← Back to City Council Digest

Environmental Board Auto captions

Thursday, March 10, 2022

6:30 PM · 2h 42m
Topic tracked across meetings:
Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Natural Environment, (D) 1/2
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Board Membership Commission)
packet pp.3
Staff report:
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Staff Liaison Stacy Vynne McKinstry, About Sustainability Manager Created in 2020, the objective of the Email Stacy Vynne McKinstry Environmental Board is to protect, preserve and enhance the natural environment and take Regular Members action on climate change to reduce its impacts 2022 - Dani Madan* by advising the Mayor, City Council and City 2022 - Don McQuilliams departments on the City’s plans, policies, 2023 - Rishi Hazra* regulations and programs related to 2023 - Cameron Fisher environmental stewardship. 2023 - Lara Lebeiko 2024 - Nancy Davidson Membership 2024 - Dan Hintz The Environmental Board is comprised of 2024 - Anne Newcomb nine regular members, and up to three 2025 – Jamie Finch alternates. All members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by Alternate Members the City Council. Terms expire April 30 of 2022 - Tom Anderson the year…
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3a
Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Natural Environment, (D)
Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.5–96
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
A. The public hearing on March 10th is to get public comments on the draft code updates to the Critical Areas Chapter of the Land Use Code, Title 18. Code changes to the following critical areas are being considered: 1. Geologically Hazardous Areas: Coal Mine Hazard Areas; Erosion Hazard Areas; Landslide Hazard Areas; Seismic Hazard Areas; and Steep Slope Areas 2. Wetlands 3. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 4. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas An open house is planned on March 8th where staff will be available to answer any questions from community members.
0:02 all right good evening i'd like to call
0:03 order uh the march 10th joint policy and
0:06 planning commission with the
0:07 environmental board at 6 32.
0:10 due to the virtual format of today's
0:12 meeting i'd like to start by providing
0:14 some basic guidelines we have
0:16 participants attending by computer and
0:18 others who may be attending by phone for
0:21 all meeting attendees who wish to speak
0:23 please speak clearly and pause
0:24 frequently
0:25 state your name each time before
0:27 speaking reach your microphone when not
0:29 speaking and if you have technical
0:31 issues try joining the meeting using a
0:33 different device such as a smartphone or
0:35 tablet or use the call-in information in
0:38 the meeting invite to call into the
0:40 meeting
0:41 now we're going to move on to attendance
0:43 stephen will you go ahead and please
0:46 take the role for
0:48 policy planning commission and stacy
0:50 please do the same for environmental
0:52 environmental board following
0:58 one second while i pull up my list
1:06 okay
1:07 commissioner lewis
1:11 here
1:14 commissioner monahan
1:15 here
1:17 push for your voice
1:20 here
1:22 commissioner follow
1:26 here
1:28 commissioner vader
1:29 here
1:31 and commissioner milligan has an excused
1:33 absence
1:34 uh commissioner zaragoza
1:36 here
1:40 everybody but commissioner milligan is
1:41 in attendance tonight chair
1:47 great and for the environmental board uh
1:49 danny maiden
1:53 don mcwilliams
1:57 rishi hazra uh has a
2:00 excused absence
2:01 cameron fisher
2:03 yeah
2:05 lara labako
2:09 nancy davidson
2:11 beer
2:13 dan hintz
2:19 and newcomb
2:22 here
2:24 jamie finch
2:26 here
2:28 tom anderson
2:30 here
2:32 surya bola pragata
2:37 and janet wahl
2:39 here
2:44 on the board thank you
2:47 okay so we're going to go ahead and
2:49 we're going to open this up to
2:51 public comment first but i'd like to go
2:53 over the structure of the meeting
2:56 first we'll have public speaking on
2:58 general
2:59 topics
3:00 and then we'll go into the meeting
3:04 broken out into four topics
3:06 uh geological
3:08 geologically hazardous areas wetlands
3:10 fish and wildlife habitat
3:12 and critical aquifer recharge areas
3:16 we will then break off as we
3:19 cover each topic we will have a
3:21 opportunity to be able to ask questions
3:24 and we'll open up for public comment
3:26 again
3:27 and during each topic we will ppc will
3:30 turn off their cameras and not
3:31 deliberate this will be an opportunity
3:34 for the environmental board to actually
3:35 have a deliberative conversation about
3:38 these topics
3:41 okay and with that said uh let's go
3:43 ahead and open up for general public
3:46 comment uh kristen do we have any
3:48 members from the public who would like
3:49 to speak generally
3:55 stephen
3:57 thank you kristen uh tonight i'll be
3:59 facilitating tonight's painting so i'll
4:00 be helping with public comment um no one
4:02 had let us know uh ahead of time that
4:04 they want to do
4:06 public comment um so anybody that's able
4:09 to send a chat send a chat to me to let
4:11 me know i see kyler davis danielson
4:14 would like to
4:16 do public comments so i'm gonna move you
4:18 to a panelist
4:27 and i am going to meet you
4:30 okay hello um my name is tyler danielson
4:33 i'm the land use project manager for
4:35 lakeside industries
4:37 um i'm commenting today particularly
4:39 about the critical aquifer recharge area
4:42 the map designation for lakeside's
4:45 property and the list of prohibited
4:47 activities in the cara 2 which is
4:50 what lakeside's property has been
4:52 designated as
4:54 we have some concerns that the map
4:56 designations
4:58 um coincide directly with the property
5:00 lines which doesn't
5:02 seem to make sense for how the aquifers
5:05 would actually function underground
5:07 um we haven't seen any data to support
5:11 it and so we would appreciate if that
5:13 information could be put online and be
5:15 available to the public
5:17 um we believe that
5:19 the um
5:20 the changes are inconsistent with the
5:23 zoning code and the development
5:25 agreement that lakeside has
5:28 signed and agreed to with the city of
5:30 issaquah in 2013
5:34 and that agreement recognized our
5:37 continued existence
5:38 at our site
5:40 by making
5:41 our site a non-conforming use it
5:43 actually makes it much more difficult
5:45 for us to make
5:47 changes to our plant to make it better
5:49 for the environment and so we want to be
5:52 able to continue to make those
5:53 modifications and improvements
5:55 um with the future in mind so i did
5:59 submit a letter so i'd appreciate if you
6:01 could read it and we're happy to work
6:03 with
6:04 the staff and anyone that's willing to
6:06 talk to us about this issue
6:21 okay if there's anyone else uh please
6:23 raise your hand for public comment
6:29 i have one call and user i'm going to
6:31 check with just in case they don't know
6:32 how to
6:35 raise their hand from the phone
6:38 for the call-in user
6:41 are you going to be speaking for public
6:43 comment today
6:45 this is hank hanes can you hear me yes
6:49 yes my name is uh hendrick w that is
6:52 hank
6:53 haynes h-a-y-n-e-s
6:56 i put in a lengthy uh comment in advance
7:00 which should be uh in your file along
7:02 with a linkage to a video in case you
7:04 want to see it
7:06 i'm real concerned about
7:08 some very sensitive areas that we have
7:10 going along sr-169
7:12 uh the cedar river along cedar grove
7:14 road
7:16 and also along issaquah creek and my
7:18 presentation covers that it also
7:21 concerns
7:22 the coal mine areas the
7:26 areas that we have in terms of slide
7:27 zones
7:28 etc etc
7:30 and also potential use of those coal
7:32 mines
7:33 those coal mine areas for uh underground
7:36 uh vertical farming uh and also uh
7:39 avenues for for future thoroughfares for
7:42 passing um
7:44 roads and also public transit so that
7:47 would be a fairly long discussion that
7:49 feeds directly into the very important
7:50 work that you're doing now
7:52 and i hope you will look at my
7:54 presentation as well as the ones from
7:56 right side industries very much
7:58 appreciate their position too
8:00 so with that arrest i want to thank you
8:03 very much for your comment i leave
8:05 for this opportunity i live here on the
8:09 cedar
8:10 river on the canyon rim
8:12 and i look across the canyon right at
8:14 the cedar hills regional landfill
8:17 this area called queen city farm and
8:20 lakeside industries is going to be
8:22 if i'm thinking of the right party
8:24 they're going to be putting the asphalt
8:25 plant right below my house so we're all
8:28 fun neighbors
8:29 uh so have a good day sir i
8:32 really gotta enjoy this
8:34 meeting so thank you for letting me talk
8:41 thank you hank
8:42 so now i'm gonna go to susan and then
8:44 i'll go to connie marsh next soon i'm
8:45 gonna make you a panelist
8:50 hello this susan neville
8:52 and i'm just trying to start my video
8:57 um i'm having a hard time so i'll try
9:00 later
9:01 okay if we can hear you i have a general
9:03 question regarding the channel late
9:04 changes that i wanted to share right now
9:07 i've been um working on this for a
9:09 number of days and first of all thank
9:11 you all for being here and allowing us
9:13 to have this opportunity
9:16 and um
9:17 i've already sent in various questions
9:19 and gotten some good answers and i
9:23 as an overall
9:26 observation
9:28 i would like to make this comment
9:29 because a picture is worth a thousand
9:31 words
9:33 i'm still having
9:35 issues understanding
9:37 how
9:39 the proposed changes are going to work
9:42 and if the new code changes are what we
9:45 discussed in
9:46 during all the numerous meetings
9:48 and i was wondering if the developmental
9:52 or the planning committee or gee excuse
9:55 the planning administration
9:57 would consider
10:00 maybe taking an existing development
10:03 and compare the old code in the new code
10:05 and what it looks like now what it could
10:07 look like based on the changes proposed
10:10 or even an old application that never
10:13 got uh developed
10:15 just so that we could see um
10:18 visually the changes
10:21 and i am referring back to a meeting
10:24 this summer
10:25 when the various committees went out and
10:28 looked at uh different developments
10:30 and it really opened up our eyes to
10:33 understanding the process so i'm just
10:36 was wondering if
10:37 the planning department could consider
10:40 that and if they do consider it if it's
10:42 something we could discuss and look over
10:45 before the first draft goes to city
10:47 council
10:49 and that's it for now and the other
10:50 areas i'll come in later
10:52 thank you
10:56 great thank you susan i'm gonna move you
10:58 back to the tenure list
11:03 one second
11:12 okay connie i have unmuted you can go
