City of Boulder OSBT 11-18-20

Curt Brown, OSBT: I’ve said to you after I do the agenda preview you’ll do the rules and then we’ll go to the minutes. Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, let me know when we’re rolling Alison Ecklund, COB: We’re good Alison Ecklund, COB: We’re good. Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Then I will called order the November 18 2020 meeting of the open space Board of Trustees and welcome to board members and to staff and to all the members of the public that are zooming with us Curt Brown, OSBT: We’d certainly rather I’ll be in person, but that’s the way things are right now so we appreciate you Curt Brown, OSBT: Dealing with the technology and thanks Dallas and Eklund from open spaces, doing the hard part of making this all work Curt Brown, OSBT: Let me start as usual with the roll call of the board members Karen hallway Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Here Curt Brown, OSBT: How Hall Stein Curt Brown, OSBT: Here, Dave quotes Curt Brown, OSBT: Here, Caroline Miller Curt Brown, OSBT: And I’m Kurt brown so Leah, we have a full board present Curt Brown, OSBT: Let me do just a little bit of agenda preview. This is a little bit of an unusual meeting and that we have three opportunities for comment Curt Brown, OSBT: Right after the approval of the minutes. There will be a period of public comment for any topic that is not already the subject of a public hearing. So that means anything except for the topic of our first public hearing, which is the approval of the changes to the comp plan map Curt Brown, OSBT: And then the second public hearing will be on the Curt Brown, OSBT: Report. The analysis of the upstream option. So those are the three Curt Brown, OSBT: Opportunities for comment that you’ll have Curt Brown, OSBT: I will now ask Allison to remind us how the zoom meetings work and what the process is for you getting in line to comment. Allison Alison Ecklund, COB: Thanks, Kurt Alison Ecklund, COB: Share my slides. Okay. Do you all see those Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, so in order to strike a balance between meaningful transparent engagement and online security we are holding these zoom meetings Alison Ecklund, COB: With only the videos of staff presenters or Alison Ecklund, COB: The board members. So anyone from the public will be able to participate audio only and won’t be able to have their videos on Alison Ecklund, COB: The time for speaking or asking questions will be limited to the three that Kurt mentioned Alison Ecklund, COB: And each person shall register to speak either before the meeting you. We have a couple of signups or you can raise your hand and that is Alison Ecklund, COB: By going to the participation box if you have are at the bottom of your screen. Maybe at the top and click on the participants box Alison Ecklund, COB: You can see the raise your hand icon in that box. So when we get to those sections Alison Ecklund, COB: The general public comment and the two public hearings. You can raise your hand to get in line to speak at those times. And we’ll come back on and Alison Ecklund, COB: And let you know when those are and then also if you’ve joined by phone, you can raise your hand to speak by pressing star nine and will also need a full first and last name before we unmute you. So if you’ve joined and it just has Alison Ecklund, COB: Like the says Tom’s iPad. You can change it to your full name, or you can chat to me and I can change it for you. And if you joined by phone, you can text me seven to 05768593 your full name and I’ll change it for you so that we can unmute you when it’s your time and I have one more slide Alison Ecklund, COB: And went over no videos will be on for anyone else Kurt Brown, who is presiding over this meeting will enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates these rules Alison Ecklund, COB: And I went over. You can chat to me and that’s only for technical questions or if you’re having issues. It’s not too Alison Ecklund, COB: Bad adding about the topics of the meeting or asking questions about the topics of the meeting Alison Ecklund, COB: And then only the host and designees will be permitted to share their screens and like I said once we get to those sections. Again, I can remind folks if they’re if they just joined how they can raise their hand if they haven’t signed up in advance Alison Ecklund, COB: That’s it Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, thank you. Allison and we’re going to go over the rules from the rules the minutes. I’m sorry, from the last meeting

Curt Brown, OSBT: Before we do that, do you have a sense of how many people are simply signed him or logged into the zoom meeting Alison Ecklund, COB: Let’s see, it’s 35 including staff and board Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. And in terms of how many signups in total, do we have so far Alison Ecklund, COB: We have to under the general public comment and three under the South Boulder Creek public hearing Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Well, that makes it easy to decide to go with three minutes. Then, so I’ll check back with you after we’ve done the approval of the minutes. So now we’ll move to Curt Brown, OSBT: Excuse me, the minutes from our meeting of October 14 2020 and we’ll start on the first page. Does any board member have a change or an addition correction on the first page just raise your hand and I will call on you Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, seeing none Karen Hollweg, OSBT: There’s, there’s, there’s one minor typo. I think Margaret luck comp spells her name le capital C om Karen Hollweg, OSBT: PTS Curt Brown, OSBT: Good catch, thank you Curt Brown, OSBT: Going to the second page any additions, Dave Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yeah I would like us to consider Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Putting in a descriptive sentence under return to the board at the top of the second page, you know the name change. I think is important enough that it should be referenced in the Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Meeting Minutes and so my suggestion would be the board discuss the proposed name change to the Wonder Wunderland Lake Wildlife Sanctuary as part of that return to the board paragraph and then down lower where the motions are the second motion that starts with how haustein Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I think that we ought to include Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The name change as well there so that where it says ISP one and Lake area Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Name is change to the Wonder Woman make wildlife sanctuary Dave Kuntz, OSBT: That is my proposal Curt Brown, OSBT: Very good, and Chris to make sure everybody got that Curt Brown, OSBT: under Agenda Item three return to the board. We asked clarifying questions would you just point out where you think I guess that’s one long sentence, isn’t it, what you put that at the end of the sentence here edition or what Dave Kuntz, OSBT: No, I would make that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The second sentence or the, the last paragraph Curt Brown, OSBT: And then why don’t you just read it again Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So that sentence would read the board discuss the proposed name change to the Wunderland Lake wildlife sanctuary Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Or we could say, actually, that doesn’t sound so clear, we can say, changing the name to Wonderland Lake wildlife sanctuary Curt Brown, OSBT: Or you can say a name change for the Wunderland Lake Curt Brown, OSBT: What’s its official name right now. What are we Curt Brown, OSBT: Starting with Dave Kuntz, OSBT: It’s one of the lake open space right now Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, so why don’t we say a name change for the Wunderland like open space because that’s, that’s what it is now. Is that, is that a okay amendment Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yeah, as long as, then we would say to women Lake wildlife sanctuary Curt Brown, OSBT: Well of course there were three options. So I think that would go down in the motion because that’s the choice we made Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And I’m fine with that Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, so, Leah, have we confused you sufficiently COB – Leah Case: And, you know, we’re good. I think Dave in the motion, though you were just saying to include what we were changing the name to right not referring it as the new name because I don’t think we can do that until it’s Dave Kuntz, OSBT: That’s, you know, that’s great, changing the name to COB – Leah Case: What it was so which option we chose. And what we’re changing it proposing to change it to write great Curt Brown, OSBT: Very good. Good additions, Dave Curt Brown, OSBT: Anyone else have anything on this page Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I hadn’t thought of that myself even being my emotion. But I appreciate Curt Brown, OSBT: You labored long and Dave Kuntz, OSBT: mightily on that. So it’s worth recognizing Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah

Curt Brown, OSBT: Anybody anything on the last page Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Does anyone want to move. Adoption of the Minutes with those changes Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I moved that we adopt the Minutes, as amended Curt Brown, OSBT: I second and how thank you for the second. Okay, we’ll do a Curt Brown, OSBT: Will do a roll call here Curt Brown, OSBT: Karen whole leg Curt Brown, OSBT: Yes, hell holes time. Yes, Dave Coons Curt Brown, OSBT: Yes, Caroline Miller Curt Brown, OSBT: And I also boat. Yes. So that’s you Nana most Leah Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, so that takes us to the public comment for any items that are not already the subject of a public hearing and I will just check back with you. Allison. Are we still at two people Alison Ecklund, COB: Are at three now So you can Curt Brown, OSBT: Attend Curt Brown, OSBT: Any updates on the other Curt Brown, OSBT: For the other public hearings, the totals Alison Ecklund, COB: Know those will stay those words for everyone. And they had until 5pm to sign up. So those will stay three for self folder creep until we get to it and then see if there’s any raised hands at that Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, great. Well then let’s give the people signed up for the public comment. The general public comment. Let’s give them three minutes apiece Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, great. So I will go in order that I have you and I will let you know when you’re unmuted. Just please state your first and last name. At that point, and then your time will start once you begin your comments. So first up we have Brian Richardson Alison Ecklund, COB: You Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, Brian, you should be unmuted Bryan Richardson: Yeah, my name is Brian Rakuten I live on Lehigh street that Jason to the open space near the Shanahan rich trailhead I’m speaking today regarding the Shanahan tall grass fencing project Bryan Richardson: And I’ll try to keep this in three minutes. Apparently the started over a year ago, this project. However, in a meeting was held hearing was held Bryan Richardson: A year ago, in November of 2019 but none of our homeowners here on the high street were notified. So that’s why I’m here today Bryan Richardson: The first time I found out about this project was in August 20 when equipment and materials were deposited along my property line to construct the fence. I started looking for plans to understand what was going on and found conflicting plans on the city’s website Bryan Richardson: The plan that I think was shown, but who knows. On February 13 in the board meeting for this organization was a perfectly workable plan that showed the fence Bryan Richardson: Up higher on the Hill away from our properties and the gateway from our properties. And if we had seen that plan back in November last year, we wouldn’t have had any objections I know my immediate neighbors will not have a rejection. So either Bryan Richardson: We met with city staff and formally on August 26 in the open space adjacent directly adjacent to to our backyards. And I’ve heard nothing sense from city staff Bryan Richardson: In the minutes from your last meeting. And you notice there was documentation said that the staff will coordinate with the HOA and neighbors in the fall, but again, we’ve heard nothing in three months Bryan Richardson: We have several concerns here and I don’t speak for all of my neighbors, but I speak for most of them about how this project is going Bryan Richardson: We have asked repeatedly to understand why the fences, all of a sudden on the property line. Several of us have no fences today into the open space. I can walk directly off my property into the open space and access it correctly Bryan Richardson: We see that the design of the fence is changing on the fly without without a plan and without any review of anybody Bryan Richardson: And apparently, now I’m going to backup two counts that are going to be 10 yards from my patio, which if I wanted to be an integral parts of agricultural part of this county, I would have purchased the different property Bryan Richardson: Finally, we’re all deeply concerned about the way the trailhead is here at Shanahan rich and especially for our neighbors and homes that are right there, adjacent to it about having cows Bryan Richardson: Directly. If you’ve ever been here during normal times, you know, especially on the weekends, there can be dozens of people dogs children and whatnot Bryan Richardson: Along this busy street accessing the open space and apparently there could be cows also adjacent there. I don’t know how that actually works from a safety perspective, it seems like a risky proposition to us Bryan Richardson: So in conclusion, we’d like to ask that the this organization help staff and direct and develop a plan that they actually intend to follow Bryan Richardson: And and review that and have a hearing again on that plan so that all of us can have an opportunity to provide input, since we did not get input before Bryan Richardson: And again, I would strongly encourage this organization to to look at the February 13 plan is published. We are strongly supportive of moving that gate in that access up the hill and away from the street and the intermediate properties. Thanks

Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you, Brian Alison Ecklund, COB: Next up we have Laura Tyler and then on deck will be Kathy joyner So Laura, let me Alison Ecklund, COB: unmute you Alison Ecklund, COB: List is getting long longer here you are. Okay Laura Tyler: Hi everyone, my name is Laura Tyler and I’m with the self Boulder Creek action group. And thank you so much for this opportunity to speak Laura Tyler: And I’m here to address the public engagement process is specifically the briefing book and general public engagement for the CIF South annexation Laura Tyler: And so first I want to extend a big thanks to Dan Burke, he’s done a fantastic job, including open space interests throughout the briefing book. It’s really a fantastic document and I know that some of the Laura Tyler: division between what’s going to be recreational open space. And what’s going to be preserved open space. I understand that that’s still an ongoing an ongoing negotiation that’s happening between city staffers and the University of Colorado Laura Tyler: And so I’m here to talk a little bit about that specifically related to dog walking so I do live adjacent or near the South property, it’s within Laura Tyler: walking distance of my house and one of my favorite places to walk right now is the open space property that it’s along self Boulder Creek. It’s really beautiful and Laura Tyler: There are no dogs allowed there. And I think that’s perfectly appropriate. And then I’m also aware that Laura Tyler: The cu South property is an extremely popular off leash dog walking area and I’ve heard many people say that that’s the only place in the city Laura Tyler: Where they can really allow their dogs to walk in that way with them. And so as we move forward with the public engagement process. Well, first of all, I want to let you know that I support both Laura Tyler: I would love for there to be on leash dog walking areas. I’d like there to be areas where there are no dogs and then if there could be some type of a dog park or Laura Tyler: Some other more free roaming recreational area for people to be with their dogs that also sounds like it would be fantastic. And so Laura Tyler: I’m here tonight to check in with you folks and just make sure that you’re Laura Tyler: Involved enough in the public engagement process and that you’re asking the right questions and that you’re getting the information that you need from the public about how what they want from open space in that area. So thank you very much Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you, Laura Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, and last, we have Kathy joyner and if you’ve joined by phone, and would like Alison Ecklund, COB: To raise your hand to speak Alison Ecklund, COB: You can press star nine kathie joyner: Now I’m here. Can you hear me Alison Ecklund, COB: Yep Curt Brown, OSBT: Yes, we can kathie joyner: Okay, thanks. This is Kathy joyner i’m also with the South Boulder Creek Action Group, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight to the board kathie joyner: And I would also like to shout out to Dan Burke and the other or SMP staff members for their contributions to kathie joyner: The, the briefing book as it related to always NP lands helped me considerably and understanding the process and the issues involved in this very complex project kathie joyner: I was also very pleased to see that many of the guiding principles approved by the city and see you in 2017 related to open space appear to be achievable through taxation agreement kathie joyner: And I’m under no illusion right now that anything is cast in stone, but I do see potential kathie joyner: And and. These could include the potential for environmental restoration and enhancement, as well as the potential for a reestablishment kathie joyner: Of habitat conductivity, by way of levy removal within the vessel tracked with both parties agreeing to the convenience of 44 acres of kathie joyner: land to the city at no cost. The addition of that bridge to city open space would be a considerable benefit kathie joyner: This would be even more positive. If the city exercise have the option to purchase additional acreage from see you within this trap for city open space kathie joyner: The convenience of so much acreage adjacent to the city’s natural area and including sensitive floodplain and riparian habitat areas of South Boulder Creek kathie joyner: Would allow for environmental restoration and enhancement in a more comprehensive manner kathie joyner: If done in a manner that maintains ecological values there might also be additional prospects to provide educational research and recreational opportunities for city residents

kathie joyner: All in all, it appears as if the information in the annexation briefing book offers some promising possibilities for expanding open space acreage kathie joyner: Restoring and enhancing degraded areas along South Boulder Creek and providing increased recreational opportunities. We’re hoping that you also see similar similar potential kathie joyner: Thanks so much again for the opportunity and strange as it might be, this year I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving holiday Curt Brown, OSBT: Thanks Kathy Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, that’s all I see for Alison Ecklund, COB: Public comment Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, very good. Thanks. Allison. We will go next to the Curt Brown, OSBT: Map update related to the bold rally comp plan and I’ll turn it over to Dan COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, so the first item. So, in the spirit of election season, I thought I’d make a stupid, stupid reference. We have a hanging chad COB, Dan Burke: Those of you who are on pins and needles 20 years ago COB, Dan Burke: With Florida. We had, as you know, I think it was in September. Before you was several COB, Dan Burke: Open Space related parcels that needed to happen as a nation change as part of the mid year update a staff has uncovered a few others COB, Dan Burke: That time that also needed to be part of this approval. So we are simply bringing those forward, back to you. At this time, we have COB, Dan Burke: formal presentation for you on this site, and we hope that the memo was destructive enough, but we have several folks here that are able to answer questions. But with that, to explain who is here. I’ll turn it over to Julia, but now I’m our planner open space and Mountain Park. So, Julia COB, Juliet Bonnell: Thanks so much, Dan. Yep. So I’m I’m here tonight to help answer any questions that you may have along with Gene Gazza who is the lead for the border Valley comprehensive plan midterm update. So we’re both here available to answer any questions you have Yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay chick, Jane, did you want to make some preliminary comments Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): I’m happy to occur. Thank you and hello to all the members of the board is good to see you again Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): as Dan mentioned we have yet another item to be included in the Comprehensive Plan update Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): So in addition to the changes to the comp plan land use map for the recently acquired city open space land that we talked, we discussed Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): I think it was an August staff is proposing several changes to the boulder rally comprehensive plan service area map. So it’s commonly referred to as the area 123 map that reflect the changes in the location of the blue line that was approved by the voters in 2016 Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): As you probably know, the blue line was created by voters in 1959 as part of the city charter to pivot city water from being provided above a certain location Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): The goal was to protect the foothills backdrop. By discouraging new development in this natural area. There are several city owned open space properties that are now Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Above the blue line that were previously below the blue line. So the proposed map changes are to indicate that these areas are areas for rural preservation Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Or area three areas where we do not anticipate urban development Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): I will note that I incorrectly described the approval process for this other service area change in the memo that you received last week Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): These changes require both city and county approval. The city planning board and city council will Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Will take action on these in December and will be scheduling time with the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners in January Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): So without. We’re just asking for a recommendation from the open space board of trustees to the planning board and city council to recommend these changes move forward and I’m happy to answer other questions if needed Curt Brown, OSBT: Pray well board Curt Brown, OSBT: This is our opportunity to ask clarifying questions before we go to the public hearing so gave Curt Brown, OSBT: you’re muted COB, Dan Burke: You’re here today Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Sorry Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Are you guys Good to say Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I am assuming that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: These items are mostly housekeeping primarily housekeeping corrections. So if there are other considerations or implications from any of these properties that

Dave Kuntz, OSBT: We might not be aware of. Could you identify any concerns that we might want to consider for any of them Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): There are not any that I’m aware of COB, Juliet Bonnell: And I would just add that the s&p staff was highly involved when the blue line changes were being made our input was heard and taken into account, along with COB, Juliet Bonnell: You know, public input and all of the changes that were approved through that valid initiative and we had a chance to weigh in and then the board was provided an update at that time back in 2016 yeah COB, Dan Burke: In fact, Dave, what we did is we actually went parcel by parcel along the whole blue line to look at just that question you were asking is there. What are implications that we may not be thinking about COB, Dan Burke: A couple of years ago when the change was made. So staff real estate staff and others that open space was very involved at that time of COB, Dan Burke: Looking at what the implications may or may not be so thanks Curt Brown, OSBT: Hello Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Yeah, so I mean Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I guess. Tell me if I’m noticing correctly. Most of these changes are acreage migrating from area one area to to area three Hal Hallstein – OSBT: My two questions are, will you specifically describe the difference between area three annex and area three rural and do you have estimates of what the total acreage is across these nine property names Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): To your first question, the area three annex is land that’s already in the city limits and so we, it is designated we want to designated as that rural preservation area, but it is already within our city limits Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Area three role preservation is not within the city limits but to indicate areas for preserving that rural character and I do not have acreage estimates for those Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Could you even off the cuff kind of estimate like are we talking about a few acres 10s of acres or 100 more or more acres Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): JULIET What do you think, I think we’re probably in the 10s COB, Juliet Bonnell: Would be my guest today Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): There’s little slivers if you saw the maps in the in the attached memo. There’s some little, little pieces here and there and a couple of full parcels. But yeah, I would say, we’re probably not to do. Doesn’t it much Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Thank you Caroline Miller, OSBT: Sorry to jump in. I just want to double clarify this. When we say rule area when I’m looking at this, we’re talking about area three Planning Research Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Now, not the planning reserve the planning reserve is a special is a more specific location. That’s just north of town. This is area three rural preservation area and almost I would say a significant majority of any open space lands are area three real preservation Caroline Miller, OSBT: Okay, because on the key. It says area three area three annex and area three planning reserved, but I do see where you’re talking about rule preservation. I just want to make sure that I’m looking at the same thing as we as we keep talking Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Yeah, it’s, it’s one of the one of the several shades of character within Area three, but we are not proposing any changes to the planning reserve at this time Curt Brown, OSBT: Other Claire. Yes, Karen Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I gene. I just have a few clarifying questions Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I assume the fence lines are already where the purple lines are. Is that true Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): I don’t know how to answer that one Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Might Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Julie is Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Way does COB, Dan Burke: That probably does COB, Dan Burke: I think that the only one who may be on the screen right now that would have I could venture a guess maybe Bethany, but COB, Dan Burke: I don’t want to put her on the spot with that. But so your question is, is do we have we fenced all along the blue line Karen Hollweg, OSBT: No, I, I’m assuming that we have fenced where our property boundaries are whether or not there Bethany Collins, COB: With Eric, Karen. This is Bethany, um, Bethany Collins, COB: You, you probably know a great deal of our boundaries aren’t fence. But yes, where there are fences along this area, they would be a long parcel lines. Not a lot more. The blue line is. So, for example, the areas Bethany Collins, COB: The corner that’s up sort of near should talk. Why I can say there is a, is it to my understanding, there’s a fence up there. I’ll be at I believe quite old. But Bethany Collins, COB: The area. Long Baseline on the north side of baseline where it curves. No, there is no

Bethany Collins, COB: fencing. There it is. It’s kind of that residential that island that’s existing now so you know a great Bethany Collins, COB: Endeavor and mission will be someday when we’re, we’re all long past probably to fence the entire open system boundary to establish our boundaries, but where it’s necessary for property delineation for agricultural use things like that. If they aren’t, located on the property line Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay, so this is not going to lead to Changes Karen Hollweg, OSBT: In in work that OSM P needs to take on to change fencing or anything like that Bethany Collins, COB: This shift fencing now Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay. Um, another quick question. I know that their standards city language in all of these about city services. I just wanted to make sure that there’s nothing in what we’re doing that now excludes Fire and Rescue from servicing Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Forest fires if they occur on open space like they do Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Know there’s nothing that would Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): That there wasn’t. There’s nothing that would prevent that there’s there’s cross jurisdictional response. Currently, and none of this change would affect any of that Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Whether it’s within the city limits or not okay and and Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Another just detailed question on on the first page and you mentioned this again gene, the four body decision making Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I thought in 2017 that was changed. And then it’s only three body Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Um, it depends on what kind of change. So some of the land use changes are to body. Some of them are to body with a referral Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): This is actually a surface area contraction. So it would be for body and again you know i i think i’ve read all the procedures for the comp plan 4000 times and I can still missing here and there, so Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay. And then, last question. Um, Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I think the number seven, the boulder Memorial Hospital chunk of land Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): There along sunshine Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah, I think that’s where the substation is, is that correct Bethany Collins, COB: It is to the west of the substation Karen Hollweg, OSBT: So the substation is Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Within the blue line on the safe city side of the blue line. Okay Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay, thanks Karen Hollweg, OSBT: On number five Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The summers and shank Wyler donation Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Is there a reason why the blue line goes at an angle and half of the ownership is in and half of the ownership is out Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That just seems like a strange configuration to me Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): So I think that’s why that’s where it changed. So it used to kind of go through the middle. You’re I can share my screen on this one Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The dotted line is that new Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Know the dotted line is the old blue line Karen Hollweg, OSBT: OK, so the new blue line makes an angle cut through that property west of forest Avenue Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): That’s a private property. So I think it’s just because we removed the blue line to be so that the open space property would be above the blue line and then just to reconnect with where Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): The where the blue line is to the south it in. So instead of, instead of going straight south where the blue line, used to be. It needed it needed an angle to to align backup Karen Hollweg, OSBT: So that property owner has just some lost some of its access to city services Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Um, well, we aren’t we aren’t I’m proposing a change in that area to Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Area at this point for that for that parcel Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): But presumably with Bethany Collins, COB: John Bethany Collins, COB: And I don’t have to verify this because they they don’t show on these maps, but many of the properties over there have a contract Bethany Collins, COB: Management on the back half of their property Bethany Collins, COB: Yes, it was always above the blue line. So those are required to stay those remain above the blue line Bethany Collins, COB: That makes sense that, okay COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, that’s what the cases. And again, that when we did the case by case scenario, we did not want to create a situation where we were sort of advocating

COB, Dan Burke: More development that could happen there when it couldn’t back to day saying we did a part by parcel. And so that’s where we COB, Dan Burke: knew we had to come to an easement interest in the back half and therefore wanted to make sure through the blue line adjustments that it was lining up with what the restrictions of these men were Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Thank you Thank you Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I don’t have any other questions and if there, and then others I moved to Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Well go ahead Curt Brown, OSBT: Do we have anybody signed up for the public hearing right Alison Ecklund, COB: Allison our now. Sorry, I was muted. No Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, Karen. So I’ll take 10 seconds to open and close the public hearing and now your emotions in order Alison Ecklund, COB: Oh, sorry, I meant. Nobody had signed up for a head in advance. I don’t know if we want to give the opportunity to raise hands now Curt Brown, OSBT: Oh, yes Alison Ecklund, COB: Yeah Alison Ecklund, COB: Yeah. So let’s give them. Okay Alison Ecklund, COB: Yeah, I Alison Ecklund, COB: Know I’m not seeing any. So I think we’re good Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Karen. It’s your emotion Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Um, Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Before we do I get a question if that’s okay. Sorry Curt Brown, OSBT: Sure that no no problem now Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I’m just, I think it helpful to as the public watches. So tell me, Gene dry is my fundamental understanding. Like, for example, looking at a chanted Mesa number nine Hal Hallstein – OSBT: The what’s really happening here is that the blue line was drawn on an altitude specific basis that’s turned out to be non practical Hal Hallstein – OSBT: This actually represents an expansion of preservation and protection down altitude slightly, and that is the general theme throughout all these changes. Would you say that’s a fair overall macro view on it Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): I would say that’s fair. Dan. Would you agree with that, when COB, Dan Burke: When staff was going through the potential to have a blue line change COB, Dan Burke: Before we put it to the voters, there was some basic tenants that we we all agreed to happen. One is, is that through the blue line adjustments we are not going to COB, Dan Burke: Extend opportunities for development where it didn’t exist before. So, so whether or not the blue line went up or down below elevation. The intent was that COB, Dan Burke: It would COB, Dan Burke: It wouldn’t increase development in that area Hal Hallstein – OSBT: And even further, just for myself. There’s so much going on city always but when you use the pronoun. We Are you suggesting that the department was involved in the initial drafting of this Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Referendum COB, Dan Burke: The planning department certainly REACHED OUT TO OPEN SPACE staff and provided us with the opportunity to look at that parcel by parcel analysis COB, Dan Burke: Basically because open space is either the backdrop or a lot of our parcels. We’re going to be directly affected by by this change. So that’s where our staff was participating in a parcel parcel analysis to kind of see the effects Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Okay, so the impetus was that planning and s&p was a supportive party COB, Dan Burke: Yes, I think that’s a fair to characterize it Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Okay, great. Thank you Curt Brown, OSBT: Thanks, how that’s important context. Anybody else have anything Curt Brown, OSBT: Before we entertain a motion Curt Brown, OSBT: Parent Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I moved that the open space Board of Trustees recommend to planning board and city council approval of the recommended changes to Boulder Valley comp plan area 123 map relating to the city open space amount and parklands Curt Brown, OSBT: To I have a second Curt Brown, OSBT: Second. Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: We’ll do the roll call, Karen Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yes Hal Hallstein – OSBT: How I support this additional green. Yes Curt Brown, OSBT: Day. Yes, Caroline Curt Brown, OSBT: Yes, and Kurt brown boats. Yes. So that motion passes unanimously, Jane. Thank you for helping us understand this Jean Gatza, COB P&DS (she/her): Thank you so much. I appreciate you taking the time to take a look at these Curt Brown, OSBT: You bet. Juliet. Thank you Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay COB, Dan Burke: Move on to the second public Karina Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, go right ahead Dan COB, Dan Burke: Alright, so before I turn things over to city utility staff. I just wanted to make sure that our full board board understood and anyone watching COB, Dan Burke: One of the changes that we’ve made over the past month. And that is to to split up into that conversation COB, Dan Burke: Of the upstream analysis for the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project into two meetings. So originally if you’ve been following along in this project and then maybe skipped out over the last three or four weeks and following it

