
along
the
along
the
edge
of
the
of
the
ditch
the
east.
Boulder.
Ditch
is
a
good
example,
which
is
just
up
upstream
of
the
bobbling
trailhead
on
baseline,
where
there's
a
real
high
density
for
some
reason.
Y
They
the
rebels,
love
that
the
east
boulder
ditch
from
the
creek
over
to
cherryvale
in
the
past,
we've
trapped
prebbles
in
real
high
densities
along
there.
So,
as
you
know,
there
are,
there
are
formal
ditches
but
then
lateral
ditches
that
run
all
through
those
fields
on
open
space,
on
both
the
north
and
the
south
side
of
us
36
and
along
along
south
boulder
creek.
G
Well,
brandon's
doing
that
done.
I
guess
I
want
to
circle
back
to
the
45
acre
the
status
of
the
ca
and
characterization
of
the
45
acres,
that
is
behind
that
proposed
levee
and
in
table
1.
As
you
know,
it
says
that
you
know
it's.
It's
it's
wetland
impacts
and
we
all
know
that
you
know
there
there
aren't
45
acres
of
wetlands
there
and
and
then
in
the
text
it
it.
It
certainly
acknowledges
that.
So
why
does
the
table
reflect
that?
There's
45
acres
of
wetlands
when,
in
fact
that
is
not
accurate.
Y
So
that's
a
good
point
it
it.
It
would
be
more
accurate
to
say
for
that.
Instead
of
saying
wetlands,
we
could
have
asterixed
that
and
said
that
that
45
acres
to
the
to
the
west
of
the
proposed
levee
is
a
matrix
of
wetlands
and
and
music
tall
grass.
Mostly
there
are
some
upland,
some
even
dry
upland
inclusions
in
there,
but
without
a
formal
delineation
and
because
of
the
kind
of
complexity
the
juxtaposition,
if
you
will,
of
these
different
habitats
or
vegetation
types,
I
should
say
it
is
a.
Y
It
takes
a
number
of
years
for
that
shift
to
occur.
But
you
know,
given
the
the
imprecise
nature
of
flood
irrigation,
you
know
precipitation
patterns,
all
those
types
of
things
you
know
you
can
get
kind
of.
I
want
to
say
movement,
but
wetlands,
wetlands
and
uplands
occurring
in
slightly
different
locations.
Y
Y
And-
and
we
did,
I
think
you'll
note
that
in
the
document
we
we
didn't
talk
about
jurisdictional
wetlands
per
se,
because
again
those
require
formal
delineations.
There
was
what
there
was
wetland
mapping
done
out
there
and
I
guess
in
some
places,
mapping
that
approach
the
jurisdictional
level,
but
to
be
a
jurisdictional
wetland
it.
It
needs
to
be
approved
or
verified
by
the
corps
of
engineers
by
virtue
of
a
delineation
report.
Y
A
N
Yeah,
yes,
I
was
just
looking
for
the
right
spot
to
jump
in
there,
so
the
levee,
where
it's
closest
to
south
boulder
creek
so
right,
adjacent
to
where
it's
shown
tying
into
us.
36
we're
about
300
feet
away
from
south
boulder
creek
there
and
then,
as
you
get
further
towards
the
south,
it
pulls
away
and
will
be
a
little
over
a
thousand
feet
away
from
south
boulder
creek
at
its
furthest
point.
And
that's
where
it
connects
to
the
upstream
detention
area.
F
When
so
much
study
was
done
on
the
previous
meadow
jumping
mice,
mouse
population
along
south
boulder
creek,
and
she
said
that
that
in
one
study
she
put
traps
parallel
to
the
creek
in
three
rows
out
50
feet
from
the
creek
and
75
feet
from
the
creek,
and
there
was
quote
a
huge
attenuation
of
activity
at
increasing
distances
from
the
creek.
In
fact,
we
caught
few
animals
at
75
feet
out
from
the
creek
and
that's
why
I'm
saying
if
this
levy
is
300
to
1000
feet
out
from
the
creek?
F
Y
So
we're
relying
on
the
experts
to
a
large
degree,
the
science
team
I
mentioned
earlier-
that
that
again,
using
best
professional
judgment
and
looking
at
scientific
data
determine
that
that's
at
least
at
least
habitat
that
should
be
included
in
a
habitat
conservation
plan
as
suitable
for
prebles.