11:14 ahead
11:17 okay and could you um
11:20 could you able my video
11:22 because my video is disabled
11:25 yes
11:31 okay good
11:34 okay you're over we can't oh there you
11:36 are yes you can see me now it just takes
11:38 a little while so my name is connie
11:40 marsh and um
11:44 i have put a lot of time into this now
11:47 we're getting to the point and i i know
11:50 how this goes because
11:52 this is not the
11:53 first time we've done code review
11:56 and that is the point
11:58 where
11:59 the city staff feels like they've been
12:02 working on it for a really long time and
12:05 they think it's good
12:07 and
12:08 they want to move
12:11 and so uh
12:14 unfortunately that's usually just when
12:17 people are getting their first look at
12:20 and so the first thing i want to say is
12:22 remember this is not on a timeline both
12:25 council and the mayor have not put this
12:28 on a timeline to make sure that there is
12:30 ample time
12:31 to review so
12:34 you don't have to be rushed you don't
12:35 have to put something forth
12:37 that then they're going to fix
12:39 later after you've adopted it we can
12:41 always come back once a year and change
12:43 it and fine-tune it
12:45 that happened to the central isoqua plan
12:47 three years later we had to go back and
12:49 do a rework with a moratorium on growth
12:51 and it was sort of ugly
12:55 now the draft is out people are going to
12:57 submit comments and i guess what i was
12:59 hoping to hear is something from city
13:02 staff that was more general how are the
13:06 comments that are being put in place
13:08 tonight then going to be used are these
13:10 comments going to be incorporated into
13:13 the draft that goes to council
13:15 is council getting the same draft
13:18 that
13:19 that we all are seeing
13:22 when can we expect to see
13:25 changes
13:26 and know that they're happening and i
13:29 say euphemism i use the term what's the
13:31 feedback loop on this
13:33 and so we can track it to see if we need
13:36 to continue on
13:38 asking for topic changes
13:40 or not but i i would actually like to
13:42 know all that before we go into the
13:44 little breakout things thank you very
13:46 much
13:51 thank you connie i'll move you back over
13:54 to the attendees
13:58 and
14:02 susan i see your hand is raised
14:04 oh this must be from your previous
14:06 public comment i don't see any other
14:07 public comments tonight cheerful
14:10 all right thank you very much uh stephen
14:11 so uh i do
14:13 to the presenters tonight i would like
14:15 to address connie's question about the
14:18 feedback loop if they could
14:20 speak to that as at the appropriate time
14:22 in their presentations that would be
14:23 great
14:24 um so i'm gonna go ahead and hand it off
14:28 uh the first person is going to be jim
14:32 with his presentation tonight so jim uh
14:36 the floor is yours
14:38 thank you chairfall um you know i'll go
14:41 ahead and if you want to me to address
14:43 those questions before um i can speak to
14:46 that and jim's going to talk about the
14:47 geotechnic you know geologically
14:49 hazardous areas perfect so
14:52 in terms of
14:53 um the process moving forward uh we this
14:56 is the first time um you know we've uh
14:58 we're soliciting formal written comments
15:01 uh and you all are looking at it and
15:04 getting the public hearing on this i
15:06 mean we've had conversations we've had
15:08 discussions
15:09 at the policy level and then we've
15:11 created the draft so by no means is this
15:13 the only opportunity
15:15 to uh provide comments or um
15:18 um or not so
15:21 the next steps for this are you all you
15:24 know we're taking public comments now
15:26 you all will deliberate on march 24th at
15:29 that time
15:30 you can uh create a list of things that
15:33 needs additional work uh or the the the
15:36 elements that need um that you agree
15:39 with and and are good or the other ones
15:42 that um you don't agree with you can
15:44 kind of give us some feedback on that
15:46 if there are items that need additional
15:48 work we'll create a list of those we'll
15:51 share that with uh city council ask them
15:54 if there's an additional things that
15:56 they want
15:57 the boards and commissions to consider
16:00 and then we'll go back to work on uh
16:02 really actually addressing some of these
16:04 comments that have come in and we'll
16:06 track them in a matrix similar to the
16:07 one that you have in your packet today
16:10 the public comments that you have in
16:11 your packet today were prior to creating
16:14 the first draft so everything we heard
16:16 from public prior to actually creating
16:18 the the draft is and our responses are
16:21 included in your packet
16:23 after the draft has been released we're
16:25 going to take all the comments create a
16:27 similar matrix and and address the
16:30 comments for your consideration there is
16:33 uh we can um you know currently um
16:36 the next public hearing on this type
16:38 item is scheduled for um summer
16:41 um with the consolidated draft so we
16:44 haven't from now until then to kind of
16:46 keep working on those things we can have
16:48 another check-in if that's something
16:50 that would be helpful for everyone so
16:53 this is by no means the only time that
16:55 we're gonna you know we're gonna move on
16:57 to the other things yes obviously we
16:59 want to hear as many
17:01 possible public comments now so we can
17:03 adequately address them
17:05 so i hope that answers one of the
17:07 questions the other question i think was
17:09 from susan in terms of can we use an
17:12 example and that came up during the open
17:14 house
17:16 in our presentations today we uh try and
17:19 um use that uh strategy to kind of uh
17:22 help illustrate by some examples and
17:24 with some graphics so we're happy to to
17:27 take that a step further and analyze an
17:29 actual project and and share with um we
17:32 on the 24th so with that i think i'm
17:35 going to turn it over to jim to
17:37 carry on
17:38 thank you
17:56 good evening everyone
17:58 committee members and uh
18:01 public who are attending tonight thank
18:03 you can you everybody see my screen
18:09 and hear me okay
18:11 yes we can hear you and we see your
18:12 screen thanks jim perfect great thank
18:14 you very much
18:16 so i'm here to speak about geological
18:18 hazardous areas
18:20 and uh
18:22 these areas are grouped in the
18:24 following
18:26 five categories that are listed below
18:29 coal mines erosion
18:32 landslide
18:33 seismic hazard areas and steep slope
18:36 hazard areas
18:38 the codes have been
18:40 we've endeavored at least to update the
18:42 codes
18:43 uh to look and reflect the best
18:45 available science
18:47 and to bring a focus on
18:50 uh providing public safety
18:53 and protection of property
18:55 from hazards
18:56 geologic hazards
19:02 so i'm going to discuss a summary of
19:04 some of the code changes
19:10 so assessing
19:12 critical areas
19:13 is sort of the first step
19:16 in the process
19:19 the
19:21 of mitigating or
19:23 assessing the critical areas
19:25 so we spend a fair amount of time
19:27 looking at the critical area study
19:29 requirements
19:31 and
19:32 in many of the code sections
19:34 such as landslides
19:36 coal mine hazards
19:38 and seismic
19:40 we've updated the requirements for the
19:42 study
19:44 the old code had some
19:46 some very general study requirements for
19:49 critical area studies
19:51 we've augmented that in the new code
19:54 with some specific
19:55 requirements for some of the other
19:57 critical areas
20:01 the
20:02 peer review requirements for critical
20:04 areas reports is also
20:06 vitally important
20:08 uh it's a job of the peer reviewer
20:10 to provide a check on the completeness
20:12 and also the compliance with the
20:14 standard of practice
20:16 uh for
20:18 assessing the critical areas
20:22 in the various sections of the critical
20:24 areas code there are requirements that
20:27 the
20:28 critical areas reports
20:30 have a peer review conducted
20:32 and that peer review has to be completed
20:36 and accepted for the critical areas
20:38 report to be
20:40 finalized
20:44 defining
20:46 roles for the professionals
20:49 uh involved in preparing critical ares
20:52 reports
20:53 is important
20:55 what we want to see is the
20:58 professionals who have the experience uh
21:02 necessary working on the types of
21:05 uh geologic critical areas that they
21:08 have the expertise for in other words we
21:10 would like to see
21:11 geotechnical engineers who have some
21:13 experience in
21:15 coal mines and coal mine hazard
21:17 mitigation working on those types of
21:20 critical areas
21:22 having engineering geologists weigh in
21:25 and work on reports that have to do with
21:27 landslides and steep slopes
21:29 and geotechnical engineers
21:32 uh working in areas where they have
21:34 their expertise as well so there's some
21:38 defining the roles and the definitions
21:41 and also the requirements for who has to
21:43 stamp
21:44 these reports as licensed professionals
21:51 most of the landslides that occur
21:54 or that have occurred in issaquah
21:57 have actually occurred on slopes that
21:59 are
21:59 less steep than 40 percent
22:03 uh so i think we wanted to make a lot we
22:06 wanted to increase the emphasis
22:09 in the code on identification of
22:11 landslide hazards
22:13 and
22:14 not that forty percent or steeper slopes
22:17 are not important
22:19 but it's all it's equally important to
22:21 identify landslides that might exist on
22:23 less steep slopes so we've included some
22:28 criteria for identification of
22:30 landslides and requirements to check
22:34 with different mapping
22:35 agencies
22:37 who
22:38 do a lot of work in identifying where
22:40 landslides exist
22:44 so coal mine hazards
22:47 in the old code there was no definition
22:50 of coal mine hazard zones
22:52 there'll be a slide a little bit later
22:54 while i will talk a bit more in detail
22:56 about this
22:57 but the new code
22:59 identifies the the hazard zones
23:02 uh and uh provides uh
23:05 mitigation responsibilities for
23:08 the different types of hazard zones
23:11 listed in the code
23:16 i'm going to show a slide a little bit
23:18 about hazard buffers so we put together
23:20 a table
23:21 which discusses
23:23 or lists all of the
23:25 buffers and
23:26 that are associated with the geologic
23:28 hazards to provide a nice summary
23:31 so you don't have to hunt through the
23:33 code to find all of that
23:37 the
23:39 buffer reductions is a is a pretty
23:41 important topic
23:43 there are standard buffers for different
23:46 geologic hazards
23:48 and there are cases where buffers
23:51 reductions may be appropriate
23:54 i'll discuss that a little bit as well
23:57 and finally seismic hazard areas
24:02 we provide some more details on
24:06 how you define a seismic hazard area