COB, Dan Burke: One of the big changes from an open space boards perspective is that tonight is meeting number one of two for this item COB, Dan Burke: So what what we realized and Mike and me conversing with Kurt and and others is that we felt by COB, Dan Burke: Trying to put this all into one meeting it provided a put a lot of pressure on on on the board to not only absorb all the information absorb the presentation COB, Dan Burke: Absorb. Any public comments that were made, ask for clarifying questions get those answered responded from the board and then work on its feedback, all in one meeting was a was a pretty heavy lift and so COB, Dan Burke: We didn’t want to put ourselves in a similar situation as we were back in June that was that that basically COB, Dan Burke: Where we got a lot of feedback that one meeting didn’t really suffice. So we made the decision. A few weeks ago, brought it to the process committee and inform them that we are proposing to divide our conversations up between COB, Dan Burke: This November meeting as well as the December I believe it’s December 16 so that was the other change. I want to Alert, alert COB, Dan Burke: Any public members that are listening tonight that our new board meeting date is going to be WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16 in which there’ll be a continuation of this discussion COB, Dan Burke: So what we’re planning for tonight we’ll see if it holds is that we’re going to be doing a staff presentation which will be pretty thorough and and lengthier than usual presentation, but I think it’s information that we all are, are anxious to hear COB, Dan Burke: We will entertain tonight. We’ll also entertain any clarifying questions that the board has we will hear from COB, Dan Burke: And then we will talk COB, Dan Burke: Make sure we have a common understanding of what’s coming up in December staff has proposed a number of questions to work through with the board COB, Dan Burke: Into December meeting and we want to make sure through clarifying questions and hearing from you that COB, Dan Burke: That were set for that conversation in December. So that’s the big change that was made. And so I just wanted to spend a couple of minutes, making sure the board was fully aware of that change and and and the public is as well so COB, Dan Burke: Maybe what I’ll do is just ask to see if there’s any before we go over to the subs. Is there any clarifying questions on the on this process change that we’ve made with the two meeting to step meeting COB, Dan Burke: Excellent. Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Dan, I’ll just chime in and say this was made possible because city council moved their briefing on the upstream option from December to January. And so this gives us a chance to Curt Brown, OSBT: Give staff input about how the report can be clarified or improved and those changes. We hope can be incorporated in the final that will see in December Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you so COB, Dan Burke: With that, we have several utility staff that’s with us here tonight. Brandon Coleman and Joe tattoo UT COB, Dan Burke: We have john Potter from Open Space Mountain parks Don d’amico for Open Space Mountain parks that will participate in this conversation and potentially others depending on questions, but we’ll start off by I’ll introduce COB, Dan Burke: Joe Tucci who will provide us with a high level sort of some remarks and before he turns things over to Brandon. So Joel turn it over to you Joe Taddeucci COB: Thank you, Dan. Appreciate the introduction. Can everyone hear me all right Joe Taddeucci COB: Yes. Great Joe Taddeucci COB: And I might. I might add to the process discussion that you just had the the intent was to set it up so that tonight would would have a specific public hearing for this item Joe Taddeucci COB: And and we do our presentation and everything is Dan discussed and then the December meeting was really set aside for the board deliberation Joe Taddeucci COB: If there are members of the public who missed the public hearing tonight, they can always speak under open comment at that meeting, but this is the this is the public hearing and then the next one would be the deliberation, so Joe Taddeucci COB: Good evening to the board members appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work with you tonight on the south Boulder Creek flood mitigation project and and the work on upstream Joe Taddeucci COB: A lot of work and discussion on on upstream analysis and alternatives has taken place since we last talked to the whole board back in June

Joe Taddeucci COB: We’re excited to share it with you tonight. And ultimately, our goal is to build consensus around a path forward for this project with the with the public with the boards and with City Council Joe Taddeucci COB: So we’re looking forward to the conversation tonight and in December, as, as we discussed, we have two meetings Joe Taddeucci COB: We’re planning to take our time and really go through the presentation in detail and please stop us along the way is if you have questions as we go. Brandon, do you want to pull up the Joe Taddeucci COB: PowerPoint Joe Taddeucci COB: A walk through the first few slides here Joe Taddeucci COB: Set the context Joe Taddeucci COB: You can see that on my screen. Hopefully everyone else can see it as well Joe Taddeucci COB: Yeah Brandon Coleman, COB: Let me know if you guys Joe Taddeucci COB: Maybe flip to the next slide, Brandon, and I’ll Joe Taddeucci COB: Go over the agenda Joe Taddeucci COB: So this is our agenda for tonight. All I’ll start off and set the stage for the discussion. You see, Brandon on screen there Joe Taddeucci COB: HE’S OUR UTILITIES engineering project manager, a lot of the conversation. Tonight will be Pam walking through the analysis that we’ve done in the modeling associated with upstream and Joe Taddeucci COB: Brandon will be followed by Don d’amico who is an open space project coordinator Joe Taddeucci COB: And I really want to emphasize kind of what this meeting is about and the this two step process with the board or two meeting process with the board Joe Taddeucci COB: It’s really focused on the discussion about upstream analysis and design alternatives Joe Taddeucci COB: And and that’s based on two points of feedback from this board and city council that took place back in June Joe Taddeucci COB: And I know that everyone is aware that this the the flood project in general when you combine it with the annexation discussion is incredibly complex Joe Taddeucci COB: The public has been very engaged and interested in all aspects of it, but the the public hearing tonight and the discussion we’re having the board is really narrowly focused on on the upstream work. So I wanted to Joe Taddeucci COB: Give that context. Next slide. Brandon Joe Taddeucci COB: And so I’ll, I’ll start out with a little bit of background on how we got here tonight. And if you’ll go to the next slide Joe Taddeucci COB: There has been a lot of process leading up to to this meeting ultimately 20 years or so, but I’m not going to go back that Fun Joe Taddeucci COB: A lot of process in the last year and a half. And this slide shows the process timeline and Joe Taddeucci COB: What brought us here tonight really started with some meetings in the middle of Joe Taddeucci COB: In September of 2019 there was a meeting between utility staff and the open space board and we focused on a new determination that was made by the Department of Transportation where Joe Taddeucci COB: They reached a position that none of the city’s above ground structures could be in in there right away Joe Taddeucci COB: And so that was a critical decision and impactful on open space staff and the board in terms of deliberations on this project because that meant Joe Taddeucci COB: To be outside of the C dot right away that put structures on open space. And certainly, I believe that renewed the open space boards interest in in upstream alternatives and so Joe Taddeucci COB: There been a number of touch points along the way. We had a big Council study session back in February of this year and kind of going along parallel with Joe Taddeucci COB: With this discussion we had six months worth of design work that we were planning to report out to the Council on and had this study session Joe Taddeucci COB: They asked us to report back to the boards Rab planning board and the open space board Joe Taddeucci COB: We met with you in June, had a discussion with council and kind of report it out on all of that in June of this year and so I’ll talk a little bit more about what happened after June in in the following slides and if you’ll go to the next one Joe Taddeucci COB: As I mentioned previously, there really were two key process steps that are guiding our discussion tonight. The first was the open space board meeting we had back on June 3

Joe Taddeucci COB: In in your recommendations to city council you posed six questions that you really were focused on getting answers to around upstream Joe Taddeucci COB: And I’ll try to paraphrase how we interpret it. Those questions based on the modeling work that had been done Joe Taddeucci COB: For those who have been following it closely. There’s a flow split that happens at highway 93 Joe Taddeucci COB: And. And the question I think the board had was, could we remove the levee that surrounds the CU self property Joe Taddeucci COB: And take advantage of the western portion of that flow split and capture enough water in a detention facility and so that US 36 wouldn’t over top and Joe Taddeucci COB: Meet the project of objective of preventing the West Valley from flooding like it did in 2013 and in in your six questions if Joe Taddeucci COB: It, it went to, if we couldn’t do that just naturally what enhancements, could we make to make a project concept like that work Joe Taddeucci COB: So what I just described is going to be kind of a key theme of our presentation tonight and as Brandon goes through his work will stop at key points and and talk about aspects of that as we go. If you go to the next slide, Brandon Joe Taddeucci COB: So the, the June 3 open space board meeting was followed closely by a city council meeting on June 16 and they took the open space boards questions and recommendations on upstream to heart and recommended that we continue work on the the variant one 100 year design that Joe Taddeucci COB: We’ve been working on, so that the project could proceed without delay, if that were to be the ultimate path forward, but also that we return to the questions at the open space board post and Joe Taddeucci COB: Do a comparison of an upstream analysis and concept with a variant one 100 and make a comparison of costs and environmental impacts and flood effectiveness Joe Taddeucci COB: And so as a staff team we’ve we’ve really been focused on the June 3 open space board six questions and the motion that Council made to have us go back and look at that Joe Taddeucci COB: Next slide. Brandon Joe Taddeucci COB: And so the way that we implemented that Council recommendation and address the six questions or started to was really through the process subcommittee, which is made up of council member Joe Taddeucci COB: Mayor Weaver and council member, friend, and we we meet monthly or close to monthly and talk about process Joe Taddeucci COB: And the recommendation that came out of that is we formed an upstream advisory group that included two board members from each of the water resources advisory board planning board Joe Taddeucci COB: The open space board as well. And then the to city council members and process subcommittee members and we’d like to thank Kurt and Karen for representing the the open space board in that process and Joe Taddeucci COB: We had a series of three meetings where we really kind of got into the the six open space board questions and used it as a information sharing session and we went through some of the analysis in detail and Joe Taddeucci COB: Kind of how I paraphrase the six questions that the open space board has is demonstrated by this slide and we are really Joe Taddeucci COB: seeking consensus on you know if you capture the water from the flow split, do you prevent us 36 from over topping. Are there further developments that we could do to make enough water go into the CU South property. And then what gaps were there in the existing information Joe Taddeucci COB: And what additional work would be needed to to answer those questions. So I thought this was a really kind of a powerful process slide of how we went through our work with the upstream advisory board

Joe Taddeucci COB: So I’m about to turn it over to Brandon here but Joe Taddeucci COB: Before I do, I speaking to that last slide in the gaps. What I want to mention is that what you’re going to see here tonight in the presentation is a combination of new work that we did to answer the Joe Taddeucci COB: Open Space boards questions, combined with a lot of the work that we did back in Joe Taddeucci COB: Which was really a foundation for the conversation Joe Taddeucci COB: We specifically, we did a new model run as a result of this process and Brandon. We’ll talk about that. And we developed an enhanced design concept for an upstream Joe Taddeucci COB: Alternative that you’ll also hear about from from Brandon and I do remember from our past conversations with the board Joe Taddeucci COB: And and the public comment that there was a there was a theme and a request for a side by side comparison of upstream alternatives with Joe Taddeucci COB: The variant one and variant two concepts that had been proposed, up to this point. So you’re going to see some of that tonight. And with that, I think I can turn it over to Brandon, but I maybe before I do, I just asked if the board had any questions about Joe Taddeucci COB: How I frame that up and Joe Taddeucci COB: Where we’re going with the conversation Curt Brown, OSBT: I can’t see the board but pipe up if you have a question for Joe about the process Joe Taddeucci COB: Well, as I said, you know, feel free to raise your hand as as we go and ask questions and Joe Taddeucci COB: With that Brandon, I’ll let you take it from there Dave Kuntz, OSBT: A Brandon before you. Can I just ask a question before you start Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, absolutely Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I think it would be helpful if Kurt or Karen Dave Kuntz, OSBT: weighed in at this point and just had anything to add to what Joe outlined Curt Brown, OSBT: Karen, do you have anything Karen Hollweg, OSBT: No, I’m the only thing is that Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It’s a small detail Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The, the June 3 OSD T motion actually had two questions and then it had a list of six sub questions. And that’s been a point of Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I don’t know what to call it, but Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Changing language throughout this process. But, but it is the combination of the two questions that the board motion asks, plus the additional six sub questions that that we’ve addressed over the last three or four months Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, I don’t think I have anything to add. I thought that was a good description of the process, Joe, thanks Joe Taddeucci COB: Thank you. And thanks for that clarification. Karen and I I was probably a little too broad in the way I was presenting it, but we’ll, we’ll definitely be touching on all of that as we go through it here tonight so COB, Dan Burke: Brandon, Dave, I think the only thing I would add is that there was, I believe if sort of formal advisory COB, Dan Burke: team meetings in which we had the full participation of the group of eight. In addition to that, there was, we held some office hours have clarifying questions answered, sort of in between meetings as well so COB, Dan Burke: Number of different touch points with COB, Dan Burke: The advisory meetings COB, Dan Burke: Over the period of, oh, I would say two months, Kurt and Karen, I would say that that was probably a two month window that we that we went through Yeah Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Great, thanks Caroline Miller, OSBT: I heard you say you can’t see us if that is nice. How would you like us to jump in if we do have a question during the Curt Brown, OSBT: Precious speak up, because we’ll be having the PowerPoint, taking up most of the screen. So yeah, speak up if you have a question COB, Dan Burke: And trustees. The other option two is simply, you can write down the slide. You’re on. And the questions you have, and will most of the meaning is going to be dedicated to clarifying questions so COB, Dan Burke: If you would rather just, you know, write down a question that you have mark where you want it. We’re going to come back and open it up after the presentation as well

Caroline Miller, OSBT: Yeah, that seems like the better way. I don’t see the site number, at least on this side. Well, Caroline Miller, OSBT: My number is Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, there should be slide numbers on all the slide. So I apologize. This is probably an anomaly, out of all of them Curt Brown, OSBT: I blend, Joe Joe Taddeucci COB: My full Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: Well, good evening board. Thanks for letting me come back again. It’s a, it’s going to be hopefully a really interesting presentation for you guys tonight Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s going to be kind of as Joe mentioned, it’ll be very technical. So I would say, feel free to stop me Brandon Coleman, COB: If you do have questions and like Carolyn just asked if you want to write down the slide number and save them for the end that’s fine as well. But will be kind of Brandon Coleman, COB: Trying to go through this really methodically and hopefully in a way that everybody can understand what’s going on. It is a very complex hydraulic system out there on the south Boulder Creek and in the floodplain Brandon Coleman, COB: So we’re really trying to use this forum to get everybody up to speed. So I think the best place for me to start with is kind of the existing floodplain modeling and what that is and what’s going on with the floodplain Brandon Coleman, COB: We’ve kind of been through this conversation. A few times with the advisory group and we found some Brandon Coleman, COB: Good ways I think to explain the floodplain modeling and kind of go over some of the key points that are going to be reoccurring as we talk about this upstream concept development in the stream analysis we’ve been doing for the last six months Brandon Coleman, COB: So this is Brandon Coleman, COB: This. I’m just going to start here is really Brandon Coleman, COB: This is how we found is probably the best way to visualize what’s going on with the floodplain Brandon Coleman, COB: And this is actually a snapshot of a video and I’ll play the video right after this. But this is actually showing the South Boulder Creek floodplain modeling Brandon Coleman, COB: And this model, the way the flood work. It works is it’s happening over time. So this will actually play Brandon Coleman, COB: I have a lots of videos like this with different configurations and things like that. But I want to get everybody on a real strong starting basis and also just point out some key timestamps that you’ll kind of hear again throughout the modeling. So really, Brandon Coleman, COB: Going to click this and it should open up there was a link to these videos and your guys memo package as well. So they are posted on the website, but Brandon Coleman, COB: I’ve heard throughout the advisory group process. It’s actually really valuable just to walk through these videos and kind of stopped at key moments. So that’s what I’m going to do now Brandon Coleman, COB: And I’m gonna should click and open Brandon Coleman, COB: Maybe not. That’s okay Brandon Coleman, COB: And can you guys see that it should be a web page with the videos again Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, whereas points still Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Oh, you’re on the webpage Brandon Coleman, COB: On the web page. Perfect Brandon Coleman, COB: So we did post these videos for kind of access to the public and they’re on the project teams web page so people can view them Brandon Coleman, COB: And we’re going to start with this existing conditions video here and there are only about a minute long and for me Brandon Coleman, COB: That this is really exciting information. But I also know it’s not exciting to everybody else. So I’ll try and keep it as interesting as I can Brandon Coleman, COB: As we go through. So there’s a few key features before I run the model that I want to point out, so I’m up in the northern part of the screen. The top of the map that’s us 36 actually running Brandon Coleman, COB: across the screen there and then south Boulder Creek. You can see the bridge that comes underneath it and then that blue line that kind of has a big belly in it that’s dry creek digit number two. And that’s kind of the edge of the sea us help property Brandon Coleman, COB: So those are just a few landmarks for everybody and state highway 93 is just off of the page to the south at the bottom, but we’ll go to their next and really talk about that state highway 93 split flow Brandon Coleman, COB: I’ll stop it as that split flow comes onto the screen but just wanted to get everybody’s bearings, because we’ll see these mass again and again tonight as we go through this. So I’m going to go ahead and play this Brandon Coleman, COB: And Brandon Coleman, COB: Should work here, and I’ll talk a little bit why it’s running the first time I’m just going to let it run through the first time and then I’ll go back and stop Brandon Coleman, COB: So some of the key features of this is this model is a mic flood model, which is a combination one dimensional, two dimensional hydraulic model Brandon Coleman, COB: And what you’re seeing is flow depths. And there’s also little black lines in there which are arrows, which are showing velocity vectors Brandon Coleman, COB: So that’s really showing direction and magnitude of flow Brandon Coleman, COB: And this is running through out the flood duration, and I’ll see at the bottom of the screen. There’s a date that’s just our model date that this has been set up for. And there’s also a time step that’s moving along, and those times steps represent five minute increments. So

Brandon Coleman, COB: You can see the flood flows kind of move through the property move through the site from South Boulder Creek and as you get to the end, probably. After about a minute they start to trail off. So the peak of the flood has passed this portion of the area so Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m just gonna, it’s about COB, Dan Burke: Done here and and this may go without saying, but this is modeling and 100 years storming then right Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes. Yes, thank you, Dan. Yep. This is the 100 year storm events, though, as Joe mentioned, we’re really comparing this to the variant one 100 year flood protection. So we’re really focused on the hundred year storm event for all these runs Brandon Coleman, COB: OK, so now I can actually go to the interesting part and point out all the stuff that I look for as an engineer, as we’re going through and the first time I’m going to stop this is Brandon Coleman, COB: Right about here Brandon Coleman, COB: So time step Brandon Coleman, COB: So this is approximately 120 minutes into the flood Brandon Coleman, COB: And there’s not much happening if you can see. So really, this means that the flow is in the channels. That’s really the blue lines, we’re looking at Brandon Coleman, COB: But there is one key important feature to point out, and that’s that South Boulder Creek just upstream of the US 36 bridge, you can start to see some flow depth Brandon Coleman, COB: Leaving the main channels out Boulder Creek and that flow. That’s the beginning of the flow that will ultimately go along us 36 over top us 36 and cause the flooding in the West Valley from South Boulder Creek Brandon Coleman, COB: So I’ll run it and I’ll stop it again here Brandon Coleman, COB: So there it is. So next, so this is about time step 30 which is approximately 150 Brandon Coleman, COB: Minutes into the flood event. So for the model and the key features to point out here so Brandon Coleman, COB: Again, focus on that area just at South Boulder Creek and US 36 you’ll see that flows beginning to increase as it moves along us 36 so there’s not really anywhere for it to spill over. That’s what’s pushing it towards the West Valley Brandon Coleman, COB: And then the other key feature that really shows up at about this time step is the state highway 93 split flow. So, based on the SPT Brandon Coleman, COB: Meetings and the feedback we’ve gotten from OSB t that split flow is actually a key component in any upstream design that we would consider Brandon Coleman, COB: So I just wanted to point that out. That is where state highway 93 split flow occurs and it’s coming onto the screen. So you’ll see that flow past separate from the main channel South older Creek as we move through the floodplain modeling here Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Ran in at some point can you use your cursor to show us where the vili channel is sure Brandon Coleman, COB: So vili And can everybody see my cursor okay there Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s a Brandon Coleman, COB: Probably got a little lag Brandon Coleman, COB: But vili channel is here. It’s kind of other northern edge of the CU South site and it goes under the foothills Brandon Coleman, COB: On ramp and then goes under US 36 and then ultimately comes along, South boulder road and then under South boulder road back to self Boulder Creek. So that’s where it really channel shown Brandon Coleman, COB: Can you see that okay, Dave. Yep. Yep. Okay Dave Kuntz, OSBT: What size Colbert is there now Brandon Coleman, COB: On vili channel. Yeah Brandon Coleman, COB: I think they are. There’s a triple barrel covert. So there’s three separate culverts and I’m pretty sure they’re 60 inch, but I will double check on that. So they’re pretty substantial Brandon Coleman, COB: They’re probably 6066 inch, but I can double check on that. I know they’re triple barrel for sure. It’s the diameters. I’ll have to double check on. Great. Thanks. Sure Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: So I’m gonna progress the model a little bit more here. And what I want to really flag here, the next time step is going to be a little bit further in the flood Brandon Coleman, COB: And it’s going to really start to show what the flooding is doing in the existing conditions. So, Brandon Coleman, COB: Right now there’s in all the hydra graphs and everything that I look at as an engineer. This is really a key moment for us because this is where a lot of the peak flow is happening in the flood. So it’s about time step

Brandon Coleman, COB: Which is approximately 270 minutes into the flood. So I’ll show you guys some graphs later that Brandon Coleman, COB: Are typical ways to show flow moving through a system over time. But this is really that key moment. So there’s a few things going on here Brandon Coleman, COB: That I’d like to point out so you can see there’s a significant amount of flow. Now, that’s kind of a crane at this us 36 area. And part of that is from the main channel itself Boulder Creek Brandon Coleman, COB: And then part of that is also from the State Highway 93 split flow path Brandon Coleman, COB: And you can see the state highway 93 split flow path at this point has hit to see you, Sam Levine is actually flowing along the outside of the sea South levy. So that is an accredited levy Brandon Coleman, COB: So really that’s important to point out, because that’s really a basis for a lot of the discussions. We’re going to be having going forward Brandon Coleman, COB: So as that flow goes around the levee ultimately joins up some of it goes under the US 36 bridge some of it actually goes towards the West Valley and you’ll see at the very top of the screen there Brandon Coleman, COB: Were those flood flows ultimately over top us 36 and then start contributing to the West Valley Brandon Coleman, COB: So I just want to make sure that’s all my key points here Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes Brandon Coleman, COB: So from there, like I’ve said, you’ll see the flood wave kind of move through and all these flow depths will come down, they won’t go to zero in this model run Brandon Coleman, COB: But you’ll see that they’ll start to come down and then went past the peak and that’s really our design event. This is actually contributing to volume estimates that we give over the duration of the model Brandon Coleman, COB: So that’s a lot of information. Hopefully I haven’t put anybody to sleep yet because that’s only like my first or second slide here. So, so I will jump back into the Brandon Coleman, COB: Videos here and I do want to talk. So there were a few key moments in there so South Boulder Creek leaving this channel upstream of US 36 Brandon Coleman, COB: State Highway 93 over topping and creating that split flow path we’re talking about and then the West Valley overflow over topping, and the peak flow of the flood, so Brandon Coleman, COB: I do want to also show and I won’t stop this one at every moment and go through that. I just wanted everybody to know what they’re looking at as we go Brandon Coleman, COB: But I did want to show that same model run. But with a little bit different of a Brandon Coleman, COB: vantage point, because this is such a huge component of any upstream alternative we consider as we’re capturing flow that actually leaves the main channel South Boulder Creek Brandon Coleman, COB: And what does capturing that flow do. So this is State Highway 93. So we’ve actually moved south of the site now and we could just see it at the bottom of the previous map Brandon Coleman, COB: But this is that split flow path. So I just kind of want to show everybody what’s happening at State Highway 93 really start to understand kind of the difference, the flow path and how that’s going to impact our flood design and our concept development as we move forward Brandon Coleman, COB: So let’s see. It looks a little blurry. For the first run here Brandon Coleman, COB: You just pull it back Brandon Coleman, COB: There we go. So I’m going to stop this again and just at those key moments and kind of point out, if I can capture it there Brandon Coleman, COB: So it’s really important to remember that time step 24 that’s when we saw South Boulder Creek leaving its banks just upstream of US 36 Brandon Coleman, COB: And you’ll notice a lot of that flow. None of that flow is actually coming from the split flow at State Highway 93 Brandon Coleman, COB: So a lot of that flow is actually passing under the South Boulder Creek bridge at State Highway 93 and that’s going to play a role as we kind of go through this upstream analysis Brandon Coleman, COB: But you’ll see similar to what’s happening at us 36 happens a state highway 93 we have a limited capacity bridge we have flow, leaving the South Boulder Creek and ultimately running along the highway until it finds a low spot that it’s going to spill over at Brandon Coleman, COB: So, and I’ll just play this through a little bit and I’m on our field tours. We’ve been out Brandon Coleman, COB: Kind of the trail. We were walking on we’ve walked right through the middle of that split flow paths and now you can kind of see in the flooding context, what is happening here. So you’ll see there’s Brandon Coleman, COB: It doesn’t look like a lot of flow, but there’s a significant amount of flow in the main South Boulder Creek channel at this point, but there is also a significant amount of flow that’s left the banks and is ultimately overtopping state highway 93 Brandon Coleman, COB: And I’ll just let this one kind of play out from here

Brandon Coleman, COB: I find these really valuable, especially if you’re not a hydraulic modeling engineer or work in this field, just because it’s very visual Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s really valuable with the advisory group to be able to look at these model runs and also to be under be able to ask questions and understand what’s going on with the bloody COB, Dan Burke: Branded for foundational context setting COB, Dan Burke: Was this a COB, Dan Burke: Model run or is this. I know we did a new one as well. This year, could you COB, Dan Burke: Why context for when this model run was done Brandon Coleman, COB: This is all existing condition. So this was all developed as part of the regulatory model that was approved in 2010 okay so that’s where this model. So this is not new information. This is existing conditions information COB, Dan Burke: Right. Thank you. Yep Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay, so hopefully I still have everybody here and I’ll get back to my presentation Brandon Coleman, COB: So we talked about the state highway 93 split flow. So those videos are really important. Those times you’ll hear time and time again. So it’s just good to kind of get an understanding of what’s going on with the existing conditions Brandon Coleman, COB: I did want to show this graph I mentioned the hydra graph. So really what this is looking at is flow over time. So when I mentioned the peak flow that key moment of Brandon Coleman, COB: About the 55 minute time step. I’ll show you how that kind of relates to everything. This was part of the Brandon Coleman, COB: Concept Design, Report, and these are the peak flows for all the different variants, including the existing conditions. So the dark blue line is the existing conditions. I’ve tried to highlight that Brandon Coleman, COB: For everybody. So, really, that peak flow time correlates to the model we just saw. So I just kind of want everybody to tie all this together people Brandon Coleman, COB: Can understand things very differently as an engineer. This is how I like to see things because I understand graphs and charts and all that but visually. This is representing what we just saw in the model runs. So this is that US 36 bridge. So the peak flow, as I mentioned about 275 minutes Brandon Coleman, COB: Yep time step Brandon Coleman, COB: And the peak flow was about 4000 CFS. So we’ve seen that number, a few times and a few other presentations on, you don’t need to remember that number, but it will come up again as we go Brandon Coleman, COB: But really, that point I pointed out at the beginning shows up on this peak flow graph as well. So really, you can see it’s much earlier in the flood where South Boulder Creek leaves its banks Brandon Coleman, COB: Leaves the main channel just upstream of US 36 and this is that the US 36 bridge. So that was it about that time step Brandon Coleman, COB: Let’s see here, 24 or 120 minutes there. So I just wanted to point that out to everybody. This is what I look at as an engineer Brandon Coleman, COB: And this is really flow over time during the flood at a specific location. So that’s why those videos are so valuable is because you’re looking at multiple locations, over time, multiple different flows. They really give you a sense of what’s going on with the flood Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m gonna breathe this and it’s going to see if anybody had any questions about the existing conditions Brandon Coleman, COB: I think those that’s gonna be helpful as we go forward. So I just want to make sure we’re all kind of starting from the same baseline here and just take a breath and see if anybody has any questions Joe Taddeucci COB: Brandon was while you’re waiting for questions. I might just add I mentioned some of the key themes that will be going through here tonight. And the first one being that split flow that occurs that Joe Taddeucci COB: At highway 93 so Brandon just just walked us through and kind of showed during 100 year flood how the inundation develops and and what part of it goes down the main South Boulder Creek and what part Joe Taddeucci COB: goes in to the west and the floodplain through a split flow Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Go Brandon what’s exactly happening at the US 36 bridge Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Through yet time Dave Kuntz, OSBT: When especially around the time South Boulder Creek goes out of its bank Brandon Coleman, COB: Yep. So it’s, um, I think the way it’s been characterized and something we found through discussions with the advisory group is that there’s Brandon Coleman, COB: An issue with the bridge and there’s not an issue with the bridge that’s causing that overflow to happen. It’s actually the channel upstream of the bridge. So there’s a few low spots spots in that left bank as you look downstream Brandon Coleman, COB: Of South Boulder Creek that the water is rising as the flows increasing upstream of the bridge