Is
it
preferable?
Y
Y
Y
Y
And
and
as
you
know,
when
phase
the
phase
one
project
for
us,
36
was
done,
cdot
was
required
by
the
fish
and
wildlife
service
to
mitigate
for
prebles
and
where
they
did.
That
was
on
the
granite
property
immediately
north
of
the
east
boulder
community
center,
which
is
again
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
far,
but
several
thousand
feet
to
the
west
of
south
boulder
creek.
N
And
just
to
chime
in
on
that
same
point,
don
is,
we
do
have
dry,
creek,
ditch
number
two
kind
of
splitting
those
two.
So
looking
at
the
conservation
zone
map,
there
is
a
conservation
zone
associated
with
drag
creek,
ditch
number
two
and
I'll.
Let
don
say
anything
else
about
that.
That's
as
much
as
all
comments.
A
A
A
E
E
A
A
F
Bottom
of
page
four,
three
lines
up:
it
says
enough:
water
remains
in
the
main
channel
of
south
boulder
creek
to
over
top
highway
us-36,
and
I
think
it
would
be
more
accurate
to
say
enough.
Water
remains
in
the
main
channel
of
south
boulder
creek
and
spills
over
the
west
bank
of
south
boulder
creek
to
over
top
u.s
36
and
subsequently
the
west
valley.
It
has
to
go
to
the
west
to
be
able
to
eat
those
things.
A
E
A
F
N
Right
and
I
it
does
say,
flows
above
the
100
year
and
I
think
the
way
we
would
add
additional
wording
kind
of
to
your
comment
here.
Karen
would
be
and
stable
up
to
the
probable
maximum
flood.
So
that's
what
the
state
engineer
would
look
for.
So
really
any
flows
above
the
100
year
would
go
over
that
spillway,
but
it
does
need
to
be
stable
all
the
way
up
to
that
pmf,
the
probable
maximum
flood.
Okay,
thank.
S
A
G
Yes,
I
have
a
couple
suggestions,
brandon.
You
know-
and
I
may
be
missing
this,
but
I
could
never
find
an
estimated
length
or
dimension
of
the
levee
connecting
the
you
know,
cu
south
flood
wall
or
flight
or
dam
to
us,
36
and
also
kind
of
a
dimension
of
you
know
the
entire
circumscribe.
You
know
the
entire
dam
itself
that
would
be
required.
G
I
think
that
would
be
very
helpful
for
us
to
know
exactly
the
lengths
of
those
proposed
structures-
and
I
I
I
estimated
using
an
engineer's
rule
based
on
the
legend,
but
I
think
it'd
be
helpful.
Just
to
you
know
have
those
numbers
in
the
in
the
text,
so
people
can
get
an
idea
of
you
know
the
the
extent
of
it
nice
yeah.
N
Yeah
and
so
karen
just
maybe
to
touch
on
that
a
little
bit,
though
the
way
that
earthen
embankment
works
is
we
we
measured
the
length
based
on
the
center
line
of
that
dam,
and
so
us,
the
groundwater
feature
associated
with
that
earthen
embankment
would
likely
be
a
slurry
wall
down
to
bedrock
at
that
point,
and
you
would
typically
dig
those
on
the
center
line
of
the
dam.
So
that's
how
we
measured
those
lengths.
So
anytime,
you
see
a
length
reported
for
that
upstream
detention.
It's
based
on
the
center
line
of
the
dam.
There.
F
A
I
just
wanna
be
clear:
we're
looking
for
the
length
of
the
red,
colored
earth
and
dam
separate
from
the
rcc,
but
we're
also
looking
for-
and
I
think
you
have
this
we're
looking
for
the
total
length
of
groundwater
conveyance
for
the
upstream
project
and
those
will
be
different
numbers
because
part
of
the
red
dam
has
groundwater
conveyance.
I
understand
so.
F
W
F
X
I
I'm
I
I
guess
I
have
a
question
on
this
and
I'm
wondering
brandon
and
the
board
members,
it's
good
feedback
and
I'm
looking
at
the
figure.
That's
on
page
six
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
couldn't
enhance
that
or
have
another,
a
duplicate
version
of
it.
That
just
showed
some
of
the
lengths,
and
these
features
so
kind
of
a
picture
is
worth
a
thousand
words.