24:08 and then also what mitigation standards
24:11 will be
24:12 uh required if you're building in one of
24:14 those seismic hazard variants
24:22 we also looked at some changes in how
24:24 they might
24:25 actually add some protection to geologic
24:28 hazard areas
24:31 a buffer was added in the su in the code
24:35 for severe coal mine hazard areas
24:37 previously there weren't any buffer
24:39 requirements
24:42 i'll talk a bit about the
24:44 allowances for increasing buffers
24:47 for landslides and steep slopes
24:51 i think that is that potential has
24:53 always been in the code
24:55 uh but there may be some uh specific
24:58 cases where
25:00 there'll be more attention brought to
25:03 the potential for increasing buffers
25:06 related to landslides or steep slopes
25:09 the way the code is written now
25:12 and landslide hazards it's we've made it
25:15 clear that
25:16 all landslides require buffers uh unless
25:20 the landslide risk
25:22 can be
25:24 mitigated
25:25 or eliminated
25:28 for forever into the future
25:34 so this is the table that we're going to
25:36 put in the code i know those of you
25:38 who've spent a lot of time reading the
25:40 draft code already did not see this
25:42 table
25:43 uh it will be added so you're probably
25:45 seeing it for the first time
25:48 it lists on the left hand side
25:50 four types or actually all five of the
25:54 geologically hazardous areas
25:57 and then whether those areas
25:59 require buffers or not
26:01 and then whether those
26:04 buffers would also
26:06 require an additive building setback
26:09 sometimes called the bsvl building
26:11 setback line
26:14 and then there's a classification column
26:17 column with the standard buffers
26:21 and then the minimum buffer that would
26:23 be allowed
26:24 in the case of a buffer reduction
26:29 at the very bottom you'll see
26:31 under severe coal mine hazards there's a
26:33 15 foot buffer previously there were no
26:36 buffers for coal mine hazards
26:46 so i want to talk a little bit about
26:49 the buffers for steep slopes this
26:52 equally applies to landslide hazards
26:56 the buffers are applied
26:58 well to the top and toe and actually the
27:01 sides of it
27:02 this is a cross section so i'm going to
27:04 talk about the top and the toe
27:07 so the standard buffer is 50 feet from
27:09 the crest or the toe
27:11 of a 40 or greater slope
27:14 or if it's a landslide it could be
27:17 gentler
27:18 slow the building setback is also shown
27:21 here as the red line and the building
27:24 setback is additive to the buffer
27:28 the criteria for a steep slope critical
27:32 area is that the slope height
27:36 must be 20 feet
27:39 or greater so an exemption can be made
27:42 for slopes that are less than 20 feet
27:45 high
27:47 so you could imagine if you had a slope
27:49 that was say only 22 or 23 feet so it
27:52 just met the criteria
27:55 if the slope was only that high
27:57 i think you would probably agree that
27:59 having a buffer of 50 feet from the top
28:02 and toe of that slope
28:04 from a safety standpoint might be a bit
28:06 excessive
28:08 it's almost two times the slope height
28:13 i think the
28:15 code is written so that a buffer
28:16 reduction for something like that might
28:18 be reasonable
28:20 on the converse you can imagine if this
28:23 slope height was 200 feet high
28:27 in that case a buffer of 50 feet
28:31 may not actually be enough
28:33 and
28:35 so the having flexibility in the buffer
28:38 width
28:40 depending on the nature and the height
28:42 of the slope is important to have in the
28:45 code
28:52 this final slide is
28:54 regarding coal mine hazards
28:58 all of the coal mine
29:01 or all of the coal seams within the city
29:03 of issaquah are sloping
29:06 or dipping
29:07 so this uh this figures depicts a
29:10 dipping coal seam under the ground
29:12 surface
29:13 and not usually not all of the coal seam
29:16 is mined so you have coal pillars left
29:19 in place and the mined out sections
29:21 of the coal seam usually collapse with
29:23 time
29:25 the code is written in such a way that
29:28 really deep coal seams
29:31 like on the left side of the figure here
29:33 that are 300 feet or deeper beneath the
29:36 ground surface would be considered
29:38 declassified
29:41 or could be considered declassified
29:47 upon submittal and approval of a
29:49 critical areas report
29:51 coal seams that are between 300 and 150
29:55 feet deep would be
29:57 classified as moderate hazard
30:00 that would probably be in the range here
30:01 kind of in the middle
30:03 where you could have collapse
30:05 it doesn't reach the surface
30:08 but it could cause some subsidence at
30:11 the surface
30:12 called trough subsidence
30:14 and the code has criteria for
30:17 evaluating
30:18 the amount of acceptable trough
30:20 subsidence
30:22 and then on the far right here where you
30:25 have the potential for a collapse to
30:27 reach the ground surface and cause a
30:29 sinkhole
30:30 those are considered severe hazard areas
30:34 and those hazard areas when they are
30:37 defined
30:38 will require a buffer
30:41 and the purpose of the buffer around the
30:43 edge of the severe hazard area is
30:45 twofold
30:47 one because
30:48 the actual
30:51 edge of the hazard area
30:53 is difficult to to pinpoint and it could
30:56 be a little bit bigger
30:57 and then two if there is ever a collapse
31:00 then you would want access
31:03 for equipment or other things to get in
31:06 there and mitigate the surface open
31:12 that concludes my presentation
31:20 thank you jim so we're going to go ahead
31:22 and open it up for commissioner
31:24 questions
31:26 if you have a question please go ahead
31:27 and enter it into the chat window
31:41 okay and the first question is jamie
31:43 finch so commissioner finch you have the
31:45 floor
31:47 thank you chairfall jamie finch from the
31:48 environmental board speaking
31:51 thanks for the presentation jim i had a
31:52 question
31:54 about
31:55 when
31:56 landslide and
31:58 critical area studies are required i'm
32:01 just curious are there instances where
32:04 the type of development that is
32:05 occurring has the potential to change
32:07 whether that slope has a landslide risk
32:10 and if so how is that contemplated in
32:12 the code
32:17 so development applications are required
32:20 for
32:21 you know
32:24 or i should say critical area studies
32:27 would be required for a development
32:29 application
32:30 that
32:31 has a critical area on it or a critical
32:34 area is suspected on it
32:38 that is determined
32:40 i think emily can address that at the
32:42 time of the application
32:44 and the various critical areas would be
32:46 identified and then the critical areas
32:48 would be study would be required for
32:50 those types of critical areas
32:55 and then during the peer review of that
32:57 critical area study there would be a
32:59 check to see whether or not
33:01 all of the critic the appropriate
33:03 critical areas have been addressed so
33:05 there's a second check
33:08 to make sure that
33:09 everything is
33:11 that might be present on the site or
33:13 being addressed
33:17 okay
33:17 so i think emily might be a mute
33:22 all right and thank you much
33:23 commissioner finch and next uh oh i
33:27 think emily was responding that's why i
33:29 was saying yeah pardon me i i was just
33:31 going to add a little bit to that and it
33:33 may help clarify typically when an
33:35 application is submitted we verify with
33:38 our maps if there's critical areas
33:41 that might be impacted by the
33:43 application and if there are then we
33:46 request that there's a geologic study
33:48 that's submitted with the application so
33:51 they can assess the impact there and
33:53 then it progresses forward with the peer
33:55 review once we get that study
33:59 yeah i guess my question was a little
34:00 bit different i think i was
34:02 like let's take jim's diagram where
34:05 there's a house at the top if that
34:07 instead of a house there is
34:10 a million square foot parking lot that
34:12 funnels all the water to the bottom of
34:14 would that be treated any differently in
34:16 the terms of the buffers and how that
34:18 might where that could sit relative to
34:20 an unstable slope like that that's maybe
34:22 a better way of framing out my question
34:25 i see yeah well a parking lot
34:28 you know jim maybe you can help me out
34:30 here i'm not sure if the building
34:31 setbacks apply necessarily
34:34 well this this the buffer would apply
34:38 and uh the parking lot
34:40 i'm not quite sure about the bsbl for
34:43 the parking lot but there would
34:44 certainly be a buffer requirement at the
34:47 the crest regardless of whether
34:50 whatever the structure is
34:52 the purpose of the buffer is to remain
34:54 in its natural state
34:58 and then there would be reviews about
35:00 any discharge of water to the crest of
35:03 slopes
35:05 that would certainly be reviewed because
35:07 water is a known
35:09 contributor to slope instability
35:13 thank
35:14 you and thank you commissioner finch and
35:18 the next
35:19 commissioner is uh commissioner nancy
35:22 davidson from the environmental board
35:23 you have the floor
35:25 thank you very much so in one section of
35:27 the code of the new code on page eight
35:31 it says steep slopes may be used for
35:33 approved surface water conveyance in
35:35 accordance with the studies adopted
35:38 surface water regulations can you hear
35:41 okay
35:43 so i guess i'm concerned that you know
35:46 jim you just said we surface water is a
35:49 problem for a steep slope which i think
35:50 is pretty
35:51 well acknowledged but we can
35:54 allow surface water to be conveyed
35:56 across the steep slope you know
35:59 isn't that kind of a conflict of
36:00 interest and why would we be allowing
36:02 that to happen
36:05 i think that is intended to
36:08 convince would be in a pipe so it's an
36:11 exemption for like a utility type of of
36:15 occurrence so if we needed to convey
36:18 surface water and it had to go across
36:20 the steep slope it could
36:22 be conveyed in a pipe
36:24 if it was to be you know dispersed or
36:27 you know come out of the pipe somehow
36:29 that would be something that we would
36:31 you know review and probably not allow
36:33 on a steep slope because that wouldn't
36:35 make any sense
36:37 so don't you think that needs to be
36:39 clarified so that applicants who are
36:42 trying to build or construct around a
36:44 steep slope kind of has a better idea of
36:47 what they're doing and to protect that
36:49 slope
36:50 just a comment i shouldn't be making
36:52 confidence yet sorry about
36:59 my understanding of that i think it's in
37:01 the exemptions was for uh city agencies
37:06 to be allowed to have that as an
37:08 exemption not an applicant
37:10 for site development
37:14 okay
37:14 for conveyance