Brandon Coleman, COB: It can leave its banks. So then it will actually leave the main channel just upstream of the bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: And then flow will continue to increase as it goes under the bridge, but it will also split off and go along us 36 so throughout the timing of the flood flow is kind of continually increasing until it gets to that peak of 4000 Brandon Coleman, COB: CFS at the US 36 bridge, but at that same time it’s also spilling over towards the West Valley Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So if you were under the bridge at that time is that you think that’s halfway up the bridge. I don’t know how high that bridges, but eight feet or whatever it is. Is it halfway up or how how high up is the water under the bridge it at the time it starts to flow out of the channel Brandon Coleman, COB: That’s a, that’s a good question. I do have those numbers further down the presentation I you know it’s a Brandon Coleman, COB: Definitely over your head, I would say, I don’t have the invert of the bridge, but it’s not anywhere near the bottom of the bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: At this point. So even at that peak flow stage it’s nowhere near the bottom of the bridge that bridge was actually set at an elevation for an even larger capacity Brandon Coleman, COB: But as we’ve gone through the design iterations, we’ve refined, how much water is actually going to the bridge and the design calculation. So Brandon Coleman, COB: It doesn’t get close to the bottom of the bridge. But I can say that you wouldn’t want to be standing under the bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: During the flow is probably the best example and we’ll look at the water surface elevations further down in the presentation, I’ll see if I can pull up the inverter. The bridge as what Curt Brown, OSBT: It gave day this is Kurt. I think that is one of the big anomalies, is that the bridge has a lot more conveyance capacity than the channel does right and so the the flood does not have to get Curt Brown, OSBT: Very large and the channel before waters going west, all the way to table Mesa, it’s a little bit anomalous Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Great. Thanks, that I think helps understand what’s happening out there Brandon Coleman, COB: Were there any other questions before I jump into the upstream analysis here Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: I will keep moving on. So, Brandon Coleman, COB: Next I think understanding the existing conditions and what’s happening with the floodplain model really feeds into that meeting we had with the board on June 3 and really what their motion and the request was so Brandon Coleman, COB: I know Karen mentioned the two other questions we’ve been talking about the six questions. I don’t expect everybody to read this. This is the quote of the six questions that OSB T lined out as a Brandon Coleman, COB: Questions and also a process for a way to address this upstream options so Brandon Coleman, COB: We’ve included an attachment. A in your memo an answer written answer to each one of these, so you guys can see how would respond to each one of these questions based on the information that we’ve provided Brandon Coleman, COB: But for the ease of this presentation. I’ve tried to take those questions and put them in a format that’s maybe a little simpler Brandon Coleman, COB: And could also help us walk through the floodplain modeling and the design process as it relates to the upstream, so I’ll be taking Brandon Coleman, COB: And this is my paraphrase of your question. So I just wanted to point out we did respond to each of those specific questions in Attachment A of the memo, but Brandon Coleman, COB: For presentation sake. I think it might be easier helped me at least, to think it through to put it in kind of similar questions. And these are the ones will be talking about as we go through the presentation Brandon Coleman, COB: So I’m just going to read these ones off because these will come up throughout the presentation. So the first question and Brandon Coleman, COB: It was a good one. And we we responded to it. During the June 3 meeting, but it was really what happens to flood flows. If the CU South levy is removed. So we did do some more work related to that. We’ll go over that Brandon Coleman, COB: And then next develop a concept to direct the maximum amount of flood flows to a storage facility with infrastructure only on see property Brandon Coleman, COB: So I think that’s really important because that if that something like that were to work it would result in significant reductions to impacts though SMP so we did Brandon Coleman, COB: Look at that specifically and then we did do additional model runs related to that scenario with an upstream storage facility in capturing the entirety of the split flow that occurs at State Highway 93 in a facility like that

Brandon Coleman, COB: And then next arm. How does this storage reduce the peak flows and run off volumes downstream Brandon Coleman, COB: So we didn’t have any modeling associated with that we did have to do a new model run as part of this process really to evaluate that and I’ll go over that as we get to that question Brandon Coleman, COB: And then the last question was really develop a project and I put this in here because I think this was really important is Brandon Coleman, COB: When we’re comparing to variant one it has to have the same flood mitigation effectiveness as variant one and that really means mitigating Brandon Coleman, COB: That overtopping of US 36 and the flooding in the West Valley. So really develop a project to meet those flood mitigation goals and then estimate those impacts to O. S. AMP P resources and that’s what Don will go over on towards the end of the Brandon Coleman, COB: Presentation Brandon Coleman, COB: So start with what happens to flood flows. If the seas South levy is removed Brandon Coleman, COB: So this is really focused on that split flow and Brandon Coleman, COB: I think the question was simply put to us, doesn’t it all just go into these gravel pits and on June 3 we kind of said Brandon Coleman, COB: Based on our modeling it doesn’t. And so the advisory group said, you know, why doesn’t it, we need to understand that. So what we included in the package was Brandon Coleman, COB: Typography. So this is a representation of the elevations out there and what we assumed for when we say if the levee was removed. So I think that’s a really important point is Brandon Coleman, COB: What does it mean to have the levy be removed Brandon Coleman, COB: So this is a cross section. So it’s just representing those topographic LINES AND I’VE CALLED OUT THE SEA South 11. You can see it as that dashed line Brandon Coleman, COB: And our proposed to pornography with the levee removed was a solid the solid lines and where essentially removing this use alpha levy to adjacent natural grade is what we assumed. When we say the levy is removed Brandon Coleman, COB: I just want to point that out Brandon Coleman, COB: So next Brandon Coleman, COB: And from our 2018 analysis we did do runs where we Brandon Coleman, COB: Have the levee in place and also have the luxury of removed, just to see the difference. And that is one of the goals of the project is we would like to be able to try and remove that levy Brandon Coleman, COB: And reconnect that floodplain. So we needed to understand what that levy what happened with that levy removed Brandon Coleman, COB: In the floodplain modeling. So really what the amount of flow that would enter the gravel pits with the levee removed is only about 148 CFS with the volume of 277 acre feet. And as we go down, you’ll see that’s Brandon Coleman, COB: Not enough to have an impact on the West Valley overflow. So we’ve we increase that peak flow and storage volume as we go through the design process and Brandon Coleman, COB: We’ll see what affects that has really to give us a upper limit of if we capture all of the State Highway 93 split flow. What happens to the overtopping none of us 36 in the West Valley flooding COB, Dan Burke: And Brandon on this slide, you’ll COB, Dan Burke: See again what the, what the CFS flow is of this of the split flow in relation to 848 Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, so I’m the split flow at State Highway 93 for a peak flow which is what I like to reference I guess when I’m talking about flows and hydraulics is about 4500 CFS in total Brandon Coleman, COB: And that relates that that was going to be my next slide here Brandon Coleman, COB: To that figure be one that we talked about pretty significantly during that June 3 meeting. I think the figure be one was our best way to try and represent Brandon Coleman, COB: Flows and volumes and peak times at key points in the floodplain. So really, that dry creek ditch. So it’s DCD two and B, C, D, a peak flow of 4489 CFS so Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m rounding that to 4500 CFS. That’s really the entirety of that state highway 93 split flow that’s outside of this help Boulder Creek channel Karen Hollweg, OSBT: So, Brandon, the heading on that box in almost in the center Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It really is dry creek ditch Bear Creek ditch plus the split. Whoa. Right Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It’s not Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It’s not just the two ditches Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes. So the way the ditches work since are open channels is they have a capacity of that channel. And then once they leave that capacity, they’ll enter the floodplain. So that’s really dry creek ditch number to

Brandon Coleman, COB: Bear Creek ditch and then there are associated floodplains which include that flow that spilling over at State Highway 93 as well. And those floodplain stay Brandon Coleman, COB: Relatively split. There is some interaction just downstream of nine state highway 93. You can see there, but for the most part, that 4500 CFS is what we’re seeing come over at State Highway 93 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: But the reason why I’m asking the question is on the left hand side of the image Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It’s called state highway 93 overflow Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes. So state highway 93 there’s actually penetrations in the embankment at State Highway 93 for Bear Creek ditch Brandon Coleman, COB: And striker ditch. Number two, so those are culverts and they have a limited capacity. So those will pass flow Brandon Coleman, COB: And Intel those reach their capacity or until the water elevation upstream of those reaches to a certain point, then it’ll spill over so really that dry creek ditch number two and Bear Creek ditch box where the 4500 is a combination of those three things Karen Hollweg, OSBT: So it is all three. It’s not just to have them Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, yes Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Getting is just brother to Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, that’s how we’ve kind of done the noted it as we went down. But yes, it is. That is all that flow Joe Taddeucci COB: So, Brandon, I may want to interject here, kind of going back to the main themes of the of the boards June 3 questions and I Joe Taddeucci COB: We talked about the cross section and and I think most people know there was a gravel mine here that created a depression inside the CU property, it’s it’s lower than the Joe Taddeucci COB: Surrounding property. And I remember Dave asked a very fair question. That seems like there’s a hole there created by the gravel mining and Joe Taddeucci COB: How come more water doesn’t go into the hole. So what Brandon just took you through is kind of a step by step more detailed view of how we modeled the removal of the levee and what happened to that flow. And I think what you’ll see Joe Taddeucci COB: As we go on here as Brandon gets further into this is we found that there’s still enough water in the main self Boulder Creek channel, even if you remove that levy and what goes around to overtop us 36 and and flood the West Valley, so Joe Taddeucci COB: That was one of the that was one of the main themes of the questions, I believe. And so, Brandon, keep keep going and we’ll Joe Taddeucci COB: We’ll check your little bit. Sure, yeah Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So, Brandon, what’s happening at the vili channel at that point and those three so Colbert’s. What are they doing Brandon Coleman, COB: So they are filling up right now. So essentially vili channel has a similar scenario where those culverts are filling up and based on the elevation of water above them, they become full Brandon Coleman, COB: And then they will only pass a certain amount of flow based on the water surface elevation above them so they will be backing water up upstream of 36 as well Okay Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And then the Bridget 93 is the same it it’s at capacity and that’s why they overtopping occurs Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes. Similar where it’s not so much the bridge, as it is, is the channel leading up to the bridge where it wants to leave its banks but yes it does have a limited capacity, based on the upstream channel geometry Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m going to move on to question two. So as far as the upstream Brandon Coleman, COB: Analysis goes, I think what we found with the levee removed was we needed to capture more of that split flow or we needed to direct more of that split flow Brandon Coleman, COB: To the CU South property and the open space boards Brandon Coleman, COB: Motion really said, you know, focus on how you can do that with infrastructure only on the sea South property. So that’s really what we focused on Brandon Coleman, COB: And there was another theme throughout the advisory group process to really build upon the work that we’ve already done. So we tried to do that as much as we could. So

Brandon Coleman, COB: The next slide, I just want to preface, everybody. This is the only slide I have like this, but the North arrows to the right. And I think it’s just how everybody’s seen it. So I’ll just give everybody a minute to get reoriented here. So this was in the Brandon Coleman, COB: Concept Design, Report, and this is what was referred to as a project team upstream concept. And this was really an effort to capture Brandon Coleman, COB: As much of that state highway 93 split flow in a detention area as we could. Now this model and Brandon Coleman, COB: Included the flood wall and the proposed damn along us 36 so that’s why we couldn’t get an accurate representation exactly what was happening downstream Brandon Coleman, COB: If we don’t have any of that infrastructure. So I think that was something we kind of wanted to answer. And we did have modeling associated with the proposed damn upstream Brandon Coleman, COB: On the CU South property and also this inflow rundown. So I’ll go into some more detail about those two features as well Brandon Coleman, COB: So these are really the two features that are you can see none of them are on open space property. They’re all on the to use our property. So really, what do these two features on their own do for the downstream flooding Brandon Coleman, COB: So the inflow rundown is infrastructure that the way it was modeled. And when this modeling was done it was all all this was developed in the hydraulic model. So there was never Brandon Coleman, COB: On design associated with these features, aside from relative grading and then I’ll discuss how we did the model in the or the damn in the model as well. But the inflow rundown Brandon Coleman, COB: Really grades essentially that southern portion of the CU South property into the CU South gravel pits and we found that just by doing that grading that would capture that state highway 93 split flow and I’ll show kind of the video that shows that visually, but Brandon Coleman, COB: We found that that would do that. So there is no need to build additional berms or anything like that on the sea South property to encourage flow to go into this gravel pit area to be stored or detained Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: So, and for me, this is, this is my job. So this is interesting to me. But this is just a representation. This is another Brandon Coleman, COB: topographic map and this probably looks like Greek to a lot of people, but the key things to kind of point out here are Brandon Coleman, COB: You’ll see these lines in there that kind of make no sense. And those are features that were forced into the model to try and represent some of these design features associated with this upstream this project team upstream in Brandon Coleman, COB: In the concept design report so I’ll click through here. So first the first set of block outs are flow path. So I mentioned earlier that Mike flood Brandon Coleman, COB: Is a combination one dimensional and two dimensional model. So these flow paths represent a one dimensional portion of the model. So that’s why they’re blocked out Brandon Coleman, COB: So you’ll see South Boulder Creek. You also see dry creek ditch number two in blue here and then next to simulate the project feature, since we didn’t do a full design of these features in Brandon Coleman, COB: We put in what was called no flow cells. So I know now, now we’re getting into real hydraulic modeling nomenclature and it’s probably getting Brandon Coleman, COB: A little confusing, but you’ll see that proposed damn upstream on the oh so and also the damn along us 36 is highlighted in orange. So really what we did was we pulled out Brandon Coleman, COB: Does portions of the hydraulic model and didn’t let flow go through those. And what that does is it creates a tension effect. And you can kind of Brandon Coleman, COB: evaluate how a detention facility would impact the flooding and that’s how you can say, do I need infrastructure downstream. How much do I need to store on answering a lot of those questions, you could do with a model like this Brandon Coleman, COB: So next Brandon Coleman, COB: The oh I’m gonna keep going. Sorry, really Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Really quick. Can I ask a quick clarifying question. Yep. One thing I keep coming back to is on the yellow line. The no flow pixels you’ve added another the furthest most on the left Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Yes, what, how did that line get drawn. Where does that line come from Brandon Coleman, COB: The furthest to the left. It’s kind of that straight. Oh, I have a cursor. I can show it. This portion right here, is that correct

Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Yeah yeah Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, yeah. So that’s essentially taking that line over to an elevation that we would assume would need to be the top of a dam to create a detention facility Hal Hallstein – OSBT: So elevation line Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, it’s tying into an elevation line. Yes Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Great, thank you very much. Yep Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay, so really part of this was we didn’t have we had modeling that included those no flow cells Brandon Coleman, COB: But it also included that embankment downstream. So what we did to advance this really was pull out that downstream infrastructure. So the flood wall Brandon Coleman, COB: And that embankment and say, okay, what does that do because that now we’ve removed the infrastructure on OSM P property on existing SMP property. So what does that mean from a flood mitigation standpoint Brandon Coleman, COB: So, Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes. Okay, good Brandon Coleman, COB: So really what I just wanted to highlight here and what I wanted to show everybody was I’m going to pull up another one of those videos Brandon Coleman, COB: And it’s going to be representative of this model that includes the two key features that I just mentioned the inflow rundown. And that detention facility on see you South property. So I’m going to click back here COB, Dan Burke: Brandon. This is going to be a model with no structures on open space to see if Brandon Coleman, COB: end cap. Yes COB, Dan Burke: Flow know structures and open space. What’s going to happen Brandon Coleman, COB: Right. And I guess I will get to the what’s going to happen downstream. I just want everybody to see the inflow rundown. And this detention facility Brandon Coleman, COB: Do they capture the state highway 93 split flow. I think that’s really one of the major questions that have been asked of us can we capture that all in the sea South property Brandon Coleman, COB: So I’m going to run this video and I’ve left the downstream portion off, but you’ll see this model Brandon Coleman, COB: will now run differently from those existing conditions model. And there’s some key areas to point out. So this is really focused on that state highway 93 area. So the road you see cutting through the page Brandon Coleman, COB: That state highway 93 you’ll see South Boulder Creek, just to the right of that. So that’s really the main channel South Boulder Creek and you’ll also see the state highway 93 overflow. So I’m going to run this model Brandon Coleman, COB: And I shouldn’t say run the model I’m showing a video of the model runs. I just wanna yeah in modeling world that’s very important to know what we’re representing Brandon Coleman, COB: So I’m gonna stop this here again. So remember time step 24 so downstream South Boulder Creek spilling out of its banks right now Brandon Coleman, COB: And then as you proceed through this model will get to about time step 33 again and you’ll see the state highway 93 split flow started to occur Brandon Coleman, COB: So that is a significant portion of the South Boulder Creek flow that is actually being diverted away from the main channel from state highway 93 and ultimately overtopping state highway 93 Brandon Coleman, COB: And as we proceed. This is where you see the difference. So I really, I really want to stop here and really point this out because this model Brandon Coleman, COB: Includes that inflow rundown. Number one, so you’ll see the state highway 93 split flow path here Brandon Coleman, COB: But instead of going around the levee at this point it is actually being encouraged to go towards a CU South property. So I think it’s really Brandon Coleman, COB: This is what the inflow rundown is doing for us. So I just want to point that out because you’ll see it captures pretty much the entirety of the flow at this point. And I’ll progress again and I’ll stop at one more time Brandon Coleman, COB: So as it goes into that facility and it hits those no flow cells that I mentioned previously, Brandon Coleman, COB: You’ll see our deaths now are greatly increasing on this yourself property. So that’s representing our detention facility. So we have the inflow rundown Brandon Coleman, COB: To encourage the flows on to the sea South property and we are detaining those flows in a detention facility. So that’s really what I want to point out from this model Brandon Coleman, COB: You’ll see that very dark blue area and how to your question is

Brandon Coleman, COB: We came up with that elevation that we would need a dam on based on how much water we would store in those no flow cells. And that gives us kind of a relative elevation that we need to make sure our damn ties into to be able to detain the water Brandon Coleman, COB: And then I’ll let this one play out. You’ll see mainly what’s happening is flow continues through the inflow rundown. And it continues to build up in our detention facility. So you’ll see it just get more and more blue there Brandon Coleman, COB: And that’s really representing our detention facility Brandon Coleman, COB: So I’ll just let Joe Taddeucci COB: I might interject here. This is Joe Taddeucci COB: We talked about existing work from 2018 and we talked about new work. This is a new model run that the consultants did for us in 2020 as a result of the questions that we’re trying to answer here Brandon Coleman, COB: Correct. Yep. And I’m Brandon Coleman, COB: From my stamp point that portion of the model is very similar to what we did in 2018 it’s really we removed the downstream infrastructure to see if it’s even needed from the and that’s how we updated that model. So I’ll go through that next Brandon Coleman, COB: So once we get into the numbers and things like that. So I just want to point out again. This was that figure be one. And I know there’s a lot of numbers going on here but Brandon Coleman, COB: Like I mentioned before that state highway 93 split flow is about 4500 CFS and we have a peak flow coming into our detention facility of 4300 CFS. So there’s a little bit of a difference there. But that is the majority of the State Highway split 93 split flow Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: Good. All right. Good. So I am on track Brandon Coleman, COB: If this is Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m gonna see if anybody has any questions make sure everybody’s still awake. I Brandon Coleman, COB: I really enjoy talking about this so I’m gaining energy as we’re going. I’m sure everybody else is losing it, but this is very, very, very important. And hopefully very educational people so Curt Brown, OSBT: And Brandon, we’re going to probably take a five minute break. Sure. I’m close to her. Laughter eight so Curt Brown, OSBT: You’ll be able to get more water Brandon Coleman, COB: Perfect. That’s great. Yeah, I just Brandon Coleman, COB: I COB, Dan Burke: Just heard Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m making sure I have Brandon Coleman, COB: Stopped again. So you guys. Just tell me when you would like to take a break as well COB, Dan Burke: Yeah curtain Brandon, if we’re shooting for an eight, and I might suggest that after Brandon’s done. But before we get in with Dan’s presentation that that might be the break time if you’re if you’re shooting for around eight Curt Brown, OSBT: Well, I think that’s the best break time. You’re right, Dan. So whenever that happens Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay, great Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay. So Joe just mentioned, the new model and that that video that I just showed is the new model that we ran as part of the advisory group work. It’s very similar to the Brandon Coleman, COB: With the inflow run down and the detention facility, but what that model did for us was allow us to move the remove the downstream infrastructure and really answered this. Next question. So this is my Brandon Coleman, COB: paraphrased question three is how does the storage impact flood flows downstream. So this is really a huge one on Brandon Coleman, COB: Do we meet our flood mitigation goals is maybe an easy way to think of this one. And just to remind everybody, I think it’s really important Brandon Coleman, COB: This is South Boulder Creek again the CU South property is highlighted in red, but really protecting life and safety is our ultimate goal with this project Brandon Coleman, COB: And that means really we’re trying to provide flood mitigation for the neighborhoods in this West Valley overflow area which is where South Boulder Creek leaves its banks ultimately runs along us 36 and then over tops us 36 and enters these neighborhoods Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay, so I have another model video Brandon Coleman, COB: That on there eight for everybody, but I think this one is really, really valuable. And I think it’s also maybe the crux of part of the questions here. So I do want to spend some time at this one. And I’m just going to go back into my models here Brandon Coleman, COB: My videos of the models. So it’s important to remember this model only includes the detention facility or no so and that inflow rundown that I was speaking to earlier

Brandon Coleman, COB: So, and I’ll pull this up full screen so everybody can see it. So we’ve moved to the north, a little bit. So we’re not focused on the State Highway 93 split flow anymore Brandon Coleman, COB: We’re actually focused on what’s happening at us 36 so as I mentioned before that time step 24 is when South Boulder Creek starts leaving this banks upstream of State Highway Brandon Coleman, COB: Us 36 sorry I gotta make sure I get the rows correct here. So this is really looking at the CU South property just kind of on the left side of the map and then us 36 Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s the road cutting across this few. So I will stop at those key points again here Brandon Coleman, COB: I’ll let it run for a minute and right here. So this is a timestamp 25 it’s Brandon Coleman, COB: Close to 24 but what you can see that’s still happening is the flow that’s in the main channel South Boulder Creek isn’t spilling over at State Highway 93 there’s still flow in the main channel that’s going under that state highway 93 bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: And that’s what’s moving through the South Boulder Creek channel and ultimate ultimately reporting to this overflow point. So you’ll see that overflow begin to develop Brandon Coleman, COB: And then you’ll see here again at a time step 33 at the very bottom of the screen, you’ll start to see the split flow from state highway 93 entering the screen Brandon Coleman, COB: And you’ll see that flow along us 36 has started to move along us 36 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And Brandon, I just wanted to mention this also shows the answer to Dave’s question about Billy Brandon Coleman, COB: Chance. It’s up there Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, thank you very much. So vili channel is up here Brandon Coleman, COB: Dave and vili channel services, a much smaller drainage area in the city Brandon Coleman, COB: That also reports a lot faster. So it’s a much more impervious area. So the South boulder on neighborhoods kind of Brandon Coleman, COB: By South boulder rec center vili lake that’s the drainage area that servicing vili channel so you’ll see vili channel turns blue very quick and that’s because of the impervious air area and the small watershed that’s reporting to it. So, it turns blue very quick within the mall Brandon Coleman, COB: And as we go down. So we’ll still get to never stop it here. So you’ll see the state highway 93 split flow Brandon Coleman, COB: Utilizing the inflow run down and starting to backup in our detention facility here. We still have flow from the main channel South Boulder Creek as continuing to flow along us 36 and ultimately over the vili channel because really channels full at this point Brandon Coleman, COB: And then Can stop that Brandon Coleman, COB: Right about here. So, and ultimately what we found was with just the inflow rundown. And just the detention facility Brandon Coleman, COB: This flow from South Boulder Creek from the main channel was still enough to be able to overtop us 36 and contribute to the flooding in the West Valley Brandon Coleman, COB: Overflow area. So I think that’s a really key point because it’s going to feed into what our upstream design concept would be so that flow is actually a Brandon Coleman, COB: Really important flow because that’s in the main channel South Boulder Creek and then it leaves its banks just upstream of the US 36 bridge. So I’ll I will let this one play out as well Brandon Coleman, COB: And you can see a country continues to contribute to the flow at West Valley overflow there. And ultimately, you’ll see the peak pass our pond will stay detaining water. So that’s ultimately where we’re getting the flood benefit Brandon Coleman, COB: And then it will dry up towards the end here as the flood flows decrease Brandon Coleman, COB: Back to this Brandon Coleman, COB: So I think now, now we’re going to go back into the engineering world. So that was kind of the really general overview of what happens if we Brandon Coleman, COB: Divert and capture that state highway 93 split flow. So this is that peak flow graph again

Brandon Coleman, COB: And we start with that peak flow that went under US 36 was 3997 So approximately 4000. So what I like to say right at that peak flow time and you’ll see this orange line now represents the impacts to those flows Brandon Coleman, COB: From that detention facility and from that inflow run down so you see were significantly reducing the flow that’s going under the US 36 bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: But we still have South Boulder Creek leaving its banks just upstream of the US 36 bridge right at that same time step again. So at that time step 24 Brandon Coleman, COB: And I have my notes, but time step 24 is how I always remember it better. Just say the time as well Brandon Coleman, COB: At the hundred and 20 minute mark. So that’s where that happens Joe Taddeucci COB: And Brandon, the capacity of the of the channel upstream of US 36 bridge I, if I remember correctly, from our discussions is about 800 CFS before it starts spilling over into the floodplain. Is that right, Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, that’s correct. And there the way that channel works. It’s not one defined point there’s multiple points. So the first place it spills. Is it about that 800 CFS. But as the flows increase its bills and multiple points upstream of there as well. But all kind of in that general vicinity Joe Taddeucci COB: And the and the magnitude of the hundred year flood as it’s coming down towards that bridge. If I’m also remembering correctly was in the 6000 CFS Brandon Coleman, COB: Right. Yes Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, that’s what I’m so if we were to do Brandon Coleman, COB: To do nothing. It kind of in the existing conditions. It’s about 7000 CFS. That would be approaching the US 36 bridge and 4000 of that would go under the bridge and the rest would leave the banks of South Boulder Creek and go to the West Valley overflow Brandon Coleman, COB: So next Curt Brown, OSBT: Brandon maybe or Joe. Maybe you could just elaborate on that a little because it is such an unusual situation Curt Brown, OSBT: Why do you think the bridge has so much capacity Curt Brown, OSBT: And yet water start leaving the channel Curt Brown, OSBT: Hit 800 cubic feet per second. What was the design standard for the bridge. Do you think Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, so the bridge was built in the early 50s, as part of the US 36 construction Brandon Coleman, COB: And in the early 50s Brandon Coleman, COB: At least in my world and the floodplain mapping world. There was very little floodplain science, similar to what we have today. So these models that I’m showing you now nothing like that existed. Just in the last 10 years we’ve been able to do two dimensional hydraulic modeling Brandon Coleman, COB: Even before that it was one dimensional and this type of flow path Brandon Coleman, COB: Is really hard to identify and a one dimensional hydraulic model. So I think they sized it Brandon Coleman, COB: Assuming all the flow went under the bridge. I think that was as good as they could do in the 50s and I think they did Brandon Coleman, COB: A good job. I love looking at those old drawings and that’s more than likely, why it has additional capacity under the bridge. Now see did redo that bridge in 2018 as part of the Brandon Coleman, COB: Us 36 expansion and their design flows for that bridge now come from our floodplain bottle so they design their scour protection and their peers and everything, based on that 4000 CFS Brandon Coleman, COB: Because they have refined that and they know how much flow actually is going under the bridge in these hundred year events Curt Brown, OSBT: Do we think that the water goes West is because of sort of a quirk of typography, or do we think the channel bed is continuing to upgrade at the bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: I don’t think there’s an aggregation or degradation issue going on so much without Boulder Creek as it’s just the channel topography at this point Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, okay Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, I mean, that’s what’s being reflected in the model. This is an alluvial floodplain. And I’ll talk about that further down into the in the Brandon Coleman, COB: In the presentation, but the main channel of South Boulder Creek is used to deliver Brandon Coleman, COB: Water to a lot of users downstream. So it’s been pretty well managed, so it’s it’s mainly the topography, as it exists within the main channel the floodplain as a different animal, for sure Thank you Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And Brandon messaging of clarification, even after the creek starts to flow out of the channel the flow under the bridge continues to increase. Is that correct, as shown on this graph

Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, that is correct. Okay. Yep. And you see. So essentially what’s happening on this graph is Brandon Coleman, COB: That state highway 93 split flow is no longer contributing to flow going under the bridge. So essentially, we’ve diverted it we’ve captured it so we’re reducing we’re reducing the flow under the bridge significantly. It’s just not enough is what we found Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay, and tell me why I’m not clear Karen Hollweg, OSBT: What the 800 cubic feet per second is Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, so the bridge has this capacity. So it’s designed for this 4000 CFS and it even has technically more capacity than that. So the bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: Is pretty safe. The trick is you got to get the water there. So the South Boulder Creek main channel upstream of the bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: Only has a limited capacity and you’ll see if you look at this graph here where I’ve marked South Boulder Creek channel over top is a specific time so it’s that hundred and 20 minutes, but it’s also a specific flow rate Brandon Coleman, COB: About 800 CFS. So we’ve looked at the cross sections within the model. And we found that to be the case that the channel doesn’t have capacity and it actually spills into the floodplain above Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The Karen Hollweg, OSBT: 800 CFS is the rate at which the stream starts to lead the channel Joe Taddeucci COB: Yes. Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: At that specific location Brandon Coleman, COB: Though just upstream of the US 36 Bridget, it will leave the channel and other places, but I haven’t focused on those sections to as much Brandon Coleman, COB: So I guess more to the question of what happens downstream. So really what we just talked about was, you know, we see a significant reduction in the peak flows that go under the US 36 but ultimately, this doesn’t eliminate that overtopping of US 36 and then the flooding of the West Valley Brandon Coleman, COB: That West Valley overflow, which is the flooding that we’re actually trying to mitigate as part of this project Brandon Coleman, COB: So really that’s kind of what I wanted to highlight and that’s that’s the new information we learned through this advisory group process and through this new model run was really with infrastructure solely on see you South property Brandon Coleman, COB: We can mitigate Brandon Coleman, COB: That West Valley flooding by capturing the state highway 93 split flow. And then we do see significant reductions in the peak flow going under the US 36 bridge Brandon Coleman, COB: And that ultimately means actually we see flood benefits along the main channel, but it isn’t mitigating the flood hazard through the city in that West Valley area Joe Taddeucci COB: So I, I might want to interject at this at this point, Brandon. And when we were working through this with the advisory group and we were thinking about the Joe Taddeucci COB: Boards questions from June 13 or June 3 this this really put us at a place of, kind of, now what we’ve we’ve modeled the situation with all of the design features Joe Taddeucci COB: On the CU South property which reducing or really minimizing impacts to to open space and we spend some time talking as a project team about whether Joe Taddeucci COB: We were done with the work and we had satisfied the board’s questions or whether we needed to take it further and I somewhere in the questions. I remember, or maybe it was talking to Kurt Joe Taddeucci COB: Kind of the the wording of what is staffs best concept to make all this work. And so we decided to take it further to just Joe Taddeucci COB: Try and show once and for all kind of what it might look like. And Joe Taddeucci COB: We absolutely can make an upstream concept storage concept work, but I think with the modeling that Brandon just showed that the caveat to that is, but not without structures on open space. And so I think that’s where Brandon’s got a few slides and where he was going to go next Karen Hollweg, OSBT: May I ask a question before you go there Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Sure, I’m on on this slide, and in the video Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Two thing, it appears that two things are happening. It appears the overtopping of 36 is west of the vili channel. Is that correct,

Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And it also appears that the depth of water that runs along Highway 93 from the creek over towards the vili channel Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Based on the legend over here at the right Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It appears to be somewhere around what two feet Brandon Coleman, COB: Two to three feet. Yes Brandon Coleman, COB: But sometimes that you mean us 36 I’m assuming Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah. And what I’m wondering is the area north of the highway, which is also wet meadow looks pretty dry Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Is it, is it possible to have Karen Hollweg, OSBT: culverts that go, just like the culverts for the vili channel culverts that go under 36 up to the northern wet meadow to allow that water to go under 36 along that area Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m happy to answer that. I guess it is dry. I think that’s an accurate representation. I think some of the issue is Brandon Coleman, COB: Us 36 is pushing the floodplain away from where it would naturally want to go the issue with increasing conveyancing and we haven’t Brandon Coleman, COB: Calculated this out, but we know we’re kind of right on the edge of what we can do is when you put water into that area Brandon Coleman, COB: It doesn’t report directly back to South Boulder Creek, it actually reports back to Brandon Coleman, COB: vili channel and there’s a chance to really channel could over top. And then we don’t know how much capacity. Before we have impacts downstream users as well. So we’ve have gained some capacity in the main channel Brandon Coleman, COB: But we don’t. We haven’t identified how much that Brandon Coleman, COB: The difference in that capacity. And the other thing to to keep in mind with this is Brandon Coleman, COB: This is a pretty expensive option just this piece of it. So I will have to bring kind of the engineering design components into it as well and boring under US 36 multiple times to increase conveyance could also be pretty only tack on to the top of that so Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, it’s not it’s not that option. We’re going to be talking about as we go Brandon Coleman, COB: But yeah, those. But that’s what I would say about conveyance under 36 Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So Brandon in 2013 and the flood the daily channel did not over flow No Brandon Coleman, COB: Not that I’m aware of, I think, South boulder road did overflow Brandon Coleman, COB: And kind of some of the locations that we’ve shown Brandon Coleman, COB: Which is the nice thing about this modeling is we’re, we’re not forcing this to do Brandon Coleman, COB: Anything where essentially put it in our flows and letting it run and it’s actually pretty accurate as far as representing floods slow path. So I’m not aware of any overtopping from feeling channel in 2013 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And is it accurate to say that the overtopping of the interchange at 36 and table Mesa is a combination of really channel overflow and South Boulder Creek overflow Brandon Coleman, COB: There could be some contribution from vili flow, but the drainage basin is so minor. That’s actually why Brandon Coleman, COB: It compared to the south Boulder Creek drainage basin and and there is actually a little there’s extra capacity in vili channel, the way it’s configured during 100 year flood, but Brandon Coleman, COB: To be able to utilize that capacity, we have to detain the flows that we put into vili channel. So that’s why we need this detention facility upstream and why we’re still discharging to vili channel Brandon Coleman, COB: Rather than proposing a pipe South Boulder Creek or anything, we’re trying to utilize that additional capacity within vili channel but we have to do it in a way that we’re not adding to the risk and really channel Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: Great Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay, so my last question. So thanks for sticking with me through all of this. I know it’s a lot. And I’m sure there’ll be a lot of really good questions

Brandon Coleman, COB: I can hear them already. So I appreciate everybody paid attention and really being able to follow. So the last Brandon Coleman, COB: Point that we talked about with with which Joe just mentioned was really when we were talking to the advisory group was Brandon Coleman, COB: Do we stop if we need infrastructure on open space and Brandon Coleman, COB: I think what we heard from the advisory group was we would, we would like to know what that looks like. And we want to be able to compare that similar to the motion from sep tember of 2019 was really develop a side by side comparison to the variant one hundred year option so Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m just going to go through that now Brandon Coleman, COB: So I think everybody knows. Now I’ve hopefully said it enough, but really a key point in this flood is really that channel upstream of US 36 Brandon Coleman, COB: So I think that’s really important area, even if we detained Brandon Coleman, COB: That state highway 93 split flow. That’s where the flooding is coming from, it’s actually coming down the main channel South Boulder Creek and then leaving its channel just upstream of US 36. So really, that has to be a focus on how do we cut that flow off Brandon Coleman, COB: So this is what we propose and this was kind of what we thought we could do to limit our impacts to us and P resources Brandon Coleman, COB: This was our upstream concept. So I’m just going to point out some of the key design features and also just point out some of the additional work we did as part of this most recent analysis. So, Brandon Coleman, COB: Some of the key ones that we’ve already talked about are really that inflow rundown. So you can see that called out, that’s really encouraging the flow into an upstream storage facility Brandon Coleman, COB: And then our upstream storage facility. So it’s no longer just a line on a map, we actually looked at that, as if that is going to operate as a high hazard. Damn Brandon Coleman, COB: What would it take to make that operate as a high hazard. Damn. So that really comes into a section of earth and embankment Brandon Coleman, COB: And then it would transition to a RCC damn so that’s roller compacted concrete. So for all intensive purposes as a concrete dam Brandon Coleman, COB: And we need to transition to a concrete damn because that portion of the dam actually has to serve as our spillway as well, back to South Boulder Creek and the fact that we’re in the middle of the luteal floodplain Brandon Coleman, COB: That structure needs to be robust enough that it can withstand and flow on both sides scour on both sides flow coming in as well as going out just the location of it is pretty awkward. So it takes quite a bit to be able to make that work as a day but also as a spillway Brandon Coleman, COB: Then we have our outlet works so shown in yellow here. So this is really taking that pipe so detaining that flow Brandon Coleman, COB: releasing it in a controlled manner to really channel to really try and utilize that excess capacity. We haven’t really to ultimately get the water back to South Boulder Creek Brandon Coleman, COB: And then the elements that we proposed on the OSM P property was really we talked about doing a levy Brandon Coleman, COB: Essentially, so a levy to cut off that flow path that we’ve talked about. We thought that was the most minimally invasive Brandon Coleman, COB: Option. We could try and do. And it also would try and utilize that extra capacity that we’ve gained under the US 36 bridge as well Brandon Coleman, COB: And then the next thing you’ll see is this great control structure. So really one of the charges is we want to make sure whatever we’re proposing here would be as reliable in 100 year flood as the various one 100 year configuration Brandon Coleman, COB: So really this grade control structure Brandon Coleman, COB: Is really creating a control point in the floodplain that would ensure that what we’ve modeled as flow pass would maintain flow pass Brandon Coleman, COB: In 100 years so if there was any scour or head cutting in the main channel Brandon Coleman, COB: Really we can’t have flow from the main channel connect to our inflow rundown or flow bypasses our detention facility and we’re in big trouble. At that point, that’s probably the best way I can describe it Brandon Coleman, COB: So that great control structure would need to go to bed rock is what we’re assuming at this stage in the design and also would need a groundwater conveyance system similar to what variant one 100 wouldn’t need to be so we don’t have any impacts Brandon Coleman, COB: To the groundwater conditions on the site Curt Brown, OSBT: And Brandon, just to be clear, as you said that goes to bedrock, it rises up basically to the level of the ground. And that’s all but

Curt Brown, OSBT: As well as an Curt Brown, OSBT: Erosion of new channels Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes. So essentially there’s construction impacts associated with that structure, but it would create a concrete cap that would ultimately be at kind of the existing Brandon Coleman, COB: Elevation across the floodplain through there, but it will tie into our damn to give us that consistent cross section across the full floodplain Brandon Coleman, COB: Okay Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m going to click through Brandon Coleman, COB: So as I mentioned, I just wanted to show this slide again because it to me. We are in a different type of floodplain when we get into this section of South Boulder Creek. So you’ll see the headwater the upper the middle Brandon Coleman, COB: If you’re familiar with Eldorado state Canyon State Park, which I know you guys are you’re involved in that trail work going on out there. You think about Eldorado Canyon and it’s Brandon Coleman, COB: There’s rock everywhere right and it’s very steep Brandon Coleman, COB: It is kind of that last section of foothills Brandon Coleman, COB: Kind of main mountainous stream and as we leave that section Brandon Coleman, COB: The valley flattens out the grades get much flatter and that’s actually what’s contributed to the types of soils, we have here. So we’re seeing Brandon Coleman, COB: A lot of the soil carried out of the mountains historically has been deposited here. So we have sand alluvial and so there is risk of erosion in this floodplain Brandon Coleman, COB: And this is really where our project area is where we’re talking about. There’s a green circle that just popped up there. So it’s in that lower portion of the floodplain quite a bit ways from the foothills Brandon Coleman, COB: And then this is just another map, but this is showing the geology. So the yellow on the right hand side. This is a geologic map is just showing where the luteal soils are on the site Brandon Coleman, COB: So you can see they pretty much cover the floodplain in the area we’re talking about Brandon Coleman, COB: And then to kind of bring us all back. I think is super valuable. So I did just want to touch the on Brandon Coleman, COB: Variant one 100 so I think, really, we want to compare that configuration that we just put together to the variant one 100 and really for the open space board we want to compare it in terms of impacts to open space resources. So I think Don’s going to talk about that a little bit, but Brandon Coleman, COB: The variant one configuration really has that floodwall along us 36 which has impacts to wet meadows you lady trust orchid pebbles metal jumping mouse, we’ve Brandon Coleman, COB: That was that’s been the discussion of a few of our board meetings, but then the earthen embankment and the outlet works all sit on this use our property Brandon Coleman, COB: So we did develop a project team concept that’s the concept we developed and kind of evaluated and that’s where we where we kind of ended the advisory group and our work and we presented that I’m just going to make sure. Yeah. And then I am going to turn it over to Don to talk about Brandon Coleman, COB: Environmental considerations and maybe this is a stopping point or if there’s questions or whatever you guys would like to do Curt Brown, OSBT: Anybody have a quick question before we break Curt Brown, OSBT: Seeing none Curt Brown, OSBT: We will stand in recess until 825 and then we’ll have done start presenting. Thank you, Brandon Brandon Coleman, COB: Great, thank you Don D’Amico, COB: Hey Brandon Brandon Coleman, COB: Hey, Don D’Amico, COB: Yeah you sharing your screen right now Brandon Coleman, COB: I am Don D’Amico, COB: If you stop, I’m gonna try this project. Not sure it’ll work. If not, I might just have you Brandon Coleman, COB: Projector no Brandon Coleman, COB: No, I got the remote control button on here too. So I’ll stop and then you can go ahead and share Okay, yes Curt Brown, OSBT: So we are now in session. Again, and I guess we’re turning it over to Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you. Done Don D’Amico, COB: Great, thank you very much Don D’Amico, COB: I’ll try to follow up Brandon very technical presentation with something a little bit more visually appealing in way to some of us anyway

Don D’Amico, COB: share my screen here Dave Kuntz, OSBT: We want to see your, your face time so you got to be visually appealing Don D’Amico, COB: Oh my god Don D’Amico, COB: Well, you’re going to see the, the whole screen, you can see the environmental considerations Don D’Amico, COB: You apply it up there. Is that correct, Don D’Amico, COB: Yeah, okay Don D’Amico, COB: So we’ll get started Don D’Amico, COB: So we analyze both the variant one 100 year designed and the upstream concept as as Brandon mentioned to evaluate and compare the impact Don D’Amico, COB: To ecological resources on was empty land and also another land, including impact the wetlands and endangered species habitat. And so this is what this has done Don D’Amico, COB: Really to answer this second half of that fourth question from your June 3 motion about evaluating any impact open space from from an upstream configuration Don D’Amico, COB: Background both projects would occur in the south Boulder Creek natural area, shown here and pan Don D’Amico, COB: Can you see that bright red cursor there Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yes Don D’Amico, COB: So the top of the creek natural area is shown in this town area. And just to point out a couple of features to orient you north is up on this slide this diagonal line here is us 36 Don D’Amico, COB: Self Boulder Creek close from south to north through the State Natural Area and then here’s the see your property with the portion of the CSL property that Don D’Amico, COB: Recruits out pretty far into the cell phone to keep floodplain Don D’Amico, COB: Estate naturally is a designation given by the car rental natural areas program given two outstanding examples of Colorado’s natural features and ecosystem Don D’Amico, COB: Support a creek floodplain qualified as a state natural area because of the presence of a number, number of important in rare biological resources Don D’Amico, COB: Including those you see here, and I’ll go through these Don D’Amico, COB: Kind of explain them in the in the lower left oval Don D’Amico, COB: You’ll see high quality weapons of difficult repeat floodplain that are among the desk reserved and most ecologically significant in the boulder valley. They include record for us made up largely of planes cottonwood trees also will have struggling freshwater marshes and wet meadows Don D’Amico, COB: And several of these question types provide refuge for rare species such as Preble federal jumping mice and you ladies trusses orchids Don D’Amico, COB: The next level. You see there in the middle. Music tall grass prairie is is intermixed with wetlands and the floodplain Don D’Amico, COB: And it is considered to be one of the most dangerous communities actually in the world open space plan contains some of the highest quality remaining tall grass prairie in the state and actually throughout the region Don D’Amico, COB: Support a floodplain also support some of our richest agricultural lands on the system with cattle grazing in a production of primary agricultural uses Don D’Amico, COB: A lot of this land is is quite irrigated with long standing and they’re very senior water right and has an irrigation infrastructure throughout the area that distributes those water right across the landscape Don D’Amico, COB: The habitat. You know the ones across the bottom and turn support the species you see in the top row, including you’ve heard a lot about prevalence metal something nice. That’s a species that’s listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act Don D’Amico, COB: And still surveys open space staffs and also external researchers have done have found extremely high density is a prevalence in the South Pole, the creek footprint floodplain Don D’Amico, COB: It’s one of the highest density of my found anywhere within their range. And as a result, the US Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat ALONG SOUTH Boulder Creek as occurring 140 meters about 450 feet out from the center line of the creek on either side of the channel Don D’Amico, COB: In addition to this, the habitat within this critical habitat area Don D’Amico, COB: Probably these areas further from the stream, including the irrigated field ditch corridors, which they’re they’re particularly fond of and also the upland grassland

Don D’Amico, COB: The next image you see there of you ladies tresses orchid. That’s a wetland plant that’s also designated as threatened under the major species act Don D’Amico, COB: And populations of the orchid an open space land are among the largest and most important to the conservation of the species throughout a strange, the largest population on open state is found just south yesterday six where this mosaic of kind of music blues temporary and weapons occurs Don D’Amico, COB: Northern leopard frogs are amphibians species in pretty steep decline in the western US they’re suffering local extinctions in some areas, including in the boulder Valley and all up and down the front range Don D’Amico, COB: For a number of reasons, but they’re they’re classified as a species of interest in nine western states and Don D’Amico, COB: also considered sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service Don D’Amico, COB: What meadows in the paragraph long the creek and the floodplain provide habitat for Bob links. They are a grassland nesting bird species that’s actually in in decline Don D’Amico, COB: Like a lot of Don D’Amico, COB: The tropical migrant birds, but this species is is also considered vulnerable to extirpation by the color of a natural heritage program and also rare breeding species in the Boulder County comp plan Don D’Amico, COB: And lastly, on the upper right planes Caitlyn. Oh, it’s a native fish that’s unfortunately also in decline in Colorado, and it’s a state, a state species Don D’Amico, COB: Of special concern and they’ve been documented in cell phone or Creek upstream and downstream of years 36 there’s a there’s a large population right where the vili channel comes into Don D’Amico, COB: South Boulder Creek downstream of cell phone road Don D’Amico, COB: So looking at this map you can you can see that the resources. I just described occur throughout the floodplain and both projects would impact the same resources Don D’Amico, COB: Although in different areas, different locations and at different levels. It really has been important to remember memorize where all these resources are on the map Don D’Amico, COB: This is really just meant to show the occur in a really complex mosaics route the floodplain determined mostly by soils and hydrology Don D’Amico, COB: That the number of rare species and the ecological communities that exist in the floodplain also demonstrates that it’s Don D’Amico, COB: Really still is a fairly high functioning ecosystem, despite being in a relatively urban environment. It’s got, you know, there’s a major highway that runs through the middle of it and Don D’Amico, COB: You know, other development kind of hemming it in and surrounding it on on all sides, so Don D’Amico, COB: As you know what planes. There are not static systems. They’re, they’re really dynamic there disturbance dependent stream channels migrate Don D’Amico, COB: Clubs distribute and redistribute sediment nutrient all kinds of stuff organisms all over the floodplain depending on flooding what events and disturbance events and these contributes to the complexity of habitat that are found in in riparian areas like this record and floodplain Don D’Amico, COB: So turning to the project’s themselves Don D’Amico, COB: The variant one 100 years design shown here will impact Don D’Amico, COB: Resources along us 36 where the Don D’Amico, COB: Football would be located Don D’Amico, COB: That’s that in a red line just on the south side of us 36 right here Don D’Amico, COB: And project impact Don D’Amico, COB: From this project are expected to be limited to see this area only there, there wouldn’t be any other blood infrastructure located on open space land, except for the groundwater conveyance system that would be directly under the wall Don D’Amico, COB: This area does contain Rutland progress prairie orchids troubles all that habitat that I’ve mentioned earlier, and I’ll talk about about those a little bit more in a minute Don D’Amico, COB: The upstream option, shown here includes Don D’Amico, COB: The grade control structure that Don D’Amico, COB: extends from the dam spillway across South for the creek and ties into high ground on the on the east side of the creek Don D’Amico, COB: And includes the levee that stands up from your experience six and ties into the earth and damn and then also this

Don D’Amico, COB: This roller compacted concrete damn and still away that forms the eastern edge of the detention area on a serious health property Don D’Amico, COB: So, Don D’Amico, COB: You know, Brendan talk a little about the, the great control structure, you know, the app, the ground surface. So when extend above the ground surface, it would require excavation the bedrock and also a groundwater conveyance system and Don D’Amico, COB: Although you know most of the structure would be buried Don D’Amico, COB: The areas that are impacted by the structure may be difficult to restore really to pre construction conditions that support, you know, these, these habitats Don D’Amico, COB: This is largely be due to the lack of any significant soil on top that we could actually put on top of a structure as Brandon mentioned, you know, the probably Don D’Amico, COB: Come concrete or some hardened surface right up to the existing ground surface, which would make it really difficult to get wetland and music grassland vegetation and also woody shrubs and trees to grow there Don D’Amico, COB: So as a result, no problems, an orchid habitat would likely be permanently impacted as well as the other research resources. I’ve talked about and Don D’Amico, COB: And I think I mentioned this a number of times in past presentations but Don D’Amico, COB: Mitigation for you ladies trusses orkut has has not been shown to be terribly successful when their habitat is heavily disturb it has colonized kind of opportunities, opportunistically in some areas, but there hasn’t been a good track record of success when Don D’Amico, COB: The species is Don D’Amico, COB: Mitigation and restoration for that species is is actually planned and implemented Don D’Amico, COB: So the upstream concept. What else are required the levy I mentioned it would extend across open space from us 36 up to the earth and damn and it would have Don D’Amico, COB: Basically the same Don D’Amico, COB: Impact for the same resources as the floodwall for the variant one design. But in addition, and this is really important Don D’Amico, COB: From our perspective, it would contribute to the fragmentation of habitat, because it would it would five SEC resources and habitat throughout the floodplain Don D’Amico, COB: Some more specifically problems critical habitat would be segmented by the levy effectively cutting off access to nesting in forging habitat for the mouse on about Don D’Amico, COB: 45 acres of open space land west of the berm show here in this in this red highlighted area Don D’Amico, COB: fragmentation of the same areas wetteland music tall grass orchid habitat in northern leopard FROG HABITAT what also occur Don D’Amico, COB: grazing lands west the berm would be more difficult to access by our liberties and would Don D’Amico, COB: Adversely affect our ability to irrigate on both sides of the levy and prescriptive Lee graze to manage weeds and manage the vegetation that desirable vegetation that we Don D’Amico, COB: Managed for in that area Don D’Amico, COB: As you know, very at 100 years design proposes removing the existing see levy to reconnect this historic floodplain and reduce fragmentation of habitat between open space property to the east of the LSO designated land on the property and the sea land so Don D’Amico, COB: The Don D’Amico, COB: Dam spillway component of the upstream concepts would would really negate the benefits because it would would require more or less the same type of structure in the same location as the existing see Levy, so it was negates the benefits of removing that levy and would reduce Don D’Amico, COB: Any potential equal ecological conductivity between these two areas that that would be possible if if that land was was available and not not fragmented by this big Don D’Amico, COB: Plus structure Don D’Amico, COB: Also using the also land on the field property for large for a large damn and floods attention would eliminate a lot of the onsite mitigation and larger scale restoration opportunities associated with removing the levees and Don D’Amico, COB: You know the depth of june 3 public meeting you all expressed a desire to mitigate in the immediate project area as much as possible. Basically on site

Don D’Amico, COB: So we did calculate the direct total impact defined as the actual footprints of all the structures to resources from both projects, regardless of ownership, as well as impacts to resources on Don D’Amico, COB: SMP land only for the values in this table represent the acreage is of wetlands open water pebbles and orchid habitats impacted by the structures that would need to be built as part of each project Don D’Amico, COB: And Don D’Amico, COB: In a nutshell, what it shows is that the variant one 100 years design has similar direct environmental impacts to open space resources as the upstream option Don D’Amico, COB: But the upstream option has greater overall environmental impacts as compared to the very 100 years design know explain that more in the next couple of slides Don D’Amico, COB: So, for example, the total impact you seen this red highlighted area. The total impacts the wetlands from very one design our 7.7 acres, while the total impact to wetlands from the upstream concept or more than twice that about 16 acres Don D’Amico, COB: The other information in this red area impacts to open space resources from the two projects are similar about 2.9 projected for the variant one design in 2.5 acres for the upstream concept Don D’Amico, COB: Same goes for impacts to pebbles habitat, the variant one 100 design would have 2.9 acres of total impacts to pebbles. Well, the upstream project would have quite a bit more 13.4 acres impacts and then looking at the impact to go SMP land, only it’s 3.9 verses 3.5 acres Don D’Amico, COB: From the Don D’Amico, COB: Very 100 in the upstream conference Don D’Amico, COB: And then finally us ladies dresses are big market habitat would be impacted. Similarly, two and a half acres of impacts from variant one verses 7.1 acres from the upstream concept. However, you’ll see that the impacts orkut habitat on Austin Peay would be greater with the variant Don D’Amico, COB: One 1.7 acres versus the one acre potential impacts from the upstream auction Don D’Amico, COB: Having said that, you know, the variant one option does provide Don D’Amico, COB: Some opportunities more opportunities to further reduce impacts and no s&p land that are not reflected in this table. So these numbers are based on the current variant one 100 year project design that has the floodwall extending all the way down to South Otter Creek Don D’Amico, COB: Brandon and his team are are looking hard at trying to tie in the floodwall is us three six further west potentially up to 300 feet west of the crease and this would take Don D’Amico, COB: That structure, mostly our problems crows critical habitat and reduce the impact to other resources real rough back of the neck and calculation. If we took it about 300 feet West, it was, it was reduced and pack Don D’Amico, COB: Up to about point six acres Don D’Amico, COB: So to wrap things up, as I’ve hopefully demonstrated the upstream project has has a greater risk and more impact Don D’Amico, COB: To to more potential impacts due to habitat fragmentation loss of clips land conductivity and reduced opportunities for mitigation and restoration than the variant one 100 year design Don D’Amico, COB: Looking at this table here you see the fragmentation is greater with the upstream option. Whereas in a Don D’Amico, COB: With a variant one design because the floodwall is right up against us 36 there really isn’t habitat to fragment. There is habitat that will be impacted. But fragmentation is much less of an issue with the variant one floodwall Don D’Amico, COB: Mostly because of the nature of that damn and a spillway for the upstream design and because the OSS area and see your property would be used for potential Don D’Amico, COB: Opportunities for onset on site restoration and mitigation in that area or not, are not really available with the upstream OPTION FOR THE VERY LIMITED AND BOTH. BOTH projects are similar in that they require groundwater combat system