G
A
G
G
You
know
scenario
and
it's
it
just
doesn't
do
much
for
me
to
say
well,
a
group
of
us
sat
around
decided
that
it
really
wasn't
gonna,
you
know,
do
much
it's
like!
Well,
you
know,
let's,
let's
say
kind
of
what
it
can
do
and
what
it
might
be
able
to
do.
And
then
you
know,
then
that
helps
the
discussion
in
the
future.
E
A
E
F
A
A
A
A
A
F
G
I
agree
well
and
the
the
other
thing
you
offered
or
invited
me
to
suggest
something
for
instead
of
wetlands
curt
yeah,
and
I
don't
know
whether
I
have
a
a
very
good
suggestion,
but
don
it
strikes
me
that
at
least
we
ought
to.
We
ought
to
say
you
know.
Wetlands
wet
meadows,
or
you
know,
or
you
know,
show
that
it's
a
spectrum
of
vegetation
rather
than
if
the
implication
is
it's
a
regulatory.
G
T
T
We
all
know
that
the
land
is
degraded
right
now,
due
to
the
the
levy
that
cu
built
with
the
intent
of
drying
out.
What
once
was
wetland
and
the
upstream
project
opens
a
door
back
for
that
land
for
mana
flow
and
water
to
once
again
go
there,
thus
increasing
its
benefit
as
habitat.
I
understand
that
there
is
the
the
wall
which
limits
its
perhaps
benefit
relative
to
the
100
year:
option
where
the
wall
doesn't
exist,
but
using
cu,
south
property
for
flood
detention
by
no
means
eliminates
mitigation
or
large
scale
restoration
opportunity.
T
A
A
E
F
F
F
F
F
W
A
E
E
A
E
A
T
Y
F
E
E
A
E
G
Brandon
in
that
section
above
what
we're
talking
about
the
environmental
impacts,
the
groundwater
mitigation?
Isn't
that
where
you
said
that
you
could
break
out
the
various
structural
components
and
show
the
associated
groundwater
conveyance
structures
with
them.
That
would
be
very,
very
helpful
because
I
couldn't
figure
out
where
he
came
up
with
2000
feet.
F
N
That
I,
I
guess
the
only
reason
we
kind
of
have
that
not
bet
based
on
length
is
there.
They
are
same
designs,
similar
length,
but
yeah.
That's
something
we
can
do.
I
think
to
dave's
comment.
We'll
definitely
add
in
the
notes
how
that
breakdown
of
the
length,
so
I
think,
we'd
we'd-
have
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
kind
of
that
qualitative
piece
of
that.
As
far.
A
E
A
N
A
N
We
we
try,
I
guess
the
idea
is.
We
want
to
be
as
close
to
what
we
would
present
to
council.
So
there's
definitely
a
mix
of
qualitative
and
quantitative,
and
I
guess
the
the
way
we
heard
the
comments
from
the
board
last
time
was
really
show
as
much
quantitative
data
as
you
have
available
on
how
you
came
up
with
some
of
those
qualitative
things
so
in
this
table
it
did
lead
itself
to
some
of
those
being
numbers.
So
cost
is
a
good
example
where
you
can
just
say:
cost
yeah.
E
N
E
F
F
F
N
I'm
just
I'll
just
comment
quickly,
so
some
of
this
criteria
was
was
selected
for
city
council,
so
the
size
of
dam
obviously
has
lots
of
implications
with
it.
I
think
we
could
definitely
put
some
notes
on
where
those
locations
are
for
size
of
dams
when
you
get
into
land
ownership
impacts.
I
guess
that's.
N
That's
where
we
have
osmp
impacts
is
its
own
separate
row,
so
it
may
confuse
things
a
little
bit
to
break
those
out,
but
we
could
try
and
put
a
note
on
here
of
where
to
go,
to
see
that
breakout
from
this
it.
I
I
think
the
project
footprint
when
we
selected
that
as
a
column
was
trying
to
just
represent
the
overall
scale
of
the
project
same
with
size
of
dam,
and
there
were
a
lot
of
things
when
we
select
the
size
of
dams
or
blue
sheds
things
like
that
that
went
into
that
criteria
originally.
