Development Commission · Wednesday, October 2, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Apr 24, 2019 Development Commission · May 1, 2019 Development Commission · May 29, 2019 Development Commission · Jul 2, 2019

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board Email to the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2020 – Melvin Morgan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2020 – Kevin Price Development Commission members and City 2022 – Michael Brennan Council members from discussing the merit of 2022 – Richard Sowa specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Richard Sanford of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2023 – Brooke Shore however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2023 – Ben Rush Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2020 – Mark Rigos Membership 2020 – Nischitha Venkatesh The…

Minutes of August 15, 2019

packet pp.5–8

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Apr 24, 2019 Development Commission · May 1, 2019 Development Commission · May 29, 2019 Development Commission · Jul 2, 2019

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-15-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

Minutes of August 21, 2019

packet pp.9–14

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 08-21-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

Minutes of September 25, 2019

packet pp.15

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES c) 09-25-2019 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

Site Development Permit for Evergreen Ford Lincoln Dealership - Quasi-judicial, SDP19-00001; AAS19-00005; LLA19-00003 1, Aug. 21, 2019, and Sep. 25, 2019)

Katie Cote, Planning Consultant · packet pp.17–476

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Aug 21, 2019

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

Development Services 1775 – 12th Ave. NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3100

2954 segments .txt ↗

0:20 ↗ you

0:30 ↗ looks like we're on the art air so I'd

0:33 ↗ like to welcome everybody to the public

0:37 ↗ hearing for the site development permit

0:39 ↗ for Evergreen Ford Lincoln dealership

0:40 ↗ it's a continuation from September 25th

0:44 ↗ but it really is a continuation from May

0:47 ↗ 1st August 21st and September 25th so we

0:51 ↗ have some administrative things to do

0:52 ↗ first we have have to announce or say

0:56 ↗ who's unexcused we have to have to

0:59 ↗ mention a tenth people here ok we have

1:06 ↗ excuse members or members present Mike

1:09 ↗ Brennan is excused

1:11 ↗ Richard Sanford no Morgan Richard so

1:13 ↗ Kevin price Ben Rusch is not here but

1:16 ↗ he's excused

1:17 ↗ Brooke Shore and Arthur Schulte we have

1:20 ↗ two members that are not excused mark

1:23 ↗ Rios and the sheet of ANCA Tish

1:26 ↗ so in addition we have some minutes to

1:31 ↗ approve from meetings of August 15th

1:32 ↗ August 21st and September 25th so we

1:36 ↗ sent those minutes out earlier I'm going

1:38 ↗ to ask the commissioners if they have

1:40 ↗ any changes or Corrections made to those

1:41 ↗ minutes No hearing none then we will

1:47 ↗ just assume that those our minutes are

1:49 ↗ approved by unanimous consent and so I

1:52 ↗ thank you and so now Lucy I think it's

1:56 ↗ your turn

2:11 ↗ [Music]

2:13 ↗ so as a quasi-judicial public hearing I

2:18 ↗ want to take you through some questions

2:21 ↗ associated with that because the purpose

2:23 ↗ is that we are both fair and appear fair

2:27 ↗ and that necessitates both procedural

2:30 ↗ due process and substantive due process

2:32 ↗ procedural process includes the

2:35 ↗ processes that we use such as providing

2:39 ↗ notice and doing things on the record

2:41 ↗ substantive due process means that we

2:44 ↗ make decisions based on adopted

2:46 ↗ regulations so I would ask as many of

2:51 ↗ you are familiar if you would please

2:52 ↗ read through the questions and then I'll

2:54 ↗ ask you a question in return

3:20 ↗ has everyone finished reading the

3:22 ↗ questions how many of you answer no to

3:26 ↗ all the questions great and then the

3:31 ↗ second piece has to do with as I

3:33 ↗ mentioned that all our discussion of the

3:36 ↗ permit happens on the record ex parte

3:40 ↗ contacts would be email discussion etc

3:43 ↗ that has taken place off the record

3:46 ↗ outside of the chambers not being

3:48 ↗ recorded so I would ask if anyone has

3:51 ↗ had any ex parte communications no no

3:56 ↗ okay thank you

4:10 ↗ all right

4:18 ↗ okay good evening i'm katie Cody a

4:23 ↗ planning consultant with the City

4:26 ↗ Issaquah I can't hear me okay I'll try

4:28 ↗ again good evening i'm katie cody I'm a

4:31 ↗ planning consultant with the city of

4:32 ↗ Issaquah good to see you all again

4:35 ↗ tonight we are returning back to you

4:38 ↗ with some additional information we are

4:42 ↗ still talking about the Evergreen Ford

4:44 ↗ Lincoln project which is shown here this

4:48 ↗ is the vicinity it's located near the

4:51 ↗ lakeside industries quarry north of i90

4:56 ↗ the project site is zoned intensive

5:00 ↗ commercial and is surrounded by as I

5:03 ↗ mentioned a quarry operation and other

5:05 ↗ commercially zoned properties and I 90

5:10 ↗ the proposal is for a Ford and Lincoln

5:15 ↗ dealership combined dealership building

5:17 ↗ service facility parking and storage and

5:22 ↗ display for vehicles the building is

5:24 ↗ proposed to be three stories but maybe

5:27 ↗ up to four stories if an additional

5:29 ↗ level of structured parking is added the

5:33 ↗ site contains the segment of the North

5:36 ↗ Fork of Issaquah Creek and in addition

5:42 ↗ to being adjacent to a tributary to the

5:46 ↗ Creek that is known to have salmon and

5:50 ↗ other fish in it another building

5:53 ↗ proposed for the site down here is a

5:54 ↗ display pavilion that would be used to

5:58 ↗ provide frontage on to East Lake smouch

6:01 ↗ Parkway and as part of this proposal

6:05 ↗ there's an extensive storm water

6:08 ↗ detention facility buffer enhancements

6:11 ↗ and landscaping so in May we came to you

6:17 ↗ for the first time with this project we

6:19 ↗ discussed lots of different aspects of

6:23 ↗ the project you asked us for additional

6:26 ↗ information we returned and

6:28 ↗ to provide that additional information

6:31 ↗ to you we had worked with the applicant

6:36 ↗ the applicant made changes to

6:37 ↗ architecture site elements had done some

6:42 ↗ additional plant had planned some

6:44 ↗ additional plantings and the stream

6:45 ↗ buffer had worked on some sustainability

6:47 ↗ elements and had made progress on some

6:49 ↗ engineering topics having do with access

6:53 ↗ but at that meeting there was quite a

6:57 ↗ bit of public comment at and before the

6:59 ↗ meeting about this tributary located

7:02 ↗ south of the property on the wash dot

7:04 ↗ right-of-way there was a lot of public

7:07 ↗ comment about the nature of the waterway

7:11 ↗ whether it was a stream or a ditch that

7:13 ↗ it was known to have fish in it and at

7:16 ↗ that time you asked staff to go back and

7:21 ↗ gather additional information regarding

7:23 ↗ that waterway so we've done that we've

7:26 ↗ worked with the applicant to study the

7:29 ↗ waterway more we've come to the

7:34 ↗ conclusion that it's a ditch according

7:38 ↗ to the Issaquah municipal code

7:40 ↗ definitions of ditch and stream we'll

7:43 ↗ talk about that more in detail in a

7:45 ↗ little bit and because it's a ditch we

7:47 ↗ also recognize that because there are

7:50 ↗ fish there even though the critical

7:52 ↗ areas code doesn't apply to the ditch

7:54 ↗ doesn't require buffers there's still a

7:58 ↗ duty through SEPA to protect that fish

8:00 ↗ habitat and to make sure that the

8:03 ↗ project doesn't diminish that existing

8:06 ↗ fish habitat so really where we are now

8:09 ↗ is presenting information back to you on

8:13 ↗ the CEPA process that staff has gone

8:16 ↗ through the applicant has prepared

8:19 ↗ information about the water source which

8:22 ↗ helped us to answer the question of

8:24 ↗ stream or ditch and then the applicant

8:26 ↗ also prepared information about impacts

8:29 ↗ to the fish habitat in the ditch and

8:31 ↗ then we had our our city consultant peer

8:34 ↗ review that fish habitat memo in our

8:37 ↗ city staff has also peer reviewed the

8:39 ↗ water source memo

8:41 ↗ so we have since seep as a staff level

8:46 ↗ decision we've proposed a new SEPA

8:50 ↗ condition which I'll talk about at the

8:52 ↗ end of the presentations to address the

8:55 ↗ minor impacts that came from this the

8:59 ↗ fish habitat study and at this time

9:02 ↗ we're not proposing any changes to s DP

9:06 ↗ conditions that would have to do with

9:09 ↗ the code so this this explains sort of

9:13 ↗ the process that we went through at the

9:17 ↗ top of the questions is the question of

9:19 ↗ is it a ditch or stream we looked at the

9:23 ↗ definition of ditch and stream in the

9:25 ↗ code the the difference between a ditch

9:29 ↗ and stream boils down to the source of

9:31 ↗ water that that definition is unique to

9:35 ↗ Issaquah a lot of other jurisdictions

9:37 ↗ would define a stream differently but

9:40 ↗ this is how is the quad defines a stream

9:42 ↗ so the question was whether the water

9:44 ↗ source is natural or human generated

9:47 ↗ because it was found to be human

9:49 ↗ generated it it was defined as a ditch

9:53 ↗ and then again we went through this SEPA

9:57 ↗ process to come up with some mitigation

10:02 ↗ so I'm going to invite the applicant up

10:06 ↗ now and have them describe the two memos

10:09 ↗ that they have presented to you in their

10:11 ↗ process for doing that and then I'll

10:13 ↗ come back up and wrap up with the CEPA

10:16 ↗ discussion

10:23 ↗ I don't get you where you need to be try

10:32 ↗ to get this adjusted here I want to

10:35 ↗ thank everyone for coming out tonight

10:37 ↗ and for your time and efforts and energy

10:39 ↗ on this project I want to start by

10:41 ↗ giving a little bit of background yes

10:43 ↗ would you please introduce yourself oh

10:45 ↗ thank you very much

10:46 ↗ my name is Tyrell Bradley I'm the

10:47 ↗ project civil engineer and the

10:50 ↗ presentation that I'm going to be

10:52 ↗ talking about tonight is a group effort

10:55 ↗ by our wetland biologists and stream

10:59 ↗ biologists Mike Foster and Mark Garf our

11:03 ↗ Landscape Architect and so I will be

11:05 ↗ presenting this thank you I want to give

11:08 ↗ a little bit of background on the

11:10 ↗ information that was referenced in the

11:11 ↗ last design Commission meeting regarding

11:14 ↗ wash dots design reports and as you're

11:16 ↗ aware in 2016 and 2017 the State

11:19 ↗ Department of Transportation did a

11:21 ↗ stream relocation project of the North

11:23 ↗ Fork it'sso qua Creek and a tributary

11:26 ↗ that drained into the North Fork

11:27 ↗ Issaquah Creek d-o-t and that report

11:30 ↗ does does not reference this as a stream

11:33 ↗ of references as a tributary for several

11:36 ↗ reasons but the the focus of the study

11:40 ↗ was obviously increasing the upstream

11:43 ↗ habitat for the North Fork North Fork

11:45 ↗ Issaquah Creek as part of the public

11:50 ↗ process and the last design commission I

11:52 ↗ just wanted to refresh the remand back

11:55 ↗ to city staff and ultimately back to the

11:58 ↗ design team to go look at whether or not

12:00 ↗ this tributary is a ditch or a stream as

12:03 ↗ Katie mentioned I don't think we need to

12:07 ↗ look at this Katie just showed you so as

12:10 ↗ part of this project I feel like it's

12:13 ↗ good to kind of clarify what do T did

12:17 ↗ and what our project is proposing to do

12:19 ↗ just to sort of set the tone for the

12:21 ↗ conversation tonight so do t planted in

12:24 ↗ the lower area you can see the washed

12:25 ↗ out plantings to remain so on do T came

12:28 ↗ through here they did the proper

12:31 ↗ riparian replacement areas as they saw

12:34 ↗ fit for the

12:35 ↗ packs that were being done to this ditch

12:37 ↗ the mature vegetation is going to remain

12:40 ↗ on the will be screened north but it's

12:43 ↗ the east side of the washed out

12:44 ↗ plantings and then everything that's

12:46 ↗ shown in that little tan area is the

12:48 ↗ area that's on the Evergreen Ford

12:51 ↗ Lincoln property that is outside of the

12:54 ↗ washed out property so that's the area

12:55 ↗ that our our project can actually plant

12:58 ↗ within and that's the area that we're

12:59 ↗ going to be doing plantings to enhance

13:01 ↗ that riparian area so we were given two

13:07 ↗ tasks as Katie mentioned the first task

13:09 ↗ was to analyze the water source of this

13:13 ↗ ditch and determine whether or not it

13:14 ↗ was from man-made features like

13:16 ↗ stormwater runoff or whether it was

13:18 ↗ natural sources like spring fed runoff

13:20 ↗ based on that we are tasked with the

13:22 ↗ second item to determine whether our

13:25 ↗ project would directly or indirectly

13:27 ↗ impact they were pairing an area that

13:29 ↗ d-o-t planted when they did the stream

13:31 ↗ relocation project so I'm not going to

13:35 ↗ bore you with reading your municipal

13:38 ↗ code here but here is the the

13:40 ↗ definitions that we use to craft the

13:42 ↗ first letter and determine that it comes

13:44 ↗ down to the source of the waters as we

13:47 ↗ read through the publicly available

13:49 ↗ documents the d-o-t basis of design

13:52 ↗ report the Issaquah highlands report and

13:54 ↗ completing - site visits by Mike Foster

13:56 ↗ and myself we were able to determine

13:58 ↗ that there are two drainage basins that

14:00 ↗ contribute to this waters to this ditch

14:04 ↗ here is a very very high-level picture

14:07 ↗ and I'm gonna try not to get too much

14:08 ↗ into the weeds here but we have a

14:10 ↗ everything in the color on the left is

14:13 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands development now

14:15 ↗ in studying the d-o-t basis of design

14:18 ↗ report and confirming it with the

14:19 ↗ Issaquah Highlands stormwater study we

14:22 ↗ were able to determine the 75% of all

14:25 ↗ storm water that enters that ditch is

14:27 ↗ from the Issaquah Highlands development

14:29 ↗ the other twenty four and a half percent

14:32 ↗ is from the Cadman and lake side

14:35 ↗ stormwater ponds the washed out water

14:38 ↗ quality treatment pond and some

14:40 ↗ commercial areas just to the east of the

14:43 ↗ project site the project itself if we

14:47 ↗ in here I did a little excerpt and sort

14:51 ↗ of zoomed that in the project itself

14:52 ↗ contributes to less than 1/2 of 1% of

14:55 ↗ water that enters this ditch so a fairly

14:58 ↗ negligible impact on the total flow in

15:00 ↗ the ditch and these percentages are

15:02 ↗ based on the 100-year storm event so the

15:05 ↗ floodwater storm event if we zoom in and

15:09 ↗ look at excuse me the property itself I

15:12 ↗ have sort of a little bit hard to see

15:14 ↗ but I've have highlighted on the north

15:16 ↗ side of the screen here the main

15:20 ↗ contributor to this ditch is the

15:22 ↗ Issaquah highlands beehive great so

15:24 ↗ there's a bubble up structure along

15:26 ↗ 230th Street as you drive along you'll

15:28 ↗ notice it's a large bird cage as well a

15:31 ↗ lot of people reference it as that bird

15:33 ↗ cage is about 75% of the flow entering

15:36 ↗ this ditch the CAD man Saito I can

15:39 ↗ actually can I move the mouse there we

15:40 ↗ go so here's the bird cage right here

15:44 ↗ this outfall here takes all of the water

15:47 ↗ off of 230th pipes and discharges it to

15:50 ↗ the ditch we have a third discharge here

15:53 ↗ that comes from the Catman site and lake

15:55 ↗ side there's a fourth discharge I lost

15:58 ↗ my mouse there's a fourth discharge

16:00 ↗ point right here that comes from the two

16:01 ↗ adjacent commercial properties the last

16:04 ↗ point of discharge is from the

16:05 ↗ stormwater pond that is adjacent to the

16:08 ↗ highway from deity's stormwater wet pod

16:11 ↗ and then here is the entire ditch until

16:16 ↗ it goes underneath East Lake Sammamish

16:18 ↗ Parkway there was one area of concern

16:24 ↗ that was brought to our attention and it

16:25 ↗ is on the east side here as our project

16:30 ↗ sites down here and it was kind of to

16:33 ↗ the southeast and I blew up a section of

16:35 ↗ it there's two natural springs Camp

16:38 ↗ Creek and Clayton Creek and both of

16:40 ↗ these were brought to the attention of

16:41 ↗ the design team as we needed to make

16:43 ↗ sure that that didn't flow into the

16:45 ↗ project so Mike and I went out there and

16:48 ↗ conducted two site visits where we were

16:49 ↗ able to go track that these two creeks

16:52 ↗ are gathered into a wet pond they go

16:55 ↗ through an overflow to an infiltration

16:57 ↗ pond that has a beehive grate that

16:59 ↗ overflows down

17:00 ↗ a storm system that goes directly to the

17:03 ↗ East Fork of the Issaquah Creek so this

17:06 ↗ is not included in the North Fork

17:07 ↗ Issaquah Creek drainage basin so our

17:13 ↗ task one findings and conclusions are

17:15 ↗ that based on the review of all the

17:16 ↗ available information this Hyland's

17:18 ↗ report and our two site visits all of

17:21 ↗ the storm water entering this ditch is

17:23 ↗ 100% from manmade surface runoff so

17:28 ↗ based on the IMC definition this ditch

17:31 ↗ is a ditch and not a stream and the

17:34 ↗ ditch itself is a human built storm

17:35 ↗ water system I was referenced in the

17:37 ↗ d-o-t design report I would like to note

17:41 ↗ that there was a comment made about

17:43 ↗ groundwater and whether or not

17:44 ↗ groundwater would change the definition

17:47 ↗ of a ditch if groundwater leaked into

17:51 ↗ the ditch would that change it to a

17:52 ↗ stream and Greg Johnston with the

17:55 ↗ watershed company provided a response

17:57 ↗ back which sorry I'm introducing people

17:59 ↗ midstream here snuck that one in there

18:02 ↗ Greg Johnson is the watershed company

18:07 ↗ design support for the staff I don't

18:09 ↗ know if that's the right way to say that

18:11 ↗ he's the independent consultant for the

18:13 ↗ city of Issaquah so he said no it does

18:16 ↗ not change it and I would say that I I

18:20 ↗ investigated our geo engineer's report

18:22 ↗ that was prepared by our geotechnical

18:24 ↗ engineer and the boring closest to the

18:27 ↗ ditch has the water depth one foot below

18:29 ↗ at the bottom of the ditch and the study

18:31 ↗ that was recently completed in January

18:33 ↗ so it's not even a concern the water

18:38 ↗ tables below the ditch I will say so

18:41 ↗ moving on to task 2 we we were tasked

18:44 ↗ with trying to figure out okay so we

18:47 ↗ have a ditch is our project in any way

18:51 ↗ directly or indirectly impacting the

18:53 ↗ riparian areas that were planted by

18:55 ↗ d-o-t as part of this project we worked

18:59 ↗ with the city to determine that there

19:00 ↗ are four major areas of concern having

19:03 ↗ to do with riparian areas the first one

19:06 ↗ water quality functions pollutant

19:08 ↗ filtration and fine sediment control the

19:11 ↗ second being flood attenuation the

19:13 ↗ third shading function and the fourth

19:16 ↗ large woody debris recruitment I would

19:24 ↗ like to go through our stormwater system

19:26 ↗ before I go through these four points so

19:28 ↗ that you have an understanding of what

19:30 ↗ our on-site system is set up to do as

19:33 ↗ far as its discharged to the ditch so if

19:36 ↗ we start here on the left side of the

19:37 ↗ screen the project site storm water will

19:40 ↗ run off through a modular wetland system

19:43 ↗ which will provide our our treatment and

19:45 ↗ I would like to say that the Department

19:47 ↗ of Ecology has standards for water the

19:50 ↗ discharges either directly or indirectly

19:51 ↗ to a stream and we recognize that this

19:54 ↗ project does indirectly drain to a

19:56 ↗ stream through a ditch and therefore

19:58 ↗ enhanced water quality treatment is

20:00 ↗ required by Department of Ecology

20:02 ↗ standards we chose a modular wetland

20:05 ↗ system to provide this treatment the

20:07 ↗ modular wetland system went through a

20:09 ↗ five year general use level designation

20:11 ↗ tape program Department of Ecology to

20:14 ↗ receive this enhanced stormwater

20:15 ↗ treatment designation it had to go

20:17 ↗ through several years of actual infield

20:19 ↗ testing and they had to measure the

20:21 ↗ results at the end of this testing all

20:24 ↗ of the modular wetland systems results

20:26 ↗ exceed the department of ecology x'