Don D’Amico, COB: While the while the great control structure that is part of the upstream option with impact the cell phone channel the variant one design does across the creek and obviously wouldn’t impact South Boulder Creek directly. There are significant wetteland Don D’Amico, COB: Will a troubling Caitlyn stand and even time that you’re crossing the creek with the Don D’Amico, COB: With the great control structure could impact the channel itself, kind of like a locking it in place and having one more hardened feature in the channel that prevents that dynamic movement that channel migration that is typical of the stream Don D’Amico, COB: So that concludes my part of the presentation, I’m happy to answer any questions or I can turn it back over to Joe right now to wrap things up COB, Dan Burke: So if we if we conclude this Kurt jealous got some concluding remarks and then we could COB, Dan Burke: Move on to the other components which is public comment and then going back to the board for four more questions Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, I think that will work fine. Let’s hear from Joe first Joe Taddeucci COB: Sure Joe Taddeucci COB: Was there another slide come in here Joe Taddeucci COB: Excuse me Joe Taddeucci COB: So at the beginning I talked about, you know, we would look at the flow split at 93 what would happen if we captured all of that with the upstream concept that was studied back Joe Taddeucci COB: Generally studied back in 2018 we modeled that it wasn’t enough to keep us 36 from overtopping and so we we took another step to say what is staffs best concept to how could we make an upstream option work and we can Joe Taddeucci COB: There, there would be some structures on open space we have degrade control structure and we tried to make that as Joe Taddeucci COB: less impactful as as we could just by making it go to the grade and kind of blend in with the surrounding terrain and then the levee to Joe Taddeucci COB: Down by us 36 to keep the water from heading down towards the table Mesa park and ride in overtopping and Joe Taddeucci COB: So I think we determine that there’s a there’s a feasible upstream concept and Joe Taddeucci COB: When we look at City Council’s criteria Joe Taddeucci COB: Who we found that it was more expensive. We could make it as effective in terms of of flood design and then you just heard from from dawn, kind of a summary of the environmental aspects and Joe Taddeucci COB: You see that all captured here. I think this this tables self explanatory. I, I mentioned at the beginning, the open space has long asked for side by side comparison. And so based on the work that we’ve done Joe Taddeucci COB: You can see what that looks like. And so now that that I guess brings us to a point where if the Joe Taddeucci COB: If the board has clarifying questions or Dan I don’t know if you had anything to add to that, but I think that concludes what we intended to present really appreciate the men have again. Karen and Kurt and the other board members and the Council members on the advisory board and Joe Taddeucci COB: several meetings, office hours. A lot of time spent with us. Really appreciate you bearing with us tonight through a fairly detailed presentation. We kind of breaking our own rules here of how long we like our Curt Brown, OSBT: Presentations and Joe Taddeucci COB: There’s just so much to to understand and also would like to express appreciation to Dan and the open space team and and and Brandon and others for all the work that went into this. So with that, I’ll turn it over to Dan or or to the board. If you have questions COB, Dan Burke: Yeah. Curry I guess the only thing I would add, which doesn’t have to be. Now it could be later is as we also included a series of questions in the memo

COB, Dan Burke: Right. Consider that we work through. We were, we wanted to date late those COB, Dan Burke: Question, a concept to work through COB, Dan Burke: In the memo. But we’re thinking that those would be the type of questions that we would deliberate on and work through in December. So, but by having the benefit of looking at those questions ahead of time COB, Dan Burke: We’re hoping when we get back into board clarifying questions Curt Brown, OSBT: After the Comment COB, Dan Burke: The intent would be as well, or is there still some lack of clarity. Where could we bring some additional information given given the amount of time, there would be to COB, Dan Burke: To produce new information that would help the board be able to work through those series of questions. So COB, Dan Burke: We’re kind of think about that December meeting and and whether or not you have questions for us at this point COB, Dan Burke: In regards to the information we’ve already presented where there’s a little bit of lack of clarity or, perhaps, is there anything that we could build on in the in the information we provide COB, Dan Burke: That would be helpful for you in December to work through those questions, with the caveat that there’s a few weeks away and we want this new model runs and all that, but we could just information and see where we could build it out if that would be helpful to the board Curt Brown, OSBT: You bet. Dan tax ID, we will after the public hearing will have time to do additional clarifying questions, but we will also go through the whole report to get people’s thoughts and that would include any comments we have about the questions Curt Brown, OSBT: But I think in consideration of the public at this point, it makes sense. They’ve heard the whole presentation. They have heard a lot of clarifying questions, if not all of them. And I think we should go to the public hearing at this point. So, Curt Brown, OSBT: Allison. We appreciate your help and maybe you could go back to the matrix view, whoever is Curt Brown, OSBT: Running the power. There we go. Great. Hi, folks Curt Brown, OSBT: So awesome. How many Alison Ecklund, COB: We have three people signed up ahead of time, but we’ll open it up now. So if you want to raise your hand to get in line to speak Alison Ecklund, COB: If you go to the participation icon, probably at the bottom of your screen Alison Ecklund, COB: And open that participants box, then you’ll see a little button at the bottom to raise your hand. And if I see raised hands, I will go in the order that I see them Alison Ecklund, COB: And if you’ve called in by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine but I will need a full name before I can Alison Ecklund, COB: Do so if you called in and you. It’s just a phone number or just does iPhone, could you please text 720-576-8593 and I can rename you if I don’t have a full name. Unfortunately for security reasons, I cannot unmute you. I think that covers everything so Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, so I think we’re going to assume that we’re not going to have huge multiples of the three that we already have. And so I think we can give each person three minutes Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, so I will I have Margaret Peter and Jim and Alison Ecklund, COB: Please. Want to unmute you say your first and last name and then the timer will start when you start your comments. So let’s start with Margaret Lake calm. Let me find you. Now in this long Oops Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay. So Margaret, you are now Alison Ecklund, COB: unmuted Margaret LeCompte: Again, Margaret LeCompte: Excuse me, can you hear me now Margaret LeCompte: Yes. Okay. Well, I am Margaret Compton I’m representing safe South boulder coalition of neighborhood groups all affected by this project Margaret LeCompte: Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. I want to thank the staff for providing the long requested detailed analysis of upstream detention options Margaret LeCompte: We’re finally closing in on a comparison between upstream detention options and variant one 100 year flood design Margaret LeCompte: With detailing originally provided only for the variant one design. I do have some concerns, though the first table Margaret LeCompte: Which follows the diagram of the new proposed upstream option is quite clear in his comparison. It’s real numeric data facilities Margaret LeCompte: Excuse me real numeric data facilitates comparing the upstream option with variant one on a variety of factors, including impact on the acreage of open space and threatened species habitat

Margaret LeCompte: This is the kind of data that detail. It’s really needed. Unfortunately, the next tables display no numeric data at all Margaret LeCompte: Rather, they only display differences between the upstream variant and our upstream option and variant one in terms of color codes light to dark blue and words in expressing in precise qualities Margaret LeCompte: High, medium, low largest smallest most and least this kind of reporting tells us very little about exact differences. How high is high Margaret LeCompte: And how much less than highs medium, how many acres. Does dark blue represent and how many fewer acres. Does the lighter blue represent Margaret LeCompte: What’s the baseline number or quantity for any of the colors are words Margaret LeCompte: Color coding and descriptive quantification or in precise methods presenting information they can give a rough idea of difference but they can’t show precise differences Margaret LeCompte: They hide nuances and they can magnify small differences or disguise large differences Margaret LeCompte: Distorting significant factors that are important for choosing wisely between alternatives, they can’t be used to make precise decisive comparisons between options Margaret LeCompte: The city is already paid for studies that produce real numbers to say staff have been studying them for months. So we know the data we need really exist Margaret LeCompte: So we asked the city staff to create new tables using these detailed factual numeric results for use in the December deliberations of the open space Board of Trustees, rather than imprecise color codes or descriptive qualification Margaret LeCompte: We’re trying to make decisions on a $60 million $100 million flood project maps and project descriptions are useful but no decisions of this magnitude should be made without tables Margaret LeCompte: Showing detailed side by side data based numeric comparisons and we look forward to seeing them. Thanks very much Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you, Margaret Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, next we have Alison Ecklund, COB: Peter Mayer Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, Peter. You’re now on mute Peter Mayer: Hi, this is Peter Mayer: This is Peter. Can you hear me Peter Mayer: Yes. Great. Well, thank you all so much. Thank you so much to the open space board members for asking these questions and for requesting this additional analysis Peter Mayer: And thanks very much to the staff for really the outstanding presentation tonight. And it was really very illuminating. Honestly, I wish I had additional time before Peter Mayer: Had to give verbal comments Peter Mayer: But you know, I think I did want to go back a little further in history than then Joe tell you he went back to you because I think it is important to realize that you are not the first board Peter Mayer: In Boulder to grapple with this issue and with the flood flood management, this, this really goes back to 1996 when see you purchase the gravel mine Peter Mayer: And at that point, there was great concern about flood management and the the city Peter Mayer: Created and independent review panel, led by Gilbert White, who was one of the most eminent floodplain management experts Peter Mayer: In the nation who happened to be from Boulder. He also worked at CU, and he was quite critical of the university’s behavior around the whole thing Peter Mayer: So he came up with a set of principles related to floodplain management in general but but certainly applied to see you south in the I RP report Peter Mayer: And looking at that I wanted to compare how we’re doing today versus what he recommended back in 2001 and his report Peter Mayer: And actually there are three key points. The first was that the benefits and costs of all the flood kind functions should be considered Peter Mayer: As the solutions, and that includes the natural beneficiary functions as well as as as the physical and the other aspects that one. I would say we’ve got checked off Peter Mayer: The second one is that floodplain issues should be addressed from the perspective, the entire contributing watersheds and the problem should be dealt with on an on an entire watershed basis Peter Mayer: Well, I appreciate, we’re thinking about it from a watershed. We had some excellent slides showing the whole watershed Peter Mayer: I do not think we have a solution that we’re looking at tonight that includes the entire watershed Peter Mayer: And finally part. The third point was that a range of floodplain management tools be used to address flooding problems and that they look Peter Mayer: And assess for floods up to 500 year frequency and sadly that’s where we’re really falling down the most

Peter Mayer: Because everything, every time when I see the analysis of the hundred year flood. I just read what Gilbert said that most damage Peter Mayer: In floods occurs from floods greater than the hundred year and so I scratch my head and I say we’re going to spend a lot of money here. And I just wonder how much Curt Brown, OSBT: Protection Peter Mayer: We’re going to really end up with. I’m out of time. Thank you all so much for your hard work on this issue Curt Brown, OSBT: Peter. Thank you. And we’ll just remind again that there will be time for general public comment and December Curt Brown, OSBT: If you’ve got more things to say thank you Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, and last, have we have Jim McMillan Alison Ecklund, COB: And Alison Ecklund, COB: See Jen should now be unmuted Jim McMillan: I think you can hear me Jim McMillan: Yes, great. Um, I guess. My name is Jimmy McMillan live in South folder. Um, I want to also echo the remarks of both Margaret and Peter Jim McMillan: In commanding everyone for going further and actually getting into beginning an upstream solution analysis Jim McMillan: I think what’s been done is limited in scope has been has been mentioned, and the details the actual underlying data Jim McMillan: Is not yet provided us as Margaret alluded to the tables, two, and three are qualitative Jim McMillan: Information and we can’t see the numbers underneath them. And the open space Board of Trustees specifically asked for an analysis that allowed a data driven deliberation Jim McMillan: And I think they’re still missing the key data that they really need there’s there’s pros and cons to everything Jim McMillan: But lumping environmental impacts all together is not fair. It’s not appropriate, and as the table showed, and it’s not a huge impact. But there’s actually less impact to critical species with the eye on the Open Space Mountain parks Jim McMillan: Lands by the upstream solution Jim McMillan: I also Jim McMillan: Really nothing has been done. It was one of the statements that I really take umbrage with is the fact that it’s similar groundwater conveyance Jim McMillan: The variant one conveyance water conveyance is a flood Walden is perpendicular to the to the flow of the water Jim McMillan: And it’s a long floodwall and so you’re really cutting off flow to the north side of 36 and and you we have not guaranteed that that will work at all Jim McMillan: The structure that’s proposed in the upstream solution. While there is some Frank patient discussed, it’s parallel Jim McMillan: To the, to the water flow. And so I would think that the the threat to the larger space on the north side of 36 would be considerably less in that kind of designed Jim McMillan: That we’d also not have the gateway mitigation impacts that have large floodwall even if it’s 300 feet shorter would impose so there’s, I think there’s a lot of opportunity to improve the analysis, or at least the details that are released to the public is as Margaret alluded to Jim McMillan: I would also ask about the sensitivity. The, the quality of the flooding out of the of the model runs. I saw some dates that were 20 years old at the bottom of some of the graphs. And I just wonder Jim McMillan: I also saw the topology of the berm removal and I wonder how sensitive that is to the grading that’s done Jim McMillan: And if if significant differences in the outputs could be achieved with subtle variation. So again, I really thank everybody for the extra effort Jim McMillan: I thank you all for your community service, especially the board and I hope you get additional data to facilitate a data driven deliberations. Thank you again Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you Jim Alison Ecklund, COB: Okay, I don’t see any other hands Curt Brown, OSBT: Oh, okay. Allison I’m. There we go Curt Brown, OSBT: Well, thank you again to staff for all your presentations Curt Brown, OSBT: I think I will continue to entertain clarifying questions Curt Brown, OSBT: From staff, but I think pretty soon we will turn to the report itself Curt Brown, OSBT: And just reiterate, I think Dan Ted and Joe both said this, that Curt Brown, OSBT: This is a report that will go to counsel ultimately Curt Brown, OSBT: The two departments are seeking our input to it

Curt Brown, OSBT: And our evaluation of it in December, but this is our opportunity to say as some of the commenter said, well, this presentation. Could be made more clear if you added this and Curt Brown, OSBT: General ways to improve the report. So first, does anybody have any more clarifying questions for staff either open space or utilities Curt Brown, OSBT: Yes, Caroline Caroline Miller, OSBT: I’m Caroline Miller, OSBT: Brandon, thank you for the presentation and all the time that it took to get that together. I really appreciate it Caroline Miller, OSBT: I just wanted to better understand this part, because I know that you were just, you know, trying to get through the presentation, but when how asked about Caroline Miller, OSBT: That line that was for this to the left and it time into the elevation line Caroline Miller, OSBT: You you started speaking and then you corrected yourself and said that what we were looking at was actually a video of the modeling runs versus what you had stated Caroline Miller, OSBT: First and corrected yourself. So I just want to better understand the terminology of what the differences between video of the modeling runs and then Caroline Miller, OSBT: What you had for said Brandon Coleman, COB: Sure. Yeah, so the the model itself is Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s got a lot going on. I’ve been into the model. So there’s a ton of spreadsheets and files that are all Brandon Coleman, COB: Inputs essentially to the model and hydrology and then we can run the model and it runs all the they’re very kind of common Brandon Coleman, COB: Hydraulics calculations to figure out where flows going and where the depths are and where the velocities are so when I said that the the model itself is probably a lot more complex. So it’s everything that builds up into those videos so Brandon Coleman, COB: Those videos are just representing kind of all the numerical calculations that are going on in the background. And once I dove into Mike flood. It’s very, it’s very similar. So Brandon Coleman, COB: Water, water and the properties of water, have not changed very much in the last hundred years. So once you learn them and understand them. That’s what’s going on in the background. And then the videos are just a representation of that Joe Taddeucci COB: So Brendan, the, I think what you’re saying is that the video is kind of an output of the model. And I think the point you were making was you didn’t have Mike flood open on your computer and Curt Brown, OSBT: You’re right Joe Taddeucci COB: You weren’t running that the mic flood creates an output file that’s a video and you were the board that right Yep. Yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: How long does Mike plug have to run to produce that output that it’s not real time Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s not very long. It takes me maybe about five minutes on my computer Brandon Coleman, COB: Just because the models already been developed and put together so Brandon Coleman, COB: I can get those you know that’s something we found with the advisory group is those videos, we can look at specific areas to help answer questions. We can look at specific times during the flow, we can look at specific flow paths Brandon Coleman, COB: So having that availability in the model is is great. It’s actually great to be able to answer questions and to be able to show people things of what’s going on Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you. Yeah Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Thanks Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Am I am unmuted. Finally, Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Thanks, Brandon and dime for Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I thought of a very good presentation and we appreciate it Dave Kuntz, OSBT: You know, from my perspective, in all of these scenarios. Now, the importance of the vili channel Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I I think has been underestimated Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And so one of my clarifying questions is Dave Kuntz, OSBT: What, what is the capacity of the vili channel and how much event capacity was used in the Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Flood and how much van excess capacity is there to convey additional water Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Because in all of variant one plus the upstream alternative. The vili channel fingers pretty prominently in you know conveyance of the floodwater and I think it’s important Dave Kuntz, OSBT: For us to better understand what its contribution is to the mitigation effort of the other thing I do appreciate it, although I i Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Am not very happy with the results of the upstream alternative analysis, but I do. I do appreciate the extent that everyone put into it. And I think what it, what it shows to me is that

Dave Kuntz, OSBT: We don’t want structures built on open space. And so if the only way we have an upstream alternative is to have structures built on open space Dave Kuntz, OSBT: From my perspective, that’s not a viable option Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So I do appreciate the fact that I think the information that’s being presented certainly helps us understand better you know what it would take to to have an alternative to to variant one Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The other thing I wanted to ask Curt Brown, OSBT: Dave, did you want to let them answer your first question about, I think it was once the excess capacity and really channel Curt Brown, OSBT: During Curt Brown, OSBT: The flood. Sure Dave Kuntz, OSBT: If you know that would be great Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, it’s a of course with all of this modeling. It’s always a tricky answer. We do know Brandon Coleman, COB: So what the detention is getting us and I think we could probably expand on this for the December meeting as well. But what the detention is getting us Brandon Coleman, COB: Is actually allowing the release into vili channel to be controlled to actually not release that full flow interviewee channel Brandon Coleman, COB: So we have found when we were doing the variant one analysis and trying to maintain the flow under the US 36 bridge vili channel does have a limited capacity before it starts, we start flooding vili channel and then really channel floods the homes downstream of really channel so Brandon Coleman, COB: We found that magic number. I don’t have it right off hand because I have all my variant one design documents up, but I think we could definitely comment on that Brandon Coleman, COB: For the December meeting and there is, it’s not unlimited. I think you’re exactly right in your interpretation really is a really critical hydraulic component of any design involving to tension. Because that’s ultimately are Brandon Coleman, COB: Discharged point and we got to make sure vili can handle whatever we would discharge to it. So I don’t have the exact number, but I know we can pull it up relatively easily from what we have COB, Dan Burke: Would that be information that we could make available in a memo and time for a memo, as opposed to a presentation Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, I think it would be something we would want to get to the Brandon Coleman, COB: Board and Joe, you just stop me if I’m speaking out of turn. But yeah, I think it’s definitely information, we could get to the board in advance of the meeting Brandon Coleman, COB: And also, depending on what other questions come up. If there’s any other information that we could try and pull together and advance of that December media night Brandon Coleman, COB: I hopefully we did make a really concerted effort to get this memo out in a timely fashion. So you guys could review it before the Brandon Coleman, COB: Meeting. So we would like to do something like that for December as well, even though it’s right around the corner Joe Taddeucci COB: Yeah, and I would think we can we can certainly answer questions like Dave’s before December and I would agree with Dan, we probably don’t have time to, you know, study different concepts or do Joe Taddeucci COB: Different model runs. There’s probably no into that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Type of time Joe Taddeucci COB: I want to make sure I understand. Dave’s question Dave were are, are you focused on the pipes that go under US 36 when you talk about the affiliate channel and that portion of it or are you talking about the the open channel part itself Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Both I guess what would be helpful for me and I don’t know for the other board members, but would be to to better understand the role of the vili channel in the conveyance Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Of floodwater and what I was going to say it from my perspective, you know, putting a pipe individually channel to disseminate or Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Take floodwater is a little different than what I think. Karen was trying to say about Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Additional culverts under 36 which would then convey water across the landscape in as Brandon pointed out that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The, you know, the topography trends toward the vili channel. And so it wouldn’t be very interesting for me to know how much of that water that’s flowing on the west side of 36 after overtopping the South Boulder Creek channel if there were additional Colbert’s under 36 Dave Kuntz, OSBT: On that dryer, kind of, I don’t know whether it’s more upland but the dry somewhat drier grassland on the on the east side Dave Kuntz, OSBT: How much water do we think that could take and be conveyed into the daily channel. So I’m asking to kind of get out of the the sideboards of very one at this point and and look at the capacity or potential of vili channel and kind of

Dave Kuntz, OSBT: A little different way Joe Taddeucci COB: Got it Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So the other thing I was going to ask. And this is just kind of Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Probably more for discussion at this point but hypothetically, Brandon. Have we looked at what Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Role this the CU South property would have if it were completely undeveloped if the city had acquired it from the flat irons gravel Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Company in 1996 what what would its role in Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The floodplain. Now this is removal of the berm, you know, I’m kind of doing it, a number of those things which return it theoretically to more of a natural function Dave Kuntz, OSBT: But what would that role be and 100 year flood or a 500 year flood without any of the development or any of the subsequent activity that took place in post gravel or flat irons ownership and removal of the berm Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And we looked at that and to Dave Kuntz, OSBT: See anyway what its fled Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Relationship would be Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, and I Brandon Coleman, COB: I, I’m just going to kind of reframe your question, but in the existing conditions if we just remove the berm. What does that do to the flooding is that the question, or is there any infrastructure associated with that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: No, there’s, there’s no infrastructure if we if the city had acquired that property in 1996 and had done nothing to it, except remove the existing berm what function would that have in our Dave Kuntz, OSBT: You know determination of Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Hundred year floods Brandon Coleman, COB: Right Brandon Coleman, COB: Now we got it. Oh, sorry Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Just how would that function Brandon Coleman, COB: Right. Right. Yeah. So what we found, actually. And I think I’ve mentioned it before even though that area has been Brandon Coleman, COB: mined out. It is essentially a three sided bucket. So there’s actually no naturally occurring detention, aside from kind of those existing groundwater ponds that you see out there on the property Brandon Coleman, COB: Today, so if you solely remove the berm and allow water to enter that gravel pit. It’s actually trending and great in the way that great is it’s actually forcing more water to more quickly report to the West Valley overflow. So you see really similar Brandon Coleman, COB: Flow volumes at the West Valley, but it actually gets there, just a little bit quicker. So it, it actually doesn’t have much of an impact because there’s no naturally occurring detention on that site to take advantage of Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So would there be then any benefit for additional transportation of water under 36 again to the east side Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And again, using the vili channel as a target or receptacle for that water Dave Kuntz, OSBT: If we looked at kind of what that would what the potential for that would be Brandon Coleman, COB: We have not looked at the potential for conveyance under 36 to vili aside from the outlet tunnels Brandon Coleman, COB: So we’ve really tried. Number one, I think some of the costs associated with this structure just the damn portion of it is so great. We really got to try and take advantage of some of the Brandon Coleman, COB: The fact that the bridge does have additional capacity storage of that. So that’s where the levy comes into play. So rather than creating tunnels or anything like that. We found the levy to potentially be the most efficient way to do that. So we haven’t considered convenience for us 36 Curt Brown, OSBT: It’s Dave, if I understand your question. I mean, my sense of it is that vili channel can’t convey very much of the flood. I mean, the flood dwarfs the daily channel capacity Curt Brown, OSBT: They’re not using it to convey the flood. They’re using it to be the way to release water after the flood from the detention structure and that can be controlled, you know, with vows to make sure that you’re just meeting the capacity of the only channel Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Well, I understand. I just envisioning the detention structure to be primarily us 36 and the release of that water as it flows along the western side of 36

Dave Kuntz, OSBT: As you know, the Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The release function, I guess. And so I, I don’t know. I’m just Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The concern I have is that when you and I don’t mean this pejorative, but he but when you ask engineers to solve problems. What they generally do is build structures and so Dave Kuntz, OSBT: What I’m, what I’m wondering is if we can’t use the natural landscape more effectively. Then, then we currently are. And I know that it’s been looked at a lot. But one of the things that concerns me is that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I think historically the CU South property was part of the South Boulder Creek floodplain. And so it’s still the question is, does it still have any functional capacity, and if so, what is it, and how can we, you know, either most effectively use it or Maximize Dave Kuntz, OSBT: People may think that we’ve already done all that, and in there. There isn’t any solution, but Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I don’t think that we’ve looked as carefully as we might does it looks like these other solutions are easier, but they’re also pretty expensive and Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So I’m looking at a less destructive option if we can Curt Brown, OSBT: Find one Curt Brown, OSBT: So Dave, would it be useful for you to see. And they maybe have already done this run. But what happens when they remove the levee and run the hundred year flood. I mean, because that’s Curt Brown, OSBT: I think that’s the closest thing that comes to utilizing the existing pipeline and would that be helpful to see that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yeah, with the addition of looking at, you know, any conveyance potential in addition to the bridge under US 36 Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And I’m I don’t mean a you know a pipe in the vili channel, per se. I mean, using the, the natural landscape to, you know, assist in that flow over the, over the land which would then actually end up theoretically in vili channel, most of it probably Joe Taddeucci COB: I think I understand where you’re coming from Dave and I i think we have done the the model runs that Kurt talked about Joe Taddeucci COB: And we can point to those and answering your question and follow up to this meeting, but I think one of our fundamental for performance criteria is that we can’t make things worse downstream Joe Taddeucci COB: And so if we and Brad. Now I’m going to turn the tables and Brandon can cut me off if I’m saying Curt Brown, OSBT: it wrong Joe Taddeucci COB: Here but Joe Taddeucci COB: If there are a number of ways to do a solely a conveyance option, you could you could work on the south Boulder Creek channel itself Joe Taddeucci COB: And and dig it out and have it have more capacity. You could put pipes underneath us 36 like you’re talking about Joe Taddeucci COB: If you do that, during the flood simulation, you’re going to be sending more water downstream in terms of timing than you than you would with our detention concept and really Joe Taddeucci COB: The combination of our flood detention and the outlet works. It’s really a combined approach. I remember talking about this once before Joe Taddeucci COB: Where we’re we’re using a detention component to store some of the water and hold it back, and then it’s being released in a controlled way and that combination of storage and controlled release Joe Taddeucci COB: Allows us to keep us 36 from overtopping and protecting the West Valley, and it also doesn’t make things worse for anyone on South Boulder Creek Joe Taddeucci COB: Downstream or south of us 36 so I think I know where you’re going and Brandon, correct me if I’m wrong in my thinking just on on the fly here but Joe Taddeucci COB: I if if we did something to increase conveyance and and didn’t have the additional capacity or features all the way down the stream which is a constraint. We’re going to make things worse and will will violate female will never approve that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: No, I understand that. I appreciate that. And I certainly am not suggesting that what I guess. And I don’t want to continue to beat this horse that rapidly dying

Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I what what I’m seeing is, I still think 36 is the damn their storage behind 36 what we’re concerned about is that when that storage over tops Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Hildy six. So if there’s a mechanism to convey water at a suffix is sufficient right need to keep it from overtopping that’s Dave Kuntz, OSBT: That’s something that we should consider. So that’s what I’m asking is, is there a way that you know we can get water across under 36 that will keep the flood from overtopping but Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Not require all the infrastructure in order to do that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And it just struck me that you know there is some capacity and Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And so what is it and how would that relate to, you know, can convey it because conveying the water because it is a controlled release, Joe, from my perspective, it may not be as controlled, as you know, a detention structure, per se, but it it Dave Kuntz, OSBT: It is certainly, it seems to me, controlling it, to some degree, the question is the magnitude, you know, is it sufficient to keep from overtopping and sufficient Dave Kuntz, OSBT: To make sure that you know there isn’t any further downstream impact Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Anyway I it just, I don’t know, I just think there’s a conversation that we need to have, however, briefly Dave Kuntz, OSBT: We’ve looked at the channel and whatever downstream implications that has before we make a final decision Karen Hollweg, OSBT: At the at the video that Curtis suggesting without the berm, you still have it their brand and on your computer Brandon Coleman, COB: I have the one with the inflow rundown. They’re going in what Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The, the second of the three Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That Kurt’s referring to. Right. Correct Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, I think that’s pretty close. If you got one with the flow rundown, but not the storage structure Karen Hollweg, OSBT: There was. I thought you had Brandon. I thought you had one with the berm removed Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, we don’t, I don’t have those videos up right now. But we have Brandon Coleman, COB: Model. But wait, the burn removed so Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I thought you showed that tonight. I’m sorry Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, and I think we did do with the inflow rundown. And the detention upstream that’s that’s the one where the water entered the pits, but that’s the only one we’ve had that showed that in a video form. And I will say, Brandon Coleman, COB: You know there’s as far as reconnecting floodplains. Right. Like that’s that’s a great way to mitigate floods, I think Brandon Coleman, COB: We would want to do that if we had space and nobody around. Right. So I think variant one Brandon Coleman, COB: The way I see it and want to Don’s points is really that area behind the scenes South levy is historic floodplain. Whether it’s been mined or not Brandon Coleman, COB: But if we can utilize that and reconnect that floodplain. It may not give us 100 year flood benefit, but it will give us an opportunity to tap into some of that Brandon Coleman, COB: Benefit, we would get from connecting not floodplains. I think that’s the to me. That’s why that’s such a big Brandon Coleman, COB: Point, as well as that OS. Oh, and removing the loving connecting that floodplain and Curt Brown, OSBT: Hell, and you’re muted. Hello Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Thanks, Brandon, Joe, I really appreciate the detailed work you did and all this personally myself. I could see from our original field trip Hal Hallstein – OSBT: With you both that we were talking about a very significant amount of infrastructure any upstream solutions. And I feel like this work does add a employee to that simultaneously. I hear Hal Hallstein – OSBT: A lot of public concern about modeling new and additional options when I I want to explain my thinking on that particular thing and why I don’t necessarily support it Hal Hallstein – OSBT: As a use of time Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Don’s presentation for me when a very long way to display in visual terms the habitat mitigation problems that occurred due to that type infrastructure creation and I saw particularly you can notice it in the flag area of the CU South parcel THE SOUTHERN MOST flag