N
N
F
Yeah
and
the
other
thing
that
I
can't
tell
you
exactly
where
it
is
in
this
document,
but
someplace,
it
explains
that
for
the
upstream
project,
you
don't
need
the
structures
down
at
the
interchange
and
you
do
for
variant
one,
and
I
think
that
needs
to
be
called
out
somewhere
here
in
the
table
and
maybe
this
location
to
call
that
out,
because
there
are,
as
kurt
just
said,
additional
structures
down
there
at
the
interchange
or
variant.
One.
A
And
you
know
I
think
that
could
be
handled
in
sort
of
an
introductory
paragraph
to
the
table
that
says
variant.
One
has
these
things
upstream.
Has
these
things
we're
focused
in
this
table
on
the
differences
for
structures
that
would
impact
open
space
or
other
environmental
resources?
However,
you
want
to
address
it.
F
F
N
N
There
are
components
that
we
pulled
out
specifically
for
osmp,
but
the
intent
was
that
this
table
aligns
fairly
well
with
the
criteria
council's
asked
us
as
to
look
at
as
well,
so
we're
trying
to
present
kind
of
all
the
criteria
we're
looking
at
when
we're
looking
at
the
upstream
option
and
obviously
the
osmp
portion
is
really
the
the
focus
of
this
meeting.
But
we
want
to
present
all
the
information
that
would
be
going.
N
No,
we
just
did
looked
at
the
flood
wall,
so
previously
we've
done
flood
wall
for
that
criteria,
so
we
included
flood
wall
and
the
comparative
feature
in
the
upstream
would
be
the
rcc.
So
that's
why
we
have
those
two.
I
hear
there's
a
desire
to
clarify
about
the
embankment
in
that
section,
so
we
can
either
do
that
in
the
notes,
yeah
or
yeah.
I
think
there's
some.
It's
a
good
comment
for
sure,
and
I
think
we
could
include
something
like
that
in
the
notes.
N
G
G
If
you
could
graphically
show
that
just
by
different
colors
and
then
have
you
know,
have
the
legends
just
say
you
know:
yellow
equals.
You
know
cu
south
and
you
know
red
equals
open
space
that
I
think,
would
simplify
things
and
help
people
better
appreciate
kind
of
where
the
impacts
are,
and
I
know
you
have
this
separate.
A
G
N
A
S
T
T
T
I
want
to
call
a
little
attention
for
myself,
especially
as
you
present
to
council
that
the
discussion
is
fundamentally
different
since
cdot
became
a
non-partner
in
the
project
and
the
idea
that
the
feasibility
is
not
impacted
by
that
vis-a-vis,
the
open
space
board
of
trustees
and
our
charter
responsibilities
to
overlook
that,
I
think,
is
really
unwise
and
I
feel
confident
saying
it
because
I
was
one
of
the
people
early
where
I
was
very
convinced
by
you
brandon
and
joe
on
our
walk
together.
I
knew
how
much
impact
environmentally
the
upstream
option
would
have.
T
T
No,
but
I
just
I
I
it's
not
so
much
wording
changes.
As
the
note
you
finished
on
about
the
guiding
principles
in
their
placement
as
sacrosanct
in
this
discussion
will
be
a
next
episode
of
where
we
go
after
this
presentation-
and
I
just
like
to
say
these
things,
because
we've
done
an
incredible
amount
of
work
here
on
on
an
option
that
I
think
we're
going
to
find,
may
not
get
lift
off.
And
I
just
like
to
respect
everybody's
time
in
the
discussion.
A
S
A
A
E
G
N
Right
and
what
we're
trying
to
reflect
there
is
that
the
upstream
detention
configuration
with
it
having
a
floating
abutment
essentially
is
kind
of
abnormal
for
the
seo.
So
there
is
a
difference
in
the
seo
criteria.
We're
not
saying
it's
impossible,
but
it
would
likely
require
more
analysis
and
more
discussions
with
the
seo.
So
that's
what
we're
trying
to
flag
there
is.
There
is
a
difference
in
the
project
design
as
it
relates
to
the
seo
so.
G
N
I'm
trying
to
think
of
the
right
way
to
wear
this,
so
the
extreme
hydrologic
hazard
is
relatively
new
criteria
related
to
the
reps
tool
that
the
state
engineer
is
using.