37:17 and maybe that needs to be uh clarified
37:20 take a look at that
37:21 yeah we'll we'll take a look at that um
37:23 and yet it doesn't say a city so we'll
37:26 look at the language and then you know
37:28 what's the the intent but i think
37:30 it is not meant for surface water
37:32 dispersion or anything it's more for
37:35 um you know to say keeping the safety in
37:37 mind so we can we can research that and
37:39 clarify the language
37:41 and my comment is surface water can be
37:44 conveyed in a
37:46 ditch a canal
37:48 it not necessarily in a pipe so i think
37:50 that kind of clarification is important
37:52 along the way
37:53 um the second comment i'd make is jim i
37:55 could not find and i'll admit i read
37:58 these but i didn't read every line line
38:00 for line so there's my first
38:01 administration but i didn't find where
38:04 it said that it had to be prepared by
38:06 someone that had a specialty
38:08 in that area such as deep slopes or
38:11 seismic or whatever the case or
38:12 landslides and if it's in there great
38:15 just that's just a general question i'm
38:17 not sure if you've looked at that but i
38:19 couldn't find it so it's something to
38:21 keep in mind
38:23 and then i guess the last question i
38:25 have for you is in reviewing the
38:27 landslide hazard areas
38:29 and the ability to um
38:33 change
38:34 the amount of buffer that's required
38:37 how do you
38:38 what is the criteria for that so i don't
38:41 really see any criteria for that in this
38:43 and any way
38:45 that you know you that the public can
38:48 understand how that decision was made
38:51 and so i guess i'm wondering is that
38:53 something that is left up to
38:56 scientists to figure out or is there
38:58 going to be criteria showing up at some
39:00 point
39:03 so the intent is
39:04 to have the applicants
39:08 geotechnical engineers and other
39:09 scientists
39:11 provide analysis of the slopes
39:15 with buffer reductions
39:17 being proposed that analysis includes
39:21 slope stability analysis so they will
39:23 have to be able to demonstrate that
39:26 the stability of the slope does not
39:28 decrease
39:30 from the
39:31 uh the 50 foot buffer compared to the
39:34 reduced buffer
39:36 and the requirements are to provide
39:39 analytical slope stability analysis at
39:42 any place you know selected cross
39:45 sections at any place where they provide
39:47 a or recommend a buffer reduction
39:51 so there is an analytical and
39:54 geotechnical process
39:56 to be able to show that
39:58 and they must show it with adequate
40:01 factors of safety for both seismic and
40:03 uh and static
40:09 okay thank you
40:11 thank you commissioner davidson so
40:14 sorry about the
40:16 sneezing on the microphone i tried to
40:18 hit mute but i couldn't actually get it
40:19 to fast enough so
40:22 uh allergies are great uh okay the next
40:25 commissioner here is tom anderson you
40:28 have a uh you have the floor
40:31 uh thank you tom anderson the
40:32 environmental board here um
40:35 in the spirit of the comment we heard
40:37 from the public earlier about using
40:39 examples i'm wondering if we'd go back
40:42 to the slide where you had the table
40:44 of setbacks and all for various hazards
40:47 that had that lovely picture of the
40:49 slide on newport way and talk about that
40:53 new poor way slide as an example and how
40:56 we might have
40:57 addressed that or is that is that unfair
41:00 to uh take a specific example like that
41:04 um yeah not that one this one this one
41:07 that slide there on the right uh that's
41:09 uh i believe that's the recent one that
41:11 occurred just this last season is that
41:13 right
41:14 that is correct
41:17 okay is it uh is that fair to talk about
41:23 jim i'm not sure if you have much to to
41:25 say about this one this is a a site
41:28 that's in king county that slid onto the
41:31 city's road and i'm not sure if there's
41:33 any development up there
41:35 that would have happened but i know that
41:37 jim can probably talk about how the code
41:39 would apply to any remediation that that
41:42 needed to be done
41:44 well for example at the foot
41:47 okay there's a road right there at the
41:48 base of the slide so maybe during the
41:51 process of
41:52 designing and constructing that road uh
41:55 these factors
41:57 would have been considered and
41:59 stabilization of that soap would have
42:01 been required or something like that
42:02 that's um
42:04 what i'm guessing but uh go ahead uh
42:07 what do you have to say about that
42:10 well emily's correct um so the property
42:13 on adjacent to the road is king county
42:16 and the road is is a city of issaquah
42:20 so cross-jurisdictional things can be
42:22 quite challenging
42:26 if you were constructing a new road here
42:29 today
42:32 you would have to first identify
42:35 the critical areas that would be
42:37 adjacent to the roadway so in this case
42:39 you would have
42:41 both steep slopes and likely landslide
42:44 hazards
42:46 so in order to design this roadway you
42:49 would have to assess the stability of
42:51 these steep slopes you would have to do
42:53 a critical area study
42:55 and you would have to demonstrate that
42:57 the slopes would be stable at the
43:00 inclinations that you're going to be
43:02 cutting them to to install the roadway
43:05 if they are not you would have to
43:07 install retaining walls or some other
43:10 type of structural
43:13 fix or re-grade the slopes
43:16 in such a way as to make them stable
43:18 if they are
43:21 steep slopes under the with the
43:23 greater than 40 percent you're not
43:25 allowed to regrade those in the city
43:27 you're not allowed to uh to alter them
43:30 if it is a
43:32 landslide a geologic landslide you are
43:35 allowed to mitigate that and make it
43:38 stable for your roadway
43:41 as far as mitigating this right now
43:45 there will be a structural fix put in
43:47 place here that will stabilize this
43:50 landslide
43:52 and also provide catchment for
43:54 other materials that might slide
43:57 beyond the area that they stable and
44:00 that they stabilize and keep material
44:02 off the roadway in the future
44:05 that answer your question
44:07 uh yes thank you that was that was an
44:09 interesting example thanks
44:13 that's all i have
44:14 thank you very much uh mr uh
44:17 mr anderson and commissioner voice you
44:19 have the floor
44:22 thank you chair phil looking at this
44:24 actual
44:25 what we have this slide is there so two
44:28 questions but is there a reason why we
44:30 have so many not availables
44:32 as far as
44:33 uh standard buffer minimum buffer
44:35 allowed
44:39 i'm sorry could you repeat the question
44:42 so looking at this slide right here mr
44:45 johnson
44:46 is there a reason why on some of these i
44:48 believe kind of looking at seismic
44:51 not available is that just because that
44:52 entire thing is site-specific
44:55 oh good question um
44:57 so for liquefaction
45:00 um there's no buffer for that
45:02 because
45:05 well you cannot effectively buffer
45:08 against it the only way to mitigate
45:11 liquefaction is to
45:13 design for it
45:15 because it is going to happen
45:18 so if you were to buffer for
45:19 liquefaction you would be evacuating or
45:22 buffering all of
45:24 downtown on the valley floor or much of
45:26 it in any case because much of its
45:28 liquefiable
45:30 so it is not a discrete zone or area
45:33 that you could buffer from
45:37 okay well thank you and then the other
45:38 question i have is i remember reading
45:41 this draft code and i believe it the
45:43 wording was civic engineer
45:45 as far as the
45:47 as far as talking about experts and then
45:50 you had mentioned possibly passing this
45:52 off to someone who
45:54 is more
45:55 knowledgeable about pacific northwest
45:57 whether it be mines or different
46:00 geological areas
46:02 my question is do we have any type of
46:04 data about their availability and are we
46:07 possibly creating a backlog by
46:10 looking for more
46:12 experts that are more
46:13 in tune with these specific
46:15 hazards
46:17 [Music]
46:20 you're speaking to having peer review
46:22 experts available
46:23 to uh do the peer reviews on these
46:26 different uh applications
46:29 yeah there there the consulting
46:32 community has quite a number of experts
46:34 um in the specific things that are
46:37 listed here
46:38 landslide seismic i would say that coal
46:41 mine probably has the fewer number of
46:43 experts but there are at least three or
46:46 four that come to mind so i don't think
46:48 there'd be a backlog and there's not a
46:50 particular
46:52 large amount of applications that come
46:54 in on a given year for that deal with
46:56 coal mine hazards
46:59 okay excellent thank you
47:01 you're welcome
47:04 thank you commissioner voice
47:06 and we have a question here from
47:08 commissioner newcomb
47:10 the other floor
47:12 and you come here from the environmental
47:14 board
47:15 i'm just curious um
47:18 do land owners or does anybody ever bill
47:21 these old coal mines to create more
47:24 stability
47:30 um i'm
47:33 so there there has been a proposal to
47:36 mitigate a
47:40 high hazard or severe hazard land star
47:43 coal mine area
47:45 or a coal mine hazard
47:48 it's very unusual because it's quite
47:50 costly to do
47:52 so what they're going to do is they're
47:54 going to excavate down to the uh
47:57 the old
47:59 access tunnel
48:00 that has a bunch of loose ground and
48:02 voids in it and they're going to open it
48:04 up to the ground surface and then
48:06 they're going to fill it in
48:08 effectively eliminating the hazard
48:11 and then there
48:12 they will have no severe hazard there
48:15 anymore it's very uncommon this is the
48:18 first time i've seen it done in izakawa
48:22 but it can be done and uh it's an
48:25 effective way to eliminate a severe
48:27 hazard
48:28 and these are usually
48:30 features that are very close to the
48:31 ground surface within about 20 25 feet
48:34 from the ground surface
48:38 interesting thank you
48:40 you're welcome
48:43 and thank you commissioner newcomb and
48:44 i'm not seeing any additional questions
48:47 so with that uh let's go ahead and open
48:49 it up to public comment on the
48:52 geological hazards
48:54 so stephen do we have any members of the
48:56 public that would like to speak tonight
48:57 about this specific topic
49:00 yes
49:01 kyler danielson would like to speak on
49:03 this topic uh tyler i'm
49:05 i'm meeting you now and making you a
49:08 panelist
49:10 i'm gonna jump in really quickly before
49:12 we go um ron i want to remind you this
49:14 is actually a public hearing night so we
49:16 need to open it at a certain time and
49:18 when public comments are closed are done
49:20 at the very end of all of the
49:22 presentations then they need to be
49:23 closed at that specific time as well so
49:26 opened it about 7 21.