20:28 ↗ minimum standards so that's step one in

20:30 ↗ our defenses of keeping this water clean

20:32 ↗ that leaves our site then is piped to a

20:34 ↗ detention system that's about 70,000

20:37 ↗ cubic feet where it'll allow any

20:39 ↗ additional fine sedimentation that makes

20:41 ↗ it into this system to settle out then

20:44 ↗ it will be pumped up to a flow spreader

20:46 ↗ that's 100 feet long go across the tan

20:50 ↗ area I don't know if you remember if I

20:51 ↗ go back one slide here it's going to go

20:53 ↗ across this tan area so here's our level

20:55 ↗ spreader it's going to go through this

20:56 ↗ tan colored area for about seven feet

21:00 ↗ and then an additional about 25 feet

21:03 ↗ oops went the wrong way

21:05 ↗ additional 24 feet until it reaches the

21:08 ↗ ordinary high water mark in the ditch so

21:11 ↗ sort of sets the tone for the on-site

21:13 ↗ stormwater and what we're doing to

21:14 ↗ handle it to meet all of Ecology's

21:16 ↗ minimum standards

21:21 ↗ the modular wetlands system takes care

21:24 ↗ of total suspended solids heavy metals

21:27 ↗ it deals with phosphorus treatment which

21:30 ↗ is not something that we're technically

21:31 ↗ required to meet but it meets the

21:33 ↗ phosphorus treatment as well under the

21:35 ↗ Department of Ecology minimum standards

21:36 ↗ and then we're going to on top of that

21:40 ↗ obviously reduce our outfall through

21:43 ↗ this 30-foot riparian area based on the

21:46 ↗ findings of our project this water

21:50 ↗ quality device is not going to in any

21:52 ↗ way impact the water quality in this

21:55 ↗ ditch in a negative way and if anything

21:58 ↗ we're actually going to be adding to it

21:59 ↗ the project is subject to the newest

22:02 ↗ Department of Ecology manual which has

22:04 ↗ the highest water quality standards to

22:06 ↗ date all the 99.5 percent of water

22:09 ↗ that's coming from the surrounding

22:10 ↗ properties is not meeting the water

22:12 ↗ quality standard that our project meets

22:13 ↗ so we are going to actually have a

22:16 ↗ positive impact on the water in this

22:18 ↗ ditch excuse me

22:23 ↗ find sediment control is obviously an

22:25 ↗ important thing in a fish habitat we

22:28 ↗ don't want too much we don't want too

22:29 ↗ little the modular wetland system and

22:32 ↗ the residence time and the detention

22:34 ↗ system is going to provide adequate time

22:36 ↗ for the fine sediment to settle out into

22:39 ↗ the bottom of this system this is also

22:41 ↗ time that I would like to point out that

22:43 ↗ the modular wetland system will have to

22:45 ↗ be maintained on a regular basis and

22:47 ↗ that the city has a stormwater

22:49 ↗ maintenance program has required by our

22:51 ↗ stormwater drainage report that will

22:53 ↗ require the owner to go out and maintain

22:55 ↗ this modular wetland system and the

22:57 ↗ detention system on a regular basis the

23:01 ↗ systems themselves have their own

23:04 ↗ regulations around them that ecology

23:06 ↗ sets that require an annual maintenance

23:09 ↗ of the pretreatment chamber the main

23:14 ↗ treatment chamber actually the media in

23:16 ↗ that chamber is good for indefinitely

23:18 ↗ it's it's ecology has given it a a

23:21 ↗ essentially it's good for as long as it

23:23 ↗ that the facility will function

23:29 ↗ attenuated flow rates the project meets

23:33 ↗ the pre-developed rate so if this site

23:36 ↗ was forested which we have to take into

23:38 ↗ account that this site has actually been

23:39 ↗ a gravel site for the you know the bulk

23:41 ↗ of the last many years this site was

23:43 ↗ used as the staging area for the

23:45 ↗ relocation project of the stream and was

23:48 ↗ left as gravel so we're actually

23:50 ↗ modeling this site as if it were

23:52 ↗ forested a forested flat site that's

23:54 ↗ what our quality is our project runoff

23:57 ↗ is meeting that level of quality so that

24:01 ↗ you know when a major rain event happens

24:04 ↗ we have to meet as if it was a treed

24:05 ↗ forest based on this there is you know

24:09 ↗ no impact to the stream actually it's a

24:11 ↗ benefit as right now it's a gravel lot

24:13 ↗ and we were going we're going to be now

24:15 ↗ capturing that water taking it through

24:17 ↗ the modular wetland system and then

24:18 ↗ detaining and releasing it at the pre

24:20 ↗ developed forested rate loops the

24:25 ↗ shading function is a very important

24:27 ↗ function for any riparian area the

24:31 ↗ southern exposure of it is one of the

24:33 ↗ most important those I'm gonna go ahead

24:34 ↗ and jump to the next slide and jump back

24:35 ↗ and forth between these two the wall

24:40 ↗ along the the trail here is the southern

24:43 ↗ side of this riparian area all the

24:46 ↗ vegetation in green here is all the

24:48 ↗ washed out riparian areas this photo was

24:50 ↗ taken two days ago and so this is the

24:53 ↗ current vegetation as close as we can

24:55 ↗ get this is the current vegetation the

24:57 ↗ d-o-t planted over here is this gravel

25:00 ↗ lot that I was talking about that now

25:01 ↗ has some wild field grass growing in it

25:03 ↗ the property line is approximately in

25:06 ↗ this area the dealership will be located

25:08 ↗ over here the riparian area that was

25:10 ↗ print planted by d-o-t will now be

25:12 ↗ impacted in any way shape or form by

25:14 ↗ this project as far as crossing over

25:16 ↗ that property line the south side of

25:21 ↗ this riparian area was planted by d-o-t

25:24 ↗ with large trees that will grow in well

25:27 ↗ that will grow into large trees if you

25:30 ↗ recall the slide back a few slides back

25:33 ↗ we mentioned that we're not touching in

25:35 ↗ either native vegetation so these tall

25:36 ↗ trees that you see and the upper right

25:38 ↗ hand corner of this

25:39 ↗ Green those trees are going to remain as

25:41 ↗ well there are no trees on the northern

25:44 ↗ side along this area there are some

25:47 ↗ cottonwoods off to the left side of the

25:49 ↗ screen that we will be removing as part

25:51 ↗ of this project but those are 59 to 60

25:53 ↗ feet on the north side of this ditch and

25:55 ↗ don't provide shade benefits for the

25:57 ↗ ditch based on this the fact that we are

26:02 ↗ not impacting the riparian area at all

26:04 ↗ with this project we determined that

26:07 ↗ we're not having a direct or indirect

26:09 ↗ impact on the shading function of the

26:11 ↗ existing riparian area the last thing I

26:16 ↗ want to talk about is the large woody

26:17 ↗ debris recruitment I'm going to go ahead

26:20 ↗ and jump ahead to the slide here that

26:21 ↗ d-o-t as part of their project went

26:23 ↗ through an analysis of placing large

26:27 ↗ woody debris within the ditch area as

26:30 ↗ part of their project the impact that

26:35 ↗ our project will have on the large woody

26:37 ↗ debris recruitment is none we're not

26:39 ↗ going to go in and remove any of these

26:41 ↗ large woody debris they will maintain in

26:44 ↗ place as they currently are so to wrap

26:48 ↗ this up the task two conclusions based

26:51 ↗ on all the best available sciences and

26:53 ↗ determining whether or not our project

26:55 ↗ had a direct or indirect impact to the

26:57 ↗ riparian area of this ditch we conclude

27:00 ↗ that this project does not have a

27:01 ↗ significant impact either indirectly or

27:03 ↗ directly to the riparian area and with

27:07 ↗ that I will pass it back to Katie Katie

27:12 ↗ before you start I just like to offer

27:13 ↗ folks there's there's three more chairs

27:16 ↗ here if you would like to take one and

27:18 ↗ drag it back you're more than welcome to

27:19 ↗ do that you don't have to stand I just

27:25 ↗ want to say a few quick words before we

27:29 ↗ move on so again I wanted to reiterate

27:31 ↗ that at the last meeting you all asked

27:35 ↗ for more information so this

27:37 ↗ presentation was meant to provide that

27:40 ↗ additional information and staff read

27:44 ↗ the memos we worked with our peer

27:46 ↗ reviewer who also read and peer-review

27:48 ↗ the memos we met with the rivers and

27:51 ↗ streams board at the

27:52 ↗ meeting last night and we've been

27:54 ↗ receiving and reviewing public comment

27:56 ↗ as well so the combination of the

28:00 ↗ applicants memos our peer reviewers our

28:02 ↗ staff peer review public comments and

28:05 ↗ the rivers and streams have all fed into

28:08 ↗ staffs SEPA decision so the this is the

28:12 ↗ condition it's very hard to read I

28:14 ↗ apologize but it's also in the mdns

28:17 ↗ document that I handed around if anyone

28:19 ↗ wishes to look at it I've got a few

28:22 ↗ copies but essentially we have

28:25 ↗ recognized that the ditch has fish

28:30 ↗ habitat that needs to be we need to make

28:33 ↗ sure there are no significant adverse

28:35 ↗ impacts to that habitat that the habitat

28:38 ↗ is not diminished and so we are

28:42 ↗ requiring the planting area on the

28:45 ↗ property adjacent to that wash dot

28:48 ↗ planted area to also be densely planted

28:51 ↗ with native trees and shrubs we've

28:54 ↗ included a standard for density of tree

28:59 ↗ plantings and made a couple notes about

29:04 ↗ specific a specific type of tree that

29:06 ↗ hadn't been shown on the plans is a tree

29:09 ↗ the city believed it was more of a shrub

29:11 ↗ so we will work with the applicant to

29:14 ↗ decide on the specific species of trees

29:17 ↗ that are appropriate they're also in

29:21 ↗ order to prevent people animals and cars

29:25 ↗ from entering into these vegetated areas

29:28 ↗ both the on-site and the off-site we

29:30 ↗ will require wooden split rail fence to

29:34 ↗ be installed wheel stops or some other

29:37 ↗ mechanism to prevent cars from hanging

29:39 ↗ over into that vegetated area and then

29:44 ↗ we're also encouraging the applicant if

29:47 ↗ they're able to to add additional

29:49 ↗ plantings in the wash area in a previous

29:52 ↗ hearing we mentioned that the applicant

29:54 ↗ we were requiring the applicant to plant

29:56 ↗ in wash dot and that was an error on

29:59 ↗ staff's part we can't we can't require

30:01 ↗ them to plant on somebody else's

30:02 ↗ property but we certainly would

30:04 ↗ encourage that if they do have a

30:05 ↗ relationship

30:06 ↗ whosh dot - to add additional native

30:09 ↗ trees and shrubs and ground cover there

30:11 ↗ and then finally we wanted to recognize

30:14 ↗ the potential for impacts from

30:16 ↗ construction related activities so in

30:19 ↗ addition to the city's temporary erosion

30:23 ↗ and sediment control standards that

30:26 ↗ would be required for any site we're

30:28 ↗ also going to require a double silt

30:30 ↗ fence to be placed along both the North

30:33 ↗ Fork of Issaquah Creek and this ditch to

30:36 ↗ prevent any sort of sediment from

30:38 ↗ getting into the waterway and with that

30:42 ↗ I think I will close my presentation and

30:46 ↗ open up for questions or we can move to

30:50 ↗ public comment well I think what we will

30:54 ↗ do at this point is allow for public

30:56 ↗ input commissioners do you have specific

31:03 ↗ questions right now or do you want to

31:05 ↗ wait till the public has chance to

31:07 ↗ comment thank you okay so I think the

31:12 ↗ formal process is for me to open the

31:14 ↗ meeting to public comment what I would

31:16 ↗ encourage you to do although you do not

31:18 ↗ have to is if if you would choose sign

31:20 ↗ in before you talk if you'd like to

31:22 ↗ speak I don't know how many people are

31:25 ↗ going to choose to do that would just

31:26 ↗ suggest maybe no more than five minutes

31:29 ↗ just so we don't stay here until 2:00 or

31:31 ↗ 3:00 in the morning but we're willing to

31:33 ↗ do that now we really do want to listen

31:35 ↗ to the public input so at this point

31:37 ↗ we'll open the meeting for public

31:40 ↗ comment

31:44 ↗ I don't wealthy I don't think anybody

31:50 ↗ signed up I'm gonna try to get a map up

31:59 ↗ here could ask you to introduce yourself

32:01 ↗ and tell us your address and and go for

32:12 ↗ so because I'm bored out of my mind with

32:15 ↗ this topic I'm gonna tell it like a very

32:18 ↗ strange Halloween oriented bedtime story

32:21 ↗ and it's actually a tale of two streams

32:25 ↗ and there was a big stream and there was

32:28 ↗ a little stream and the little stream

32:30 ↗ fed into the big stream and the little

32:33 ↗ stream feeding into a big stream is

32:36 ↗ called a tributary they're both streams

32:39 ↗ it's just one feeds into the other and

32:44 ↗ interestingly these two streams were of

32:48 ↗ great importance to a bunch of big

32:51 ↗ agencies the little stream got a million

32:54 ↗ dollar improvement the total improvement

32:56 ↗ between both 7.2 million dollars because

33:00 ↗ it was so important to create a

33:03 ↗ wonderful fish habitat so we could have

33:06 ↗ fish forever right fish now

33:11 ↗ interestingly in this scenario the city

33:16 ↗ is calling the little stream a ditch and

33:20 ↗ you go how is it possible that these two

33:23 ↗ streams with basically the same water

33:26 ↗ and you know meeting together at the end

33:30 ↗ could one could be a ditch and one could

33:34 ↗ be a stream and a ditch has no

33:36 ↗ protections and a stream has a hundred

33:40 ↗ feet of protection so the city in its

33:47 ↗ interesting way said that no natural

33:52 ↗ water source makes it a ditch because

33:56 ↗ it's man-made and so they show slides

33:59 ↗ and they say well you have got

34:02 ↗ stormwater runoff and me being the

34:05 ↗ curious sort and of course everybody

34:08 ↗ wants to know what stormwater means well

34:11 ↗ storm water means runoff during and

34:13 ↗ following precipitation and snowmelt

34:15 ↗ events including surface runoff drainage

34:18 ↗ or inner flow well that means nothing to

34:21 ↗ me

34:21 ↗ so I said well okay I got the word run

34:24 ↗ there runoff was a primary word what is

34:26 ↗ runoff interesting

34:28 ↗ we runoff means water originating from

34:30 ↗ rainfall natural another precipitation

34:34 ↗ that is found in drainage facilities

34:36 ↗ drainage facilities I think those are

34:38 ↗ man-made but rivers streams spring seeps

34:41 ↗ ponds lakes wetlands as well as shallow

34:44 ↗ groundwater and and runoff sources on

34:49 ↗ the ground so interestingly in our

34:53 ↗ definition where stormwater runoff boy

34:58 ↗ those are natural sources in our

35:00 ↗ stormwater runoff I'm not really sure

35:03 ↗ how we are saying our stormwater is all

35:06 ↗ man-made sources not all of it is but

35:11 ↗ I'm losing this battle so I dig in I dig

35:15 ↗ in again and I say to myself okay well

35:20 ↗ let's see if I can find a natural source

35:24 ↗ that's going to be the smoking gun right

35:26 ↗ and so I talk to wash dot and I get all

35:30 ↗ their reports for their whole series of

35:32 ↗ borings to see where groundwater is and

35:34 ↗ then I map

35:37 ↗ I don't map I look at their maps of how

35:41 ↗ they built the stream and their borings

35:44 ↗ and their maps show one a great

35:46 ↗ variation in groundwater levels right

35:49 ↗ next to the tributary of seven feet in a

35:52 ↗ given year that's a big difference on

35:54 ↗ the other side it's 14 feet so it's huge

35:56 ↗ it's very connected and so the bottom of

36:00 ↗ this stream and I learned a bunch of new

36:02 ↗ words when I was doing this is in the

36:04 ↗ ground water from all of the wash dot

36:06 ↗ information and they studied the ground

36:08 ↗ water for I think two years so they're

36:11 ↗ very clear and you should have gotten

36:14 ↗ that information because I did provide

36:16 ↗ it to the city to provide to you so I

36:20 ↗ say this stream this tributary and the

36:24 ↗ big one to our groundwater feds so they

36:26 ↗ should be a stream but no the city does

36:30 ↗ it's still a ditch even though now we

36:33 ↗ have two different ways of saying that

36:35 ↗ natural water is going

36:36 ↗ to that tributary which remember is a

36:39 ↗ stream and so then today interestingly

36:42 ↗ at 3 o'clock in the morning I was on the

36:45 ↗ Department of Ecology website and I

36:47 ↗ found that we have a stream that flows