So
maybe
I
don't
know
if
joe's
got
anything
else
to
say
about
that,
but
they
both
would
be
high
hazard
facilities
based
on
the
size
of
them
and
the
amount
of
water
they're.
Detaining.
N
Yes
and
the
the
and
I'm
thinking
about
it
now,
but
they,
the
hydrologic
hazard,
is
really
correlated
to
the
size
of
the
spillway
based
on
the
pmf,
so
it
the
seos
move
to
a
more
risk-based
approach.
So
if
you
can
pass
through
storm
events,
you
can
change
those
types
of
hazards,
but
yes,
they
are
both
high
hazard.
So
I
think
we
can
clarify
that
in
this
bullet,
sorry
to
get
did.
X
A
S
Yeah
like
when
I
read
it,
I
I
was
going
to
ask
if,
if
that
was
like
a
direct
quote
from
seo,
saying
that
a
jurisdictional,
high
hazard
and
extreme
hydrologic
dam
or
if
that
was
just
a
definition
and
if
it
was
a
definition,
is,
is
that?
Because
what
flows
down
in
the
sentence
that
it
would
not
connect
to
high
ground
or
what?
What
defined
it
as
such?
So?
But
I
think
we
did
a
loop
and
got
that
covered.
F
F
F
Q
F
X
I
think
I
understand
the
comment
and
I
think
the
great
control
structure
is
there
for
flood
effectiveness
and
right
maintain
the
the
channel
that
we
modeled
and
it's
really
the
the
rcc
structure
and
the
embankment
that's
considered
the
dam
and
so
the
there
are
two
things
that
need
to
work
together
for
as
a
system
for
this
to
function
as
a
stable
dam
and
protect
for
flood
mitigation.
But
they
they
kind
of
have
two
different.
F
N
I
I
think
that
piece
speaks
to
hal's
point
a
little
bit
that
we
are
creating
this
large
detention
area
on
the
oso.
But
by
doing
that,
you
still
have
some
restoration
potential
in
that
detention
area,
because
now
it's
collecting
all
this
water.
So
essentially,
what
we're
saying
is
we're
looking
at
the
oso
for
restoration
potential
still
in
the
upstream
option,
but
we
can't
restore
on
the
pieces
that
need
to
be
maintained
as
infrastructure.
So
that's
how
we
came
up
with
that
number.
N
F
F
N
Yeah-
and
I
guess
that
flood
plain
connectivity
line
only
speaks
to
flows
being
connected
so
really
in
variant,
one.
We
are
removing
the
levy
and
allowing
that
flow
to
come
through
in
the
upstream
alternative,
we're
removing
that
levee
still,
but
then
we're
disconnecting
it
from
the
floodplain
again
by
putting
our
detention
facility
in
there.
So
that's.
N
C
Y
Y
And
if
you
remove
those
either
one
of
those
features
by
virtue
of
you
know
the
variant
one
being
just
removing
the
cu
levy
with
the
upstream
option.
It's
not
building
that
that
similar
feature
in
there
you're,
allowing
that
those
that
flood
plain
and
the
habitats
on
either
side
of
the
land
that
used
to
be
bisected
by
the
levee
to
to
connect
better
you're
correct.
In
that
you
know
there
is
a
drop
off
from
the
intact
flood
plain
on
open
space
in
the
gravel
pit
on
cu.
But
you
know
that
that
is
a
slope.
Y
That's
extremely
gradual
or
can
be
made
to
be
very
gradual
from
the
existing
flood
plain
surface
down
into
the
gravel
pit.
You
could
make
that
10
to
1
or
20
to
one
and
it
wouldn't.
It
would
no
longer
create
a
fragmenting
situation.
There
wouldn't
be
any
any
features
or
any
infrastructure
there
to
disrupt
flow
of
organisms
back
and
forth.
For
the
most
part.
A
Don
because
we
talk
also
we're
using
the
word
levy
here
in
multiple
ways,
this
is
not
referring
to
the
little
levy
that
for
the
upstream
option
that
goes
north
from
the
damned
us-36
we've
talked
about
that
fragment
and
habitat.
So
I
wonder
if
here
for
this
row,
it
should
say
something
like
increased
floodplain
acres.
A
Or
increased
floodplain
connectivity
for
the
cu
south
property,
because
that's
really
what
we're
talking
about
reconnecting
the
gravel
pit
right
to
the
riparian
zone?