49:28 okay thank you i also need to
49:30 make a mention that uh we need to keep
49:31 public comments to uh less than five
49:34 minutes tonight
49:37 i don't think that'll be a problem for
49:39 me um sorry to
49:41 comment again but um i wanted to comment
49:44 on the issue of this peer review for um
49:48 this topic
49:49 and there was one comment in here about
49:51 the difficulty in finding experts
49:54 for um this effort and i will say from
49:58 personal experience it can be a real
50:00 challenge to find experts that can speak
50:03 particularly on steep slopes
50:06 and the expert report expense can be
50:09 already extremely high in some cases
50:12 and experts are just that they're
50:14 experts in their field steep slopes have
50:16 been researched for decades and the
50:19 experts evaluate the geological and
50:21 hydro
50:22 hydrological conditions at the time of
50:24 permitting and they're completely
50:27 qualified to make those assessments i've
50:29 never seen a peer review requirement in
50:32 any of the counties or cities that
50:34 lakeside industries operates
50:37 um peer review is typically something
50:39 that's used when you have
50:41 a report that's going to be published
50:43 and widely relied on
50:45 rather than a site-by-site assessment
50:50 and based on the information and the
50:52 knowledge and background of the experts
50:54 that are available they should be
50:56 completely qualified to do this work
50:58 without a peer review so i would
51:00 actually recommend that that requirement
51:02 be removed
51:05 and that's my comment for now thank you
51:09 great thank you
51:13 i also see connie marsh and susan
51:15 deville um give me one second
51:18 to move
51:19 kyler
51:30 all right connie i moved you to
51:31 panelists
51:36 okay starting my video here
51:42 uh having watched our geologic struggles
51:45 for many years as we have a significant
51:48 number of landslides
51:52 we started in issaquah a best management
51:55 practice of peer review and even double
51:58 peer reviews
51:59 for our steep slopes because we have had
52:02 so many issues with sliding
52:05 slopes
52:06 including water towers
52:08 palace
52:10 developable areas with goody corner
52:14 we have
52:16 we have a very large number of landslide
52:20 situations so
52:22 even with our our double suspender peer
52:26 reviews
52:28 we have a hard time
52:30 not having landslides
52:33 it's complicated and you can't poke
52:36 enough holes in the ground to actually
52:38 understand 10 feet by 10 feet what is
52:41 happening in each
52:43 geologic
52:44 area uh now it's just that really quick
52:48 we have both up evil from from our
52:52 earthquake faults and we have our
52:54 glacial formations which creates a
52:57 geologic underpinning that's crazy
53:01 and so it is more difficult than
53:03 issaquah than most play many places to
53:05 understand what's going on
53:08 underground even with lidar which is
53:10 this pinging stuff where they try to
53:12 look see what's underground
53:15 so i'm for the peer review and i don't
53:18 even trust that amount of peer review
53:20 from the results that i have seen so the
53:23 criteria that are used in those
53:26 reports need in my opinion to be even
53:30 more stringent now the next question
53:32 that i have has to do with
53:35 when we allow for access roads cutting
53:39 across
53:40 deep slopes which then require variances
53:45 and
53:47 and seeing how we haven't gotten to the
53:48 variance chapter but i don't entirely
53:51 understand what kind of critical area
53:54 studies
53:55 are going to be needed in addition
53:59 because we often have to allow access to
54:02 properties and that often means cutting
54:04 across
54:05 vulnerable steep slopes and landslide
54:08 hazard areas so um i'm not sure
54:12 where the proper place
54:15 to address these things that are going
54:16 to be
54:17 allowed have to be allowed on steep
54:20 slopes and what they should contain but
54:23 if you would just put that into your
54:25 tier hopper that would be great thank
54:28 you
54:34 thank you connie i'm going to move you
54:35 back over to the attendee list and i see
54:39 susan you have your
54:41 hand raised so i'm gonna mute you now
54:43 and we'll move you to a panelist
54:46 uh hello
54:48 um i had a question regarding the
54:51 criteria for changing buffers and i
54:53 understand that's what after the
54:55 analysis and the peer groups
54:58 is this where the director will make the
55:00 final approval
55:03 once all this information is gathered
55:06 because that was what i was reading
55:08 under the uh
55:10 the
55:11 the um tables
55:13 so when there's a reduction the final
55:15 decision is made by the director
55:17 and then my other question
55:22 is concerning um
55:24 protections for land for
55:27 steep slopes
55:28 there were two added protections added
55:31 and one was
55:33 existing native vegetation
55:35 is protected within the buffer
55:38 as long as it's maintained and the other
55:40 one was
55:42 for steep slope hazards
55:45 is prohibited with exceptions for
55:47 hazardous trees or noxious weeds
55:50 and i think what happens when a
55:52 development starts to happen
55:54 trees are uprooted which causes
55:57 other trees to lose their stability so
56:00 not only are you
56:02 removing a certain number of trees
56:04 usually what's happened in the past uh
56:06 many more
56:08 have to be removed because of that and
56:10 i'm not sure if there's any way you can
56:12 protect
56:14 that type of development from happening
56:17 and then my third one was
56:20 are there no protections for homeowners
56:22 if slide occurs
56:24 within a development
56:26 as we're seeing in other
56:28 uh counties and
56:30 that's happening today
56:33 and
56:35 this is still question and answer period
56:36 i think and and i was wondering if that
56:39 included bpc
56:41 if they're asking questions during this
56:42 period thank you
56:48 thank you susan i also see
56:51 mary lynch you have your hand up so i'm
56:52 going to mute you
56:55 and make you a panelist now
57:06 can you hear me
57:07 hi hi mary we can hear you now okay
57:10 thank you
57:10 um i want to just piggyback on what
57:13 connie was saying about peer reviews is
57:16 just even in recent years we've had
57:19 this issues where the city
57:22 internally has peer-reviewed
57:24 uh issues
57:26 and after the fact have found that there
57:29 has been problems with those and not
57:31 thorough peer reviews or you know
57:33 thorough studies
57:35 so i really um would like to see that
57:38 the peer review stays in there and would
57:40 like to see an outside not just a you
57:43 know necessarily a city peer review and
57:45 make sure that they are qualified to
57:47 give that and someone that is
57:49 knowledgeable of the area as connie was
57:52 saying issaquah and our slopes are are a
57:55 little bit different
57:57 and i'm glad you
57:59 talked about the slide that was um
58:02 happened on newport way
58:04 because we as a public stood out at the
58:07 development meetings and expressed our
58:09 concerns
58:10 about that road and the road actually
58:13 was changed
58:15 and the city staff did approve
58:18 for the wall to be cut in and for just
58:21 the
58:22 very low level of blocks to be done and
58:25 not a complete study of the hill because
58:27 they said oh nothing's going to happen
58:30 and the problem that the city got into
58:33 as the comment was made well that's
58:35 county property
58:36 so when this after it was cut into
58:39 and the short wall built there
58:42 not you know less than you know six
58:45 months uh the slight happened and then
58:48 the problem is is whose fault is it
58:51 and we on this part of town had to put
58:53 up with that and um you're still are
58:56 living with it that i live west of of
58:59 the slide and so our access into
59:01 issaquah is bad there are a lot of
59:04 places where issaquah touches the county
59:08 area so
59:10 it may be a gray area but this is
59:12 something we need in our codes to
59:14 identify again that is a characteristic
59:18 of our city and we need to make sure our
59:21 codes clearly state
59:24 how we are to handle those
59:26 and how we are to handle when a slide
59:28 happens who's responsible and how it's
59:31 gonna
59:32 um help
59:33 so that some of us are not you know
59:35 landlocked
59:37 or and inconvenienced while the city
59:40 tries to decide is it the city issue or
59:43 is it um
59:44 the county issue and how are you going
59:46 to prevent it from happening in the
59:48 future thank you
59:51 and my name is mary lynch i don't think
59:53 i said that
59:55 thank you mary
59:57 cheerful i don't see any other raised
59:59 hands for public comment
1:00:05 okay and thank you
1:00:07 steven so i'm going to go ahead and
1:00:08 close public comment at 7 32
1:00:12 and now we will go ahead and turn this
1:00:14 over to nancy to deliberate on this
1:00:16 topic
1:00:17 uh so question for nancy first is do you
1:00:20 want your commissioners to
1:00:23 deliberate on the force separated
1:00:27 topics or do you want to deliberate once
1:00:30 all the presentations are completed
1:00:33 i think it will be easier to do each
1:00:35 the four topics particularly after the
1:00:37 public comments so that would be my
1:00:39 preference if that's acceptable to the
1:00:41 chair that's acceptable i was just
1:00:43 asking for clarification to see what how
1:00:45 you wanted to handle that
1:00:47 okay i'm going to go ahead and hand it
1:00:48 off to you and ppc please turn off your
1:00:50 cameras and we will let nancy take care
1:00:52 of the
1:00:53 environmental board
1:00:55 thank you and at this point i think
1:00:57 we're open to comments on the geologic
1:01:01 areas so are there any comments from the
1:01:03 environmental board members
1:01:11 okay i see
1:01:12 uh don mcwilliams please go ahead
1:01:16 thanks nancy so don mclean's
1:01:18 environmental board so my comment goes
1:01:20 back to nancy's uh question about the
1:01:22 parking lots and the conversation there
1:01:24 and it spurred a
1:01:26 question for me of
1:01:28 how does the
1:01:30 this code
1:01:32 compare with the requirements of the
1:01:34 stormwater standards
1:01:36 your current stormwater standards are
1:01:38 going to tell you that you have to
1:01:40 disperse first or you have to
1:01:42 put it off into the hillside as your
1:01:45 your first choice
1:01:47 but this seems to be contradictory to
1:01:49 that so just caution the staff to be on
1:01:51 alert for that
1:01:54 thank you
1:01:56 thank you don uh next comment is from
1:01:58 jamie finch please go ahead jamie
1:02:01 thank you nancy's jimmy finch
1:02:02 environmental board um
1:02:04 my one comment was
1:02:06 i appreciate with the coal mine having
1:02:08 kind of clear but relatively clear
1:02:10 standards on declassified moderate
1:02:13 severe i just wonder and this is kind of
1:02:15 dovetailing off of nancy's earlier
1:02:17 comment around criteria for steep slope
1:02:20 and landslides
1:02:21 i mean i'm i'm used to looking at like
1:02:23 avalanche forecasts in the skier and
1:02:24 like likelihood and severity or or size
1:02:28 is is is going to be something that i
1:02:30 would assume in a study could be defined
1:02:33 and so i don't know if there's a common
1:02:35 language that can be used it just seems
1:02:37 we haven't really put um any
1:02:40 clear guidelines and
1:02:42 that i would think would be a key
1:02:44 outcome from a critical area study of a
1:02:46 landslide area or a steep slope so that
1:02:49 just seems like an area that if there's
1:02:51 more that can be done to firm up and
1:02:53 clarify
1:02:54 where
1:02:56 what what types of of
1:02:59 threats would be present in a given
1:03:01 property and how that might relate to
1:03:02 the buffer i think that would be really
1:03:04 helpful thank you
1:03:06 thank you jamie uh next we have cameron
1:03:08 fisher go ahead cameron
1:03:10 thank you nancy cameron fisher
1:03:11 environmental board um i'd just like to
1:03:13 reiterate the uh the conversations we've
1:03:16 been hearing
1:03:17 uh regarding the peer review um i think
1:03:19 that's uh should be maintained or
1:03:21 included uh this is a very specialized
1:03:27 expertise
1:03:28 and and i would like to see
1:03:30 uh the city
1:03:32 encourage the uh
1:03:34 development um
1:03:36 to uh to keep their uh going and uh
1:03:39 maintain the that
1:03:41 that effort thank you
1:03:45 thank you cameron tom anderson please go
1:03:48 ahead
1:03:49 uh tom anderson here oh yes thank you so
1:03:53 let's see my comment was about
1:03:56 uh the lakeside
1:03:58 input uh there on some of the points
1:04:01 made there were included comments about
1:04:05 uh the city's changes weren't based on
1:04:07 best available science you know just
1:04:09 wrong words and and how do we how do we
1:04:12 get resolution to something like that i
1:04:15 mean it's not for us as the
1:04:17 environmental board
1:04:19 not scientists to
1:04:21 ascertain well are they or are they not
1:04:25 i'm a little bit in a quandary about how
1:04:28 resolution on those kind of things can
1:04:31 accomplished the city i think would have
1:04:36 meet that head on and figure out well is
1:04:39 that the case or not and get resolution
1:04:42 to it
1:04:43 um so i'm a little uncertain
1:04:47 how we can disposition those kinds of
1:04:50 concerns because it's not our role to
1:04:53 decide whether or not they are or are
1:04:57 based on best science available thank
1:05:01 thank you tom and janet we don't have a
1:05:03 full environmental board if you have any
1:05:05 comments please feel free on any of
1:05:07 these topics as we get to them to weigh
1:05:09 in and if you have anything tonight on
1:05:11 this topic i'd appreciate your feedback
1:05:14 janet wall
1:05:16 thank you no i don't
1:05:18 have any uh
1:05:20 comments beyond what has already been
1:05:23 discussed
1:05:25 okay uh and i'm going to provide my
1:05:27 comments as the chair or just as myself
1:05:31 i am concerned specifically about the
1:05:34 reduction in buffer sizes uh 50 feet of
1:05:37 buffer is not a lot to be asking on a
1:05:39 steep slope or a landside hazard area
1:05:43 and um
1:05:46 a lot can happen in that 50 feet and
1:05:48 we've seen the consequences of earth
1:05:50 movements in the community and i would
1:05:53 encourage you when you take a buffer
1:05:54 from 50 feet down to 10 feet you are
1:05:57 really significantly reducing that
1:05:59 buffer
1:06:00 and um it troubles me that we're
1:06:03 considering that and leaving that as an
1:06:04 option in the code because to take it
1:06:06 all the way to 10 instead of the 25
1:06:08 reduce it in half
1:06:10 seems like a more reasonable expectation
1:06:13 because
1:06:14 if the area slides or there's
1:06:17 something happens the responsibility
1:06:20 then lies with the city to pay for it
1:06:22 and to deal with it so i'm troubled by
1:06:25 that though i know we're having peer
1:06:26 reviews and i
1:06:28 encourage us to continue to do that but
1:06:30 i would ask staff to really consider
1:06:33 um thinking long and hard about the
1:06:35 criteria for reductions
1:06:37 and the significance of those reductions
1:06:39 and the long-term consequences to
1:06:42 the city over the next hundred years so
1:06:45 um i think there's some pretty
1:06:46 significant reductions that are being
1:06:48 allowed in the code
1:06:49 and um i think it will be pushed very
1:06:52 hard on staff to make those reductions
1:06:55 we've seen it happen in the city before
1:06:58 and that troubles me
1:07:00 any other comments from the
1:07:01 environmental board
1:07:04 okay i'm going to turn it back to uh ron
1:07:07 to uh begin the meeting again thank you
1:07:09 very much
1:07:10 all right and thank you very much nancy
1:07:12 and so the next uh presentation is
1:07:16 see jim are you doing that presentation
1:07:22 no i'm not doing the next one
1:07:25 city staff doug yormick will be
1:07:27 doing the next presentation go very good
1:07:30 okay so you have the floor
1:07:36 all right thank you i'm trying to get
1:07:38 everything set up here
1:08:04 okay can everybody see the slide
1:08:07 yes and we can hear you
1:08:11 all right
1:08:12 good evening everyone um
1:08:15 i am going to be presenting the
1:08:17 um the four topics listed here in the
1:08:20 natural environment bucket wetlands
1:08:22 streams fish and wildlife habitat
1:08:24 conservation areas and critical aquifer
1:08:26 recharge areas
1:08:28 after each section i will
1:08:31 pause for
1:08:33 comment and deliberation and then
1:08:35 continue on once that section has been
1:08:37 completed
1:08:43 so the
1:08:44 update to the wetland section is the
1:08:46 current code is 1810 5976 through 760.