36:52 ↗ right into the tributary area and it is

36:56 ↗ identified as an intermittent stream by

36:58 ↗ the Department of Ecology and mapped as

37:01 ↗ such and I also sent that to you today

37:03 ↗ so you should have that so this is

37:05 ↗ source number three of natural water

37:09 ↗ going into the tributary but tonight

37:14 ↗ disturbingly it's still a ditch because

37:18 ↗ the city wants it to be a ditch an

37:21 ↗ evergreen Ford wants it to be a ditch

37:23 ↗ and I gotta say after the millions of

37:27 ↗ dollars investments in public money for

37:29 ↗ the fish I have to be here to speak for

37:32 ↗ the fish because the city is not and the

37:35 ↗ developer is not so then I'm moving just

37:39 ↗ very quickly on mature vegetation that

37:42 ↗ mature vegetation is invasive blackberry

37:45 ↗ and nightshade so deadly nightshade very

37:51 ↗ poisonous don't eat the berries you'll

37:53 ↗ die it's an infestation that is what the

37:57 ↗ mature vegetation is that is preserving

37:59 ↗ the stream I also sent you a long

38:02 ↗ diatribe on what I consider mitigation

38:06 ↗ to be in this situation and I will leave

38:09 ↗ you with this in our critical area code

38:12 ↗ a cell monitoring stream needs a hundred

38:16 ↗ foot buffer those same fish just

38:21 ↗ adjacent from each other they are saying

38:23 ↗ will not be impacted at all with no

38:27 ↗ buffer according to their best available

38:29 ↗ science it can't be both ways the fish

38:32 ↗ don't know what stream they're in what

38:34 ↗ is best available science our code of a

38:36 ↗ hundred foot buffer necessary to protect

38:39 ↗ these fish or what they're saying they

38:41 ↗ don't barely have to do anything

38:45 ↗ something is freaky and

38:48 ↗ that's my Halloween closure thank you

39:00 ↗ other members of the public wish to

39:03 ↗ speak to help yourself please introduce

39:04 ↗ yourself before he speak

39:15 ↗ hi good evening and thank you all for

39:17 ↗ serving my name is Steve Pereira I live

39:20 ↗ at 170 Northeast Starwood Street here in

39:22 ↗ Issaquah only really relevant in the

39:25 ↗ path that I am on the North Fork of the

39:26 ↗ aguar Creek so I wanted to testify to

39:30 ↗ that fact for several points the first

39:32 ↗ is I know as we kind of look at

39:35 ↗ downstream flooding that has happened

39:37 ↗ here in Issaquah periodically I'm kind

39:40 ↗ of concerned that downstream this ditch

39:42 ↗ tributary area does have water runoff

39:44 ↗ capacity that would be removed by adding

39:48 ↗ this parking area to absorb water that

39:51 ↗ should be one of the considerations the

39:54 ↗ second though is that I can definitely

39:57 ↗ test that there are fish in the water

39:58 ↗ way especially here in Issaquah where we

40:00 ↗ talk about loving our salmon and having

40:03 ↗ seven days and there's benefits that we

40:06 ↗ treasure both economically economically

40:08 ↗ we get from salmon and that we

40:10 ↗ environmentally its stewardship wise

40:11 ↗ treasure they want to keep in mind I

40:16 ↗ kind of talked about this in a letter

40:18 ↗ that I sent that you should have all

40:19 ↗ received don't try to repeat my

40:22 ↗ testimony or testimony but I wanted to

40:24 ↗ highlight a couple of facts the first

40:26 ↗ was that aspirational aspect of who we

40:29 ↗ are as Issaquah the second was when I

40:32 ↗ read through the consultants report

40:35 ↗ there was a lot of language in there

40:37 ↗ that it seemed to me that kind of not

40:40 ↗ very specific about as far as what the

40:42 ↗ benefits were of having a hundred foot

40:45 ↗ buffer clean water there were a lot of

40:49 ↗ ways that maybe this new improved system

40:53 ↗ doesn't meet or doesn't standardize as

40:56 ↗ far as having those benefits that I

40:57 ↗ think need to be considered there was a

40:59 ↗ percentage chart in there that talked

41:01 ↗ about the size of the buffer and the

41:05 ↗ percentage of benefit that was gained by

41:07 ↗ having the buffer there's still some

41:09 ↗ benefit in there percentage-wise for

41:11 ↗ having salmon they also talked about

41:14 ↗ that there was a that the water that

41:18 ↗ this proposed stream doesn't use for

41:21 ↗ spawning but only for habitat and for

41:23 ↗ feeding and for resting still

41:27 ↗ necessary parts of this stream for the

41:29 ↗ salmon to return each year to spawn

41:32 ↗ again further up the stream where they

41:33 ↗ were hatched and raised so that's we're

41:36 ↗ leaving off some points that need to be

41:37 ↗ considered the third was I guess I would

41:44 ↗ talk about a logic class I took where it

41:46 ↗ talked about difference between

41:48 ↗ necessary and sufficient conditions I

41:50 ↗ looked through the city code and it

41:52 ↗ seemed clear to me that we did city code

41:54 ↗ talked about 100 feet buffer is the

41:57 ↗ legal requirement there's enough in the

41:59 ↗ city code that talks about needing to

42:02 ↗ preserve that had a foot buffer with

42:04 ↗ maybe a 25% reduction possible it seems

42:09 ↗ like there's sufficient reason for all

42:11 ↗ of you to say in a fairly strong way

42:14 ↗ that part of who we are as is crime

42:17 ↗ wanting to be this different a unique

42:19 ↗ City is preserving those unique places

42:21 ↗ nuke ways of gonna go there that there's

42:26 ↗ already been testimony that says 7

42:28 ↗ million dollars have been invested in

42:29 ↗ trying to preserve the salmon waterways

42:30 ↗ we have a way of a narrow opportunity to

42:35 ↗ preserve that I guess I just don't

42:41 ↗ fathom or understand why this process

42:44 ↗ has gotten this far where it takes that

42:47 ↗ harder of a look to say this is who we

42:50 ↗ are want to be to try to use our code

42:52 ↗ and our public dollars to preserve

42:54 ↗ something that we treasure and I'm

42:57 ↗ looking to all of you to make that

42:59 ↗ strong stand and ask that you please

43:02 ↗ consider that as your basis for making a

43:06 ↗ strong decision it's in opposition of

43:09 ↗ the approving of this construction thank

43:14 ↗ you

43:23 ↗ my name is Mary Lynch I reside at 269 o

43:27 ↗ North West Oak Crest Drive I just want

43:29 ↗ to thank you

43:30 ↗ commissioners for you know your meeting

43:34 ↗ last month when it was and I need it

43:37 ↗ back to the rivers of stream board for a

43:40 ↗ review my disappointment though is with

43:43 ↗ city staff and in looking back through

43:45 ↗ the rivers and stream Board minutes and

43:47 ↗ yes this did go now three times before

43:49 ↗ the rivers and stream boards but nowhere

43:52 ↗ in the minutes do I really see that

43:54 ↗ staff clearly identified to the rivers

43:57 ↗ and stream board what decision they had

43:59 ↗ already made in calling this a ditch if

44:01 ↗ you look at the one report that was sent

44:05 ↗ to the rivers and stream board it

44:07 ↗ mentions in one of them a tributary it

44:10 ↗ doesn't say at a ditch they're all

44:11 ↗ they're talking about in that meeting

44:13 ↗ was the fact that they wanted to reduce

44:16 ↗ the hundred foot buffer on the north

44:17 ↗ side or in the North Creek a portion

44:20 ↗ down from a hundred and even there if

44:22 ↗ you read through the notes in the

44:23 ↗ comments from the board they weren't in

44:26 ↗ agreement with that even though in the

44:28 ↗ minutes they had to go back and correct

44:29 ↗ their minutes because city staff said

44:31 ↗ that they did they did not if you read

44:33 ↗ the minutes the corrected minutes nor

44:35 ↗ was this it was only with public comment

44:39 ↗ just prior to your last meeting that all

44:42 ↗ this information that was done and

44:44 ↗ research it was done for the watch

44:48 ↗ thought project was that brought to

44:49 ↗ light to you and then last night to the

44:53 ↗ rivers and stream board this was you

44:55 ↗ know available information and data that

44:58 ↗ city staff did not use in making some of

45:01 ↗ the early on decisions that they should

45:03 ↗ have whatever green Ford and I think the

45:05 ↗ process is flawed we need to make sure

45:08 ↗ that development staff is representing

45:10 ↗ everybody including the fish and yes we

45:14 ↗ need to have you know it's nice to have

45:17 ↗ business here but if we're going to

45:19 ↗ maintain the quality of life and the

45:23 ↗ quality of the valley flow and the water

45:24 ↗ we need to do it right we need to

45:27 ↗ identify these issues early on in the

45:29 ↗ process and I don't think it's right

45:32 ↗ that we wait to the very last minute

45:34 ↗ and show this studies and information

45:36 ↗ that we had and this decision for the

45:38 ↗ development staff is basically based on

45:40 ↗ calling to the ditch is in 1996 versus

45:44 ↗ using the current data of this is the

45:46 ↗ stream not a ditch

46:06 ↗ good evening my name is Dave Gretchen

46:09 ↗ I'm a longtime resident of both Issaquah

46:11 ↗ and Sammamish for 34 years I'm also a

46:13 ↗ retired finance leader from the Boeing

46:15 ↗ Company same 10 year 34 years in a

46:18 ↗ strong advocate for local business or

46:20 ↗ supporting the local business especially

46:22 ↗ those that are environmentally friendly

46:24 ↗ I've had the opportunity over the last

46:26 ↗ two weeks to review the site over the

46:29 ↗ last two nights have had the opportunity

46:31 ↗ to sit through a knowledgeable

46:33 ↗ presentation and my conclusion of

46:36 ↗ looking at the data is the ever

46:37 ↗ Evergreen Ford Lincoln project and no

46:41 ↗ way will harm the fish or species in

46:44 ↗ that area and they base it on the

46:46 ↗ following information it's my

46:47 ↗ understanding on the south side of the

46:49 ↗ property that there's a ditch and that's

46:51 ↗ not necessarily a spawning ground for

46:53 ↗ the fish but a place for them to feed

46:55 ↗ and rest it's also my understanding the

46:58 ↗ source water the ditch is a collection

46:59 ↗ of stormwater from the highlands as well

47:02 ↗ as neighboring businesses and it's also

47:05 ↗ my understanding that the Evergreen

47:06 ↗ State proposal is that their water and

47:09 ↗ stormwater that would come off of their

47:11 ↗ property would be treated to a level of

47:13 ↗ purity equal to or greater than the

47:15 ↗ existing ground water in my book this is

47:19 ↗ a win this is a win for the community

47:21 ↗ it's a win for the environment and it's

47:24 ↗ certainly a win for the hundreds of

47:26 ↗ families that are employed by Evergreen

47:28 ↗ Ford Lincoln thank you

47:49 ↗ mm David Kepler I'm representing it's

47:52 ↗ coops trails club tonight why is this a

47:55 ↗ ditch well it's a ditch because Cadman

47:57 ↗ just didn't and others in Lakeside have

48:01 ↗ to retain their drainage and clarify

48:04 ↗ their water and you just can't go

48:08 ↗ unrestrained and it's an artificial and

48:11 ↗ not being artificial created facilities

48:14 ↗ to clean up the water and measure its

48:17 ↗ release same with Issaquah Highlands if

48:20 ↗ we could just let the Issaquah Highlands

48:21 ↗ bleed all their water over the hill have

48:23 ↗ it natural then this would be a creek we

48:29 ↗ need some fortunately we do have SEPA to

48:33 ↗ back up when our code is deficient I'm

48:36 ↗ not sure what we heard tonight was

48:38 ↗ adequate I don't believe it's adequate

48:40 ↗ in the CEPA revision when this is all

48:45 ↗ through or I would hope you will go over

48:49 ↗ to the Parkway and look at this 7

48:53 ↗ million dollar project and look at the

48:56 ↗ North Fork and look at this tributary

48:58 ↗ and see the work that's been going into

49:00 ↗ it how much is public money has been

49:03 ↗ invested in two creeks also we're going

49:07 ↗ to be looking at chapter 18 the city

49:09 ↗ which deals with critical areas and a

49:12 ↗ lot of the land use codes I hope you

49:15 ↗ will be thoughtful in your looking at

49:18 ↗ that and even though you're not the

49:20 ↗ Planning Policy Commission I hope you

49:22 ↗ will do work on that process as it goes

49:25 ↗ through to make sure you have the codes

49:28 ↗ that you need to appropriately evaluate

49:31 ↗ projects thank you

49:43 ↗ hi my name is Taylor Miller I'm a

49:47 ↗ business owner

49:47 ↗ and also a long time resident of the

49:49 ↗ Issaquah area I'm here tonight to speak

49:51 ↗ in favor of allowing evergreen Ford

49:54 ↗ Lincoln to the ability to grow their

49:56 ↗ business here in Issaquah outlined in

49:58 ↗ their presentation I have gone telemetry

50:01 ↗ school to high school here in this

50:04 ↗ managed district watt school district

50:05 ↗ I've grown up playing sports here in

50:07 ↗ Issaquah I've worked in Issaquah since I

50:09 ↗ was 16 years old to present

50:12 ↗ so I'm genuinely invested in this

50:14 ↗ community and in this city I think it's

50:17 ↗ fair to say that it's not really a

50:18 ↗ secret that when you come off of a 90 on

50:20 ↗ exit 17 it's always been an eyesore

50:23 ↗ those dog kennels it's the first thing

50:25 ↗ you see when you wrap around and that's

50:26 ↗ the entrance to our city I don't know

50:30 ↗ about you guys but I've personally

50:31 ↗ walked down there and I saw trash I saw

50:35 ↗ feces needles where druggies are I mean

50:38 ↗ that is what is that's what's rolling

50:40 ↗ into this ditch this project that is

50:44 ↗ being displayed here it's gonna create a

50:46 ↗ gateway from the east that will not only

50:48 ↗ enhance but improve the water quality to

50:50 ↗ this ditch the city has an opportunity

50:53 ↗ right now for this site to be developed

50:56 ↗ by a responsible local business owner

51:00 ↗ who understands and respects the value

51:03 ↗ of business but also understands the

51:06 ↗ value of the environment and is really

51:08 ↗ and is willing to work together with

51:09 ↗ those two things

51:12 ↗ overall allowing Evergreen to improve

51:15 ↗ this site would greatly improve the

51:16 ↗ environment over its current condition

51:20 ↗ in my opinion I support evergreens

51:22 ↗ project wholeheartedly

51:33 ↗ good evening first thank you for your

51:36 ↗ service my name is Kathy McCrory I'm the

51:39 ↗ CEO for the Chamber of Commerce here in

51:41 ↗ Issaquah and I'd like to read a little

51:43 ↗ bit of a letter we've already submitted

51:45 ↗ to the Commission and to the mayor's

51:48 ↗ office some of it repeats some of the

51:50 ↗ information that's been shared this

51:51 ↗ evening so we'll not be sharing the

51:53 ↗ whole letter but you do have it

51:55 ↗ the Greater Issaquah Chamber of Commerce

51:58 ↗ Board of Directors would like to take a

51:59 ↗ moment of your time and impart our take

52:03 ↗ on doing business and being a member of

52:06 ↗ this community businesses that have

52:08 ↗ chose to locate here and share our

52:11 ↗ community values and Evergreen Ford is

52:14 ↗ one such long-standing not to mention

52:17 ↗ family owned business as you are aware

52:20 ↗ businesses are important element to

52:23 ↗ keeping our Issaquah strong healthy and

52:25 ↗ supporting the high quality of life that

52:29 ↗ we have come to expect here in Issaquah

52:30 ↗ we have roles and expectations for

52:33 ↗ conducting business clarity and

52:35 ↗ consistency are compulsory when those

52:39 ↗ rules change and are enveloped or the

52:42 ↗ envelope is pushed on it sends a

52:44 ↗ negative message and results in loss of

52:46 ↗ time resources and produces unnecessary

52:50 ↗ stresses it appears though the review

52:53 ↗ process evergreen Ford and its project

52:55 ↗ have been put through the test and

52:57 ↗ having to stand up to further scrutiny

52:59 ↗ and analysis we have looked at their

53:02 ↗ project and see that the plans outlined

53:04 ↗ on how it will improve water quality and

53:08 ↗ the Northfork Issaquah Creek exist by

53:11 ↗ the improvement of vegetation between

53:13 ↗ the new development and the creek the

53:15 ↗ improved vegetation will also improve

53:17 ↗ the water quality and provide shading

53:20 ↗ for the salmon from our view it seems

53:22 ↗ this will protect and improve our salmon

53:25 ↗ habitat it's also our understanding that

53:28 ↗ ultimately the plans for the water and

53:31 ↗ the stormwater discharge from Evergreen

53:33 ↗ Ford are to be treated at the same

53:34 ↗ purity or higher standards than