Hal Hallstein – OSBT: That essentially it isn’t really going to be realistically possible to coax you ladies tracks orchids or problems jumping mouse around a major floodwall back up into a significant area and that is sort of surrounded on three sides of infrastructure Hal Hallstein – OSBT: In any way that will meet the environmental criteria I feels really kind of important to this board simultaneously in order for me to hundred percent feel confident about that. I need you to have a very specific question, it comes back to that yellow line Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Just to say it in one other way for benefit both of myself in the public that line in no circumstance or way shape or form can be moved any further to the west, or according to how it’s been framed up hill Hal Hallstein – OSBT: And additionally, that line and its location was not influenced by the principle of the project of 129 developable acres for see you. Can you confirm that that line was not influenced by that construction of the project and cannot be moved any further additionally messed Curt Brown, OSBT: And how I just want to make sure we know what you’re talking about, you’re talking about a yellow line. Are you talking about figure one Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I’m talking about the nofollow pixelation that has been added and Brandon’s model that basically shows where the uphill detainment wall will be that runs, you know, breasts seize property to the, you know, on the west side of the lesson, I COB, Dan Burke: Think I think it’s the connection to high ground of that COB, Dan Burke: Of the Western Wall COB, Dan Burke: This Joe Taddeucci COB: Forget about that COB, Dan Burke: Which is shown in yellow, but Joe Taddeucci COB: That straight line, the one that was the subject they think of Carolyn’s follow up question. We’re talking about that one, right Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Yeah yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: How I think you’re asking. Yeah. Why didn’t we move the Red Earth and Dan farther to the west, so that we could store more water. Is that where you’re going Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Well, yeah. And in specifically for someone to say the location of that part of the model was not influenced by the 129 acreage discussion Hal Hallstein – OSBT: And that it is it is there for strictly hydrological purpose if I can be assured of that. Then when I look at diamonds work, it becomes very clear that the overall mitigation Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Habitat mitigation is so materially worse on this type of thing that I really see it as unlikely that additional models or configurations are going to add anything to this conversation Curt Brown, OSBT: So my sense is that they constructed this damn to detain all of the Westerly flow which is what it does. And so, I mean, you could argue about, well, could we move part of the dam, one way or the other, but Curt Brown, OSBT: Its current configuration accomplishes the hydrogen hydrological objective Hal Hallstein – OSBT: So, so I where I’m headed with this Joe or Brandon, can you guys confirm that that is the case Brandon Coleman, COB: So I maybe I can. I’m just going to share screen just Brandon Coleman, COB: As I think you’re definitely it would be valuable. At this point, so Brandon Coleman, COB: Let’s see here. I’ll just do that and I’ll highlight and this, this does show property boundaries on it as well. How so, I think that’s going to be helpful and answering your question Brandon Coleman, COB: And this was a slide we showed early on, just the components of the area and you’re talking about this connection down here Brandon Coleman, COB: And Curt Brown, OSBT: Not seen it yet, Brandon Brandon Coleman, COB: Oh, Joe Taddeucci COB: Sorry. There’s a delay Brandon Coleman, COB: There you go. Okay. Yeah, let me why why I’m waiting here Brandon Coleman, COB: I will try and make this pointer stand out if it will Brandon Coleman, COB: Awesome. So you’re talking about this connection Brandon Coleman, COB: And right here how I’m kind of where that follows. So I just want to call attention to the purple line here Brandon Coleman, COB: So we do still have the boulder Valley comprehensive plan guiding principles as what we’re trying to do. So we really focused on Brandon Coleman, COB: Putting our detention facility on the oh so so one thing to point out about this, this actually provides flood protection for a huge

Brandon Coleman, COB: Huge portion is the South property. So no longer. We’re not trying to maintain 129 we’re just trying to fit our facility, kind of in a land use areas where it might even be able to work so Brandon Coleman, COB: That’s, that’s, kind of, is that an answer to your question Hal Hallstein – OSBT: It. Well, it sounds to me like you cannot confirm that the location of that was put for strictly hydrological purposes. And I point this out to say, this will be the underlying Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Remaining skepticism that surrounds this I think you’ve done a very convincing job to explain how the flows work, but I feel like a lot of the community was interested in is a lower a lower level of habitat damaging solution available Hal Hallstein – OSBT: That preserved health and safety for boulder rights that was influenced by see us desires for its own development Hal Hallstein – OSBT: And you did you so so basically I feel very convinced within the context of the current argument that you made that the habitat mitigation is materially worse in quite bad in this layout Hal Hallstein – OSBT: The thing that I struggle with is, if it was created within the bounds of a momentary discussion where 129 acres was thrown on the table as some magic number. We still don’t really know where it came from Hal Hallstein – OSBT: That that does that doesn’t assuage the ultimate community’s concern that brought us to this discussion does, is that clear So, Joe Taddeucci COB: I think you could move the earthen damn further to the west Joe Taddeucci COB: BUT IT, IT WOULDN’T IT WOULDN’T CHANGE AND MAYBE Don can confirm or john it wouldn’t change the Joe Taddeucci COB: The Joe Taddeucci COB: Environmental Impact table. I actually think Joe Taddeucci COB: So one of the points we made early on with the advisory group is that Joe Taddeucci COB: I fear, some of the appeal for for members of the public to this concept is is that Joe Taddeucci COB: It might be perceived that if, if the city did it this way, it would block the university’s annexation plans and Joe Taddeucci COB: The Hundred and 29 acres. I don’t believe in branding can confirm that wasn’t a limiter on where that Western line was drawn. In fact, I think this option would maybe make more space available Joe Taddeucci COB: Outside of the damn but but that wasn’t that wasn’t driving our decision or or how the consultants laid it out and I will confess, I was not involved in the, in the, you know the real details of those conversations and our layout, but Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I think that comments extremely helpful Hal Hallstein – OSBT: What I think I heard you say is, even if it moves to the west. It doesn’t resolve the discontinuity of habitat problems that exist there Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Yes, there may be additional capacity for water storage and perhaps flood level safety gains but from the point of view of OSB T would not change. Probably the environmental mitigation considerations is that does that feel fear but Joe Taddeucci COB: That’s, that’s how I understand it, I COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, and and if COB, Dan Burke: If, if we could elaborate that on that too and the upcoming memo. I’ve got that one flag, but I also just want to go back to Kurt’s point that you, you just mentioned, if we shifted it more left. Maybe we could increase the tension COB, Dan Burke: The point as with this. We’re already detaining the whole West flow. So, there is no more the tension that is needed, we’ve solved that COB, Dan Burke: Even if we shifted it to the west. It’s the same amount of detention, assuming good still drive the COB, Dan Burke: Detention that’s further west COB, Dan Burke: But I don’t think it’s a detention issue COB, Dan Burke: So maybe maybe work maybe how the more, the question is, is there an environmental impact benefit from shifting things in a more an amoeba way rather than just do so away Karen Hollweg, OSBT: An amoeba away COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, you know, like squish it down, moving west COB, Dan Burke: By Plato Blake flavor play with the realm as Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Well, I mean, I mean to jump to the answer on that it seems pretty clear to me that it because the eastern wall Romanians creating the discontinuity. You’re just, it’s really not a material difference

COB, Dan Burke: We were still leaving COB, Dan Burke: A flat plane COB, Dan Burke: Not in half. We are still being cutting the flood and off Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Okay, I’ve gone down the rabbit hole Hal Hallstein – OSBT: On the yellow light Hal Hallstein – OSBT: On and I really do appreciate you framing yet. I think it’s important to the public to understand the nuances that Hal Hallstein – OSBT: And also the nuances of Hal Hallstein – OSBT: How open space Board of Trustees is thinking about that. So thank you Curt Brown, OSBT: And you Karen Hollweg, OSBT: may visit the bottom of the rabbit hole Curt Brown, OSBT: So I’m going to look ahead a little bit Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Just because it’s starting to get Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Late curl Karen Hollweg, OSBT: A quick question before we leave this general collection of questions. And it has to do about the damn at PKU, and it also has to do with some of the questions I believe around the veal a channel Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I haven’t I on some of these pictures that Brandon’s been showing recently there’s no indication about the damn at PKU Curt Brown, OSBT: What damn Curt Brown, OSBT: Whatever you’re talking about Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The one, the one at the interchange of 36 and table Mesa Curt Brown, OSBT: Oh, the variant one and bang, madame Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah, okay. Is that is that damn still there with the upstream option Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Because it wasn’t shown on the RJ drawing Brandon Coleman, COB: No, it is replaced by the levy. So we have reduced the flows and the main channel Brandon Coleman, COB: Where you don’t need to create detention along us 36 at this point. But we’ve replaced that with the levy to give us to allow the flow to go to the flow pattern that is existing there. Yeah Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay, so since that extra 272 acres or one acre feet or whatever it is Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Would go through the Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Under the bridge Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Then I’m not sure I understood what you said earlier about that 272 acre feet going through culverts to the north side Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes. So there is a and this is where we haven’t evaluated conveyance but we would want to look at the capacity of really is Brandon Coleman, COB: If we release those flood flows uncontrolled under US 36 there there’s a potential risk that we could overwhelm really channel as well and that we’re moving our flooding from West Valley now to flooding it vili and that’s something Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s a Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah Brandon Coleman, COB: That’s kind of i think that Curt Brown, OSBT: I think Karen’s asking, could you replace the little Levy, the red levy that goes up to 36 instead by putting large culverts right where the levee meets us 36 basically just to catch the the flow that’s moving west out of the cell phone channel. Is that what you’re asking. Current Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah, I don’t know where they go. Cuz I’m not an engineer, but it seems to me as a biologist that that the wet meadow on the north side needs water right And Curt Brown, OSBT: I mean, as I look at it I think those culverts would have to be Curt Brown, OSBT: Enormous and there would have to be multiples of them, but I’ll let the engineer answer the question. You’ve got what 200 acre feet going west, and I don’t know how you translate that into a a rate of flow, but that’s Karen Hollweg, OSBT: What I carry on some numbers. It’s 200 and then it goes down to 120 acre feet. So I’m not sure where it all goes, how much of it Brandon Coleman, COB: I Brandon Coleman, COB: Swear that number, real quick here Joe Taddeucci COB: And well while Brandon’s looking that up the function of the levy is to train the water and send it under the bridge Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I understand that part Joe Taddeucci COB: Yep. Yeah. And so if you took that away and you created covertly or essentially more of an opening you would Joe Taddeucci COB: The water’s going 90 degrees to that it’s it’s headed towards the West Valley and so Joe Taddeucci COB: Just my impression is, you would still need some kind of feature to train that water and then make it go into the culverts instead of having a night, some of it would go through naturally if you made the invert, low, low enough, but some of it would still had West

Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, I guess the Brandon Coleman, COB: Just my thought is, we would Brandon Coleman, COB: We’d have to consider Brandon Coleman, COB: Do you have to detain those flows like I think if if we’re interested in getting water across us 36 for Habitat purposes. That’s one thing Brandon Coleman, COB: If we’re interested in doing it for the flood mitigation, that’s a little bit different of an animal. So I would have to chew on that one. I think Brandon Coleman, COB: Is that, is it just a habitat concern or is it a flood to to get rid of the levy as well Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Well, the all of the above Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay, and I COB, Dan Burke: Think I’ve got that capture quite sure. Pretty good as series of points, um, COB, Dan Burke: I think we can probably elaborate on that I’m speaking for utility staff but Joe Taddeucci COB: Little while ago I was speaking for your staff day Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah COB, Dan Burke: The other thing that comes to my mind is sort of what COB, Dan Burke: forced us into this whole predict demand right now, which is si dot saying no infrastructure in there right away COB, Dan Burke: That’s right, yeah COB, Dan Burke: One thing we might want to consider is whether a series of culverts to convey floodwaters under would be sort of considered, you know, would not violate but would go against what see that told us we can and cannot do Brandon Coleman, COB: So I, I can say for sure to even consider that we would need to store the upstream portion of the storage facility Curt Brown, OSBT: So I know that’s not right Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I’m sorry, you would need to what Brandon Coleman, COB: So that upstream damn as well. And the inflow rundown portion we would still need that even to consider the culverts under the embankment. So I think Brandon Coleman, COB: I just want to flag that so Brandon Coleman, COB: I’d be happy to kind of Brandon Coleman, COB: See what I can do about that. But any scenario we look at still includes that portion of the show. Yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, I think it was to get rid of the type that’s training the 200 acre feet Curt Brown, OSBT: To the bridge so Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah, and Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The other thing being every time, every time I watch that video is That Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It looks to me like the water from the vili channel is filling up Karen Hollweg, OSBT: What I call the dam at the interchange before the South Boulder Creek water ever gets there. So, in my mind, the water from vili channel has a role to play in this whole thing Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes 100% accurate. I think that is true. We recognize that that is that’s the whole point of doing detention would be that we would be able to control that water and release it in a fashion as to not impact the flows and really. But yes, you’re Brandon Coleman, COB: Right, it’s not Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It’s not just the water from South Boulder Creek that over tops the interchange. It’s the vili water plus whatever comes from the creek bed Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes. Just keep in mind really does have a lot of capacity under 36 for the drainage area that it’s servicing. So it’s a small drainage area Brandon Coleman, COB: It does have conveyance under US 36 so you won’t see it continually flood like SAP Boulder Creek does because it reports quickly. So that’s why you see a turn blue very quickly and then it kind of stays blue and tell the South Boulder Creek owners come over top of it Karen Hollweg, OSBT: So it’s an additive function Curt Brown, OSBT: Know, Karen, do you recall that Curt Brown, OSBT: At one point they move the dam from being on top of village channel. They moved it upstream. So that means no South Boulder Creek waters reach vili channel. Yeah, yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: I’m going to start focusing on the report if that’s okay and have people help me with that before we go to a page by page discussion. The first thing I want to ask people is, do they have universal or general comments on the report that would improve it Curt Brown, OSBT: And I’m going to read a couple that I stole from Karen Curt Brown, OSBT: So, but this is just to give the idea. These applied to more than one place in the report Curt Brown, OSBT: So the first one is where impacts are assessed or tabulated in tables, separate the impacts to open space lands from impacts to other lands

Curt Brown, OSBT: And then the other thing I would say that goes along with that is, be cautious about adding those together Curt Brown, OSBT: Be sure that the quality of the habitat impacts are the same before you add open space impacts did not open space impacts Curt Brown, OSBT: I think that Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, go ahead COB, Dan Burke: Table one had them separated, is that, and then, but so is it river table two and three Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Know table one had SMP impacts and then combined in pat COB, Dan Burke: Yeah Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I think what I’ve heard, Kurt saying is show s&p impacts as one metric and impacts to see you lands as another Curt Brown, OSBT: And that Curt Brown, OSBT: And that way, Dan, you can drop these percentages, which I think are really confusing because their percentages of different numbers. You can’t really compare them. So you can just show the quantities and not have to show any percentages. I think that’ll help Curt Brown, OSBT: The Curt Brown, OSBT: Excuse me. The next general recommendation Curt Brown, OSBT: Also stole this from Karen Curt Brown, OSBT: Is and we’ve heard the public say this too, and I know this is not easy, but I think multiple people have suggested that tables that just use adjectives descriptors Curt Brown, OSBT: don’t provide a lot of information and maybe at some point, if that’s what Council wants you can have a separate table that’s just adjectives. But I think it’s better to always carry the data as much as you can, even if it means having for a particular domain of impact Curt Brown, OSBT: Maybe just showing the most critical numbers. You don’t have to show them all, but it will illustrate why you think there’s a trend there Curt Brown, OSBT: So I think that’s been suggested multiple times here COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, I wrote down a couple of ideas that we could be show some things that number of acres COB, Dan Burke: As more in a way, especially when when when fragmentation, which was a big concern from an open space perspective of COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, we try to quantify fragmentation acres and some of those tables. Not that we can do it for one, but I think we do be more qualitative quantitative a few ideas written down Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, I think that helps wherever you can Curt Brown, OSBT: I’m going to continue on my list up because impacted groundwater is such a critical factor Curt Brown, OSBT: Please Curt Brown, OSBT: Show the length of each part of the structure that requires groundwater transport and indicate whether it’s the same kind of groundwater transport Curt Brown, OSBT: And of course do that separately for variant one and for the upstream option Curt Brown, OSBT: That I think you’ve all already got that data COB, Dan Burke: I missed the first part show legs. You say, Curt Brown, OSBT: Late Late Curt Brown, OSBT: Sorry, you can show your legs to Curt Brown, OSBT: The last one. I’ve got on my list. And these are more general questions I’m Curt Brown, OSBT: One of the big differences, it seems to me, between variant one and the upstream option. Is there a lot of places for the upstream option where Curt Brown, OSBT: There’s just no access right now. And my question is, do you feel like your report reflects that that if you’re going to build the great control structure Curt Brown, OSBT: There’s no road anywhere near that. And do you feel like your analysis of environmental impacts reflects that Curt Brown, OSBT: It strikes me as a big difference between the two Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Anybody else got general comments before we jump to the page by page Curt Brown, OSBT: Oh yeah, Caroline Caroline Miller, OSBT: Is now is the time to bring this up, or what so sorry for whoever has to answer this. If it’s wrong Caroline Miller, OSBT: But it’s, I feel like it’s been a while since we talked about

Caroline Miller, OSBT: The emergency preparedness, whether that’s response drills warnings, however, that goes Caroline Miller, OSBT: And I started thinking about it when we had the fires of how quickly that happened Caroline Miller, OSBT: So again, this might not be the time or have anything to do with exactly what we’re speaking about, but Caroline Miller, OSBT: If any of that holds weight moving into December or re discussions or if that would be something that would be put into place. I just wanted to, to bring that up as obviously this deals with life’s and safety and that as well Caroline Miller, OSBT: Like no, it’s talked about that in a while Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m happy to respond to that one Brandon Coleman, COB: I think it’s really important Brandon Coleman, COB: So I am in the storm water flood futility. So the, the people that are in harm’s way from a flood Brandon Coleman, COB: Are in active siren range. So I know everybody lives in the city. So those sirens are activated based on a pretty robust Brandon Coleman, COB: Flood and precipitation monitoring system for the upstream basin on South Boulder Creek and those floods were tested monthly during flood season. So if you live in the city. I’m sure if you live close to a drainage way, you probably heard him. I heard of at my house Brandon Coleman, COB: But those are probably the best emergency preparedness, we have now, and I also encourage people who do live in floodplains or close to flood ways to visit our Brandon Coleman, COB: Flood info web page on the website so you know how to be prepared. So if you do hear one of those sirens go off. You know what to do Brandon Coleman, COB: And you know how to be prepared for a flood. So I don’t want to ever give the impression that if there’s a flood coming. You’re never going to hear about it Brandon Coleman, COB: Because there are sirens down there and there is a robust monitoring system and also there’s resources on the web page that you can access. So you know how to be prepared if you are in a flood flood way Caroline Miller, OSBT: I just felt like a lot of people are going to be looking at what we put out in the next couple of months. So, like you were saying, you know, you can go to the web page and click promote but Caroline Miller, OSBT: Perhaps if there is, you know, a line that just tells people if they’re new to town or or you know anything. How to get information Brandon Coleman, COB: Yep, yep. No, I appreciate it. I think it’s great. Any opportunity we can get out to inform people about flood hazard in danger across the city. We are the number one flood risk in the city in the state. So it’s great for people to be prepared. Yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you, Caroline Curt Brown, OSBT: If there are no other global suggestions for improving the clarity of the report, I think we can go through the memo page by page. What I would say is if you’re recommending something that’s basically editorial that maybe clarifies the sentence, but it’s not Curt Brown, OSBT: A significant change. I think we can send those individually. And just to save ourselves time right now fans that an okay practice you think Curt Brown, OSBT: I leave at each board member to decide which of their comments are really substantive Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, page one. Does anybody want to make a substantive suggestion about improving the reports clarity accuracy readability Curt Brown, OSBT: And just raise your hands Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, I’m going to Curt Brown, OSBT: Page two Curt Brown, OSBT: And what I would like to do actually is come back to the discussion questions they’re listed again towards the end. So we’ll run into them, but I think it’s good to get through the other stuff before we reflect on do we think these questions are clear Curt Brown, OSBT: I assume you’ve all read the questions already so hurt Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I have a question. When you say Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Yes, to do or do you happen to have the corresponding PDF page that you’re looking at Page Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Okay, thank you Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, you bet Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay I’m going on to three Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Actually I’ll raise my, my concern. And the reason I asked a question that the, I don’t know if anyone else is experiencing it. But the levee removal heat map is slowing even my very high performance computer down

Hal Hallstein – OSBT: may tell so maybe figuring out a way to take some depth out of that one so that the documents. MARIA WOULD BE A GOOD improvement Curt Brown, OSBT: You know how you bring up something we brought up before and I would just ask staff again that Curt Brown, OSBT: Segregate sections of the, I think it’s fine to post the whole thing. But then if you can post segregated pieces. Yeah, I’ve got a monster computer to and it absolutely choked on on the packet. So if you can please. And I think that’ll help the public to Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay I’m going on to Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I crack Karen Hollweg, OSBT: At the top of page three Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, good Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Um, Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And it has to do with the the first paragraph, where it explains what happened in Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And for the public Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The upstream option was not analyzed beyond a brief concept sketch Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The staff had a different view. But in terms of what was presented to the public. It was just a concept sketch which salt and said, you know, this is just a sketch, we’ve put together Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And apparently, from what I’ve learned from Brandon and Joe over the last three months staff believed that they knew a lot more about it than was ever conveyed to the public. And I think if that was clarified in the in the first paragraph, there would be helpful Curt Brown, OSBT: I agree with your description, Karen, I think, I think from the public standpoint. Yeah, they never got this sort of detailed analysis, it was more of a conceptual screening Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Anything else on page three, folks Curt Brown, OSBT: I’m moving on page four Karen Hollweg, OSBT: On the second paragraph under analysis Karen Hollweg, OSBT: In the middle of that paragraph Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And this is there’s more than one place in this document that this is true, but this is the first place Karen Hollweg, OSBT: where it talks about Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The overtopping of 36 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And in previous reports it said it has said overtopping us 36 and subsequently flooding the West mentally Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I just found that verbiage much clearer Curt Brown, OSBT: So you’d be saying overtop us 36 and flooding into the West Valley or something like that. Yeah, okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Good. Thank you. Anything else on Curt Brown, OSBT: Page four Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And then the next to the last paragraph on that page Curt Brown, OSBT: After the third advisory group Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yes. Um, it talks about Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Preventing the hundred year flood from going into the West Valley and it doesn’t say anything about overtopping 36 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I don’t know whether that was omitted on purpose or whether it was just, it’s something that needs to be added Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It’s not clear what happens to the overtopping of 36 Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Yeah, that could be put right in there before West Valley flooding Curt Brown, OSBT: We all take it for granted that everybody knows that. But they go Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Well, and it may not be true. I Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Don’t pretend to know Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, I’m on them to page five Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Going to our favorite figure on page six, Curt Brown, OSBT: The upstream project concept Karen Hollweg, OSBT: At the bottom of that page Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yep, um, Karen Hollweg, OSBT: We’ve talked about the revision of table one to separate out OSM EMC you and I’m assuming that the last sentence on page six will be revised to to articulate whatever the table actually shows

Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Because it now says the project has similar impacts to SNP research sources which the numbers don’t Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Bear up COB, Dan Burke: Your hair have a silence from staff because I think we’re all writing this down so Curt Brown, OSBT: Good COB, Dan Burke: Just carry on Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Thanks, Dan. And thanks to all your scribes Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, we’re moving to a table one Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah. Yep. Yep Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Thanks paper Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And this is kind of throughout the memo, but whenever refers to the groundwater conveyance system will be maintained for the life of the project Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I think that the language should be that the Ramada conveyance system will be maintained for forever or until the project is deconstructed Curt Brown, OSBT: Yep Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So, wherever that is referred to in the Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Middle, there’s one. One example right below figure one right. That’s right Dave Kuntz, OSBT: But there it is crucial times in the Karen Hollweg, OSBT: memo about the document. Yep, good idea Curt Brown, OSBT: And Joe has to stay around to do all that monitoring forever Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Well, you can hand the baton off Joe Taddeucci COB: We’re gonna have a problem Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, um, I’m Curt Brown, OSBT: Moving down Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I’m on Table one page seven, Kurt Curt Brown, OSBT: That’s right, where we are. Thank you. How, go ahead Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Yeah, this is I, in my opinion, this is the critical table Hal Hallstein – OSBT: And I just want to make a couple of points. It took me quite a bit of thinking to understand what the percentages shown are on this particular table. If I had my druthers, Hal Hallstein – OSBT: We would add two new columns at the bottom of the table that showed the change and impact to the total impact in the lesson. Pete impact in which removed those percentages Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Out of those boxes. I just think we can paint a clear picture of what these impacts are. I just feel like with some slight tweaking on this slide Hal Hallstein – OSBT: You could, you could clearly see the acres and then do percentages as a separate item showing the difference in impact to pull SMP impact to total ownership Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Good idea. And we’ve already discussed separating out impacts to see you property and impacts to SMP property right Curt Brown, OSBT: And how I just want to be clear because percentages are often confusing. What would you be taking the percentage of Hal Hallstein – OSBT: See that’s that’s that’s the thing is the percentages that are there, if I’m understanding correctly don’t really provide me any decision making insight Curt Brown, OSBT: I would agree Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Yeah, so, so their best to go and what would. What would, what would be important is to know Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I’d like to see a percentage. Oh, like the impact to OSM P on regulated wetlands jumps by 30% or falls by 50% those that percentage. That’s what my mind is doing naturally Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Try to get to my conclusion. And I think we can take people to those conclusions without with them doing less mental arithmetic Curt Brown, OSBT: I think we have the same concern Caroline Miller, OSBT: And then, can anyone Caroline Miller, OSBT: Add to what I’m about to say or what they think. So when you go to page six, it says, as shown in Table one. The project has similar direct environmental impacts, but then over here, it talks about total impacts and then down the line. We talk about indirect environmental impacts so Caroline Miller, OSBT: Our other trustees. I’m not confused by the wording of total impact versus direct Karen Hollweg, OSBT: You know, and I think for me I would eliminate total impact and I would use impact to see you properties