1:08:53 the goals in making these changes
1:08:56 these were provided by council the comp
1:08:59 plan the strategic plan or represent
1:09:01 best available science
1:09:04 and with the wetland changes the the
1:09:06 highlight the two major changes which is
1:09:09 eliminating the 25
1:09:11 buffer reduction for wetlands and then
1:09:14 incorporating the 2014 ecology wetland
1:09:17 guidance
1:09:22 so wetlands are rated using the 2014
1:09:25 wetland grading form for western
1:09:27 washington they're
1:09:28 scored on three criteria hydrology where
1:09:31 the water comes from
1:09:33 habitat the surrounding area and water
1:09:35 quality functions or additional inputs
1:09:38 from adjacent land uses the total score
1:09:41 is added together to determine the
1:09:43 wetland category
1:09:44 once the category has been determined by
1:09:46 adding up those scores the habitat score
1:09:49 is what's used to determine
1:09:51 the buffer size
1:09:54 under our current code
1:09:56 we don't consider adjacent land uses for
1:09:59 buffer sizes
1:10:01 so with the proposed changes
1:10:05 the buffer sizes will be variable
1:10:08 depending on
1:10:09 the proposed land use and the land use
1:10:12 that's adjacent to it
1:10:14 in the low moderate and high and i'll
1:10:17 get into
1:10:18 a little bit of what each is so a low
1:10:23 um intensity of impact is more of like
1:10:26 passive recreation unpaid trails for
1:10:29 hiking bird watching preservation for
1:10:31 natural resources and in forestry
1:10:35 moderate
1:10:36 is a little bit more of an impact it's
1:10:38 open space with paved trails playgrounds
1:10:42 utility corridors that are shared by
1:10:44 multiple utilities and high is going to
1:10:46 be the most prevalent throughout the
1:10:47 city that's going to be your urban
1:10:49 development commercial residential
1:10:51 development that's greater than one unit
1:10:54 per acre
1:10:57 in the
1:11:01 column here
1:11:03 you can see these are our current
1:11:05 wetland buffer widths and
1:11:08 just based on habitat score and
1:11:10 don't take into account the intensity of
1:11:13 impact
1:11:15 some of these buffers are going to
1:11:17 increase some of them pretty
1:11:18 substantially
1:11:19 um once you factor in the adjacent land
1:11:23 uses and
1:11:25 as i was saying before high is going to
1:11:27 be the most prevalent throughout the
1:11:29 city so follow this
1:11:33 high intensity impact column here
1:11:40 this is a slide that i had shown on last
1:11:44 summer during a ppc meeting
1:11:46 um this is a recent development in
1:11:48 issaquah this is the riva site um so it
1:11:51 can kind of show you
1:11:53 what the current buffers are
1:11:55 the allowances that they were they used
1:11:58 with the buffer reduction and then what
1:12:00 the current buffer would be under the
1:12:02 proposed code
1:12:04 so this is a category 2 wetland and it
1:12:07 had a buffer size of 75 feet and that's
1:12:10 the dashed line
1:12:12 right along here
1:12:14 they went through the buffer reduction
1:12:17 crate criteria in our current code
1:12:19 and were able to reduce that standard
1:12:21 buffer by 25 percent
1:12:24 56.25 feet which is the green area
1:12:28 along here
1:12:30 under our current code or under our
1:12:32 proposed code
1:12:33 this particular wetland with a half with
1:12:35 its habitat score would increase from 75
1:12:38 feet to 100 feet um and that 100 feet is
1:12:41 represented by the brown that kind of
1:12:44 goes into some of these buildings here
1:12:49 under the the proposed code there is no
1:12:51 opportunity for buffer reduction which
1:12:53 they were able to take advantage of
1:12:55 on in the in the
1:12:57 when they were developing however we are
1:12:59 still allowing buffer averaging which
1:13:02 will allow some flexibility on on
1:13:05 development sites
1:13:07 see where you would be able to reduce
1:13:10 the buffer area by 25 percent in some
1:13:12 areas
1:13:13 by adding an additional 25 percent on
1:13:17 site somewhere else
1:13:24 um with the the wetland code changes we
1:13:27 we did make some additional changes
1:13:30 the first one being we've eliminated the
1:13:32 density credit calculations um this
1:13:34 allowed development to take some of the
1:13:36 development potential
1:13:38 of a site from the critical areas to the
1:13:40 developable site area
1:13:42 this allowed for an increase in
1:13:45 density in the developable site area
1:13:48 along the critical area buffer boundary
1:13:52 this this was only allowed for
1:13:54 residential development and it was
1:13:56 seldom used
1:13:58 there is some ambiguity around
1:14:00 stormwater facilities in our current
1:14:03 code um our code allowed for vaults and
1:14:06 other structures if it if you could
1:14:08 plant native vegetation on top
1:14:11 however
1:14:12 the type of vegetation to increase the
1:14:14 habitat function
1:14:17 is not allowed to be placed on a vault
1:14:19 or makes it difficult to be placed on a
1:14:21 vault
1:14:23 thereby decreasing the habitat value of
1:14:25 that particular section of of the buffer
1:14:28 so we've just eliminated that but we do
1:14:31 allow for certain low impact development
1:14:35 storm water facilities so rain gardens
1:14:38 the vegetative flow path but not the
1:14:40 actual dispersion trench
1:14:42 but vaults bubble up structures inflow
1:14:44 spreaders will not be allowed within a
1:14:47 wetland buffer it'd have to be
1:14:50 outside of the buffer
1:14:52 and then we created a vegetative
1:14:55 enhancement criteria
1:14:57 um so
1:14:58 under our current code
1:15:00 vegetative enhancement of the buffer was
1:15:03 really used when you reduced your buffer
1:15:06 since we've eliminated that we now have
1:15:08 criteria for enhancements if
1:15:11 the if the buffer is of low quality so
1:15:15 if it's covered at least with 50
1:15:17 invasive species
1:15:19 it'll have to be
1:15:21 enhanced
1:15:23 or if the
1:15:26 tree coverage is less than 25 and the
1:15:29 slopes are less than 25
1:15:32 then we'll you'll have to do vegetative
1:15:34 enhancement there as well
1:15:38 and with that that's the end of
1:15:40 wetlands
1:15:44 take your questions
1:15:46 all right thank you very much uh planter
1:15:48 duelist and so let's go ahead and open
1:15:50 up for uh commissioner questions
1:15:55 looks like the first question i have is
1:15:57 from commissioner fisher you have the
1:16:00 floor
1:16:01 uh thank you chair this is cameron
1:16:03 fisher environmental board
1:16:05 doug um how did you
1:16:07 come to the revised
1:16:09 buffer sizes um from the the low through
1:16:15 we used um
1:16:17 the publication from ecology the for the
1:16:20 2014 wetland guidance
1:16:23 so that that's what we use for the
1:16:25 criteria for
1:16:28 the our new buffers and with that they
1:16:30 have um
1:16:32 used best available science in order to
1:16:34 develop that so we're just taking what
1:16:36 ecology has published for municipalities
1:16:38 to use
1:16:40 okay thank you
1:16:45 and thank you commissioner fisher and
1:16:47 the next commissioner is commissioner
1:16:49 davidson you have the floor
1:16:52 thank you i have a question for you
1:16:53 about redeveloping sites let's pretend
1:16:55 the riva creek is on a brand new isn't
1:16:58 it riva crate correct what's that
1:17:00 riva creek is that the correct name of
1:17:02 that one that you showed on the slide
1:17:04 thanks uh riva townhomes um the creek
1:17:07 next to it is anti-aircraft and then
1:17:09 there's a category two wetland that's
1:17:11 behind it
1:17:12 well let's pretend that that's an old
1:17:13 structure and they came in for
1:17:15 redevelopment i'm just throwing that out
1:17:17 there so what would happen they would
1:17:19 say to us that i'm already impacting
1:17:22 that wetland are we going to allow that
1:17:24 impact to continue or would we require
1:17:26 them to pull back
1:17:28 and be out of that wetland when they
1:17:30 come in to redevelop
1:17:32 we have
1:17:34 currently we have code for
1:17:35 non-conforming uh structures within
1:17:38 wetland and stream buffers
1:17:41 you're allowed to maintain
1:17:43 and fix up that home however you want
1:17:45 you're allowed to expand it though
1:17:47 there's some expansion criteria that you
1:17:49 have to follow so you can't expand
1:17:52 outward into the wetland buffer unless
1:17:54 it's over existing impervious it doesn't
1:17:56 go closer to the wetland you can always
1:17:58 add a second story with no expansion
1:18:00 outward that would be allowed or to just
1:18:03 expand outside of the wetland buffer if
1:18:05 you're say along the the buffer margin
1:18:09 so there are ways for you to be able to
1:18:12 you know work on fix expand
1:18:15 your your structure that's within a
1:18:16 wetland buffer in our current code
1:18:19 and is that something that we can
1:18:21 address in this code update i'm just
1:18:23 asking the question because we're trying
1:18:24 to protect our wetlands
1:18:26 and that's kind of what i'm concerned
1:18:28 about is as we're going to see
1:18:30 redevelopment in uh particularly in the
1:18:32 valley floor that's kind of what's being
1:18:34 planned and it seems to me we have an
1:18:37 opportunity now maybe even to do
1:18:39 something to benefit the property owner
1:18:41 to get them out of the well and then
1:18:42 repair it maybe let them get something
1:18:44 else somewhere else so that we're really
1:18:46 protecting the habitat we're trying to
1:18:48 is there any way we can include that in
1:18:50 this code update so we don't continue to
1:18:52 see this problem yeah i'll let many um
1:18:56 talk about that um after i just say that
1:18:59 will be in a future topic for
1:19:03 non-conforming development i don't
1:19:04 exactly know which bucket it is so
1:19:06 that's why i'm calling on minnie so
1:19:07 maybe she knows when
1:19:09 that would be presented to
1:19:12 um or start going through the public
1:19:14 process
1:19:15 sure um so the non-conforming chapter
1:19:18 has a section on critical areas code
1:19:21 and what grandfathered rights are you
1:19:23 know people have property so we're
1:19:24 absolutely can take comments on that now
1:19:28 we will be taking a deeper dive in the
1:19:30 process and procedures section so
1:19:32 non-conforming situations occur not