53:36 ↗ groundwater it seems that this improve

53:39 ↗ Minn is this a benefit to any species

53:41 ↗ using that waterway we ask that you

53:45 ↗ support permitting the project as it

53:47 ↗ will improve over existing environment

53:50 ↗ by removing invasive species of plants

53:53 ↗ directing light away from wetland areas

53:56 ↗ removing noises away from critical areas

54:00 ↗ directing any runoff from the wetlands

54:02 ↗ treating stormwater and control rate at

54:08 ↗ a controlled rate that will preserve

54:09 ↗ plants and soil and installs barriers to

54:13 ↗ protect areas from people and pets

54:15 ↗ lastly why not consideration of the

54:18 ↗ permit review process we would be remiss

54:20 ↗ in saying that through Evergreen Ford's

54:22 ↗ taxes jobs provided and charitable

54:25 ↗ contributions to our local nonprofits

54:28 ↗ they are important to all of us and we

54:30 ↗ should as community help ensure we

54:33 ↗ retain them here in our community thank

54:36 ↗ you in advance for your consideration

54:37 ↗ and again for your service in the

54:39 ↗ community as a whole this is

54:41 ↗ respectfully submitted on behalf of all

54:43 ↗ of us at the greater Issaquah chamber

54:57 ↗ hello Susanville 28:25 Northwest pine

55:02 ↗ cone drive 24 year resident obvious quoi

55:07 ↗ and thank you for volunteering your time

55:09 ↗ expertise to the city of Issaquah I had

55:13 ↗ a letter or a pice in a letter earlier

55:15 ↗ not sure if you had time to review it I

55:18 ↗ was at the River and stream meeting last

55:21 ↗ night until 9:30 and I can't give you

55:27 ↗ that thing back because things have

55:29 ↗ changed at 350 for today

55:31 ↗ a final SEPA condition came out

55:33 ↗ informing us of new information so my

55:37 ↗ first question is do you have time to

55:40 ↗ look through everything and make a

55:41 ↗ really sound good decision based on all

55:44 ↗ the new current information and the

55:48 ↗ second question is there's a lot of

55:53 ↗ public comment last night and it was not

55:57 ↗ some it was based on if evergreen Ford

56:00 ↗ is a good partner in business with us

56:02 ↗ and I think we all are agreement that

56:06 ↗ they are and I don't know if that is the

56:08 ↗ question here why is it all or nothing

56:11 ↗ well I can't we be able to preserve the

56:13 ↗ environment and give Evergreen Ford what

56:16 ↗ they need why is there no compromise all

56:19 ↗ I hear is all or nothing and that's what

56:22 ↗ I want to leave you with today thank you

56:39 ↗ either my name is Ned Nelson out of it

56:43 ↗ 617 Northwest Everwood Drive lived there

56:45 ↗ for 25 years I thought I was gonna be

56:48 ↗ the oldest one here in terms of

56:50 ↗ longevity but apparently not I come to

56:53 ↗ you as a 20 year veteran of the United

56:54 ↗ States Air Force in 25 years with the

56:56 ↗ Boeing Company we loved Issaquah lived

56:59 ↗ all over America in the world pic Disick

57:02 ↗ was a wonderful place to live and when

57:05 ↗ number one reason is we picked it was

57:07 ↗ because there was a whole lot of people

57:09 ↗ just like all of you in this room and my

57:12 ↗ compliments again to your people up

57:15 ↗ there on the pedestals I honored you you

57:18 ↗ are great

57:19 ↗ serving your city now why would a grown

57:22 ↗ man come to this meeting I come to you

57:25 ↗ because of next door

57:27 ↗ the social media site next door which

57:31 ↗ had a lot of articles probably written

57:34 ↗ by my friends over there about a ditch

57:37 ↗ and I said if this city is getting all

57:41 ↗ upset about a ditch I want to go hear

57:44 ↗ what they want to say what's what's

57:46 ↗ going on about the ditch incidentally I

57:48 ↗ want to start this conversation off with

57:51 ↗ I don't know one person in this room I

57:54 ↗ don't know any of you up there

57:56 ↗ I don't know any of you opposers I don't

57:59 ↗ even know where the evergreen Ford

58:01 ↗ people are and I'm not sure where this

58:02 ↗ the citizens are so I don't know those I

58:06 ↗ honor those people that are opposed to

58:08 ↗ this project that's one great thing

58:11 ↗ about our country things that I fought

58:13 ↗ for you can have opposing opinions I

58:16 ↗ have worked with you your people on

58:20 ↗ planting trees on the Issaquah Creek on

58:23 ↗ the down in Lake Sammamish on the state

58:25 ↗ park I've got my hands dirty I did it

58:29 ↗ graciously with the Boy Scouts and

58:30 ↗ church groups it was great I go to the

58:33 ↗ Salmon Hatchery all the time I'd bring

58:35 ↗ every visitor there it's great so with

58:40 ↗ that said I come to this meeting and I

58:42 ↗ go what are we talking about last Sunday

58:45 ↗ I went to Evergreen fort

58:49 ↗ never been in Evergreen Ford but I go

58:51 ↗ there on Sunday morning at 7 o'clock and

58:53 ↗ I go boy this is a really nice place

58:56 ↗ this is clean I didn't see one bit of

58:59 ↗ garbage I didn't see it was immaculate

59:01 ↗ that's the current Evergreen Ford and I

59:05 ↗ said these guys look like pretty good

59:06 ↗ citizens they're there doing their job

59:10 ↗ and being a car dealer incidentally I

59:13 ↗ should preface this my father was a Ford

59:16 ↗ dealer in 1940 in Moscow Idaho the darn

59:21 ↗ war came along and we had to move but

59:24 ↗ anyway I do have a background of that

59:28 ↗ evergreen Ford looks like it's a model

59:32 ↗ business for our community why would we

59:35 ↗ want to send them off to another place

59:37 ↗ next thing is and I've heard tokens of

59:40 ↗ it from from the pro people here this is

59:44 ↗ this is pretty good for business I mean

59:47 ↗ we one of the attractions of Issaquah is

59:50 ↗ we have a lot of good businesses we

59:52 ↗ don't have to drive to bellevue or to

59:56 ↗ seattle to buy a car we don't have to do

59:59 ↗ all these things so with that in mind I

1:00:01 ↗ will close and saying this project is a

1:00:05 ↗ goal thank you

1:00:19 ↗ good evening and and thank you all of

1:00:24 ↗ you for being here

1:00:25 ↗ my name is as as as is really Elliott

1:00:30 ↗ and I just like to say a little thing

1:00:34 ↗ here and I'd like to look at it from the

1:00:37 ↗ point of view of the fish that head up

1:00:42 ↗ this ditch apparently they're happy to

1:00:45 ↗ head up there

1:00:47 ↗ flap their flippers and swish their tail

1:00:50 ↗ the wreck and hey that's debts abide and

1:00:55 ↗ then I think well the status code says

1:00:58 ↗ that a stream should have a hundred foot

1:01:03 ↗ buffer but because this is a ditch it

1:01:07 ↗ doesn't and so somehow our friends who

1:01:10 ↗ just swam up there don't get the same

1:01:12 ↗ protection as fish and a stream and that

1:01:18 ↗ doesn't quite seem right because we

1:01:21 ↗ should be looking after a fish wherever

1:01:23 ↗ they are and so I'm not sure what to do

1:01:28 ↗ about this however I think that if you

1:01:34 ↗ recommend a larger buffer be provided

1:01:37 ↗ that would be a start and that would be

1:01:41 ↗ good and I'd like to see Evergreen Ford

1:01:45 ↗ here and I'd like to see a compromise as

1:01:48 ↗ a previous speaker mentioned that

1:01:51 ↗ connect that could accommodate both our

1:01:54 ↗ fish and evergreen Ford thank you

1:02:14 ↗ I don't live within the city limits can

1:02:16 ↗ I still speak ma'am awesome my name is

1:02:20 ↗ Tessa Smith and I own a small

1:02:22 ↗ women-owned women-led architecture firm

1:02:25 ↗ that works in this region and I was

1:02:29 ↗ struck by how there's a vocal minority

1:02:32 ↗ it feels like to me that would love to

1:02:37 ↗ see no development happen and I have a

1:02:40 ↗ sustainable design degree i lecture at

1:02:43 ↗ my alma mater the Evergreen State

1:02:45 ↗ College and University of Oregon

1:02:47 ↗ teaching young people how to operate

1:02:49 ↗ architecture firms in a way that honors

1:02:51 ↗ the planet sorry I'm nervous but the

1:03:02 ↗ problem with no development is that then

1:03:04 ↗ you don't get to say how things are

1:03:05 ↗ developed you have to support good

1:03:07 ↗ development and stop bad development

1:03:09 ↗ cities that don't grow die and then you

1:03:12 ↗ can't have money to honor fish and to

1:03:15 ↗ save areas that are worth saving there's

1:03:18 ↗ a sign here about Ansel Adams and I do

1:03:21 ↗ believe the quote is taken quite out of

1:03:22 ↗ context he protected the areas that

1:03:26 ↗ needed protecting but he also lived in a

1:03:28 ↗ house in Seattle and he used their roads

1:03:30 ↗ and their hospitals and those were

1:03:33 ↗ funded by maybe not good development

1:03:36 ↗ then but probably good development now

1:03:39 ↗ so I understand the appeal of passion

1:03:42 ↗ but what I tell the young people that I

1:03:45 ↗ sculpt and the students I encourage to

1:03:47 ↗ go into architecture is that passion is

1:03:49 ↗ good but reason is better I see a lot of

1:03:53 ↗ reasonable data before us that supports

1:03:55 ↗ that this would be an improvement to

1:03:57 ↗ that stream and that's coming from

1:04:00 ↗ someone who's quite left so left some of

1:04:02 ↗ my family won't talk to me

1:04:05 ↗ that's all I have to say thank you

1:04:23 ↗ hello I've been here before I believe my

1:04:28 ↗ name is Tony Ren I'm the executive

1:04:30 ↗ managing partner for evergreen Chevrolet

1:04:32 ↗ partner across the street from Evergreen

1:04:34 ↗ for its current location on 18th Avenue

1:04:37 ↗ Northwest here in Issaquah I've moved

1:04:41 ↗ here many years ago I started I was born

1:04:44 ↗ in Ballard a lot the only places as

1:04:46 ↗ fishy as this place I grew up next door

1:04:52 ↗ to the Woodland Park Zoo after that and

1:04:55 ↗ spent a lot of time with a fort in the

1:04:57 ↗ giraffes I've grown up loving animals

1:05:00 ↗ and I've grown up loving our Seattle

1:05:03 ↗ area my whole life we we had a

1:05:07 ↗ grandmother that lived on the top of

1:05:11 ↗ tiger mountain in a log cabin log house

1:05:13 ↗ when I grew up before I ninety and we

1:05:16 ↗ used to make the trip out here Tezuka

1:05:18 ↗ and my father sister was moved and built

1:05:25 ↗ the house in the backyard got in Tiger

1:05:26 ↗ Mountain and they turned out to be the

1:05:28 ↗ first pharmacist here in town in the 50s

1:05:31 ↗ and 60s right where the Ben Franklin was

1:05:33 ↗ so I have a long tie to the Issaquah

1:05:36 ↗ community and the northwest and the

1:05:38 ↗ Puget Sound community dan my partner Dan

1:05:42 ↗ Rowe and his family moved here in 98 I

1:05:45 ↗ moved Issaquah with my family my wife

1:05:48 ↗ Lynn in 1999 from Everett area the

1:05:55 ↗ reason I bring this up is I think it's

1:05:56 ↗ important to be local and I think it's

1:05:57 ↗ important to have local ties to the area

1:05:59 ↗ and and we have that and the reason I'm

1:06:03 ↗ bringing this up I want you to know

1:06:04 ↗ whoever Green is it's not about cars

1:06:09 ↗ it's about family and it's about

1:06:11 ↗ business and it's about community and it

1:06:13 ↗ has been since the day I moved here when

1:06:15 ↗ we moved here we made promises to

1:06:17 ↗ everyone in our family and everyone that

1:06:19 ↗ we did business with that we were going

1:06:21 ↗ to join the community full force and we

1:06:23 ↗ did just that we joined rotary Bijan

1:06:25 ↗ Kiwanis we joined the Chamber of

1:06:27 ↗ Commerce

1:06:28 ↗ I've spent 18 years off and on my wife

1:06:31 ↗ six years me six years he's another six

1:06:33 ↗ years on the board of directors for the

1:06:35 ↗ Chamber of Commerce

1:06:36 ↗ wife's been the vice president of

1:06:38 ↗ downtown Issaquah sociation and she made

1:06:40 ↗ it to president after that she took two

1:06:43 ↗ terms there she's saying national anthem

1:06:46 ↗ for the rotary run for salmon days for

1:06:49 ↗ years does the announcing at the parade

1:06:51 ↗ we provide all the cars and drive all

1:06:54 ↗ the dignitaries around to the parade we

1:06:56 ↗ have a great time doing it it's one of

1:06:57 ↗ the one of the greatest things we do

1:06:59 ↗ yearly is salmon days and we love every

1:07:01 ↗ minute of it our hearts here right after

1:07:05 ↗ we got here the first two years we got

1:07:07 ↗ here we were named King County Municipal

1:07:09 ↗ business of the year three years after

1:07:12 ↗ we opened the next year the King County

1:07:16 ↗ or excuse me the Chamber of Commerce

1:07:18 ↗ named us business people of the year

1:07:21 ↗ ten years later Dan Roe was named

1:07:23 ↗ business person of the year here by the

1:07:25 ↗ Issaquah Chamber we're belted into the

1:07:29 ↗ fabric of Issaquah we don't want to go

1:07:32 ↗ away we want to build a future for our

1:07:35 ↗ family we have over 200 families that we

1:07:38 ↗ employ we have five kids that we've

1:07:42 ↗ brought up dance brought up two and I

1:07:43 ↗ brought up three all five went to local

1:07:46 ↗ high schools went away to college came

1:07:49 ↗ back and all five were employed at

1:07:52 ↗ Evergreen right now I have my first

1:07:55 ↗ grandson that I picked up at pre-k down

1:07:57 ↗ it right down the street here at the

1:08:01 ↗ Commons I picked him up from pre-k and

1:08:03 ↗ the first time sunny it was it was a

1:08:04 ↗ Tuesday and the first day we we want we

1:08:07 ↗ walked down to the Salmon Hatchery

1:08:08 ↗ because I knew the fish were there and I

1:08:10 ↗ wanted him to see him sneak down by the

1:08:13 ↗ bridge and sneak right down he could

1:08:15 ↗ almost walk across the river so

1:08:16 ↗ beautiful whenever we get a new employee

1:08:19 ↗ I take that new employee down we parked

1:08:21 ↗ right on the side of the bridge when we

1:08:22 ↗ walked down between the gray house we

1:08:24 ↗ sneaked through the little gate there

1:08:26 ↗ and we walked down to the corner where

1:08:27 ↗ the right before it turns into the

1:08:29 ↗ hatchery and I show new employees what

1:08:32 ↗ is a quasi about I mean that's who we

1:08:35 ↗ are that's evergreen every room Ford

1:08:38 ↗ every ring Chevrolet evergreen Lincoln

1:08:40 ↗ that's who we are we we think we have a

1:08:44 ↗ good location we have a fantastic plan

1:08:46 ↗ they've laid out all that

1:08:48 ↗ the newest science for you we're gonna

1:08:50 ↗ leave it better than we found it that's

1:08:56 ↗ why you should approve the project and

1:08:58 ↗ and support us and help us support the

1:09:02 ↗ 200 families that we support with their

1:09:04 ↗ jobs their livelihood here so we're not

1:09:07 ↗ going anywhere as I know you aren't

1:09:08 ↗ either let's be partners thank you

1:09:22 ↗ hello my name is Carrie Ruby I was born

1:09:26 ↗ and raised right here as a claw been

1:09:27 ↗ here 51 years in Sammamish currently now

1:09:31 ↗ my family owns property that is a long

1:09:34 ↗ locust where this ditches and I believe

1:09:38 ↗ we've had it since the early 80s I can

1:09:41 ↗ honestly say there was sometimes weeks

1:09:42 ↗ months with zero water in this ditch as

1:09:46 ↗ the development in Sammamish has

1:09:48 ↗ progressed and the highlands per se

1:09:51 ↗ there's now more water in that ditch

1:09:53 ↗ I also agree in the comments earlier

1:09:56 ↗ about compromise if the fish are somehow

1:09:59 ↗ finding their way into this ditch isn't

1:10:01 ↗ there a way to direct them to stay in

1:10:03 ↗ the creek somehow so it can't get into

1:10:05 ↗ the ditch the city is growing it doesn't

1:10:09 ↗ have the one stop sign at Gilman in

1:10:13 ↗ front like it used to 40 years ago we

1:10:16 ↗ used to keep our dogs at Carlson kennels

1:10:18 ↗ on that same corner and it's sad to see

1:10:21 ↗ it be empty and vacant and an eyesore

1:10:24 ↗ for the city right now I'm supportive of

1:10:28 ↗ Evergreen Ford I'm supportive of the

1:10:30 ↗ salmon and the fish so I'm urging

1:10:34 ↗ compromise for everybody thank you

1:10:55 ↗ good evening I prepared the statement

1:10:57 ↗ I'd just like to read my name is Warren

1:11:00 ↗ Michaelson I'm a resident of Sammamish

1:11:01 ↗ and a longtime customer of Evergreen

1:11:03 ↗ Ford Lincoln I'm here to encourage the

1:11:05 ↗ development commission board to grant

1:11:07 ↗ evergreen ford lincoln permission to

1:11:08 ↗ construct their new dealership as

1:11:10 ↗ outlined in their presentation after

1:11:13 ↗ personally walking the site and

1:11:14 ↗ reviewing it and seeing the presentation