Karen Hollweg, OSBT: As an impact to OSM P properties Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, and I would just say we we can definitely break it out that way. But we definitely have to have total impacts in there because that’s Brandon Coleman, COB: What the permitting agencies will care about. So I think just summing that up when we do those like that graphical like more or less permit ability Brandon Coleman, COB: We look at total environmental impacts for that because they’re looking for the least environmentally impact and they don’t care about land ownership. They care just about the resources in that scenario. So I I’m Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Okay, as long as, as long as for the open space Board of Trustees, we can Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Focus on. Oh Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes 100% yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, yeah. I think we’re saying, and others have said Curt Brown, OSBT: List the impact separately for all SMP anonymous MP and then just make sure when you’re adding things that the OSM resource is really comparable to the nano SMP resource and we’re not adding apples and oranges. So that’s something you that Don can figure out Caroline Miller, OSBT: The branded when you’re saying that like I understand what you’re saying that this table has to show total impact what we need to do for permitting, but is the total impact talking about direct and indirect impacts Brandon Coleman, COB: Yes, there’s another nuanced point there. And I don’t want to. I’m going to let you guys give as many comments as you want. I just want to be prepared if I don’t incorporate them exactly how you write them Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s going to be for some of these things. So the way the core and looks at impacts is direct impacts our like our construction footprint Brandon Coleman, COB: So things like if you go out and you dig up ground or you kill a mouse or any horrible thing like that. That’s a direct impact Brandon Coleman, COB: indirect impacts would be impacts to environment. So say the fragmentation that’s created by the levee Brandon Coleman, COB: Those wetlands behind the levee no longer got water that was supporting them because of the levy, they would consider that an indirect environmental impact and we tried to Brandon Coleman, COB: I thought we tried to remove that verbiage, not to create that confusion, but it’s a it’s a good comment, it’s, it’s very helpful to you guys talk about it that way. So that’s the difference Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah Sorry Caroline Miller, OSBT: Like everything that’s north of Caroline Miller, OSBT: 36 wouldn’t when Caroline Miller, OSBT: Don was showing us that that’s, you know, a lot of acreage that wet meadow might not be what anymore. Is that factored into this, or am I am I looking at this wrong Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s not shown on that table with the acreage is but it is quantified in the more qualitative table. That’s where we didn’t want to Brandon Coleman, COB: Show 45 acres of impacts as part of the impacts table because it, it could create a lot of confusion. So we did that, or indirect impacts more qualitatively Brandon Coleman, COB: But it sounds like there’s a desire to look at those numbers quantitatively as well, which we can do so if you go further down, you’ll see those and there’s Curt Brown, OSBT: There’s done Don D’Amico, COB: Yeah, we can do a better job of Don D’Amico, COB: Defining and teasing apart temporary versus permanent and direct versus Curt Brown, OSBT: Indirect yeah Don D’Amico, COB: It’s really confusing and then you throw the total on top of that, and it gets a little unwieldy so Curt Brown, OSBT: We can Don D’Amico, COB: We can certainly work on that and try to make that more clear Curt Brown, OSBT: Great. Okay. So, Curt Brown, OSBT: I think we were on page seven, Karen Hollweg, OSBT: On the bottom part of Page seven where it talks about the levy at 36 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I would very much like to see some information from Brandon, like we were discussing about other ways that water could be either conveyed to the north wet meadow or Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Other things that could happen to that water Curt Brown, OSBT: So Karen, you were talking about. Could we Curt Brown, OSBT: Reduce the impact of that training levy Curt Brown, OSBT: Oh I guess this is a question for dawn Curt Brown, OSBT: What if you believe that levy West and till it sat basically on the divide between Curt Brown, OSBT: South Boulder Creek Valley, and then the West Valley

Curt Brown, OSBT: That most it quite a bit, maybe right to the property line of open space does that Curt Brown, OSBT: Get us out of a lot of, well, it gets us out travels, I guess. Does it also get us significantly out of spy ramp. These and also does it substantially reduced fragmentation. If you just locate that on the high ground Don D’Amico, COB: Well, the answer to the second part of that question is yeah, it could potentially reduce fragmentation. The further you move it to the west. Yeah Don D’Amico, COB: As far as Don D’Amico, COB: The resources that would be impacted impacted. If you set it on that, quote unquote, Rich Yeah. The high spot. We haven’t looked directly at that. I don’t know. Brandon if if Don D’Amico, COB: I’ve never seen kind of a Don D’Amico, COB: Depiction for a location for a levy in that location that spillover point Curt Brown, OSBT: I think the variant to had its levy there. That’s my vague memory Brandon Coleman, COB: That and I’m trying to think of what point. You guys are talking about so variant to had a flood wall that extended all the way along us 36 and then the embankment sat just on the CU South property Brandon Coleman, COB: So just off of us and p Brandon Coleman, COB: Right, and I think there is a high point, there are levy kind of hits that but you actually what the key with the levy would be that you have to tie in close Brandon Coleman, COB: To the flood 100 year flood elevation to make it cut the water off without overtopping so that’s where the, the location of the levy is based on kind of an estimated water surface elevation and then three foot of freeboard on top of that Curt Brown, OSBT: I see what you’re saying that when you run the levy on the high ground when it gets to us 36 us 36 years at grade Brandon Coleman, COB: The shoe miss your tie in and around COB, Dan Burke: That’s really what what I’m hearing as as COB, Dan Burke: Let’s add a couple of sentences of why the placement of the levee was there as opposed to West. Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: That would be really good. Dan, thank you Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Or some better placement for the levee Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay done with Page seven Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Kurt. I’ve got a Comment Dave Kuntz, OSBT: That last sentence Dave Kuntz, OSBT: In the paragraph. Well, in the second paragraph under levy at us 36 Curt Brown, OSBT: Yep Dave Kuntz, OSBT: That refers to high quality grazing land. Yeah Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I just find that to be, you know, somewhat suspected. It’s actually high quality native grasslands, that are Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Aided their help to maintain by prescriptive grazing and i i think that calling it high quality grazing land Is a misnomer Dave Kuntz, OSBT: We’ve, we’ve talked about the quality of the grasslands all throughout the whole process and now all of a sudden they’re grazing lands and Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And we use grazing prescriptive Lee to, you know, maintain the quality of the grasslands. So I would recommend that modification Curt Brown, OSBT: Good point. Thank you. Day Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, I’m moving on to Curt Brown, OSBT: Page eight, which has lots of things on it Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I’ve got a one on table to done. Okay, I kind of touched on this earlier, but on the upstream project on site habitat restoration and mitigation potential. It says eliminated Hal Hallstein – OSBT: Am I wrong or is that hyperbole. I mean, while yes we can’t go to, you know, you’re now in this like horseshoe shaped area. But to say that we can’t create any quality wetland in there. Is that, is that true Zero. None. Nada Don D’Amico, COB: No, I guess we should clarify that there there are some potential mitigation opportunities in there, they’re just very limited. And if it’s going to be used for for detention Don D’Amico, COB: Kind of the long term viability of mitigation a restoration and there would be Don D’Amico, COB: significantly reduced. Yeah Hal Hallstein – OSBT: I’m convinced to that. But just for for real good honesty and transparency. Let’s, let’s go Don D’Amico, COB: Sure, that’s a great point Karen Hollweg, OSBT: My understanding is that the water has to be released within some certain number of hours after the flood. Right

Correct Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Argument 72 which was the argument why if we put a floodwall along 36 and in undated the wet meadow there. It wouldn’t be problematic because the water would be released within 72 hours. So you can’t have it one way down at 36 in another way Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I’m in the gravel pit. I’m with I’m with how we need to be more honest Don D’Amico, COB: Well, we also when we, when we talked about Don D’Amico, COB: The tension and and Don D’Amico, COB: Basically holding floodwater for a limited amount of time in the area immediately upstream of US 36 we. One of the things that we discussed at length was the impact or the effect of Don D’Amico, COB: Sedimentation Don D’Amico, COB: Right and Don D’Amico, COB: That’s that’s still a concern. And it’s, it’s one of those things where we try to understand and and and maybe not calculate, but at least consider Don D’Amico, COB: sediment deposition and direct burial of habitat in that area of US 36 So, Don D’Amico, COB: I think the same thing applies to any restoration that would that would be that would be done in the LSO Don D’Amico, COB: And at that time, you know, we really didn’t have any kind of thoughts or any certainly do didn’t do any analysis of Don D’Amico, COB: sediment transport and sediment deposition in one place, versus the other, but Don D’Amico, COB: Yeah, it’s, it is a it is a valid concern and we can. I can talk with with Brandon more about, you know, kind of velocities and maybe some just get some comparative information on Don D’Amico, COB: You know, Don D’Amico, COB: Mobility and seven transport in one area versus the other, because I know that Don D’Amico, COB: You know, we had talked about the velocities beans being fairly low as that water moves from South Boulder Creek into across the landscape into the West Valley immediately up above us 36 Don D’Amico, COB: That would have implications for deposition on the one hand, you know, higher, higher velocities carry more in larger sediment Don D’Amico, COB: But slower. Lastly waters allow that allows me to drop out. So I know sediment technologist, but I think it would be worth having a conversation about that and maybe getting a better a better understanding of that Curt Brown, OSBT: This is not a big deal but it parts of the report, almost read and I’m looking at table to like where Curt Brown, OSBT: We’re saying it’s a negative aspect of the upstream project that it eliminates the location for mitigation. A variant one. But of course, if you’re building the upstream project, you don’t have variant one. So just just sort of check that you’re not getting into sort of a circular Curt Brown, OSBT: Analysis there Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And that takes me back to the, the third line down at the top of page eight that paragraph, it seems to me that that totally embodies what Kurt just said, Um, if you read the motion from June 3 it says Karen Hollweg, OSBT: In the section that speaks to mitigation. It says quote should counsel choose to proceed with variant one comma then mitigation on open space the statement that’s made Karen Hollweg, OSBT: In the 1234 fifth line down at the top of page eight is mixing apples and oranges. It’s not talking about the upstream option. It’s talking about. I mean, in the motion. It was talking about should Council choose to proceed with variant one Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Which goes to Kurt’s comment that the Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That paragraph needs to be restructured, so it’s honestly reporting on the difference between mitigation. If you’re using variant one versus what happens with the upstream option

Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yeah, and I agree with that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I’m coming at it from a little different angle. DIANA Dave Kuntz, OSBT: But honesty is really the bottom line Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yeah, and thank for me and mitigation, we use that term to make all of us feel good that somehow you know the impacts from these projects are, we’re going to be able to take care of them Dave Kuntz, OSBT: When in fact we know we’re spread thesis concerned that our ability to restore apparently suitable habitat where that species will Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Re colonize Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Is unsuccessful. And so I think that whenever we talk about rare species mitigation in this document we ought to acknowledge that we there hasn’t been a successful mitigation attempt first by grantees that we’re aware of Don D’Amico, COB: And I, I believe I can go back and look at some of the past memos. But even in tonight’s presentation. I’ve Don D’Amico, COB: Mentioned that and and tried to make that clear, especially forced by rantings for Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Me and I really, you did verbally tonight, Don, but this document doesn’t in writing Don D’Amico, COB: Okay, well we can we can make that more clear. Definitely Don D’Amico, COB: And I was sleep. I agree. I agree. I, I, I know that Don D’Amico, COB: And we’ve I think we’ve tried to make this clear also the fact that Don D’Amico, COB: In Don D’Amico, COB: The existing open space you have Don D’Amico, COB: Four points soils that have developed over millennia and knows form the under the you know the foundation Don D’Amico, COB: And basis for everything that accrues above ground Don D’Amico, COB: When you add the hydrology into that if you know those, those two are the key ingredients to you know that the high quality habitat and you know you mentioned mitigation and that being the panacea, and the you know the default when when projects like this happen Don D’Amico, COB: It will be challenging, to say the least, to Don D’Amico, COB: mitigate the impact in high quality habitat in an area that’s been mined out that has low that doesn’t have Don D’Amico, COB: That, that, you know, double, double bang for the buck of hydrology and soil. And that’s one of the reasons that we factor the mitigation ratios in there. So, you know, if you if you combine Don D’Amico, COB: A mitigation plan that that Don D’Amico, COB: Where the ecological Lyft might not be back up to the existing habitat. If you do that over a larger area, then that’s a way to compensate. I guess for not having Don D’Amico, COB: An ideal conditions Don D’Amico, COB: Where you were you’re trying to restore that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I am greatly confident that you can wordsmith that so that those concepts are very Don D’Amico, COB: Transparent Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah. And for me, or media mediocre habitat does not equal a high quality habitat, no matter how much there is Dave Kuntz, OSBT: There’s a must have been asleep during your Don D’Amico, COB: Presentation I Dave Kuntz, OSBT: heard you say that Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I, I will vouch for Dan he did say it Karen Hollweg, OSBT: But it could be words don’t Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Cross on Curt Brown, OSBT: Anything else on page eight, Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Um, I’d like to, to go through table three and some detail Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Hey, but anything above that and table to folks I guess we’ve talked about it some Curt Brown, OSBT: Well, Curt Brown, OSBT: I have a Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Table too but I my my solution for table two would be to really build out table three and eliminate table to Curt Brown, OSBT: I think you’re right. That could be a way to do it Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I, I would agree with that. I just, this is for dance edification to I just found that every cultural restoration was was somewhat anomalous in this overall context. So I was going to suggest actually rewarding that but we can put it in the other table Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Karen table three Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Instead of downstream flood benefits

Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I think we’re talking about specific criteria that both the board and the Council has articulated. I think we’re talking about acre feet of water overtopping us 36 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I think we’re talking about acre feet Dave Kuntz, OSBT: That Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Over top the highway and go into the West Valley Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And the other the other metrics that’s been used is the number of homes flooded in the West Valley Brandon Coleman, COB: We have used the metric of homes flooded we we have made this a yes no criteria for flood mitigation, do we protect or do we not protect and Brandon Coleman, COB: That’s how we looked at this one. So I don’t want, I guess I just want to be very careful on putting volumes and peak flows in there because this is a very flood effectiveness would be yes. No Brandon Coleman, COB: For me on is it variant one eliminates that overflow. Does the upstream do it. So I just want to Brandon Coleman, COB: I’m a little sensitive to that Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I understand what Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Where you’re coming from, from an engineering perspective Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I’m looking at it from the kind of information that I believe trustees need to know to make a database decision Caroline Miller, OSBT: I’m sorry to jump in here. Are we talking about just Brandon. Are you talking about just the downstream flood benefits when Karen gave those suggestions and you’re like, I’m a little sensitive or are you talking about the entirety of it being like, yes, know as you Brandon Coleman, COB: Know, just a downstream flood benefits. So just to give some context for table three. This is a very similar table to what we presented the Brandon Coleman, COB: Council at that February 25 study session. So we did try and give a flavor of what we would present the Council on knowing that you guys may not want all the details in here, but it sounds like you do, which is totally okay Brandon Coleman, COB: So that’s why we did this, but downstream flood benefit. You’re right, Karen. We have quantified it in homes and structures protected Brandon Coleman, COB: But in this case Brandon Coleman, COB: We made the options eliminate that West Valley overflow flooding and putting quantities, there may be misleading for flood mitigation Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Brandon, I found the title of that criteria to be very interesting Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Downstream flood benefits. I was thinking, well, you know, who’s benefiting from the flood Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The fact of the matter that the high quality grass metals might, but as far as the, the human population is concerned, use of the word flood benefits, I think, is a misnomer Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And so I don’t. I think that the title needs to be clear on what exactly you know we’re referring to it Curt Brown, OSBT: Downstream flood reduction benefits or flood control benefits Caroline Miller, OSBT: Or Brandon, can you maybe elaborate a little more and tell me if I heard you right when you said that it could be misleading. Can you tell me Caroline Miller, OSBT: Your feelings or not Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, we’re not quantifying flood mitigation benefit on reducing the peak flow where we quantifying it based on people. We help Brandon Coleman, COB: So that’s structures and properties and in the flood way flood zone right now. So if we do do that, I’m happy to do that for this one, it will be similar, it’ll be the same flood structures and people that’s helped with the variant one 100 so that’s how we’ve designed this Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Project. Okay, so the metric that you’re willing to use. There is the number of homes flooded in the West Valley are not flooded whichever way you Brandon Coleman, COB: Right. Yep. Yep Curt Brown, OSBT: And then Brandon saying in terms of the West Valley Curt Brown, OSBT: The variant one project and the upstream project are equivalent, because they both prevent overtopping of US 36 Curt Brown, OSBT: Maybe you could say just a bit about that third bullet. I mean, Curt Brown, OSBT: It probably is a significant reduction in flood damage is downstream ALONG SOUTH Boulder Creek Curt Brown, OSBT: That’s been sort of scoped out a long time ago and is it just because there’s a whole lot of floodplain down there and it doesn’t really damage residences

Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s a good question. I Brandon Coleman, COB: I can’t comment too much on the flooding down there at this point. So I’m focusing mainly on where the master plan has focused and it’s really this way valley area, um, Brandon Coleman, COB: Mainly the West Valley area through even downstream of here local drainage issues and things like that. So yeah, comment on that Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, my Curt Brown, OSBT: Other thoughts. April Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I want to add that I really think the notes column is important. And in addition to quantifying i’d like to retain Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Notes to the degree that that they’re accurate and Karen Hollweg, OSBT: represent reality Yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: I would agree Dave Kuntz, OSBT: No matter when I want to suggest is that you know should be downstream flood control or flood mitigation benefits Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I think we’re okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Joe You are about to say something Joe Taddeucci COB: Why a Joe Taddeucci COB: Just to reiterate what Brendan said when we had the deliberation with Council back in June that they had a specific ask that we take this table, add a column for the upstream and show it to them Joe Taddeucci COB: Haha, and so Joe Taddeucci COB: You know, our project team can talk about how we present that. But now if we go to them with something that looks substantially different Joe Taddeucci COB: That can be tricky. I just, I just want to put out there that we’re going to have to think about that as we go Curt Brown, OSBT: Forward Joe Taddeucci COB: If we may need to show it both ways or something Right Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, we’ll, we’ll have the data rich version and the dumbed down version Curt Brown, OSBT: But I understand your conundrum. They want to see what they saw before. And so I would say I agree. It’s got to be in there somewhere like that Joe Taddeucci COB: Yeah, I just wouldn’t want you to feel awake. We if you see that in the Council memo in the future that we Joe Taddeucci COB: Were dismissive of your concern or brand around it Curt Brown, OSBT: There’s Joe Taddeucci COB: A presentation. Question for Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Now in the in in the last five years, we’ve seen a lot of those kinds of tables and the public Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That I’ve heard from has always said you know they don’t give us any information. It’s just somebody’s judgment of its lesser it’s more and they want to see the data like we heard tonight so I Karen Hollweg, OSBT: For instance, on the next row that says total project cost we have numbers. Why don’t we just put numbers in there Joe Taddeucci COB: Sure, in our discussions with our communication staff, they’re always telling us you engineers and technical providing too much detail and no Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Understand, well if you if you were around last spring, when we were doing prairie dogs on irrigated AG lands. We had tons of data and it really drove our decision making. So, this this board is really driven by data Joe Taddeucci COB: I get it Caroline Miller, OSBT: Was to be done for the downstream because Brad and you said that you’re you like to do it through peak flows. Is that what you said Caroline Miller, OSBT: So yeah, we, I know it’s we’re doing this page by page. But if you went to page 67 that summary table that like what you looked at in order to put what you put here the notes Brandon Coleman, COB: No, so that quantifies reduction, but it’s still I fully anticipated that question, but the project we’ve presented tonight actually Brandon Coleman, COB: Provides the same flood benefit as the variant one 100 so it’s providing hundred year flood protection to those people in the West Valley overflow. So we do have those numbers in there, based on that new model run we’ve done Brandon Coleman, COB: But ultimately, for us, we, we want to provide hundred year flood protection for the master plan their own kind of minimal wasn’t sure Caroline Miller, OSBT: If you could say like refer to that page or refer to table a, a three, you know, 67 if that would like reduce the time of reworking it or if that would be easier or if that doesn’t make sense Brandon Coleman, COB: No, there’s no problem, including structures and people protected for these. And that’s how we’ve presented it in the past. And I think it’s appropriate Brandon Coleman, COB: So yeah, there will be no problem doing that. I just didn’t want to bring flows and things like that into it because we’re not considering allowing flow to continue going down the West Valley area Curt Brown, OSBT: Anything else on page eight, Curt Brown, OSBT: I’m moving on to page nine

Curt Brown, OSBT: I’ll just make one point. This is designed for many and construction Curt Brown, OSBT: Your third bullet under notes to be seems kind of weak because it’s saying Curt Brown, OSBT: For the upstream project, you know, we’d have to be putting structures on oh so land and that’s not Curt Brown, OSBT: Identified under the comp plan. Well, obviously, putting variant one on open Spaceland is also not recognized in the comp plan. So it seems like kind but week benefit. I’ll just let you think about that Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Um, I went back, I agree with you, Kurt. I went back and I reread the see you guiding principles and what I concluded after reading the guiding principles, was that project related use of the oh so area would require agreements described in number six and seven of the guiding principles Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And that middle sentence I just deleted all together Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The bullet above that I had problems with two Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Because Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It’s country. It’s not internally consistent with the rest of the report Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I think it’s talking about the upstream detention facility Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Is that correct, Curt Brown, OSBT: That’s correct. But it could be called out there Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Um, Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And and when it says the East abutment of the proposed detention facility would not connect a high ground as proposed. I’m not sure what that means Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I don’t think it’s true but Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I may not be understanding it Curt Brown, OSBT: I would it be different if it said Curt Brown, OSBT: It’s already says the proposed detention facility. So I’m not sure that as proposed adds anything and it can be a little confusing in terms of what the reference is Karen Hollweg, OSBT: If you take it literally what it says is that the East apartment of the proposed detention facility Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Would not connect to high ground as proposed Curt Brown, OSBT: And well, it’s flat Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Proposed it connects to both East and West of high ground. So what is it talking about Curt Brown, OSBT: I think it’s just the factual statement that these two butman is not at high ground and I would drop the two words as proposed, because it already says the proposed detention facility Curt Brown, OSBT: So the East abutment or the southern abutment of the Curt Brown, OSBT: RCC damn Curt Brown, OSBT: Which is what it’s talking about doesn’t connect to the bluffs. He used the Craig Karen Hollweg, OSBT: But isn’t that the point of the grade control structure Curt Brown, OSBT: Yes, that was their solution was to use the grade control structure Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That’s what’s being proposed, right Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, it doesn’t move the abutment i i think i think what Brandon is trying to say is Curt Brown, OSBT: This is non standard and Mike Curt Brown, OSBT: Yes, some cross eyed looks Brandon Coleman, COB: Correct. It’s a, it’s a floating I would consider it a floating abutment. So it is it has flow going both ways over top of it has a roadable soil surrounding it. It’s highly unusual for the SEO. So there’s probably going to be a few questions and technical analysis. We don’t think it’s Brandon Coleman, COB: Can’t be done. But it’s definitely not a standard Brandon Coleman, COB: Damn layout Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Do you lose anything if you delete the second sentence and and stick with the Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Third sentence Brandon Coleman, COB: I don’t. I mean, it doesn’t feel like it. We’re trying to give detail on why it’s unusual, I guess Brandon Coleman, COB: So I don’t know if that’s valuable to people or not. If people trust us enough to say that it’s unusual for the SEO, then I’m happy to leave it that way Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Is is Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Is what you mean with the second sentence is Karen Hollweg, OSBT: If the East abutment

Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Of the proposed detention facility is not connected to high ground Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Then Curt Brown, OSBT: And it’s not Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That that’s got the great control structure does Curt Brown, OSBT: Right, well, it’s just it’s a possible solution, but Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Doesn’t control structure connect it to high ground Curt Brown, OSBT: I’m gonna let Brandon answer Brandon Coleman, COB: Maybe Joe I may be too in the weeds on this one. So I’m gonna let Joe take the first step at it. So I don’t go to. Yeah, go ahead. Joe Joe Taddeucci COB: And I met my best at 1047 Yeah Joe Taddeucci COB: The horseshoe down is is what the state engineer is is considering the damn that’s what they’re looking at. And we talked a lot during the advisory group that Joe Taddeucci COB: Typical damn has Joe Taddeucci COB: Two apartments tying into high ground this Joe Taddeucci COB: One has an abutment tying in the high ground on the west Joe Taddeucci COB: And and it acts more like appear at the other end of the horseshoe the grade control structure is there to Joe Taddeucci COB: Make a hydraulic connection and and prevent the ground from eroding between the horseshoe damn and high ground to the east. So that so that the ground doesn’t erode and we end up with a new channel that makes the water in a flood go around our detention facility. So, there Joe Taddeucci COB: The grade control structure is there for flood function, the horseshoe. Damn. Is it for the tension and is subject Joe Taddeucci COB: To damn safety, so I i I’m kind of going Joe Taddeucci COB: On here but i think i think Kurt’s word non standard, we could recalibrate that language to Joe Taddeucci COB: To capture that and it might be more Joe Taddeucci COB: More clear and get out. What we really mean Curt Brown, OSBT: Anything else on page nine Dave Kuntz, OSBT: There’s another reference to life of the project Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Under groundwater mitigation Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Complexity Curt Brown, OSBT: Got it Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I’m wondering whether there’s Karen Hollweg, OSBT: A way you can quantify ground water conveyance system complexity by stating something about the length and the nature of the ground groundwater conveyance systems. Because my understanding is that they’re not all equal right Curt Brown, OSBT: And I think it will be helpful to clarify exactly what parts of the damn structure will require groundwork and Vance and Curt Brown, OSBT: And then you can ask yourself, Well, are they all equal is their impact on groundwater equal some people have pointed out that the RCC damn Curt Brown, OSBT: Even though it’s going to bedrock it’s going parallel to the flow of groundwater. So those are some things to think about as you try to come up with some analysis because as Karen said the groundwater impacts are one of the biggest concerns that we have Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Very beginning. Yeah Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The same with maintenance Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Seems to me, we need to understand what maintenance is needed for which structures Karen Hollweg, OSBT: There might be a sub table for structures Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Just to show the different structures and which ones need groundwater conveyance systems and we need maintenance Curt Brown, OSBT: Anything else on page nine Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Well, we’ve already talked a bit about Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The bottom three Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Rows Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I think there has to be some way to distinguish between

Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Well, we’ve talked about the difference between Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Fragmentation and Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Reconstruction of the gravel pit Karen Hollweg, OSBT: With variant one versus fragmentation Karen Hollweg, OSBT: With the upstream option there are two different Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Two different kinds of right period connectivity issues, I think Karen Hollweg, OSBT: In one case, you’re cutting off the groundwater flow Karen Hollweg, OSBT: In us at a flood wall where you have a head from the flood and in the other Karen Hollweg, OSBT: You’re talking about restoration Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Of the gravel pit Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It’s sort of apples and oranges in my mind Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I again on these on these environmental impact issues Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I would like to see OSM P land separated from see you land Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, I think that’s our general recommendation Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And and and something else came up this evening about downstream flood benefits and maybe there needs to be a row for downstream flood benefits Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I think you mentioned that earlier. Kirk Curt Brown, OSBT: Right, well I mean for the West Valley their equivalent. They both prevent flooding in the West Valley Curt Brown, OSBT: staff have noted here that in terms of South Boulder Creek, the upstream option provides additional flood benefits there, but I don’t have a sense of whether they’re significant in any way Curt Brown, OSBT: You know, I think it would be good to say a little bit more about Curt Brown, OSBT: Whether those are valuable reductions and flooding packs Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Anything else on page nine. Or I’m moving on Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, this brings us to the questions. And this was staffs thinking about Curt Brown, OSBT: The sorts of things sorts of questions that we could give responses to that would be useful to counsel Curt Brown, OSBT: And I think if we have suggestions about how to clarify these or if there’s Curt Brown, OSBT: A better question to ask that could be added Curt Brown, OSBT: I think Curt Brown, OSBT: Any of your thoughts there Curt Brown, OSBT: And again, if you have just editorial thoughts, and I think we probably all do Curt Brown, OSBT: Would again suggest we send those to Dan and for staff to just consider as their reworking this Curt Brown, OSBT: A one way that Dan put it is Curt Brown, OSBT: Will the report as we’re recommending it’s revised enable us to answer these questions. I think that’s what we’re hoping for Curt Brown, OSBT: This is the sort of feedback that Council expected when they gave us the time and money and directed staff to do the upstream option analysis Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Don’t know how to say this, but I let me just give it a shot because it’s one of the things that keeps cropping up in my mind Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah, and that is Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I keep thinking as we’ve discussed this evening in previously that there are other Karen Hollweg, OSBT: fixes for the Karen Hollweg, OSBT: What Kurt calls the little broom Karen Hollweg, OSBT: What do you call that Kurt so that everybody knows what we’re talking about