1:19:34 necessarily only for wetlands or only
1:19:37 for you know when you have critical
1:19:39 areas so it's more encompassing a
1:19:41 chapter
1:19:42 but if environmental board has some
1:19:44 policy direction of
1:19:47 towards critical areas and redevelopment
1:19:50 you know we can factor that in
1:19:51 absolutely
1:19:53 thank you very much appreciate that
1:19:57 and thank you commissioner
1:19:58 davidson and commissioner lewis you have
1:20:00 the floor
1:20:03 thank you chair fall thank you for the
1:20:05 presentation doug uh i have a couple of
1:20:08 questions uh some of them are little
1:20:10 some of them are big so uh feel free to
1:20:11 address them as you want but i'm gonna
1:20:13 start on page 66 um and point c two it
1:20:16 talks about active activities generating
1:20:19 noise and i'm curious why there's no
1:20:20 decibel level that's set to determine
1:20:22 what's an appropriate amount of noise
1:20:29 you said page 66
1:20:31 uh that's what i have it's point at c2
1:20:34 it's activate its activity is generating
1:20:36 noise so i'm curious why the choice to
1:20:38 not be more prescriptive about what is
1:20:41 more noise i can give a personal example
1:20:43 that um i live in a quiet area because i
1:20:45 have a little bit of space and we made
1:20:47 the decision to uh we don't aren't
1:20:49 connected with city services so we made
1:20:50 the decision to go uh
1:20:53 away from propane use and we uh put in
1:20:55 some heat pumps to be able to be um more
1:20:58 efficient and to also be more
1:20:59 environmentally friendly but they do
1:21:01 create some noise and we specifically
1:21:03 went with ones were going to be the
1:21:04 quietest we could get on the market
1:21:06 which weren't necessarily the cheapest
1:21:07 ones right and i already think that they
1:21:09 make a lot of noise i think there's a
1:21:10 lot of activities that we do that
1:21:12 generate noise that disturb nature
1:21:14 when we talk about the buffers that we
1:21:16 have i'm curious why we didn't do a more
1:21:17 prescriptive
1:21:19 choice of setting a decibel level the
1:21:21 same way that we do with lumens with
1:21:22 light and other things
1:21:28 i don't know if i
1:21:30 ever have an answer for that i know that
1:21:32 we do that with with light and that's
1:21:34 something that that we may be able to
1:21:36 look into with us
1:21:40 yeah i mean the noise you know
1:21:42 regulations in in the city are adopting
1:21:44 the department of ecology's noise
1:21:46 standards so we have a separate chapter
1:21:48 that is only about noise and that gets
1:21:51 into the decibel levels but the city
1:21:53 doesn't have its own special decibel
1:21:55 levels we've sort of adopted what the
1:21:58 state regulations are on noise
1:22:00 um by reference um under the state law
1:22:04 this code update wasn't focused you know
1:22:06 we are taking a deeper dive into the
1:22:08 noise regulations but this particular
1:22:10 instance over here
1:22:13 was then
1:22:14 we can look into what
1:22:16 what this needs to be but but the
1:22:18 decibel levels usually are for
1:22:20 if you're next to a residential use or
1:22:22 any next to a commercial use then and
1:22:25 what the nighttime hours are and those
1:22:27 go down but not necessarily uh decibel
1:22:29 level the the issue then becomes
1:22:31 enforcement too um and there are
1:22:33 exemptions that you know like a vehicle
1:22:36 driving by is exempt or something things
1:22:37 like that so this is more qualitative
1:22:41 than quantitative i think uh regulation
1:22:44 and in place but we can look look
1:22:46 further into it
1:22:48 i certainly think for our wetlands in
1:22:49 critical areas we need to look at seeing
1:22:51 what we want to set that at and if uh if
1:22:54 the current standard that we would have
1:22:55 at a different location in the city is
1:22:57 acceptable
1:22:58 and that should be i think should be
1:23:00 looked at um i'm curious it mentions
1:23:02 toxic runoff in point c3 being directed
1:23:05 away from the wetlands that's a nice
1:23:07 touch
1:23:08 i'm sorry we're allowing toxic waste to
1:23:10 be diverted elsewhere like it's not
1:23:12 going to make an impact on the adjacent
1:23:14 area 100 feet away i was a little
1:23:17 unclear about that language
1:23:20 um can you can you point to the page
1:23:22 it's page 66 point c3 is about toxic
1:23:26 runoff is supposed to be directed away
1:23:28 from the wetland
1:23:30 i think that's again a nice a nice start
1:23:32 but i have some concerns about toxic
1:23:34 runoff as we know runoff doesn't tend to
1:23:36 go where we want it to go yeah maybe
1:23:38 that maybe that point might need a
1:23:40 little more refining i think um
1:23:43 i'll move on to point c four with um the
1:23:45 treatment um first uh the treatment on
1:23:48 site of stormwater runoff i'm curious
1:23:50 how many sites in the public and private
1:23:52 spheres currently have the capacity to
1:23:54 do this
1:23:57 treating
1:23:58 stormwater runoff
1:24:02 i'd say could you repeat that again i
1:24:04 was i was trying to look for sorry yeah
1:24:07 on c4 we talk about um the treatment of
1:24:09 uh being able to discharge right into
1:24:11 the wetland um so we talk about the
1:24:13 treatment on site of stormwater runoff
1:24:15 how many in both the public and private
1:24:18 spheres how many um really have the
1:24:20 current capacity to be able to do this
1:24:22 how common is this to be able to treat
1:24:24 on-site
1:24:27 i wish we had our
1:24:28 stormwater engineer here
1:24:31 where's gary when you need them i'm
1:24:33 curious how feasible this is right
1:24:34 obviously this isn't happening in
1:24:36 residential areas um obviously it's
1:24:39 highly needed and you know for instance
1:24:40 in places like our fire department right
1:24:42 you know how how much of a capacity is
1:24:45 there to be able to be creating this
1:24:48 or is it better to have the code be like
1:24:50 there is no discharge there isn't an
1:24:52 option right and that's where we start
1:24:54 going into a director of variance of
1:24:55 someone submitting a permit saying hey
1:24:57 i'm treating it on site i need a
1:24:58 variance you know
1:25:01 i know in
1:25:03 a lot of developments you can treat
1:25:05 on-site you have storm water faults they
1:25:08 have filter cartridges that can take out
1:25:10 many different types of pollutants
1:25:12 before it goes into
1:25:14 you know the the city system and or if
1:25:16 you're going to be using some sort of
1:25:19 of flow path um
1:25:22 that'll have the balloons taken out
1:25:23 before then um
1:25:26 i don't know i'm just not sure if we are
1:25:28 doing it what's that
1:25:30 i know we can i'm just not sure if we
1:25:32 are doing it right how i'm curious if we
1:25:35 even are doing it and therefore the code
1:25:36 might need to be rewritten for what
1:25:38 actually is happening
1:25:41 it was one of my concerns um i'll move
1:25:44 on to page 67 c5 i'm disturbed uh by the
1:25:48 comments about chemical use i think the
1:25:51 penetration of 150 feet i'd love to hear
1:25:54 you guys speak to kind of why that
1:25:56 amount was reached um for the use of
1:25:58 pesticides insecticides that we know can
1:26:00 be so very harmful i was hoping with
1:26:02 this update we were going to see a more
1:26:04 aggressive approach from the city
1:26:06 150 feet doesn't seem
1:26:08 to be in line with the values that we i
1:26:10 think we're hoping for going to this
1:26:11 document so i wanted to give you the
1:26:12 opportunity to talk about why the 150
1:26:14 feet especially when you can see in high
1:26:16 industrial areas i think the buffer is
1:26:17 190 so you can feasibly use chemicals
1:26:21 closer than we would allow there to be
1:26:23 you know for instance a parking lot
1:26:25 yeah and with the 150 feet that's i
1:26:28 think that's just typically that's
1:26:30 standard and
1:26:33 yeah i mean
1:26:34 you're absolutely correct i mean we have
1:26:36 buffer sizes that
1:26:37 exceed 150 feet and then theoretically
1:26:40 you could be using certain pesticides
1:26:42 and fertilizers within that within the
1:26:44 wetland buffer so
1:26:47 i don't have
1:26:48 i don't have the
1:26:51 look where
1:26:53 that number came from other than that
1:26:55 that's just standard so
1:26:58 yeah i think a lot of best available
1:27:00 science shows that you know within 100
1:27:02 feet your pollutants can be removed
1:27:04 before it gets to
1:27:07 body of water so a lot of best available
1:27:10 signs is related to how how much room
1:27:14 you know how much linear feet do you
1:27:16 need before the pollutants actually you
1:27:17 know get eliminated before they get to
1:27:20 the body of water and that's where that
1:27:22 you know it's actually hundred feet is
1:27:24 shown to be the the the amount that is
1:27:27 needed to create the pollutant so it's
1:27:28 above and beyond the
1:27:30 the 100 feet um
1:27:33 i've seen conflicting information to
1:27:36 that point so i guess what i would
1:27:37 encourage staff is to make sure that
1:27:38 we're actually looking at which points
1:27:40 are best available science versus what
1:27:42 are cut and pasted from maybe more
1:27:44 standard regulations that the state uses
1:27:46 um and it's kind of that question that
1:27:48 we talk about of where do we want to go
1:27:49 above and beyond i thought that the 150
1:27:51 feet is something that we should take a
1:27:53 deeper dive into
1:27:54 yeah i mean it's all i mean
1:27:57 the issue with these things usually
1:27:58 becomes enforcement you know we can put
1:28:01 not allowed anywhere but but
1:28:03 realistically how how realistic does it
1:28:06 become an enforcement of a regulation
1:28:09 um make it very realistic if we think
1:28:11 it's a priority in this community
1:28:12 absolutely yeah and it's actually being
1:28:14 done in a lot of places in the country
1:28:15 where they're um completely banning the
1:28:17 use of insecticides uh because of the
1:28:19 harm that it does in pollinators so that
1:28:21 is happening actively right now in our
1:28:22 country so i think that is something
1:28:24 that the city could take a firmer stand
1:28:28 i'm kind of curious when we start to get
1:28:30 into um
1:28:32 sections that need to still be created