1:11:17 ↗ again tonight after last night it is

1:11:19 ↗ obvious of the ditch on the south side

1:11:20 ↗ the property is simply there to drain

1:11:22 ↗ the overflow water out of the Issaquah

1:11:24 ↗ highlands retention system into the

1:11:26 ↗ Sammamish basins ecosystem further

1:11:29 ↗ downstream furthermore it's my

1:11:31 ↗ understanding that this man-made

1:11:33 ↗ man-made itch only carries water when is

1:11:36 ↗ released from the retention vaults and

1:11:38 ↗ is completely dried during certain times

1:11:41 ↗ of the year it seems clear to me from

1:11:43 ↗ the biologists civil engineers and

1:11:46 ↗ city's perspective that the Evergreen

1:11:49 ↗ Ford Lincoln dealership as designed will

1:11:51 ↗ have no impact on this ditch I'm deeply

1:11:55 ↗ concerned that the Evergreen Ford

1:11:57 ↗ Lincoln if that if ever green Ford

1:11:58 ↗ Lincoln is not permitted to build their

1:12:00 ↗ new dealership has designed we may lose

1:12:03 ↗ a very valuable business in our

1:12:05 ↗ community as I understand it evergreen

1:12:09 ↗ Ford Lincoln employs approximately 200

1:12:11 ↗ people and it's an avid supporter of our

1:12:13 ↗ East Side schools towns and various

1:12:16 ↗ nonprofit organizations in addition I

1:12:20 ↗ believe that developing the property is

1:12:21 ↗ designed would remove the current

1:12:22 ↗ eyesore by removing the old dog kennel

1:12:25 ↗ that I understand occasionally houses

1:12:27 ↗ drug users therefore I strongly support

1:12:30 ↗ allowing Evergreen for Lincoln to build

1:12:33 ↗ on their site as designed thank you

1:12:45 ↗ my name is right and oil I'm counsel for

1:12:48 ↗ evergreen Ford

1:12:49 ↗ home and I to express appreciation a

1:12:53 ↗ couple things that I want to address a

1:12:57 ↗ little bit is the theory of compromise

1:13:00 ↗ like this is a conflict or a battle

1:13:02 ↗ that's not the way ever going evergreen

1:13:04 ↗ has gone into this process it's worked

1:13:05 ↗ with the city it's worked hand-in-hand

1:13:07 ↗ with the city to comply with the code

1:13:09 ↗ it's worked hand-in-hand with the city

1:13:11 ↗ to make sure it's compliant with SEPA

1:13:13 ↗ the project as it sits now is a work in

1:13:17 ↗ process of working with the city to make

1:13:20 ↗ sure it was compliant with the code and

1:13:22 ↗ with all the regulations it is what it

1:13:25 ↗ is now the footprint can't change

1:13:30 ↗ without the project going away so we've

1:13:34 ↗ worked with the city we've been diligent

1:13:38 ↗ with the city and working together it's

1:13:40 ↗ a give-and-take process to make sure

1:13:42 ↗ that we're satisfying the best available

1:13:44 ↗ science and we've hired at great expense

1:13:47 ↗ engineers scientists to look at it and

1:13:49 ↗ provide information to you guys the

1:13:54 ↗ other suggestion that we don't have

1:13:55 ↗ enough information it has to go back

1:13:57 ↗ somewhere and look again I want you guys

1:14:00 ↗ to know that every time that happens

1:14:02 ↗ it's thousands of dollars if not tens of

1:14:04 ↗ thousands of dollars that occur on two

1:14:07 ↗ fronts one hiring people to provide

1:14:10 ↗ information that but to the construction

1:14:13 ↗ delays are terrible construction costs

1:14:17 ↗ continue to go up every time your Glade

1:14:19 ↗ it's a significant you spend so that's

1:14:23 ↗ my two points is the process is

1:14:27 ↗ important but the process needs to be

1:14:29 ↗ concluded so that this project can have

1:14:32 ↗ a decision

1:14:33 ↗ and that we have worked together and the

1:14:37 ↗ compromise is is where we are right now

1:14:39 ↗ thank you

1:14:46 ↗ in other comments

1:15:06 ↗ hello

1:15:08 ↗ I'm Janet wall and I live at two-two

1:15:13 ↗ seven-four-zero South East 56th Street

1:15:15 ↗ in Issaquah I've lived there for about

1:15:18 ↗ 25 years although I am a member of the

1:15:22 ↗ river and streams board I am speaking

1:15:24 ↗ tonight as an in Issaquah resident I am

1:15:28 ↗ also a retired fisheries biologist and a

1:15:32 ↗ volunteer doing habitat restoration my

1:15:37 ↗ concern is that the salmon bearing water

1:15:39 ↗ course identified as a tributary to the

1:15:42 ↗ North Fork of Issaquah Creek is being

1:15:45 ↗ termed a ditch and as such it would have

1:15:48 ↗ no protected buffer the Evergreen Fort

1:15:52 ↗ Ford proposed development would we move

1:15:55 ↗ all but one of the trees on the lot and

1:15:57 ↗ almost all of the large lot would be an

1:16:00 ↗ impervious surface either the large

1:16:03 ↗ added auto dealership building or paved

1:16:07 ↗ parking lot the stormwater runoff from

1:16:11 ↗ all this impervious surface is proposed

1:16:13 ↗ to be filtered and treated then released

1:16:16 ↗ in a controlled method through a level

1:16:18 ↗ spreader down a bank into the tributary

1:16:23 ↗ presumably although it I didn't see any

1:16:26 ↗ notice of this in the plans a curb or

1:16:31 ↗ wall at the edge of the parking lot

1:16:33 ↗ would prevent water from a heavy rain

1:16:36 ↗ from spilling the water over the banks

1:16:41 ↗ into either the North Fork or the

1:16:43 ↗ tributary and instead would funnel the

1:16:47 ↗ water this is what it should do it would

1:16:50 ↗ funnel the water into the treatment

1:16:52 ↗ control distribution system but I

1:16:56 ↗ haven't as they say I if there was in

1:16:58 ↗ the plans I didn't see it part of the

1:17:01 ↗ tributaries banks were vegetated as part

1:17:06 ↗ of the wash culvert project but it

1:17:09 ↗ appears and they pointed out that the

1:17:13 ↗ area

1:17:16 ↗ that part of the that bank of the

1:17:19 ↗ tributary wasn't revegetated and at one

1:17:26 ↗ time they proposed doing that when I

1:17:30 ↗ asked last night whether they still plan

1:17:32 ↗ to restore the banks of the tributary

1:17:34 ↗ the answer I received was that they

1:17:36 ↗ initially had considered this but they

1:17:39 ↗ had backed away from doing this as they

1:17:41 ↗ would have to get washed out spur

1:17:42 ↗ mission to amend their plantings on wash

1:17:46 ↗ dots land I'm concerned about erosion

1:17:51 ↗ from the stormwater discharge into the

1:17:54 ↗ tributary wash dot spent a lot of money

1:17:59 ↗ improving the culvert for the north

1:18:01 ↗ floor and the tributary fish are using

1:18:05 ↗ this tributary and I'm worried that all

1:18:10 ↗ that storm water spilling over into

1:18:15 ↗ poorly vegetated Bank is going to cause

1:18:21 ↗ erosion I also AM concerned that I I

1:18:28 ↗ couldn't find any information about how

1:18:30 ↗ the applicant attends to meet the tree

1:18:32 ↗ retention requirements especially since

1:18:36 ↗ they are backing off doing amendments to

1:18:39 ↗ the washed out plantings so I've seen

1:18:43 ↗ know how they are going to compensate

1:18:46 ↗ for the cutting down all those trees I

1:18:49 ↗ also believe in compromise I believe

1:18:52 ↗ they should be allowed to develop the

1:18:54 ↗ site however I feel that Evergreen Ford

1:18:59 ↗ should at least revegetate amend those

1:19:05 ↗ plantings that wash dot did especially

1:19:08 ↗ on a good portion of the area where it

1:19:11 ↗ looked at that the level spreader was

1:19:15 ↗ going to deposit the stormwater they

1:19:19 ↗ also need to abide by the tree ordinance

1:19:23 ↗ better yet and I also would like to see

1:19:28 ↗ some kind of

1:19:29 ↗ recognition of that bank of the stream

1:19:33 ↗ and hopefully both banks as being an

1:19:37 ↗ official buffer so that there will not

1:19:40 ↗ be any further incursions into that

1:19:45 ↗ stream buffer I also as I say I believe

1:19:52 ↗ in compromise I believe that that they

1:19:54 ↗ have that they can still develop but I

1:19:59 ↗ would like to see a little bit more

1:20:01 ↗ compensation to avoid having any damage

1:20:07 ↗ to that Creek thank you

1:20:25 ↗ final call if you feel compelled this is

1:20:27 ↗ your time seeing no movement will close

1:20:34 ↗ the public portion of this meeting and

1:20:36 ↗ open the floor for the commissioners to

1:20:40 ↗ have their asked questions or discussion

1:20:46 ↗ could we have an update on what the

1:20:49 ↗ rivers and streams board said I think

1:20:52 ↗ you guys said you would explain that as

1:20:53 ↗ part of the CPI discussion so at the at

1:21:00 ↗ the meeting yesterday the applicant gave

1:21:02 ↗ a very similar presentation to them and

1:21:06 ↗ I also gave a very similar presentation

1:21:07 ↗ to them and we took public comment and

1:21:12 ↗ the rivers and stream board recognized

1:21:17 ↗ their role as advisors in the process

1:21:20 ↗ and asked some questions I don't know if

1:21:25 ↗ I I mean there wasn't they didn't make a

1:21:27 ↗ decision they asked some questions about

1:21:30 ↗ how that the applicant had studied the

1:21:34 ↗ water sources and how they had

1:21:37 ↗ determined that it was a ditch and not a

1:21:40 ↗ stream and do you know I'm trying to

1:21:48 ↗ remember the questions

1:21:51 ↗ well because rivers and streams

1:21:57 ↗ contributes to the CEPA decision many of

1:22:04 ↗ the revisions that you see there are

1:22:06 ↗ reflecting things that they commented on

1:22:10 ↗ so concerns about whether we could as MS

1:22:16 ↗ wall mentioned whether we could have

1:22:19 ↗ additional plantings in the washed out

1:22:21 ↗ property so there is a request not a

1:22:26 ↗ requirement because we can't force them

1:22:28 ↗ to plant on property that they do not

1:22:31 ↗ have a right to plant on but that was

1:22:34 ↗ added into the condition

1:22:41 ↗ they're one of the public comments that

1:22:43 ↗ came up yesterday had to do with

1:22:45 ↗ temporary impacts to salmon during

1:22:47 ↗ construction and that so we discussed

1:22:50 ↗ that with the board and that was what

1:22:53 ↗ fed into the the part of the CP

1:22:56 ↗ condition that required some additional

1:22:58 ↗ temporary sediment control measures is

1:23:04 ↗ there any discussion of additional

1:23:05 ↗ buffering rivers and streams was that

1:23:09 ↗ brought up or did they have an opinion

1:23:10 ↗ on that in regard to the tributary area

1:23:13 ↗ under C by authority to do that well not

1:23:19 ↗ under seat by I think they would liked

1:23:21 ↗ to have treated it as a stream but I

1:23:25 ↗ think they generally understood the

1:23:28 ↗ basis with which we had presented it

1:23:31 ↗ based on the current code and and so did

1:23:38 ↗ not recommend additional landscape area

1:23:44 ↗ we spent quite a while talking about the

1:23:46 ↗ kinds of trees that were planted and

1:23:49 ↗ that there was concurrence that vine

1:23:54 ↗ maples did not really qualify as trees

1:23:57 ↗ and that we needed to pick a different

1:23:59 ↗ native tree that would be more

1:24:03 ↗ appropriate in that area so I tend the

1:24:08 ↗ rivers and streams board meeting last

1:24:10 ↗ night as well one of the three comments

1:24:13 ↗ that came up I think from this wall was

1:24:15 ↗ that that Cedars western red cedars

1:24:17 ↗ would not be a good choice because of

1:24:19 ↗ the propensity to died during droughts I

1:24:23 ↗ think and I think there was a comment

1:24:25 ↗ from the applicants and sold was about

1:24:26 ↗ be changing the landscaping plan in

1:24:31 ↗ terms of the tree selection to mark Doug

1:24:32 ↗ firs instead of western red cedars it

1:24:36 ↗ was another comment that came up that I

1:24:38 ↗ had a question about was a mention of

1:24:41 ↗ whether the tributary ditch could be a

1:24:45 ↗ salmon bearing stream renaud and I

1:24:47 ↗ thought

1:24:47 ↗ I heard a comment Watershed that it was

1:24:50 ↗ too shallow of a slope too flat if Greg

1:24:57 ↗ could you come up to the microphone

1:24:59 ↗ please and please introduce yourself oh

1:25:02 ↗ yeah my name is Greg Johnston from the

1:25:04 ↗ watershed company and I'm serving as the

1:25:07 ↗ the city's peer reviewer and the comment

1:25:11 ↗ was specifically regarding just two

1:25:12 ↗ spawning habitats not habitats in

1:25:14 ↗ general so that the the gradient I

1:25:17 ↗ believe is too low there it's too flat

1:25:20 ↗ to maintain good spawning conditions

1:25:23 ↗ which is good spawning gravel with the

1:25:25 ↗ worst of the water can flow through the

1:25:27 ↗ gravel which is needed to incubate the

1:25:28 ↗ eggs it's my view that that tributary

1:25:33 ↗ can't function as some honored fish

1:25:36 ↗ habitat which but more in terms of

1:25:38 ↗ rearing and refuge habitat and it's been

1:25:41 ↗ brought up here a couple times that the

1:25:42 ↗ stream is seasonal so there's no water

1:25:45 ↗ there in this summer except it's going a

1:25:50 ↗ little more detail but given that it's

1:25:51 ↗ stormwater fed from detention ponds up

1:25:53 ↗ on upon the plateau that there is

1:25:57 ↗ Highlands is that you can't have summer

1:26:00 ↗ storm events that would cause this ditch

1:26:02 ↗ to flow on and off through the summer

1:26:04 ↗ whereas a natural drainage probably

1:26:08 ↗ wouldn't do that so you might come along

1:26:10 ↗ after a summer storm and find there's

1:26:12 ↗ flow there for a few days or a day or

1:26:14 ↗ two which which you wouldn't necessarily

1:26:16 ↗ see in a more natural stream and I'm

1:26:18 ↗ getting a little off the subject but

1:26:20 ↗ just in general the kind of habitat that

1:26:24 ↗ this would support would be rearing and

1:26:27 ↗ refuge habitat for juvenile fish mostly

1:26:30 ↗ so the idea is is that you have a storm

1:26:33 ↗ event in the winter and the fish need a

1:26:36 ↗ quiet area to get out of the

1:26:38 ↗ fast-flowing flows whether it be in the

1:26:41 ↗ say in the North Fork of Issaquah Creek

1:26:42 ↗ they're finding a refuge which is the

1:26:44 ↗ same kind of quiet flow and also coho

1:26:48 ↗ salmon in particular they rear in

1:26:50 ↗ freshwater for a full year

1:26:52 ↗ they'll hatches fry and usually around

1:26:55 ↗ April of a year then I'll stay in

1:26:57 ↗ freshwater for an entire year and then

1:26:58 ↗ go to see the following

1:27:00 ↗ April and during that one winter that

1:27:02 ↗ they're in fresh water that the

1:27:05 ↗ temperatures are low they have low

1:27:07 ↗ energy because of the low in order

1:27:09 ↗ because of the low temperature and their

1:27:11 ↗ sir they're looking for a quiet area to

1:27:14 ↗ spend that winter winter such as I think

1:27:16 ↗ the best example I can give would be

1:27:18 ↗ like a beaver pond habitat is where

1:27:20 ↗ those coho would want to spend that

1:27:21 ↗ winter and I envision this tributary

1:27:25 ↗ ditches we've been calling it as to be

1:27:26 ↗ habitat something like that it's it's

1:27:29 ↗ off the channel it's low energy it does

1:27:33 ↗ have water in the winter whereas it

1:27:34 ↗ doesn't have water in the summer you

1:27:36 ↗ know wouldn't make good summer rearing

1:27:37 ↗ habitat for them because there's no

1:27:38 ↗ water there and if there were water

1:27:40 ↗ there it might it might be warm so

1:27:44 ↗ that's that's the kind of habitat that I

1:27:46 ↗ would envision to be there when it still

1:27:49 ↗ be slow and curious I'm talking about

1:27:51 ↗ like big storm events it could come from

1:27:53 ↗ the highlands down through the drainage

1:27:54 ↗ system into the that tend to be a faster

1:27:58 ↗ drainage sometimes in the winter then it

1:28:01 ↗ would increase the velocity some but

1:28:04 ↗ given that the the slope of the channel

1:28:06 ↗ is so low that the velocities wouldn't

1:28:08 ↗ get too high the water level will come

1:28:10 ↗ up but there will be some velocity there

1:28:12 ↗ but it won't be as high but also the

1:28:13 ↗ refuge even from the North Fork of

1:28:16 ↗ Issaquah Creek right at that location

1:28:17 ↗ it's just coming down a long ravine past

1:28:20 ↗ the gravel pit there and so it's it's

1:28:23 ↗ possible that fish would be looking for

1:28:25 ↗ a refuge even from the North Fork of

1:28:27 ↗ Issaquah Creek and that's why you know

1:28:32 ↗ they would seek that I think a comment

1:28:33 ↗ was made earlier about well can't we

1:28:35 ↗ keep the fish out of the ditch because

1:28:36 ↗ keep them in the creek implied where

1:28:39 ↗ they belong but I think it's a good idea

1:28:42 ↗ to let them make the choice if they have

1:28:44 ↗ access to the ditch if they don't like