Yep,
that's
a
good
clarification,
yeah
I'll!
Let
you
choose
the
words,
but
something
like
that
to
differentiate
it
from
the
other
levy.
We're
talking
about.
Okay,.
N
Yeah
we
haven't
developed
the
mitigation
plan
at
this
stage
for
what
we
would
propose
on
the
oso.
I
know
that's
something
we
would
like
to
get
to
as
a
project
team,
because
I
think,
having
that
information
sooner
rather
than
later,
is
really
valuable
for
these
discussions,
but
that
environmental
mitigation
cost
is
solely
based
on
acreage
of
mitigation.
We
think
we
would
need
and
a
unit
cost
associated
with
that
acreage.
So
I
wanna
say
it's
about
a
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
dollars
per
acre
for
restoration,
slash
mitigation
from
the
cost
institute.
N
G
So
brandon,
I
was
going
to
suggest
that
I
think
there's
a
some
further
explanation
of
of
those
environmental
mitigation
costs
as
far
as
what
what
that
entails
or
what
they
entail,
and
you
know
because
it's
like
five
5.1
million
dollars.
Well,
you
know
what
is
what
is
that
you
know
what
is
that
going
to
do
for
you,
and
so
I
think
in
general,
so
that
you
know
people
understand
we're
com,
we're
comparing
the
same
components
of
you
know
what
it's
going
to
cost.
So
you
know
if
it's
130
dollars
an
acre.
G
G
A
H
E
F
E
M
A
A
E
E
A
A
B
A
A
F
F
S
S
And
if
it's
this
wordy
or
we
can,
we
can
move
on,
but
just
to
have
it
up
there
and
and
see
if
it
if
it
stands
or
if
it's
fine
without
it.
The
open
space
board
of
trustees,
requests
counsel
to
further
review
data,
using
methods
and
tools
that
will
support
decision
making
evaluated
in
real
life
conditions
that
will
be
of
benefit
for
quantifying
the
impact
of
the
groundwater,
conveyance
system
and
habitat
mitigation,
with
transparency
for
variate
1
100
year.
A
A
You're
bringing
up
the
groundwater
issue
and
the
criticality
of
it.
I
think
the
reason
that
I'm
proposing
that
we
attach
all
of
our
motions
is
that
probably
half
of
our
motions
relate
to
groundwater
and
how
critical
it
is
and
the
need
for
careful
analysis
and
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
So
my
personal
preference
is
to
rely
on
our
motions
because
they've
been
adopted
and
they're
in
the
record.
A
A
A
A
E
F
A
A
F
F
G
G
F
F
As
the
paragraph
begins,
the
upstream
option,
as
analyzed,
does
appear
to
provide
similar
flood
control
and
increased
flood
control
along
south
boulder
creek
north
of
36,
and
there
by
would
avoid
the
need
for
very
one
flood
wall,
have
a
smaller
footprint
on
osmp
land
and
require
less
ground
controls
system
a
shorter
length
of
ground
control,
syst
ground
water,
conveyance
system
on
open
space
state
natural
area.
Those
are
the
three
things
that
I
think.
A
A
A
A
F
F
T
E
A
S
F
A
A
A
A
Now
is,
and
I'm
starting
with
the
previous
sentence,
thereby
would
avoid
the
need
for
the
variant
one
flood
wall
on
the
osmp
state
natural
area.
The
upstream
option
has
a
smaller
footprint
on
osmp
lands
and
slightly
less
foundation
to
bedrock
requiring
groundwater
conveyance,
and
then
we
would
continue
with
the
next
sentence,
however,
providing
this
level
of
flood
control,
etc,
etc.
A
E
F
F
Y
E
A
T
A
A
A
A
E
T
G
A
A
F
G
S
A
M
C
F
A
F
A
A
A
F
A
F
A
F
A
G
G
A
A
A
E
A
T
I
I
tend
to
agree.
My
analysis
was
come
to
by
looking
at
all
the
data
presented
in
this
document
to
me
and
we're
getting
to
places
where
you're
doing
analysis.
That
isn't
exactly
how
I
thought
about
this,
and
I
and
I
actually
believe
in
our
city
council
people
that
they
will
read
this
wonderful
document.
We've
spent
months
working
on
it.