Curt Brown, OSBT: Well, it’s the levy the little levy running north of 36 on their graphics. Okay Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Um, and, and if there are other options for that, then, to me, the choice is between Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The upstream horseshoe dam and the of Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Grade control structure Karen Hollweg, OSBT: As one system versus the floodwall at 36 and the groundwater conveyance system Karen Hollweg, OSBT: As the other option Karen Hollweg, OSBT: So, Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That’s why I keep coming back to the to the levee at 36 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And whether there are ways to convey that water on north to the north side of the meadow Karen Hollweg, OSBT: As opposed to building another Libby Curt Brown, OSBT: Right Caroline Miller, OSBT: And I just want to make sure I have it right. So you’re saying U shaped up seeing the tension in the room degrade control great people structure versus blood wallet. Third, and six and ground modern convenience system. Mm hmm Curt Brown, OSBT: Although they’ll all need groundwater conveying Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Going. Yeah, knowing that there are other groundwater conveniences Curt Brown, OSBT: I think what you’re saying, Karen. If I understand. Is it that little levy because it goes right through state natural there’s kind of a deal KILLER AND IT UP ends the comparison of the two concepts Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah, and and when we talk about the the Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Capacity of vili channel and the Karen Hollweg, OSBT: where water can go, it seems to me there are other things to do with that amount of water, but Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I Karen Hollweg, OSBT: We can’t seem to Curt Brown, OSBT: Get there and maybe that Curt Brown, OSBT: One thing that says is, it’s it’s would really be valuable if Curt Brown, OSBT: A little more description of that Westerly the flow that’s going towards a table Mesa, it was 200 acre feet, as I recall Karen Hollweg, OSBT: To 72. But then, but then in the HR I it says 120 so I don’t know where the other hundred and 50 Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That right, whether where the other hundred and 50 acre feet go Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That amount of water is a mystery to me different numbers in different places Curt Brown, OSBT: And one number was the amount flowing west along us 36 that had escaped South motor Creek channel. The other was the amount of volume that made it over 36 into the West Valley. So that may be part of the reason they’re different, but I would ask Brandon to elucidate Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah, I think this is a Brandon Coleman, COB: A section cutting where we’re looking at the model. So I guess if there’s a desire to that overflow coming out of the South Boulder Creek Brandon Coleman, COB: You know we we still feel pretty strongly that love is the best way to address that Brandon Coleman, COB: Mom, but if there’s Brandon Coleman, COB: I mean, I’m not sure how to analyze that, or take a look at it. But I definitely think we can Brandon Coleman, COB: Try to do something. It can’t be a model or anything along those lines, but Curt Brown, OSBT: It’s really Brandon Coleman, COB: We got to utilize that main channel of sample the creek. So we’re getting a bunch of extra capacity in the main chat itself Boulder Creek. We got to try and utilize that as best we can Brandon Coleman, COB: It’s a difficult question. We haven’t gone down this road yet so Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Idea, where the extra hundred and 50 acre feet go Brandon Coleman, COB: Well, we do pass through a couple of pounds on the way there. We do have really channel which is conveying flows and then there’s some flow that’s actually going on top of us 36 so Brandon Coleman, COB: I think we talked about in the advisory group that our model can balance flows really well just depends on what points. You want to balance Brandon Coleman, COB: The flows between so we can pick those points necessarily as points to balance flow. So we have the amount of flow that Brandon Coleman, COB: Over top South Boulder Creek and then we have the amount that spills over us 36 and I can’t say for sure why they’re different right now. But I can say for sure the waters there somewhere

Brandon Coleman, COB: Yeah Brandon Coleman, COB: It just depends on what points. You want to look at those questions Curt Brown, OSBT: So, Brandon, so that we don’t give you a just vague suggestions Curt Brown, OSBT: Instead of having a levy Karen’s asked about conveyance there, you pointed out that if you have conduits under US 36 Curt Brown, OSBT: You’re not even sure that water would go there. You might have to start creating some sort of base in there which starts to defeat the purpose of the levy Curt Brown, OSBT: But maybe if you could just quantify the volume and the rates, it would make clear whether Curt Brown, OSBT: Any sort of conveyance structure would come even close to Curt Brown, OSBT: Moving that volume Curt Brown, OSBT: And if if if it’s really, you know, orders of magnitude too large for any sort of conduits Brandon Coleman, COB: And Brandon Coleman, COB: When we talk about conveyance we’re going to change the conversation a little bit and be really talking about peak flows at that point because conveyance is a different design criteria. Yep Brandon Coleman, COB: And that volumes really come into play when you’re looking at detention so Brandon Coleman, COB: Good point. Yeah, it’s a Brandon Coleman, COB: I really, I gotta chew on this one a little bit and see. But I think the option, we’ve proposed and I know you guys have looked at the cost Brandon Coleman, COB: Is going to be probably the cheapest way we can get this last bit of flow addressed Curt Brown, OSBT: Right Brandon Coleman, COB: all honesty, so we Yeah Caroline Miller, OSBT: I think it’s much easier for Karen or Kurt when you talk about comparing between these two. The U shaped Caroline Miller, OSBT: Structure and level 3016 groundwater. Are you doing that simply off of the goal of not having the water over top 36 or are you also thinking of the environmental aspect that makes one or the other more favorable to you and if you are Caroline Miller, OSBT: Are you talking about the the floodplain connectivity where upstream was parallel to stop Otter Creek as when it says 36 it’s literally the football is stopping there so it won’t go Caroline Miller, OSBT: Yeah, I’m trying to say Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, I think that’s the question Curt Brown, OSBT: We know that the flood wall and 36 goes pretty much right across groundwater flow Curt Brown, OSBT: I don’t have a good sense for exactly where some groundwater transport Curt Brown, OSBT: Mechanisms are going to be me, it will need to be built into the upstream and so if staff can define where those are Curt Brown, OSBT: Then I think we have a better sense of whether in some total Curt Brown, OSBT: You’re likely to have a bigger problem with groundwater for one or the other Curt Brown, OSBT: And I, you know, answering those questions in a very detailed way would require running the groundwater model. And I’m guessing you know we’re not going to be able to do that, but maybe some smart people can just try to break it up into into parts and make a judgment about it Caroline Miller, OSBT: But the groundwater would be what would determine the most non direct environmental impacts Curt Brown, OSBT: That’s probably the biggest part of indirect that we’ve talked about. Yes, it’s big. Yeah Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Anything else, folks Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, I think COB, Dan Burke: I have four pages of notes COB, Dan Burke: Oh, Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you, Dan COB, Dan Burke: We got to go get to work Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, no kidding i COB, Dan Burke: Want to thank Brandon and Joe for sticking with us tonight. Really appreciate yet. Yes COB, Dan Burke: Thanks for working on that presentation, Brandon. I know that was a lot of time and work for. So thank you for that COB, Dan Burke: will of course regroup and see what we could COB, Dan Burke: Modify into the memo and hopefully we’re able to address a lot of a lot of your suggestions, so Curt Brown, OSBT: Well, COB, Dan Burke: I don’t know me as your Brandon, do you have any other comments. But otherwise, I think we COB, Dan Burke: Are ready to get started on getting ready for December Joe Taddeucci COB: Just like to thank the Board for the continued dialogue on this project. It’s, it’s a tough one. And

Joe Taddeucci COB: I appreciate the Congress. Thank you Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Thank you, too And yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: I just want to say again that I think you guys went the extra mile Curt Brown, OSBT: We sort of gave you a sow’s ear and you did your best to convert it into a silk purse. So thanks for sort of taking our goals and our values and trying to figure out a way to to implement them. So thank you for all your time Caroline Miller, OSBT: Yeah, thank you Curt Brown, OSBT: And that goes for open space staff to. I know this is one more thing you didn’t need to do, but we really appreciate it COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, thanks to john Potter, and Don for COB, Dan Burke: The yeoman’s work on that so appreciate your time Here COB, Dan Burke: All right. Correct. So I just COB, Dan Burke: Have a couple of quick COB, Dan Burke: From the Department Before we okay COB, Dan Burke: A couple of your other items under the board COB, Dan Burke: I just want to let you all know that the process for wrapping up the name change at wonder in the lake is winding its way through some final steps COB, Dan Burke: Which is a it needs to be a memo is out to counsel and it will be a part of a call up item under December 1 agenda COB, Dan Burke: We don’t have a feel of whether or not the want to call it up. But that’s sort of the, one of the final steps is that they’ll get a memo on how the name change kind of came about what the board’s COB, Dan Burke: Recommendation is when the city manager that has okayed it. And this last step is that opportunity for counsel if they choose to call it up so COB, Dan Burke: Assuming that they don’t or if they do, it’s it’s it’s not an issue that December 1 will sort of be the last procedural step in that process. So just wanted to alert you to that COB, Dan Burke: I’m also just wanted to also let you know that as most of you all know COB, Dan Burke: from a public health standpoint, we’re moving into a what is called a starting at the end of the day on Friday and COB, Dan Burke: And we have taken a look at what what kind of impacts them after the department and because most all of our seasonal and temporary staff are wrapping up wrapping up the field season this month COB, Dan Burke: We’re feeling like the the need to sort of live staff interactions and do more remote work at home that we’re really not seeing a lot of impact from a staffing perspective moving into the level read, but we have a team that’s kind of working out any details on COB, Dan Burke: How we might impact and how we might might adjust. But if this was more like a June or July or be a bigger concern, but because our field season is just about over anyway COB, Dan Burke: New shifts back into the level red is we’re feeling. It’s not going to be too impactful for for operations so Those are the two verbal Curt Brown, OSBT: Again, let me just ask Curt Brown, OSBT: The shift. We’re going into an after admit, I haven’t studied it real carefully, you don’t see it changing how we communicate with our visitors at this point COB, Dan Burke: So are essential stuff. Ah, so if we had a lot of non essential work going out out under the department where we were having crews come together and all of that Curt Brown, OSBT: They’re COB, Dan Burke: Probably would be a needle closer look at COB, Dan Burke: You know, making sure everyone can do it in a safe manner, you know, cut our field season is wrapping up, we’re Curt Brown, OSBT: Come to some might COB, Dan Burke: Be down to our Rangers and our trail head staff COB, Dan Burke: Folks that are out there, you know, keeping the system Wayne COB, Dan Burke: We already have protocols in place, because we dealt with this, the COB, Dan Burke: Navy holidays can perform their work in a safe manner, keep themselves safe and keep our visitors safe so Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, good. But, but no change in what visitors to open space have to do or comply with as far as you read this COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, worried. We have our signs and communication staff who are in the middle of taking a look at the order and COB, Dan Burke: Okay, what COB, Dan Burke: Type of signage and messaging and communications, we may may have to do in addition to what’s already out there. So that’s something that this week we are taking a look at Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, thank you Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Dan, do you have any response to Brian Richardson’s earlier comments on tall grass fencing

COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, I guess. I don’t know if john Potter still on the stone. The line if he might have some comments about COB, Dan Burke: That project but yeah so john I think that a couple of comments was a the COB, Dan Burke: Lack of notification for the land owners and some changes in the fencing design and the fact will be cows out in that area and as their safety concerns, I think, was how I wrote it down John Potter, COB-OSMP: Yeah. Yeah, I hear the comments and John Potter, COB-OSMP: It’s news to me about that, that some, some folks might not get God noticed on the public hearings, or the public meetings or the many, many outreach opportunities that we put out to the community John Potter, COB-OSMP: So we’ll have to follow up on that will reach out to Mr Richardson and see if we can dresses concerns. I know I do believe the staff have been speaking with him and other John Potter, COB-OSMP: Neighbors in that in that Lehigh neighborhood. They’re trying to work out an approach that would be satisfactory that would meet the goals of open space, but be satisfactory with neighbors So we’ll continue to look into that and and address that concern Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Right, I heard him say Karen Hollweg, OSBT: He didn’t understand why there would be a fence at his property line. And I don’t know where else it would be if it weren’t on his property line COB, Dan Burke: Yeah John Potter, COB-OSMP: We’re trying to manage the entirety of open space. That’s all. But Curt Brown, OSBT: John. Do you feel like these people understand that this is for a month. Each year, roughly Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Well, but the fences is static. Right Curt Brown, OSBT: Right. But I, I didn’t. Well, that may be a separate issue, you may be right. I was thinking about the cows Yeah COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, we are. I think all of us who have taken field trips up there were, you know, we’re looking at about a six week season. JOHN I think is for cattle and areas and there’ll be rotating through through the areas as well Curt Brown, OSBT: That’s right COB, Dan Burke: You will not, you will not be a year round presence Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And they’ll be in fenced areas right COB, Dan Burke: Yeah COB, Dan Burke: To be were we already have a couple enclosures already and was part of our pilot program and we’re just building a few other enclosures, so we can rotate cattle throughout larger landscape Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, thank you, Dan will turn to matters board Curt Brown, OSBT: Hurt. Yes Karen Hollweg, OSBT: There was one item last night that Council approved that had to do with growing on Western peatlands. Can you see anything about that brief, very briefly, Dan Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It was on the consent agenda COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, I was unable to attend the Council meeting, but I think what the subject matter is is extending a moratorium on oil and gas COB, Dan Burke: Permits on on city lands which would also mean open space lands. And so right now there’s a moratorium that set to expire and COB, Dan Burke: The recommendation to counsel is is that that be extended and COB, Dan Burke: I don’t have written down the date of that extension would be too but I can follow up. I can put a brief paragraph out to you guys. Just to let you know about what what’s being proposed as far as the extension of the moratorium. Thanks Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah. Thank you, Karen, I missed that from last night Caroline Miller, OSBT: Yeah, I don’t remember seeing that in the meeting Karen Hollweg, OSBT: It was on the consent agenda. So it didn’t get a lot of discussion. It was just approved Caroline Miller, OSBT: I see Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Anything else before I go to matters from the board Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: So we have two items. One is Curt Brown, OSBT: It. Our December meeting, we will try to Curt Brown, OSBT: Approve, if you will, a letter from us to counsel each year. They asked us to do this and I have drafted this letter based on the input you guys gave but I may have missed some things and so Curt Brown, OSBT: I guess first Curt Brown, OSBT: Let me ask if anybody has an issue that they want to add to this before we get into

Curt Brown, OSBT: Any word smithing. Is there something that I missed or something that you thought of that you think really is valuable to describe either the good things or the bad things from this last year or critical issues that we’re going to be dealing with in the coming year And Curt Brown, OSBT: For the critical issues we usually not always but we usually try to focus on things that may need councils involvement or continuing support. So that’s, that’s why we ended up with these, but I’ll take suggestions on adding any additional issues Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Here, Dan. I’m wondering whether Council has any involvement in this asset management beehive stuff or if they even know what that is or if that’s strictly a staff issue COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, they would know it through the master plan and but it, it will be highly unlikely or whatever, end up as an agenda item for them. Um, so COB, Dan Burke: As far as items before them and 21 I wouldn’t see this landing landing on there. LAUGHS Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, I think you’re right but sort of but COB, Dan Burke: But having a paragraph in there would be one way to alert them that, hey, this is something that’s important. Awesome. And working on it Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, that was, that was my thinking Curt Brown, OSBT: And the other general things to add or delete Curt Brown, OSBT: If not, then I’m happy to get wording changes COB, Dan Burke: And just so the full COB, Dan Burke: Board is aware, they’re doing things a little bit slightly different for the retreat. As far as the statements so COB, Dan Burke: Kurt will have a few minutes to meet with the Council at their meeting, I believe it’s a in January COB, Dan Burke: To provide a two or three sentence statement on this letter and so it’ll be a verbal interaction and there may even be a follow up question or two from council members Curt Brown, OSBT: I think that’s the 12th of January, if I’m right COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, that’s right. And that’s a study session for counseled to prepare for their retreat be the 22nd and 23rd of January and as part of that worry 12 study session COB, Dan Burke: Board chairs will have a few minutes to adjust the Council Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, Dave Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So you’re probably remembering now near dear to my heart. The use of the word green natural assets Curt Brown, OSBT: I remembered your love that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: As well as Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Well, I’m going to offer a Dave Kuntz, OSBT: suggestion that rather than using that that we reference the Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Status of our natural lands and the plant and animal communities that live there Dave Kuntz, OSBT: So that Council actually had some notion of Dave Kuntz, OSBT: What we’re actually talking about Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And then the next word Curt Brown, OSBT: But why, but make it. Give me a second here. You said the status, our lands Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And naturally a status of our natural lands on the plant and animal communities Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yeah, the plan animal communities that the native plant and animal communities that live on them Curt Brown, OSBT: Got it Dave Kuntz, OSBT: And then the start of this the next sentence correct. I don’t think there’s such a word as trialing Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Although I’m always open to new words but Curt Brown, OSBT: I like converting nouns and verbs Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I’ve been trying are using or yeah I don’t know. I just don’t think there’s a word Curt Brown, OSBT: Oh, got it Caroline Miller, OSBT: It’s a word Karen Hollweg, OSBT: For me it’s a word Caroline Miller, OSBT: I googled it. It’s a word Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Really, I looked it up in the dictionary and I did not find that Karen Hollweg, OSBT: You have an old dictionary COB, Dan Burke: Never playing Scrabble with you Curt Brown, OSBT: Well, Curt Brown, OSBT: I can say casting instead of trialing Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yeah, that yeah Okay Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I mean, there may be some people that need to be trialing

Caroline Miller, OSBT: Present Participle Caroline Miller, OSBT: Double else Curt Brown, OSBT: Anything else here, folks Karen Hollweg, OSBT: As I was thinking of what the main take home that I would hope would be conveyed from the board to counsel Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And and having just finished reading the whole packet for this meeting I said to myself, you know, the assaults on the system’s natural resources, really stand out Karen Hollweg, OSBT: We have the New Zealand mud snails, we have the cove. It increased use and impacts on HCA A’s and on off trail use and on raptor raptor Ness and so forth Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And and we have wildfire mitigation and all the management costs associated with that and as well as, as you’ve noted Karen Hollweg, OSBT: The climate change impacts and it just seems to me that that the amount of of time and and thought and resources that are being spent on trying to sustain the natural systems on our open space lands is growing by leaps and bounds Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And somehow, I think the Council needs to know that Karen Hollweg, OSBT: What they hear about. I believe most is the recreational use of the open space lands and I think they need to hear more about the impacts on natural resources and the array of impacts What Curt Brown, OSBT: Is there a general header. I mean, you’re talking about Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Increasing stresses. I’m just talking about the pitch Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah, you’re gonna Karen Hollweg, OSBT: tour through Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That you’re going to get the Curt Brown, OSBT: Day Karen Hollweg, OSBT: That that the emphasis needs to be not on recreational use, and trails, it needs to be on the the assaults Karen Hollweg, OSBT: On the natural resources that increasing that are just increasing like costs and impacts Curt Brown, OSBT: So you’re going to write my statement for Council Curt Brown, OSBT: I do think we we call out some of the Curt Brown, OSBT: Recreation impacts from this last year, um, Curt Brown, OSBT: Is climate change too narrow. I mean, should we be or do you think we could work, a lot of these things you mentioned under climate change. I mean, forest fires that fits Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah but but the invasive that come with the off trail travel and with the New Zealand mud snail and Karen Hollweg, OSBT: You know, we’ve got a whole bunch of problems that are related to invasive and that the sum total of it is that that it impacts the natural ecosystems that we’ve always said we’re trying to preserve our open space lambs Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I don’t want to take a lot of time tonight. Okay Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I just said it’s an idea that I think needs to be highlighted for Council Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Because I think they’re I think they why I’m assuming that by and large, they’re pretty Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Aware of it Curt Brown, OSBT: What do you think we need to modify the letter Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I don’t know. I take the direction from the rest of the board on that Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Well, I tend to not tend, I agree Dave Kuntz, OSBT: With your suggestions, Karen Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Kurt, I don’t know, maybe we can give a little more thought and work a little more on it and send you some suggestions Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, well, what will agree on is a board right now is that we’re going to try to add that to this letter. And so when I come back in December Curt Brown, OSBT: For our final approval on this, it will look like this. But it’ll have an additional item that we can discuss that you guys are going to draft up Karen Hollweg, OSBT: When does this get sent to the COB, Dan Burke: Council. Yeah, Kurt, we may want to double check that because we moved our meeting date back a week Curt Brown, OSBT: And whether. Oh well COB, Dan Burke: Do ages before that now. So maybe the board will give you the editing authority to to do what you need to do COB, Dan Burke: Rather than bring them back because they might not have time to do that Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, thank you, Dan Curt Brown, OSBT: The other option is is to

Curt Brown, OSBT: Do what you started with Karen, which is have the letter, the way it is, but have a statement that’s Curt Brown, OSBT: More directed at the issues you’re talking about. I’m happy to do it either way Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I think both Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay, okay. So you guys are going to send me something, and I am going to exercise the power of the pen to finalize this Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Sounds good COB – Leah Case: Okay COB – Leah Case: If I’m reading it correctly. It’s not due until December 18 so we should work. But I can confirm that COB, Dan Burke: Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: You guys are going to send me something. Anyway, and I’ll keep in touch with Dan and we’ll find out if we can bring this back for last touch or whether we have to send it off Curt Brown, OSBT: Thanks, Leah Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. The other thing we’re doing is we’re noticing as a Curt Brown, OSBT: As an additional meeting of the Board of Trustees. The, the annual prairie dog management update since will more than two of us will be attending that even if it’s virtual will go ahead and will notice that COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, yeah, we’re really encouraged trustees to attend. Obviously the this annual update is also intended for you as well as the community to COB, Dan Burke: We have plans. So really encourage your attendance and COB, Dan Burke: It’s going to be a COB, Dan Burke: pretty robust report out from a number of our staff in regards to soil health and COB, Dan Burke: prairie dog working group recommendation implementation and and of course the COB, Dan Burke: The new guidance that we’ve been given. So COB, Dan Burke: We look forward to giving it and hopefully a number of you can Curt Brown, OSBT: And, Dan, you said that those presentations are going to be posted before the meeting. If you got a a rough guess, a week before the meeting COB, Dan Burke: Uh, yeah, I don’t know if John’s dropped off or not, but we are planning to load those up COB, Dan Burke: And yeah john you get a sense of timing John Potter, COB-OSMP: Yeah, we’re, we’re gonna shoot for two weeks before the Curt Brown, OSBT: Battles that timeframe. Yeah. Okay, thanks and john doesn’t even ask pajamas on yet. That’s really good Caroline Miller, OSBT: Am I missing it is, is there a date of this meeting COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, it’s Monday, December 14 Caroline Miller, OSBT: See what teaches Karen Hollweg, OSBT: at 6pm Dave Kuntz, OSBT: It’s on the agenda, Caroline Yeah COB, Dan Burke: It’s at the very bottom of the COB, Dan Burke: second page of the agenda, looking out in the out months it’s at the very bottom COB, Dan Burke: So we’ll give you a heads up when we have each of the presentations on the subject matters uploaded. The idea is not to COB, Dan Burke: You know, hopefully, community members that are interested in these various subject matters can go ahead and get a sense of what’s going to be presented before they come into the meeting so Curt Brown, OSBT: Great. That’s good Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay. Anything else from the board Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Kurt, I have a quick quick comment Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Yesterday, Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I think all of you probably know that I asked the staff. Some questions on the use of the concept of range of variation in assessing the status of trails and I just wanted to thank staff for their response and especially Adam Gaylord who sent a response to us this afternoon Dave Kuntz, OSBT: I was hoping that we may, if the board was interested that we might have a bit of a brief conversation with staff about the use of Dave Kuntz, OSBT: The range of variation in analyses and management, but Dave Kuntz, OSBT: Due to the late hour, I don’t think we should do it now. But if staff is interested, I think it would be very informative to have, you know, a brief conversation about that COB, Dan Burke: Okay, well, we’ll try to get that pencil, Dad. Maybe there’s a another trails related or restoration related topic that might go with that and and we’ll take a look over the next few months of and try to get that in there, Dave Dave Kuntz, OSBT: That’d be great. And thanks again. I really do appreciate the quick turnaround on the response Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, so COB, Dan Burke: Shout out to Hillary DC who assisted Adam and a few staff were involved in pulling that together. So yeah, big kudos to to them. Great

Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, yes, Karen Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And and their Colbert Report written report to us was excellent. And I just want you Dan to please forward to the Rangers, a big thank you. It looks to me like, given all the impacts Karen Hollweg, OSBT: With wildlife closures and and Karen Hollweg, OSBT: You know off trail use and all the other code related impacts the Rangers are are really doing good work, and I, I applaud it COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, thank you. I really, really appreciate hearing that and Mark Dayton still on the line and COB, Dan Burke: We’ll make sure that that news gets back to them 2020 it’s been quite a year COB, Dan Burke: The fire response and and you name it. We’re just counting down the weeks Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And hold Karen Hollweg, OSBT: On is better Karen Hollweg, OSBT: But because of that in the in the conclusion statement. It says Karen Hollweg, OSBT: There was not a drastic increase in resource damage and I would Karen Hollweg, OSBT: I, I, I don’t want to edit every word that comes out from staff, but I think it would be more honest to say at least that there was a moderate increase in resource damage from coven Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Because it’s clear to me from reading the memo that it’s it’s underplaying it to Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Mean, there were quantifiable increases in impacts based on the the memo. And the other thing I just quickly wanted to say Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Is that the New Zealand mud snail work is also, in my view, excellent. I was out walking on South Boulder Creek Trail today and they’ve changed the sign inch upgraded it because they had more time to do it Karen Hollweg, OSBT: But over by the creek where they’ve posted the new signs the message in red and big letters on the new signs says South Boulder Creek is open Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And for those locations by the creek. The old signs were far better today, there were five people with bikes, who had gone over to the creek, who had seen the signs, obviously, and we’re back at the creek again Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And I think if the old signage were used multiple times along the creek, it would send a better message than then the new signs do the new signs at the trailhead are perfect Karen Hollweg, OSBT: But along the creek itself, it needs to say this creek is closed, don’t go into Creek because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah COB, Dan Burke: AND KAREN What stretching what stretching the creek. We on today Karen Hollweg, OSBT: About a mile in from the trailhead that’s on Marshall road road COB, Dan Burke: Okay so dirt in that closure area. Okay, thank you Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Yeah, yeah, where there are some social trails that bikes, use a lot to get over to the creek and five different bikes were using the area today. All right. He’s out there COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, well, we’ll get together as a staff and look at that Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And. And the other thing I’m not sure exactly what you’re doing with the mailers but you say mailers to reach property owners adjacent to sell folder Creek Karen Hollweg, OSBT: If if resources are not so limited that this is impossible. Knowing what I know about the Marshall community and the community along Eldorado Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Valley or Eldorado springs drive. I would include in that mailer all the Eldorado Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Drive residence and everybody who lives around Marshall, including that new whatever it’s called wild, wild flower ranch or something Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Because I’m sure all those people have an interest in South Boulder Creek and given the sense of community in those two areas. I think it’s important to to convey the message community wide COB, Dan Burke: We’ll take a look at that. Thanks Curt Brown, OSBT: Thanks, Karen Karen Hollweg, OSBT: And very quickly, I attended the boulder Karen Hollweg, OSBT: County Commissioners meeting Karen Hollweg, OSBT: A week or two ago and they decided to table a decision on the rifle club because they found that the sound mitigation work of the applicant was not adequate, so Curt Brown, OSBT: Interesting. That’s not moving forward right now. Thank you

Curt Brown, OSBT: Anything else folks before we adjourn Curt Brown, OSBT: And, Dan, thank you for skinny and down the agenda, we would have been here till sunrise COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, I had, I had a premonition Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, the board expands to fill the space Karen Hollweg, OSBT: So quick question about voice insight tag, it seems to me that that’s what got jettisoned COB, Dan Burke: Oh, a whole bunch of. Well, anything that was on for late fall guy jettisoned COB, Dan Burke: So voices site is yeah, I’ve got pushed back COB, Dan Burke: And we’ll, we’ll take that on. In January, that means you’ll get some written information in the next board packet. Um, the other thing COB, Dan Burke: The agricultural land use assignments is January, which is the last month, we can have that. So that’s got to go on in January. That’s going to stick, no matter what COB, Dan Burke: The one thing that has got pushed back and talking with is Caroline and confirming with how is we have a little bit of a slightly different approach with the license and disposals it’s document COB, Dan Burke: That’s been pushed back will come forward in a presentation in February COB, Dan Burke: With a little bit more of a general conversation and we’ll follow that up with a with with the documents. So that’s probably the one that is COB, Dan Burke: That has the biggest change in status. The other, the other element that has been moving, which is really none of our control is COB, Dan Burke: The boards to the Eldorado visitor use master plan or following along, when that release is going to take place and shifting it. I think it’s been in every month of your COB, Dan Burke: Yes, the last four months it latest latest syndication is that, though COB, Dan Burke: If I was Batman, it would be February is winter, it would be on the board calendar. It could be as early as January COB, Dan Burke: But based on what we think we’re going to be seeing a release date on you might not be taking any BOARD COMMENTS until February for that so COB, Dan Burke: Okay, yeah. Sorry about the shifting sands, but we thought we thought that South Boulder Creek really needed that double meeting Curt Brown, OSBT: Yeah, because Karen Hollweg, OSBT: If, if we have comments on this broadband project COB, Dan Burke: Yeah, if you so that would be. You could either email it to me and I’ll get it to Bethany, but COB, Dan Burke: Bethany and myself would be probably the the best people to provide that to Karen Hollweg, OSBT: Thank you. Yeah Curt Brown, OSBT: Okay Curt Brown, OSBT: Anything else, folks Curt Brown, OSBT: Thank you all. This is a long meeting, but a critical one appreciate all your input. And thanks to the public to we appreciate your attendance Curt Brown, OSBT: All right. We’re adjourned Dave Kuntz, OSBT: You guys. Thanks. Thank you