1:28:46 ↗ the habitat they like they have to have

1:28:47 ↗ better in the North Fork of Issaquah

1:28:48 ↗ Creek they can stay there but I don't

1:28:50 ↗ see any problem with with letting them

1:28:52 ↗ choose and expand and to use that

1:28:54 ↗ habitat temporarily as refuge in rearing

1:28:58 ↗ habitat when it's suitable and as long

1:29:00 ↗ as there's good access to and from they

1:29:02 ↗ can they can get out of there in the

1:29:03 ↗ spring when the flows go down - though

1:29:06 ↗ but they can make good use of it and

1:29:08 ↗ throughout the winter

1:29:09 ↗ I can ask you one more question sure but

1:29:12 ↗ we had received a comment that mentioned

1:29:14 ↗ the possibility of planting larger trees

1:29:20 ↗ along the property boundary with the

1:29:23 ↗ ditch portion the d-o-t portion instead

1:29:27 ↗ of small trees that would take years to

1:29:29 ↗ grow up a pregnant planning like 12-foot

1:29:32 ↗ trees are taller is there their benefit

1:29:34 ↗ to that is a given species just just

1:29:38 ↗ planting larger specimens not I just to

1:29:41 ↗ clarify it's it's not necessarily a

1:29:43 ↗ species that will grow the bigger but

1:29:44 ↗ just in the final three instead of a one

1:29:47 ↗ yeah well you just you just save

1:29:49 ↗ yourself you know whatever time that is

1:29:51 ↗ if it's a you know if it's a eight or

1:29:54 ↗ ten or twelve foot tree they're you know

1:29:56 ↗ they're pretty pricey when you you gain

1:29:58 ↗ that much time you know they'll reach

1:30:00 ↗ they'll reach maturity quicker one note

1:30:04 ↗ though is we've kind of gone back and

1:30:06 ↗ forth on this so how important the

1:30:07 ↗ shading the temperature is given that

1:30:09 ↗ it's a seasonal stream the shade is not

1:30:10 ↗ that important when there's no water in

1:30:12 ↗ the stream you don't really need shade

1:30:14 ↗ in the winter because the temperatures

1:30:15 ↗ are not high and if the summer if the

1:30:17 ↗ channel is dry well the shade isn't

1:30:19 ↗ really providing much protection

1:30:21 ↗ temperature-wise but given that this is

1:30:24 ↗ a storm water fed system like I said it

1:30:27 ↗ it could have flow occasionally in the

1:30:29 ↗ summer due to storm events rainfall

1:30:34 ↗ events and you know given given that

1:30:36 ↗ it's stormwater and it's fed by

1:30:37 ↗ impervious surfaces that it could have

1:30:40 ↗ some flow in the summer so there's there

1:30:41 ↗ some limited benefit to having shade

1:30:44 ↗ that this is a you know it's an unusual

1:30:46 ↗ stream it's it's not like a normal

1:30:48 ↗ printing or a normal seasonal stream

1:30:52 ↗ which would tend to dry up for you know

1:30:55 ↗ several months at a time perhaps but I

1:30:57 ↗ think this this channel could have some

1:31:01 ↗ flow off and on throughout the summer

1:31:02 ↗ that wouldn't be typical of a normal

1:31:04 ↗ seasonal stream can I add one piece well

1:31:09 ↗ two pieces one the joint property line

1:31:14 ↗ is on the north side of the ditch so

1:31:16 ↗ there's a question about how much shade

1:31:19 ↗ I mean I suppose certain trees once they

1:31:21 ↗ grow up

1:31:22 ↗ my arch over the other is that studies

1:31:27 ↗ have generally shown that smaller trees

1:31:30 ↗ not little tiny trees but smaller trees

1:31:35 ↗ and in the size of sort of our minimum

1:31:37 ↗ requirements actually are less shocked

1:31:40 ↗ and so even if you put in a big tree it

1:31:43 ↗ will be shocked longer and so oh but at

1:31:46 ↗ the end of five years or so they're

1:31:48 ↗ about the same size but you may have

1:31:51 ↗ less mortality of the smaller tree so

1:31:54 ↗ while I agree with what where you're

1:31:56 ↗ trying to get to I'm not sure that some

1:31:59 ↗ of the studies have borne out that

1:32:00 ↗ planting a bigger tree will get you to a

1:32:03 ↗ more mature tree more quickly thank you

1:32:08 ↗ excuse me following question I'm sorry

1:32:10 ↗ mr. Damon is it mr. Johnston yeah yes I

1:32:14 ↗ had a question on the watershed report

1:32:17 ↗ it's in the staff report on page 250 or

1:32:19 ↗ 476 and in this area you're referring to

1:32:23 ↗ the macro invertebrate population as

1:32:27 ↗ food source for foraging salmonids you

1:32:31 ↗ quote a source by a sweeney 2014

1:32:33 ↗ in conclusion most available data based

1:32:36 ↗ on replicated control studies suggest

1:32:39 ↗ that a stream side forest of greater

1:32:42 ↗ than or equal to 30 meters is needed to

1:32:45 ↗ protect and maintain fish communities in

1:32:47 ↗ a natural or near natural state and

1:32:49 ↗ these macro invertebrates right or the

1:32:51 ↗ primary food source for rearing salmon

1:32:54 ↗ is entering yeah that would be like the

1:32:55 ↗ aquatic insects so juvenile salmon feed

1:32:58 ↗ primarily on right so although you

1:33:02 ↗ indicated that impacts on water quality

1:33:06 ↗ and shading were negligible or minor I

1:33:10 ↗ don't see how that requirement for macro

1:33:13 ↗ invertebrate driving would be addressed

1:33:16 ↗ by anything I've seen in the report yeah

1:33:21 ↗ I'm not sure I have a really good answer

1:33:23 ↗ for you I guess one distinction to is

1:33:26 ↗ back to the seasonal versus perennial

1:33:31 ↗ Channel or streams is that well

1:33:34 ↗ these macroinvertebrates require

1:33:36 ↗ year-round flow there's only certain

1:33:38 ↗ ones that can can work seasonally like

1:33:41 ↗ that in other words they have to move in

1:33:43 ↗ lay their eggs and grow to maturity and

1:33:45 ↗ get out before you know before the next

1:33:48 ↗ summer because it because it dries up so

1:33:50 ↗ I I would tend to downplay that

1:33:56 ↗ requirement or that function of the

1:33:59 ↗ especially wide buffer for this

1:34:02 ↗ particular intermittent or seasonal

1:34:05 ↗ stream that the reference you read talks

1:34:07 ↗ about streams you know in a broader

1:34:09 ↗ sense in general and I think it would be

1:34:12 ↗ more applicable to a a perennial or a

1:34:14 ↗ year-round stream so you're saying that

1:34:18 ↗ when there is sufficient water in this

1:34:21 ↗ stream that preserving the macro

1:34:24 ↗ invertebrate population would be

1:34:25 ↗ important but at times that the stream

1:34:28 ↗ does not hold water would not be

1:34:29 ↗ important yeah something like that part

1:34:32 ↗ mostly what I'm saying is there and I

1:34:34 ↗ don't know a lot of the details but

1:34:36 ↗ there are a lot of insects that require

1:34:40 ↗ a longer period in the stream to mature

1:34:42 ↗ than just than just one wet season they

1:34:45 ↗ they will be there that they need to be

1:34:48 ↗ there in the summer season as well to

1:34:50 ↗ complete their life history and and and

1:34:53 ↗ to be productive so you get less

1:34:56 ↗ production out of a seasonal stream in

1:34:57 ↗ terms of macro invertebrates the the the

1:35:00 ↗ insects that use it have to move in

1:35:02 ↗ quickly breed grow to maturity provide

1:35:04 ↗ food for the salmon and and get out of

1:35:06 ↗ there you know before the next dry

1:35:08 ↗ season whereas if it flows year-round

1:35:10 ↗ they have a lot longer to establish

1:35:13 ↗ their populations and and be a

1:35:15 ↗ productive food source for the fish okay

1:35:17 ↗ thank you

1:35:24 ↗ other comments questions commissioners a

1:35:29 ↗ question for the applicant first of all

1:35:31 ↗ thank you for the public comment and the

1:35:34 ↗ presentation the diagrams were greatly

1:35:35 ↗ appreciated question regarding the

1:35:38 ↗ stormwater dispersion trench what is the

1:35:41 ↗ risk if any regarding erosion there was

1:35:46 ↗ a comment earlier that hinted to that

1:35:49 ↗ and I'm just curious what the answer is

1:35:53 ↗ there thank you yeah so again Tyrell

1:35:55 ↗ Bradley project civil engineer the

1:35:59 ↗ dispersion trench is a hundred feet long

1:36:02 ↗ the peak flow at the 100-year storm

1:36:05 ↗ event so the peak storm event that we

1:36:08 ↗ would be designed to is point zero sorry

1:36:11 ↗ 0.3 cubic feet per second of water which

1:36:14 ↗ is about a hundred and twenty gallons

1:36:16 ↗ per minute once spread out over the

1:36:18 ↗ entire 100-foot flow spreader ends up

1:36:20 ↗ being about an eighth inch of water

1:36:22 ↗ cresting that flow spreader over that

1:36:25 ↗ hundred feet so it it really the

1:36:27 ↗ velocities of the water will be slim to

1:36:30 ↗ none it's going across two percent slope

1:36:32 ↗ for about twenty feet before entering

1:36:35 ↗ the top of bank and going down to the

1:36:37 ↗ ordinary high water mark so we are not

1:36:39 ↗ talking about any sort of scour of this

1:36:42 ↗ water as it leaves the level spreader

1:36:44 ↗ thank you what about I guess there could

1:36:51 ↗ be storms or probably will be storms

1:36:53 ↗ that are in excess of the detention

1:36:55 ↗ correct it's what happens in an

1:36:58 ↗ emergency situation so that anything

1:36:59 ↗ greater than the 100-year storm event

1:37:02 ↗ which would be a 500-year event will hit

1:37:05 ↗ the bypass and and just overflowed you

1:37:08 ↗ know the same way the rest of the storm

1:37:10 ↗ water overflows through that level

1:37:11 ↗ spreader okay so it'll just be increased

1:37:13 ↗ flow a plume yeah and I believe the

1:37:15 ↗ 500-year storm event I don't have it

1:37:17 ↗ offhand but I think it's like 1 CFS I

1:37:20 ↗ think 0.3 was the 100-year 1 CFS it's

1:37:23 ↗ like a exponential increase it's not

1:37:25 ↗ linear as I'm sure you know but I will

1:37:30 ↗ say at the 500 year storm event the

1:37:32 ↗ entire city will be underwater so

1:37:34 ↗ I don't know if you'll be driving by

1:37:36 ↗ worrying about the safe you'll be ruined

1:37:38 ↗ by the the entire site would be all the

1:37:47 ↗ water that comes down on the site would

1:37:49 ↗ go into the system

1:37:51 ↗ all right that's correct okay and then

1:37:53 ↗ anywhere where there's not like a curb

1:37:56 ↗ cut for cars to drive through would

1:37:57 ↗ everything be curbed along the

1:38:00 ↗ especially along the ditch edge there

1:38:02 ↗ yes prevent any water from yes the

1:38:04 ↗ entire exterior of the site will be

1:38:06 ↗ curbed to contain all water within the

1:38:08 ↗ site and it had the previous public

1:38:11 ↗ comment I'm sorry if it wasn't clear on

1:38:12 ↗ the plan but it all does get channelized

1:38:14 ↗ to the modular wetland system via curbs

1:38:17 ↗ and then you sort of describe what would

1:38:21 ↗ if we looked at the whole site and all

1:38:23 ↗ the rainfall that would come down on it

1:38:25 ↗ generally where it sits now where would

1:38:28 ↗ all that go now and presumably

1:38:32 ↗ afterwards it would all go through this

1:38:34 ↗ spreader and come out yeah yeah

1:38:36 ↗ absolutely

1:38:36 ↗ so right now and this is actually a part

1:38:40 ↗ of Department of Ecology requirement

1:38:41 ↗ that I have to go through as a

1:38:42 ↗ stormwater designer right now the

1:38:44 ↗ stormwater discharges in this area

1:38:47 ↗ naturally flowing over the gravel that

1:38:50 ↗ the field I will say and discharges in

1:38:53 ↗ this area so when we picked a discharge

1:38:54 ↗ location as part of the requirement I

1:38:57 ↗ have to discharge the water in the exact

1:38:59 ↗ as close as you can to the same spot so

1:39:01 ↗ you're not trading basins so that's why

1:39:03 ↗ we placed the level spreader in that

1:39:04 ↗ location was to maintain the basin

1:39:06 ↗ discharge so the majority or all of the

1:39:09 ↗ water generally from the improved site

1:39:11 ↗ is already coming to that to that did

1:39:14 ↗ that's correct okay but it would come

1:39:16 ↗ through the retention system yes through

1:39:20 ↗ altered treatment attention level

1:39:23 ↗ spreaded released yes thank you is that

1:39:27 ↗ system on backup power I've been only

1:39:31 ↗ here a year but you know it's from time

1:39:33 ↗ to time we do lose power I'm just

1:39:35 ↗ curious what if that system is on backup

1:39:37 ↗ power I would need to ask the owner on

1:39:42 ↗ whether or not they will have a backup

1:39:43 ↗ power source I do not know the

1:39:46 ↗ to that okay sorry just one more so the

1:39:52 ↗ new vegetated strip in the CEPA

1:39:54 ↗ condition what's the width of that did

1:39:56 ↗ you say that's about seven feet just

1:39:58 ↗ above the level spreader area that's

1:40:01 ↗ correct yeah the space from the edge of

1:40:03 ↗ the level spreader to the property feet

1:40:06 ↗ and how far does it run linearly yeah it

1:40:12 ↗ starts down here and then runs all the

1:40:16 ↗ way up around the corner

1:40:19 ↗ can you I'm not sure you two are talking

1:40:21 ↗ about the same thing were you asking

1:40:23 ↗ about the level spreader no that's great

1:40:27 ↗ super condition one I just wanted to

1:40:29 ↗ make sure I'm not sure who the best to

1:40:34 ↗ answer this question or a couple of them

1:40:36 ↗ one would be who maintains the d-o-t

1:40:39 ↗ properties the questions came up her

1:40:41 ↗ comments came up about the d-o-t project

1:40:45 ↗ now having blackberries and other

1:40:48 ↗ invasive species growing in it and is

1:40:51 ↗ the is the d-o-t responsible for

1:40:53 ↗ maintaining that if they don't do it is

1:40:56 ↗ there enforcement so I'm gonna make a

1:41:01 ↗ general comment and then I'm going to

1:41:03 ↗ look to the applicant because we've had

1:41:06 ↗ some obviously some misunderstandings

1:41:08 ↗ about what their agreement with watch

1:41:10 ↗ that is in general each property owners

1:41:12 ↗ responsible for their own property and

1:41:15 ↗ what I'm the public comment that was

1:41:19 ↗ made I'm not sure you know there was the

1:41:22 ↗ two different greens that showed the

1:41:24 ↗ area where wash dot had worked on the

1:41:27 ↗ ditch and then the rest of the property

1:41:30 ↗ that was untouched I made an assumption

1:41:34 ↗ that that was the area the untouched

1:41:37 ↗ area was where the blackberries in

1:41:41 ↗ deadly nightshade that were referenced

1:41:43 ↗ but I don't personally know that I hope

1:41:49 ↗ that maybe someone from the applicant

1:41:50 ↗ can speak about if they have a role in

1:41:53 ↗ maintaining any of the wash dot

1:41:57 ↗ things that were part of their project

1:42:06 ↗ my name is Eric Hanson I'm the owners

1:42:08 ↗ rep on that project so the plantings

1:42:11 ↗ that were done by waz dot the plantings

1:42:13 ↗ that we're done by waz dot are

1:42:15 ↗ maintained by waz dot okay I presume

1:42:21 ↗ that we don't really have any control

1:42:22 ↗ over was that if they they don't

1:42:24 ↗ maintain something and over grows it

1:42:26 ↗ just over grows and property there was a

1:42:32 ↗ question that came up last night too

1:42:33 ↗ about the maintenance of the of any of

1:42:38 ↗ the planting something about after two

1:42:39 ↗ years the city maintains but I didn't

1:42:43 ↗ catch what that was or was it the

1:42:45 ↗ stormwater system so I'm I'm gonna

1:42:53 ↗ answer about just plantings in general

1:42:55 ↗ then maybe I don't know whether maybe

1:42:58 ↗ Doug

1:42:59 ↗ should answer so just because you're

1:43:03 ↗ asking about various maintenance pieces

1:43:05 ↗ so the city obviously requires that the

1:43:10 ↗ plantings that are approved whether it's

1:43:13 ↗ for mitigation or for just general

1:43:16 ↗ landscape planting we have a performance

1:43:20 ↗ bond to ensure that the plantings are

1:43:22 ↗ installed then for just regular

1:43:24 ↗ plantings they have to be maintained for

1:43:27 ↗ three years and then we do another

1:43:29 ↗ inspection to make sure that they've

1:43:32 ↗ essentially established however in a

1:43:35 ↗ critical area as part of a mitigation

1:43:38 ↗ plan it's actually a five-year

1:43:40 ↗ monitoring period so that's just the

1:43:45 ↗ landscape piece I think you may have

1:43:48 ↗ been asking about the stormwater system

1:43:50 ↗ that's me when I heard you dug schlepp

1:43:52 ↗ the consultant engineer for the city and

1:43:57 ↗ the stormwater system in question on

1:44:00 ↗ site is proposed to be a private system

1:44:03 ↗ and that would be maintained

1:44:06 ↗ by the owner and I'm not sure if you'd

1:44:11 ↗ asked kind of inspections density so

1:44:15 ↗ we'll be doing inspections during

1:44:18 ↗ construction and then upon completion of

1:44:22 ↗ the project