E
A
A
F
S
A
T
A
A
A
M
X
A
S
E
X
A
A
A
E
M
Thank
you.
I
just
got
a
few,
actually
quick,
little
updates
and
then
we'll
turn
over
to
matters
from
the
board.
First
is
a
just
a
little
bit
of
sad
news
that
I
wanted
to
relay
on
the
recent
passing
of
someone
that
was
near
and
dear
to
open
space,
and
that
is
bill
may
who
passed
away
the
other
week
and
for
those
that
who
didn't
know
him.
M
But
bill
was
was
a
very
dear
friend
and
of
a
lot
of
open
space
staff
folks
and
he
could
often
be
seen
at
the
ranger
cottage
or
up
on
our
up
on
our
trails.
For
for
many
many
many
years
he
was
active
in
the
mountain
search
and
rescue
field
and
he
actually
authored
a
book
on
mountain
search
and
rescue
techniques,
which
is
still
actually
in
print,
and
he
participated
in
numerous
rescues
over
the
years.
M
He
was
an
avid
hiker
and
he
encountered
some
wildflowers
that
were
not
previously
identified
in
in,
like
I
said
he
was
a
well-known
figure
at
the
ranger
cottage.
He
consulted
with
our
naturalists
on
a
regular
basis
and
he'll
he'll
be
missed
and
I'll
just
point
out
that
he
actually
has
family
connections
to
door.
County
wisconsin,
where
I
come
from
and
was
also
a
an
annual
contributor
to
our
efforts
in
door
county
so
we'll
miss
bill
and
our
sympathy
to
his
family.
M
You'll
go
you'll,
be
getting
your
packets
on
thursday
january
7th,
instead
of
the
normal
evening
of
the
6th
just
to
allow
staff
who
will
be
out
this
furlough
day
and
then
there's
holiday
the
week
before
for
the
for
the
two
previous
weeks
and
so
we're
running
against
some
out
of
the
office
time.
So
we'll
need
one
extra
day
to
get
everything
prepared
for
you.
So
just
wanted
to
call
your
attention
to
that
other
than
that.
I
think
we're
ready
to
move
on
matters
from
the
board.
F
M
E
F
M
W
E
A
A
A
M
No,
I
think
at
this
point
so
council
and
boards
are
very
much
encouraged
to
participate.
So
if
we
feel
like
there's
a
level
of
support
from
this
board
right
now,
the
concept
the
city
has
is
they'll
link
a
couple
of
boards
together
and
they're
thinking
be
a
good
board
to
link
with
open
open
space
in
mountain
parks
and
then
based
on
who's
interested.
Then
they'll
work
on
scheduling,
some
dates
that
works
works
for
everybody.
So
it's
it's
mainly.
G
G
M
O
O
And
so
the
goal
is
not
to
punish
us,
it's
not
to
tell
us
what
to
do
is
to
just
learn,
make
us
all
aware
and
try
to
create
a
more
equitable
society,
so
the
trainings
are
great.
Staff
are
all
going
through
them
and
amy
kane
who's,
leading
the
equity
coordination
for
the
city
and
the
you
know
the
council's
commitment
to
equity
and
diversity,
and
so
this
is
a
chance
for
boards
to
participate
in
that.
So
it's
a
really
good
opportunity
to
get
the
type
of
training
staff's
getting
as
well.
G
F
M
A
Thank
you.
The
only
other
item
we
have
listed
on
the
agenda
is
to
finalize
the
letter
to
council,
and
I
thank
particularly
dave
and
karen
for
doing
some
additional
work
on
this
leah.
I
think
you
have
it
and
well
first,
let
me
just
ask
leah
distributed
it
to
everyone.
Does
anyone
have
any
proposed
changes.
A
E
A
A
M
F
M
M
So
what
we're
looking
at
is
you
know
when
these
various
plans
should
or
need
to
be
updated
and
to
make
sure
we
we're
scheduling
them
out
in
a
sustainable
manner
over
the
10-year
master
plan
period,
and
so
we
will
be
updating
you
on
on
the
results
of
that
and
femp
is
certainly
one.
That's
in
that
of
you
know
what
is
the
priority
right
now?
Do
we
that
level
of
guidance
is
updated
guidance
needed
and
putting
all
that
into
perspective,
so
we'll
be
getting
back
to
you.