1:44:23 ↗ the city has staff in the Public Works

1:44:27 ↗ engineering department that goes out

1:44:30 ↗ regularly and within that first year

1:44:33 ↗ they're looking at the facilities the

1:44:36 ↗ private facilities to make sure that

1:44:39 ↗ they're being maintained properly and

1:44:40 ↗ then they will develop a regular

1:44:42 ↗ schedule to inspect those additionally

1:44:46 ↗ there's a covenant that is recorded on

1:44:48 ↗ the property to allow the city staff to

1:44:51 ↗ enter the site and inspect these

1:44:53 ↗ facilities when they see fit thank you

1:45:02 ↗ do you know that planting width on the

1:45:04 ↗ North Fork of wash that's plantings

1:45:07 ↗ does anybody know that so I'm gonna

1:45:12 ↗ answer obliquely so what I would say is

1:45:17 ↗ one of our conditions is that the

1:45:20 ↗ plantings along the North Fork have to I

1:45:26 ↗ think in general the tree and shrub

1:45:29 ↗ planting is consistent with the city

1:45:31 ↗ requirements however there aren't ground

1:45:34 ↗ covers and so the applicant is required

1:45:38 ↗ to complete the planting along the North

1:45:41 ↗ Fork to match our standards I guess do

1:45:46 ↗ you know the width of wash transplanting

1:45:48 ↗ oh oh you mean the actual like from the

1:45:52 ↗ distance you know I think it was like 30

1:45:54 ↗ feet 35 that's less than 75 okay and on

1:46:01 ↗ the other side it was 17 to 24 I believe

1:46:05 ↗ 7 and 24 so just wash God's plantings

1:46:10 ↗ oh yeah it's 24 okay so is there

1:46:13 ↗ anything done by wash dot that is being

1:46:15 ↗ removed by this project No

1:46:23 ↗ another question I guess about the

1:46:25 ↗ impact of lights on the any fish that

1:46:33 ↗ might be in the tributary given that

1:46:37 ↗ cars will be parked along there and so

1:46:40 ↗ forth

1:46:40 ↗ in it it's 25 feet away yeah and I I

1:46:45 ↗ believe we sort of touched on this in

1:46:47 ↗ the last design commission but it's good

1:46:49 ↗ to refresh our memories on it so all of

1:46:51 ↗ the parking lot lighting will be

1:46:52 ↗ shielded with cutoff and I think I'm

1:46:54 ↗ thinking more than just the cars along

1:46:56 ↗ them that we'll be parking along there

1:47:00 ↗ like the headlights as they headlights

1:47:02 ↗ right what I don't think they'll be

1:47:04 ↗ moving any vehicles at nighttime

1:47:06 ↗ that'll be display parking so the cars

1:47:08 ↗ will be parked there during 4 o'clock in

1:47:09 ↗ February still be dark yeah I mean I

1:47:18 ↗ questioned wood lights like that have an

1:47:20 ↗ impact on fish habitat so I know what I

1:47:28 ↗ would say is lighting and fish habitat

1:47:35 ↗ we've been you know we're in the process

1:47:38 ↗ of updating our shoreline master plan

1:47:40 ↗ and we've received some questions about

1:47:44 ↗ that topic and we're working with I know

1:47:50 ↗ the acronym and ipara 8 which is the

1:47:53 ↗ water resource inventory area in which

1:47:56 ↗ it's akua's located and they are

1:47:59 ↗ beginning to explore that topic and what

1:48:05 ↗ standards should be in place in other

1:48:08 ↗ words right now there are aren't

1:48:11 ↗ standards in place and so we don't I'm

1:48:15 ↗ not saying they don't have an impact

1:48:17 ↗ I just don't think those levels have

1:48:19 ↗ been established yet the one standard

1:48:23 ↗ that I'm

1:48:24 ↗ is that things like parking lot lighting

1:48:27 ↗ we the City of LA has a requirement to

1:48:31 ↗ limit light spill at property lines or

1:48:34 ↗ in to critical areas to zero point three

1:48:38 ↗ foot candles and in speaking with the

1:48:41 ↗ Huayra eight representative we are

1:48:43 ↗ probably the only community in their

1:48:46 ↗ area that has that standard so we we are

1:48:52 ↗ applying the limited tools that we have

1:48:55 ↗ but at this point we don't have enough

1:48:57 ↗ information to know or to establish

1:49:00 ↗ another standard The effect of light the

1:49:04 ↗ effect of lights really is increase in

1:49:06 ↗ predation at night for this for the FRA

1:49:08 ↗ and so my guess would be a car light

1:49:14 ↗ flashing on the river would not be real

1:49:17 ↗ and do a real incentive for predators to

1:49:19 ↗ eat a lot of fish the parking lot lights

1:49:23 ↗ would be an issue but as I said they're

1:49:24 ↗ going to shield those okay I would add

1:49:26 ↗ one more comment - is the vehicles will

1:49:29 ↗ be display vehicles and they'll be most

1:49:30 ↗ likely backed in along that entire thing

1:49:32 ↗ because of the vegetation they'll be

1:49:34 ↗ facing towards the dealership question I

1:49:39 ↗ had - would it be would be best to have

1:49:42 ↗ a requirement that all vehicles be

1:49:43 ↗ backed in along that along that border

1:49:47 ↗ if they were likely to be anyway and I

1:49:52 ↗ don't know if you can require some in

1:49:55 ↗ the back of vehicle at all times in but

1:49:57 ↗ I mean a lot of places you'll go like a

1:49:59 ↗ garage or something to sit back in

1:50:00 ↗ parking only and for whatever reasons

1:50:02 ↗ fumes or whatever in this case it may be

1:50:04 ↗ for the oil coming out of an engine so

1:50:09 ↗ we we did add a SEPA condition like

1:50:13 ↗ along the creek along along the ditch to

1:50:18 ↗ have wheel stops or some other mechanism

1:50:21 ↗ to ensure the cars stay out of landscape

1:50:26 ↗ because of the concern that we wouldn't

1:50:30 ↗ want right so here's one of my thoughts

1:50:34 ↗ - I guess so put into the form of a

1:50:37 ↗ question of death again we have a 75

1:50:41 ↗ foot buffer at the North Fork it was

1:50:45 ↗ lots of protection room for any

1:50:48 ↗ incidentals that can make them out of

1:50:49 ↗ the parking lot and so forth here we

1:50:51 ↗ have a 25 to 30 foot 35-foot buffer from

1:50:56 ↗ the ditch seems to me one of the ways

1:51:02 ↗ that we can without losing the parking

1:51:04 ↗ stalls about losing usable area still

1:51:09 ↗ maintaining that buffer but one way to

1:51:10 ↗ help create a better buffer might be to

1:51:13 ↗ create a solid fence it would prevent

1:51:19 ↗ just human nature people getting out of

1:51:21 ↗ car or tossing a cigarette tossing the

1:51:23 ↗ wrapper things like that this ditch is

1:51:26 ↗ pretty close it could be things in there

1:51:28 ↗ I know it's more expensive than a split

1:51:32 ↗ rail fence but if we had say a five foot

1:51:35 ↗ solid fence along that property line it

1:51:38 ↗ seems like it would help us create an

1:51:40 ↗ effectively larger buffer I don't know

1:51:44 ↗ if that's a crazy idea or not but so I

1:51:47 ↗ don't know that it's crazy the the one

1:51:52 ↗ hesitation we would have in our

1:51:54 ↗ experience is that higher more solid

1:51:58 ↗ fences are more likely to encourage

1:52:00 ↗ people dumping things over them well but

1:52:03 ↗ I wouldn't I wouldn't expect I'm not

1:52:05 ↗ saying that never green board would do

1:52:07 ↗ that I'm just saying when things are

1:52:11 ↗ visible people I think tend to respect

1:52:14 ↗ them more so I so I think the question

1:52:19 ↗ might you know you may be questioning

1:52:23 ↗ whether it should be less permeable but

1:52:29 ↗ I'm then a split rail fence would be but

1:52:32 ↗ I don't know that I think it's wise to

1:52:38 ↗ be able to see what's on the other side

1:52:40 ↗ I guess is is part of my concern

1:52:43 ↗ even though so that might be

1:52:47 ↗ more like a alternating boards is

1:52:50 ↗ another option so that you can see what

1:52:53 ↗ is on the other side if people have

1:52:55 ↗ dropped things over there if you need to

1:52:57 ↗ write I would ask if you can see when

1:53:00 ↗ you're off going on the off off-ramp and

1:53:04 ↗ looking over at the Ford dealership can

1:53:05 ↗ you see those cars they're going to be

1:53:07 ↗ able to see those cars and that if if

1:53:09 ↗ you can it would seem like that would be

1:53:12 ↗ part of the value of the location so

1:53:15 ↗ that you could I don't think so I think

1:53:16 ↗ there's too many trees that are I don't

1:53:19 ↗ know the off-ramp there to my bigger

1:53:24 ↗ concern is trying to create an

1:53:26 ↗ effectively larger buffer without taking

1:53:28 ↗ away usable side area I can answer the

1:53:31 ↗ last question because of the arrogant

1:53:32 ↗ because of the elevation coming off the

1:53:34 ↗ off-ramp you can easily see on the

1:53:36 ↗ property and even the ditch down through

1:53:40 ↗ the ditch yeah those would be display

1:53:44 ↗ vehicles that would be seen from the

1:53:46 ↗ off-ramp

1:53:54 ↗ just a clarification on the north creek

1:53:57 ↗ what are this I don't need the exact

1:54:00 ↗ spot elevations but what is that height

1:54:01 ↗ difference between the blue and where

1:54:05 ↗ the Evergreen cars are parked in the

1:54:07 ↗ park installs I'm just trying to

1:54:08 ↗ envision the headlights and whether

1:54:12 ↗ really any shine down on them

1:54:14 ↗ yeah so it's about seven to eight feet

1:54:17 ↗ below the vehicle like to say I share

1:54:25 ↗ Commissioner Morgan's concern about the

1:54:27 ↗ size of the buffer area we're talking

1:54:29 ↗ about here especially in light of the

1:54:31 ↗ watershed report again on pages 249 and

1:54:35 ↗ 250 it's talking about a 33 foot buffer

1:54:40 ↗ can be counted on to remove 67 to a

1:54:42 ↗ hundred percent of sediment and 33% foot

1:54:49 ↗ buffer could be counted on to remove 69

1:54:52 ↗ to 98 percent of nitrogen and phosphorus

1:54:55 ↗ so we're as low as two-thirds of the

1:54:58 ↗ removal rate here and we're very close

1:55:02 ↗ to the used car parking area of this

1:55:05 ↗ display so I'm wondering if there's

1:55:09 ↗ anything else that we can do to enhance

1:55:12 ↗ that area the mitigation in that area we

1:55:15 ↗ only have a six and a half seven foot

1:55:18 ↗ planning strip along here and it seems

1:55:22 ↗ that were barred from going into the

1:55:24 ↗ washed out property but I wonder about

1:55:26 ↗ that is there any creative way that the

1:55:29 ↗ applicant could find to talk to wash got

1:55:32 ↗ in a more meaningful way to allow

1:55:36 ↗ bringing the planning in there up to a

1:55:39 ↗ better quality applicant to have any

1:55:42 ↗ plan or approach to being able to do

1:55:44 ↗ something like that seems like a

1:55:46 ↗ possible kind of compromise to me and

1:55:49 ↗ I'm running out of compromises otherwise

1:55:51 ↗ and I really think a compelling case has

1:55:55 ↗ been made for a larger buffer area above

1:55:57 ↗ this tributary yeah I can answer

1:56:01 ↗ answer that question I would like to

1:56:03 ↗ remind the Commission that the water

1:56:06 ↗ coming off of this site will be 100%

1:56:09 ↗ collected treated and then released so

1:56:12 ↗ the riparian area is not needed for the

1:56:15 ↗ water leaving our site obviously it's

1:56:17 ↗ needed for other benefits but the

1:56:19 ↗ stormwater leaving our site will already

1:56:21 ↗ be meeting the the ecology minimum

1:56:25 ↗ standard for release to a stream or to a

1:56:27 ↗ tributary to a stream so I just kind of

1:56:32 ↗ want to remind us of that the I'm sorry

1:56:35 ↗ I missed the second point of that

1:56:37 ↗ question now how to work with washed-out

1:56:39 ↗ yes get them to allow bringing the

1:56:42 ↗ planning in there up for more so

1:56:44 ↗ unfamiliar thank you so unwashed I

1:56:46 ↗ completed this work they left it at the

1:56:49 ↗ standard that they coordinated with US

1:56:53 ↗ Fish and Wildlife and Washington Fish

1:56:55 ↗ and Wildlife so that was peer reviewed

1:56:57 ↗ by WDFW and US Fish and Wildlife and

1:56:59 ↗ they found it to be adequate at the time

1:57:01 ↗ that they left the project the riparian

1:57:03 ↗ areas that they left we are not having

1:57:07 ↗ any impact to the watchtower riparian

1:57:09 ↗ areas therefore asking washed-out to do

1:57:12 ↗ additional plantings in there is

1:57:13 ↗ actually asking washed-out to increase

1:57:14 ↗ their maintenance of that area which

1:57:18 ↗ they already found adequate when they

1:57:20 ↗ left so we I guess I'll leave it at that

1:57:23 ↗ I think there's a slight

1:57:25 ↗ misunderstanding and maybe the watershed

1:57:27 ↗ engineer can elaborate but I think that

1:57:31 ↗ those percent reductions were if the

1:57:34 ↗ buffer is being used for treatment is

1:57:36 ↗ that correct and this water is treated

1:57:40 ↗ before it hits the buffer yeah I think

1:57:42 ↗ that's the implication is that the water

1:57:45 ↗ would be seeping through the buffer

1:57:48 ↗ towards this dream you start with

1:57:50 ↗ possibly somewhat polluted water towards

1:57:52 ↗ the outside of the buffer and it seeps

1:57:54 ↗ towards the stream and it it receives

1:57:56 ↗ this you know reduction in influence and

1:58:02 ↗ cleaning in the process but as has just

1:58:04 ↗ been said the existing site is already

1:58:07 ↗ impacted and this is this is a much

1:58:09 ↗ improved

1:58:10 ↗ water quality over the existing

1:58:12 ↗ condition and I don't know whether staff

1:58:14 ↗ wants to point out the distinction of

1:58:17 ↗ all those buffers you know you know

1:58:21 ↗ buffer efficiency numbers that are in

1:58:24 ↗ the report there those are all geared

1:58:25 ↗ towards stream buffers and achieving a

1:58:29 ↗ high level of habitat function

1:58:32 ↗ regardless of how degraded the stream is

1:58:35 ↗ now but my understanding and is getting

1:58:38 ↗ to the staff can corroborate this is

1:58:40 ↗ that SEPA is measuring things against

1:58:44 ↗ existing conditions not against what you

1:58:48 ↗ know higher level of function might be

1:58:50 ↗ so the this the CPEC threshold is you

1:58:55 ↗ know are we making things better or

1:58:58 ↗ worse based on the existing condition

1:59:01 ↗ right and those numbers then that you

1:59:04 ↗ provided are those based on a condition

1:59:06 ↗ which there's no water treatment or a

1:59:08 ↗ condition in which there is treatment I

1:59:11 ↗ I don't know the answer to that directly

1:59:14 ↗ that's part of the best available

1:59:16 ↗ science literature of establishing

1:59:18 ↗ stream buffers in general with the idea

1:59:21 ↗ of you know getting back to a very high

1:59:24 ↗ level of function of habitats again

1:59:29 ↗ keeping in mind that this is an a

1:59:32 ↗ seasonal seasonal flow that's that's one

1:59:36 ↗ aspect of it okay good-evening

1:59:42 ↗ Development Commission Keith Nevin so a

1:59:46 ↗ couple things one is the applicant has

1:59:50 ↗ told me that he's more than willing to

1:59:52 ↗ talk to wash dot about additional

1:59:55 ↗ plantings you can't guarantee it because

1:59:58 ↗ he can't speak for washed out but he's I

2:00:01 ↗ think he's already stated that he's not

2:00:06 ↗ trying to impact any environment and if

2:00:09 ↗ the Commission feels like that's an

2:00:10 ↗ important piece of an outcome he's

2:00:13 ↗ willing to do that as a voluntary

2:00:16 ↗ measure to respond to concerns raised by

2:00:19 ↗ the Commission to Commissioner Morgan's

2:00:23 ↗ maybe comment earlier something to maybe

2:00:27 ↗ think about I I would agree with Lucy I

2:00:29 ↗ think the split rail fence is

2:00:32 ↗ appropriate for two reasons one for the

2:00:36 ↗ openness but two because your you've got

2:00:38 ↗ this natural edge and I think that's a

2:00:41 ↗ better kind of transition to the project

2:00:44 ↗ from an urban design standpoint and if

2:00:46 ↗ you had a solid higher fence there so a

2:00:51 ↗ question for you might be to consider

2:00:52 ↗ maybe a solid hedgerow that might be

2:00:55 ↗ like half the height of the split rail

2:00:57 ↗ fence to give you a vegetative

2:00:59 ↗ continuous buffer along that fence edge

2:01:02 ↗ so you keep people out but you also get

2:01:05 ↗ some additional vegetation along that

2:01:07 ↗ edge and I think with a five to seven

2:01:09 ↗ foot width that's plenty wide to get a

2:01:12 ↗ hedgerow in so some thinking about so a

2:01:15 ↗ hedge Road like a like boxwood it there

2:01:20 ↗ Landscape Architect is what I would say

2:01:24 ↗ is this you could do a hedgerow of some

2:01:26 ↗ kind

2:01:27 ↗ I like boxwood but they may have a

2:01:30 ↗ different opinion about what an

2:01:32 ↗ appropriate hedgerow for the bottom of

2:01:33 ↗ the split rail fence might look like

2:01:35 ↗ it's called English boxwood for a reason

2:01:38 ↗ [Music]

2:01:43 ↗ I loved in yeah and and I guess my

2:01:49 ↗ question to you would be then is could

2:01:52 ↗ you create a continuous in how tall of a

2:01:55 ↗ hedgerow could you create and for a

2:01:58 ↗ continuous run okay my name is Mark Karr

2:02:01 ↗ from landscape architect for the

2:02:02 ↗ applicant with all due respect hedges

2:02:07 ↗ I don't think make great neighbors if we

2:02:11 ↗ put up a hedge along that that split

2:02:13 ↗ rail fence it just walls people off from

2:02:15 ↗ the buffer and so they can't see into it

2:02:17 ↗ the second point I might make is this is

2:02:21 ↗ a retail business visibility is

2:02:24 ↗ important and we are planting the heck

2:02:26 ↗ out of the buffer already and so adding

2:02:28 ↗ the hedge along the edge I I don't think

2:02:32 ↗ that I don't think that helps with their

2:02:34 ↗ business and I just don't think that

2:02:36 ↗ that any sort of hedge well here let me

2:02:39 ↗ back up there's one plant that excuse me

2:02:44 ↗ that might be appropriate for a hedge

2:02:46 ↗ along here at my it's a Pacific wax

2:02:48 ↗ myrtle it's sort of native to California

2:02:50 ↗ but we don't really have any good

2:02:52 ↗ evergreen plants that would make a

2:02:54 ↗ proper hedge row in this climate no

2:02:57 ↗ native plants I think would be

2:02:59 ↗ appropriate for that Oh could you

2:03:01 ↗ explain to us I guess again my concern

2:03:03 ↗ is that we have a ditch that has small

2:03:07 ↗ nodes in it I got spell pronounced the

2:03:10 ↗ right baby salmon in it at times we want

2:03:13 ↗ to keep the impact out from that

2:03:15 ↗ typically on the other side we create

2:03:17 ↗ the 75 foot buffer keeps people and

2:03:20 ↗ things going on from the North Fork here

2:03:23 ↗ we're not gaining anything we're going

2:03:25 ↗ to losing anything from what we have

2:03:26 ↗ generally property line wise but we're

2:03:29 ↗ putting people in cars right up at the

2:03:31 ↗ property line or within a few feet my

2:03:34 ↗ concern is what can we create in that

2:03:36 ↗ limited space of landscaping be a fence

2:03:39 ↗ or hedge road that in essence blocks

2:03:41 ↗ people from going into there and

2:03:43 ↗ impacting it there's no I'm not worried

2:03:46 ↗ about any crime risk anything like that

2:03:48 ↗ I don't think there's no fairy stuff

2:03:50 ↗ that would go on and the ditch

2:03:52 ↗ the people one see it's more of how can

2:03:54 ↗ we create something that protects baby

2:03:57 ↗ Sam and in that stream from what's going

2:03:59 ↗ on in the parking lot

2:04:00 ↗ be it fence or hedgerow or other

2:04:03 ↗ plantings okay

2:04:05 ↗ how about red twig dogwood and the

2:04:11 ↗ reason I propose that number one it's a

2:04:14 ↗ native plant number two it it grows

2:04:18 ↗ quickly and gets quite tall and it can

2:04:20 ↗ form kind of a dense thicket but it's

2:04:22 ↗ also deciduous and so on the winter it

2:04:23 ↗ drops its leaves and it's got nice stems

2:04:25 ↗ but it's still fairly thick can I can I

2:04:28 ↗ suggest in in the interest of time that

2:04:30 ↗ if if you like that idea if the

2:04:33 ↗ Commission likes that idea and the

2:04:34 ↗ applicant is willing to design that as

2:04:36 ↗ an outcome that whatever particular

2:04:38 ↗ plant type might be part of a later

2:04:42 ↗ landscape plan that gets approved but I

2:04:45 ↗ think what I think what I'm hearing

2:04:46 ↗ there landscape architect's say is there

2:04:49 ↗ is some variety of plant hedge that

2:04:52 ↗ could be combined with the fence to

2:04:57 ↗ achieve both a better visual separation

2:05:01 ↗ as well as a physical separation to

2:05:04 ↗ people getting into the ditch which is

2:05:06 ↗ what the fence was intended to do from

2:05:08 ↗ the get-go so I think so I'm just trying

2:05:11 ↗ to say we don't need to design it here I

2:05:12 ↗ think so if you'd like we could try and

2:05:17 ↗ write some kind of performance standard

2:05:20 ↗ if that's helpful mm-hmm to you okay or

2:05:25 ↗ do you want to write it I know I think

2:05:26 ↗ that that might work and again I want to

2:05:29 ↗ make sure it's not just me that's sure

2:05:31 ↗ you know what's the s I'm not I'm not

2:05:34 ↗ feeling like there needs to be a hedge

2:05:36 ↗ there so I guess I'd be interested in

2:05:38 ↗ the other commissioners input I I'm

2:05:41 ↗ curious the way we can't I know we're

2:05:43 ↗ not designing it here take a plant

2:05:46 ↗ that's just gonna spread down the hill

2:05:48 ↗ all the way of the creek you know plant

2:05:50 ↗ it out for washed out without them

2:05:51 ↗ really being aware of it

2:05:53 ↗ it's allow something that's gonna self

2:05:55 ↗ seed and creep its way down

2:05:57 ↗ if it washed our planet sorry Mike

2:06:03 ↗ foster project biologist I just wanted

2:06:05 ↗ to add a data point that the washed-out

2:06:07 ↗ that currently planted washed out

2:06:09 ↗ riparian area has native rose which is a

2:06:14 ↗ rhizomatous spreading plant spreads

2:06:17 ↗ pretty aggressively and salmon Snowberry

2:06:20 ↗ so it's the small low plant also spreads

2:06:24 ↗ pretty aggressively both native both

2:06:27 ↗ greats will provide screening function

2:06:29 ↗ and and that's currently in that newly

2:06:31 ↗ planted wash dot area so what will be

2:06:34 ↗ the average height of those the washed

2:06:37 ↗ out plantings Snowberry and the native

2:06:40 ↗ rose three to six feet in height and

2:06:45 ↗ that's those are the shrubs that I

2:06:48 ↗ noticed there are also tree species like

2:06:52 ↗ willow and western red cedar I guess I

2:06:58 ↗ would argue that wash dot developed a

2:07:01 ↗ planning a planting plan that was

2:07:05 ↗ satisfactory for fish and wildlife

2:07:07 ↗ both the US Fish and Wildlife and the

2:07:09 ↗ Washington Fish and Wildlife and I'm not

2:07:12 ↗ sure why we would think that it needed

2:07:13 ↗ to be more than that I don't know that

2:07:18 ↗ they imagined there'd be cars parked

2:07:21 ↗ right at the edge of the property in

2:07:23 ↗ essence imagine they did what was best

2:07:27 ↗ for what they had could control

2:07:34 ↗ a question for Commissioner Morgan um

2:07:36 ↗ trying to pinpoint the exact spot you're

2:07:39 ↗ talking about are you referring to where

2:07:42 ↗ the stalls the parking stalls are off

2:07:44 ↗ that 75 foot buffer are you referring to

2:07:47 ↗ the edge of the blue field region where

2:07:49 ↗ it meets up the rows about the tributary

2:07:52 ↗ okay so this is all about the tributary

2:07:54 ↗ okay only that I think the the washed

2:08:06 ↗ out plantings and they're seven foot

2:08:08 ↗ buffer should be sufficient to stop

2:08:10 ↗ headlights intermittent I mean it's not

2:08:13 ↗ like a highway driving by there yeah and

2:08:15 ↗ I guess I'm not as concerned by the

2:08:16 ↗ headlights just more of the ability of

2:08:19 ↗ people to I'm shopping for a car with my

2:08:22 ↗ young kids and they say like there's a

2:08:24 ↗ creek down there I'm gonna go play with

2:08:27 ↗ ya and I guess my concern is about

2:08:30 ↗ detention of all the runoff it's great

2:08:32 ↗ if it's 100 percent system that never

2:08:35 ↗ fails and it's well-maintained and all

2:08:36 ↗ that but I've concerns about it several

2:08:39 ↗ years down the road or a case of case of

2:08:42 ↗ a spill or an inadvertent on planned for

2:08:46 ↗ event it seems like and correct me if

2:08:52 ↗ I'm wrong that there all that parking

2:08:54 ↗ along that ditch I mean it looks like

2:08:58 ↗ you've got a couple parking islands

2:09:00 ↗ which I assume will have landscape on

2:09:01 ↗ them and there really is no sidewalk

2:09:04 ↗ there is that correct

2:09:05 ↗ is there a sidewalk Oh anywhere along

2:09:07 ↗ there is it just all stalls it's just aa

2:09:09 ↗ stalls that's just record and there are

2:09:10 ↗ two planners that bisect those stalls

2:09:14 ↗ okay

2:09:16 ↗ so it's possible that the employees on

2:09:19 ↗ their time off for example I mean they

2:09:21 ↗ may not even be in that area right I

2:09:22 ↗ mean they may kind of hang out or take

2:09:27 ↗ their breaks elsewhere and it seems like

2:09:30 ↗ the opportunity for walkability in that

2:09:33 ↗ area is somewhat limited as well once

2:09:36 ↗ you have those tandem tandem stalls laid

2:09:39 ↗ out like that that's correct and there

2:09:41 ↗ is a community space

2:09:43 ↗ from here there's a plaza area at the

2:09:45 ↗ entrance to the Lincoln store I would

2:09:47 ↗ guess they would congregate in that area

2:09:49 ↗ for their bricks additional comments

2:09:56 ↗ concerns this one question would be so

2:10:01 ↗ the the CEPA canned conditions are not

2:10:04 ↗ in our purview to all other than as

2:10:06 ↗ recommendations or or whether we think

2:10:10 ↗ they've been appropriate enough in terms

2:10:14 ↗ for our decision we're making because

2:10:18 ↗ we're not approving the CEPA conditions

2:10:20 ↗ are we that's correct you're not

2:10:21 ↗ approving this

2:10:30 ↗ I guess from from my perspective in

2:10:32 ↗ reading your your condition B I think

2:10:37 ↗ I'd be happy if you added some language

2:10:38 ↗ and that you don't have to do tonight

2:10:42 ↗ but some language about acceptable

2:10:45 ↗ landscaping barriers well the augmenta

2:10:48 ↗ railfans

2:10:50 ↗ again the whole idea is just to try to

2:10:52 ↗ prevent people from going into that area

2:10:55 ↗ which i don't think it buddy wants that

2:10:56 ↗ to happen anyway so lucy are we allowed

2:11:02 ↗ to ask a question on how a certain

2:11:03 ↗ condition is being addressed in Seba

2:11:06 ↗ sure okay a question for the applicant

2:11:09 ↗ in the mdns the mitigated determination

2:11:14 ↗ of non significance condition three B

2:11:21 ↗ the stream and buffer shall be

2:11:23 ↗ encumbered by a public open space

2:11:25 ↗ conservation easement granted to the

2:11:27 ↗ city of Issaquah or other open space

2:11:29 ↗ protection mechanism can you clarify how

2:11:34 ↗ or where on the site plan that is being

2:11:38 ↗ addressed

2:11:40 ↗ I guess whether it's a public open space

2:11:42 ↗ or easement of some sorts so ng PE

2:11:48 ↗ native growth protection easement is

2:11:50 ↗ required over critical areas so it would

2:11:54 ↗ be the north fork north wall and its

2:11:57 ↗ buffers okay so it's just referring to

2:11:59 ↗ the 75 foot buffer that the applicant is

2:12:02 ↗ going okay thank you thanks for the

2:12:04 ↗ clarification

2:12:08 ↗ question for the applicants a landscape

2:12:11 ↗ expert in your opinion does the planting

2:12:18 ↗ area around the tributary is that

2:12:21 ↗ equivalent to the mitigation potential

2:12:25 ↗ of the plantings that we have by the

2:12:27 ↗ North Fork of Issaquah Creek are they

2:12:29 ↗ equally effective in terms of sediment

2:12:31 ↗ and nitrogen and phosphorus removal or

2:12:34 ↗ not the plantings that are currently in

2:12:36 ↗ there planted by wash time well again

2:12:42 ↗ there's there's no

2:12:44 ↗ runoff from our site that is that is

2:12:47 ↗ entering the buffer that has not treated

2:12:49 ↗ it's all treated with the flow spreader

2:12:51 ↗ and so and I should also point out that

2:12:56 ↗ the planting that washed out has

2:12:58 ↗ installed and then on both the North

2:13:00 ↗ Fork and the tributary that's in place

2:13:02 ↗ now it's growing like crazy

2:13:05 ↗ it's you know for being neglected and on

2:13:10 ↗ its own for two summers now with no

2:13:12 ↗ irrigation it's it's doing quite well

2:13:14 ↗ it's thriving actually I mean there

2:13:17 ↗ there's a few dead trees here and there

2:13:19 ↗ which is to be expected and something

2:13:21 ↗ that's just been left to its own devices

2:13:24 ↗ but it's doing quite well and on the

2:13:26 ↗ North Fork of the Issaquah Creek we're

2:13:28 ↗ going to be adding to that along the

2:13:31 ↗ ditch the vegetation that is in place

2:13:35 ↗ that washed out planted again is

2:13:37 ↗ thriving north of that the reason this

2:13:42 ↗ is my opinion the reason washed out

2:13:44 ↗ didn't continue up the ditch is there's

2:13:47 ↗ never any water in there and they they

2:13:49 ↗ have just left it alone and that's what

2:13:50 ↗ we're proposing to do as well because

2:13:51 ↗ it's off our property okay so in your

2:13:54 ↗ opinion is the washed out planning on

2:13:56 ↗ the tributary ditch sufficient for

2:14:00 ↗ preserving the habitat in that water

2:14:03 ↗ course yes I think it is

2:14:12 ↗ question for the applicant there was a

2:14:13 ↗ reference earlier about wheel stops are

2:14:16 ↗ those currently planned for the park

2:14:18 ↗ installs along the ditch side and if so

2:14:22 ↗ can you confirm there's adequate room to

2:14:25 ↗ park through two cars in line without

2:14:28 ↗ handing over the drive aisle so that's a

2:14:32 ↗ SEPA condition that we added that there

2:14:34 ↗ needed to be wheel stops along that edge

2:14:37 ↗ to ensure that you know there was not

2:14:39 ↗ the engine drippy part hanging into the

2:14:43 ↗ landscape area and we generally allow

2:14:49 ↗ two feet so we want we want everything

2:14:53 ↗ contained over the paved surfaces and

2:14:57 ↗ that's our experience is that if with

2:15:00 ↗ wheel stops in the right place

2:15:02 ↗ you're still the the lengthy the car

2:15:05 ↗ fits in the stall okay thank you

2:15:13 ↗ other thoughts concerns questions

2:15:23 ↗ it's a bag it's just a comment it seems

2:15:25 ↗ to me that the questions that come

2:15:26 ↗ opposite encode is it a ditch or a

2:15:30 ↗ stream it seems like or code it's a

2:15:34 ↗ ditch regulation that we would have to

2:15:37 ↗ look at and treated by the we couldn't I

2:15:40 ↗ don't see how we would make a different

2:15:43 ↗ conclusion that no this is not a digits

2:15:46 ↗ a stream and it would all be different

2:15:48 ↗ in which case then the question is are

2:15:50 ↗ the sepia is it better or worse than it

2:15:53 ↗ is right now and it seems to me the

2:15:56 ↗ water quality could end up being better

2:15:58 ↗ in terms of how its flows out it doesn't

2:16:01 ↗ seem like it's gonna be any worse and

2:16:03 ↗ that ditch than it is that yeah in

2:16:07 ↗ general I think I agree I did want to

2:16:09 ↗ bring at one point in response to a

2:16:12 ↗ comment from the public regarding our

2:16:14 ↗ definition of stream vs. ditch in the

2:16:17 ↗ IMC staff mentioned that different

2:16:20 ↗ municipalities have different

2:16:22 ↗ definitions for stream and indeed I

2:16:25 ↗ think the IMC definition is not

2:16:27 ↗ consistent with County code definition

2:16:30 ↗ for stream in a pretty important way I

2:16:33 ↗ think this is from the King County

2:16:36 ↗ sensitive area ordinance their

2:16:38 ↗ definition of stream streams are defined

2:16:41 ↗ in the sense of area ordinance as those

2:16:42 ↗ areas of King County where surface

2:16:44 ↗ waters produce a defined Channel or bed

2:16:47 ↗ very similar to IMC definition a defined

2:16:50 ↗ channel or bed is an area that

2:16:52 ↗ demonstrates clear evidence of the

2:16:54 ↗ passage of water and includes but it's

2:16:56 ↗ not limited to bedrock channels gravel

2:16:59 ↗ bed sand and cell beds and defined

2:17:01 ↗ channels Wales very similar our

2:17:03 ↗ definition as well the channel or bed

2:17:06 ↗ need not contain water year-round this

2:17:08 ↗ definition is not meant to include

2:17:10 ↗ irrigation ditches canals storm or

2:17:14 ↗ surface water runoff devices or other

2:17:16 ↗ entirely artificial water courses unless

2:17:20 ↗ they are used by salmonids or use to

2:17:23 ↗ convey streams naturally occurring prior

2:17:26 ↗ to construction in such water course so

2:17:28 ↗ a lot of that definition is very similar

2:17:30 ↗ to IMC code definition except for the

2:17:33 ↗ phrase and

2:17:34 ↗ it contains salmonids so given that we

2:17:38 ↗ have a critical area here and that that

2:17:40 ↗ is from the sensitive area guidance of

2:17:44 ↗ King County is putting that out is

2:17:46 ↗ something that I think we need to have

2:17:49 ↗ in consideration as we're deliberating

2:17:52 ↗ in regard to this and also consider when

2:17:57 ↗ section title 18 is revised

2:18:15 ↗ or the thoughts

2:18:18 ↗ when will Title 18 be revised next year

2:18:24 ↗ as it might have language like that I

2:18:27 ↗ imagine there'll be a lot of discussion

2:18:29 ↗ around that topic

2:18:42 ↗ I'm fast any any emotions anything to

2:18:46 ↗ add

2:18:54 ↗ you can make a decision move the

2:19:00 ↗ Development Commission approved the site

2:19:02 ↗ development permit for the Evergreen

2:19:03 ↗ Ford Lincoln project file number SDP

2:19:05 ↗ 19-0 zero zero zero one the associate

2:19:09 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

2:19:10 ↗ file number AAS 1900 zero zero five as

2:19:15 ↗ described and evaluated in the staff

2:19:17 ↗ report it May 1st 2019 with attachments

2:19:20 ↗ one through eight briefing response memo

2:19:23 ↗ dated August 14 2019 with attachments

2:19:27 ↗ one through six and project drawings and

2:19:29 ↗ reports received March 5th 2019 and all

2:19:32 ↗ subsequent submittals

2:19:33 ↗ up to July 21 2009 teen and subject to

2:19:37 ↗ the conditions therein and as amended

2:19:39 ↗ tonight including revised condition ten

2:19:43 ↗ consistent with the minimum tree density

2:19:45 ↗ standards in SIDS 10.10 the applicant

2:19:48 ↗ shall plant one hundred and ten trees

2:19:51 ↗ measuring a minimum of two inch caliper

2:19:53 ↗ on site or in an approved off-site

2:19:56 ↗ location or else make a payment into the

2:19:59 ↗ tree fund in lieu of providing

2:20:00 ↗ replacement trees do you need any other

2:20:05 ↗ mention of anything any other materials

2:20:07 ↗ from tonight or we have we don't have

2:20:12 ↗ any changes to that

2:20:14 ↗ STP conditions proposed so I hear a

2:20:20 ↗ motion second

2:20:25 ↗ is there discussion would you like me if

2:20:30 ↗ if I wanted to to make a motion to add a

2:20:33 ↗ condition to revise Seba or I don't

2:20:40 ↗ think that's in your purview but I think

2:20:43 ↗ that we've heard your requests loud and

2:20:46 ↗ clear and I think that we can work with

2:20:48 ↗ the applicant to explore what kind of

2:20:53 ↗ plants can native plants can go in there

2:20:56 ↗ to marry or to - you know I think that

2:21:02 ↗ mark Garf

2:21:03 ↗ I think described or or Mike foster one

2:21:09 ↗ of those two gentlemen mentioned the

2:21:11 ↗ size of the plants you know that are

2:21:14 ↗ planted in washed-out and that seemed to

2:21:16 ↗ be the kind of scale that you thought

2:21:18 ↗ was important and I think we would want

2:21:20 ↗ that continuity anyway and it sounds

2:21:23 ↗ like it would be effective in achieving

2:21:25 ↗ your goal yeah I agree

2:21:29 ↗ lying in the expert opinion regarding

2:21:32 ↗ the plantings around the tributary I'm

2:21:34 ↗ satisfied that that's adequate

2:21:36 ↗ mitigation there further discussion I I

2:21:44 ↗ second that opinion I think a really a

2:21:46 ↗ some of the planting types there along

2:21:49 ↗ that along those parking stalls in that

2:21:51 ↗ ditch is worth taking a look at I think

2:21:55 ↗ overall what we've been presented has

2:22:00 ↗ been some very thorough details and we

2:22:03 ↗ are taking an existing site and on what

2:22:06 ↗ I think is making it in a better

2:22:08 ↗ situation and so I I support the

2:22:12 ↗ decision to move forward so I will call

2:22:17 ↗ for a vote all those in favor of the

2:22:20 ↗ motion passing the motion say aye

2:22:22 ↗ aye opposed motion carries

2:22:27 ↗ mr. chair I moved the development

2:22:29 ↗ Commission direct the development

2:22:30 ↗ services department to prepare findings

2:22:32 ↗ of fact and conclusions were

2:22:34 ↗ approval by the Development Commission

2:22:36 ↗ Chairman affirming the development

2:22:38 ↗ Commission's decision to approve the

2:22:39 ↗ Evergreen Ford Lincoln project members

2:22:42 ↗ SDP 19-0 zero zero zero one and AAS 19-0

2:22:47 ↗ zero zero zero five subject to the

2:22:50 ↗ conditions listed in the staff report

2:22:51 ↗ dated May 1 2019 with attachments one

2:22:55 ↗ through eight briefing response memo

2:22:57 ↗ dated August 21st 2019 with attachments

2:23:01 ↗ one through six and project drawings and

2:23:03 ↗ reports received March fifth 2019 and

2:23:06 ↗ all subsequent submittals up to July 21

2:23:09 ↗ 2009 teen and subject to the conditions

2:23:12 ↗ their IND and as amended tonight second

2:23:18 ↗ motions been made and seconded is there

2:23:20 ↗ discussion all those in favor of the

2:23:24 ↗ motion please say signify by saying aye

2:23:27 ↗ aye opposed motion carries so I think

2:23:33 ↗ we've done our job I do want to make a

2:23:37 ↗ couple of comments one is that you know

2:23:39 ↗ earlier a gentleman made some comment

2:23:41 ↗ about being for and against and I think

2:23:44 ↗ it's really important when we get into

2:23:46 ↗ these public opportunities to realize

2:23:48 ↗ that difference of opinions don't

2:23:51 ↗ necessarily have to be for or against

2:23:54 ↗ they can be let's just make it better no

2:23:56 ↗ I don't think there's necessarily a

2:23:58 ↗ prohibition to development I just think

2:24:00 ↗ that we have a wonderful unique

2:24:03 ↗ opportunity in this democracy to be able

2:24:06 ↗ to participate in the decision-making

2:24:07 ↗ process and I think it's really critical

2:24:09 ↗ that we afford each other the luxury of

2:24:12 ↗ being able to articulate different

2:24:15 ↗ opinions and not necessarily feel like

2:24:17 ↗ it's for or against it's just it's as

2:24:19 ↗ healthy I want to thank all the people

2:24:21 ↗ that made comments both positive ones

2:24:23 ↗ that are for comments and against

2:24:25 ↗ comments because they just make us

2:24:26 ↗ better and that's what this commission

2:24:29 ↗ is about and what we're trying to do in

2:24:30 ↗ the city is being transparent so I thank

2:24:33 ↗ you all for your participation I'm sorry

2:24:34 ↗ we ran a little late we usually go til

2:24:38 ↗ 12:00 or 12:30 but I can see

2:24:40 ↗ I appreciate your participation and just

2:24:43 ↗ encourage you all to be safe going home

2:24:45 ↗ so with that I will adjourn the meeting

2:24:47 ↗ oh wait no I can't adjourn the meeting I

2:24:50 ↗ have to say there's other business we

2:24:52 ↗ our next meeting is currently scheduled

2:24:55 ↗ for October 16th and the council

2:24:57 ↗ chambers now we're adjourned thank you

2:25:08 ↗ you

2:25:13 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (14)

Administration/Staff: Richard Sowa

Lucy Sloman

Land Development Mgr. Mel Morgan

Katie Cote

Planning Consultant Michael Brennan Doug Schlepp

Engineering Consultant Kevin Price Keith Niven

Dev. Srcs. & Econ. Dev. Dir. Richard Sanford Brooke Shore Others Present: Arthur Schulte

Alternate Mark Garff

SCJ Alliance Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Tyrell Bradley

SCJ Alliance Michael Brennan Mike Foster

O’Neill Service Group Ben Rush Greg Johnson

The Watershed Company Commissioners Not Present (Unexcused): Mark Rigos

Alternate Nischitha Venkatesh

Alternate