1:28:36 you know i thought we were talking about
1:28:37 and this is specifically in reference to
1:28:39 the in lieu of bank
1:28:41 i thought we had kind of talked a lot in
1:28:43 the last year about really eliminating
1:28:45 the availability of an in lieu of bank
1:28:48 we had talked a lot about basically
1:28:49 saying that you know a possible loss is
1:28:52 actually a loss that there even though
1:28:54 and in lieu of can kind of go in the
1:28:55 general area uh that it was something we
1:28:58 were going to be moving away from and so
1:28:59 i i realized that this section is still
1:29:01 trying to be created but i was a little
1:29:03 confused as to why we were still having
1:29:05 and in lieu of bank as being an
1:29:07 available option
1:29:11 when you have to get state and federal
1:29:12 permit permits so if you if there is no
1:29:15 way to avoid
1:29:17 a wetland impact it needs to be
1:29:19 mitigated somehow
1:29:22 under our current code
1:29:24 you can mitigate on site mitigate
1:29:27 off-site
1:29:29 then there was the the bank is the final
1:29:31 option
1:29:33 army corps of engineers really are not
1:29:36 entertaining the idea of permanently
1:29:37 responsible wetland mitigation anymore
1:29:40 their first priority is wetland bank if
1:29:44 there's a wetland bank within your
1:29:45 watershed
1:29:47 that's that's where you go first unless
1:29:49 you can't do that and there's you have
1:29:52 to demonstrate why you couldn't purchase
1:29:54 wetland credits at a whiteland bank um
1:29:57 so now our code is just more reflecting
1:29:59 on when there are unavoidable impacts
1:30:02 how do we mitigate that because our code
1:30:05 was kind of the inverse of army corps of
1:30:07 engineers and if you don't get your
1:30:09 federal water quality certification or
1:30:13 your federal permits and your water
1:30:14 quality certification from the state
1:30:16 then you keep
1:30:18 there is no project so this is to allow
1:30:22 that to still occur and have mitigation
1:30:25 but you know we're exploring and trying
1:30:28 to figure out well how do we get at
1:30:30 least some on-site and i think that's
1:30:32 going to be working with applicants
1:30:35 um when there are unavoidable impacts to
1:30:37 have at least some mitigation on site
1:30:40 but the regulatory mitigation will
1:30:43 probably occur off-site at a wetland
1:30:48 um thank you that that's helpful for
1:30:50 kind of clarifying where we've been in
1:30:51 the last year um you know that table on
1:30:54 page 68 for wetland mitigation ratios i
1:30:56 was hoping you could walk me through
1:30:57 that a little bit better um
1:31:00 you know on i think it's like qe1 it
1:31:02 talks about changes in the watershed
1:31:04 hydrology um we know that they're
1:31:06 actively happening and i was kind of
1:31:08 curious if we kind of created a loophole
1:31:10 and almost the wording needed to be
1:31:12 flipped almost assuming that there are
1:31:14 changes happening versus needing to
1:31:16 demonstrate
1:31:17 um that and so i was just wondering if
1:31:19 maybe i was kind of misunderstanding the
1:31:22 ratios and was hoping you can kind of
1:31:23 walk us through that table
1:31:25 yeah so the the ratios this is for when
1:31:28 you have direct wetland impacts so this
1:31:30 doesn't have anything to do with with
1:31:32 buffers
1:31:33 right
1:31:34 when you're doing like if if you are
1:31:37 if the mitigation you have to create or
1:31:40 establish a new wetland there's certain
1:31:43 mitigation ratios so if you if you
1:31:45 impacted
1:31:46 one acre and you needed to create
1:31:48 another
1:31:49 wetland somewhere else then you'd have
1:31:52 purchase
1:31:53 it in the case of a bank four acres or
1:31:56 if you're doing the mitigation yourself
1:31:59 you would have to do four acres for
1:32:01 every one
1:32:02 um and then rehabilitation is like if
1:32:05 you're
1:32:06 altering some of the functions of the
1:32:08 wetland but not directly filling in the
1:32:11 wetland
1:32:14 there are certain ratios for that as
1:32:16 well and then
1:32:18 it's all based on
1:32:20 what your wetland category is
1:32:23 will determine and and the types of
1:32:26 impacts will determine what your ratio
1:32:28 is and some of them are large some of
1:32:29 them are smaller if there isn't that
1:32:31 much of an impact or it's a wetland that
1:32:34 doesn't have
1:32:35 that much like that high of a quality
1:32:41 and is this
1:32:43 just being pulled over from our previous
1:32:45 code or is this something that's being
1:32:46 updated in this code
1:32:48 just these ratio tables
1:32:55 i think this is this is something that
1:32:59 pulled over but i'm not not 100 certain
1:33:02 without seeing the the comparison on
1:33:04 this one
1:33:05 okay this is a this is a good example of
1:33:08 places where um without a comparison
1:33:10 it's hard to know are we
1:33:11 um exceeding are we maintaining are we
1:33:14 just updating with what the state has um
1:33:18 is a good clarification i think really
1:33:19 my last point is um
1:33:24 i'm sorry to interrupt you it's
1:33:26 increasing a lot of them are increasing
1:33:28 so i just pulled up the table from our
1:33:30 our code
1:33:31 and just doing a quick glance at it
1:33:35 well oh now i just screwed it up i think
1:33:37 some of them are increasing
1:33:40 but again i i think a side by side
1:33:43 comparison for this might be helpful
1:33:48 it could be something that's uh good for
1:33:51 a clarifying point maybe offline to be
1:33:53 able to kind of just kind of dive into
1:33:57 um i think my last question about
1:33:58 wetlands is on page 71 5c
1:34:02 uh and it's about um the duration of the
1:34:04 monitoring period uh it talks about i'm
1:34:06 curious uh what that is
1:34:09 the the duration of the monitoring
1:34:11 period so when there are impacts to
1:34:14 either the buffer or the wetland itself
1:34:16 there's a monitoring period just to
1:34:18 ensure that
1:34:20 the mitigation that has been done
1:34:24 is done correctly and
1:34:27 functions
1:34:28 as it's supposed to in its mitigation
1:34:31 for buffer mitigations it's typically
1:34:33 five years and for direct impacts it's
1:34:36 10 years so the applicant will have to
1:34:39 submit to the city every single year a
1:34:42 monitoring report that is based on the
1:34:45 original mitigation report that was
1:34:47 approved by the city so we'll look at
1:34:50 how the vegetation is growing is it
1:34:52 meeting the standards that were set in
1:34:54 that mitigation plan and then at the end
1:34:56 of five years or ten years in the case
1:34:59 of a direct impact um
1:35:02 there is a bond that was paid to the
1:35:03 city prior to
1:35:05 then that bond would get released to the
1:35:07 applicant and then they're done with
1:35:09 their response at least their their
1:35:11 maintenance and monitoring
1:35:12 responsibilities during that time frame
1:35:16 and is that a carryover from our
1:35:18 previous code or is this um
1:35:21 to those monitoring time frames changed
1:35:23 or is to get on state
1:35:25 yeah the the monitoring times are the
1:35:27 same it's it's five years for critical
1:35:30 areas and it's 10 years for
1:35:32 any direct impacts and that's that's
1:35:34 because army corps and department of
1:35:37 ecology require 10 years if it's a
1:35:38 direct impact
1:35:41 thank you very much i appreciate it
1:35:46 and thank you commissioner lewis and
1:35:48 next person is commissioner finch you
1:35:51 have the floor
1:35:53 thanks careful um jamie finch
1:35:55 environmental board
1:35:56 um i was curious how does the presence
1:35:59 of invasive species and trash and like
1:36:02 other
1:36:03 kind of damages to a wetland how does
1:36:05 that impact the wetland or the habitat
1:36:07 score is that well first of all i guess
1:36:09 is that the primary place that it would
1:36:11 impact it and then to
1:36:12 can you help me understand how those
1:36:14 items
1:36:16 might impact um habitat score yeah the
1:36:19 habitat isn't necessarily looking at
1:36:22 inputs such as as trash or
1:36:25 invasive species is looked at and
1:36:31 when you're when you're filling out the
1:36:32 wetland raid and rating form for habitat
1:36:35 you're gonna
1:36:37 you're going to go and analyze the the
1:36:39 plants that are on site if they're
1:36:41 invasive you're going to mark them down
1:36:43 there's a spot for the the number of
1:36:44 species that you see your you know it's
1:36:47 it's kind of a check the box and then
1:36:49 add the score kind of thing
1:36:50 but then you look further beyond the
1:36:53 wetland itself to determine habitat so
1:36:55 then you start looking at one kilometer
1:36:58 out and start picking out all of the
1:37:00 potential habitat that that's within
1:37:03 that is it connected and then that
1:37:05 further adds to the score
1:37:08 so you're you you look you look tight
1:37:11 into the wetland in the beginning and
1:37:13 then you kind of broaden out after that
1:37:15 and then you look for all of the
1:37:17 different connections are there habitat
1:37:18 corridors identified um
1:37:21 how much of the one kilometer is actual
1:37:24 habitat what type of habitat is it
1:37:27 moderate impact low impact
1:37:30 and then it's all scored based on that
1:37:33 okay thank you and then if the the
1:37:35 presence of heavy invasive cover say
1:37:38 blackberries how significant of an
1:37:41 impact would that be on a habitat score
1:37:42 if that's contained to the site itself
1:37:44 not necessarily looking at the broader
1:37:47 um for the overall habitat score it
1:37:49 would be it would be pretty minor um
1:37:52 it's it's not going to be as significant
1:37:54 as um
1:37:56 when you look at everything else but i
1:37:59 mean it is impacting the habitat of
1:38:03 of the
1:38:04 at least the
1:38:06 critical area at that at that site right
1:38:08 there it is it is a decrease in habitat
1:38:11 okay thank you
1:38:12 um on page 43 of our packet i don't know
1:38:16 if the numbering for ppc i think the
1:38:18 numberings are a little different and
1:38:20 this is uh yeah i figured that might be
1:38:22 the case um so it's 43 in the
1:38:25 environmental board
1:38:26 and it's section
1:38:28 f it's related to i think um plantings
1:38:32 in the i think it's plantings in the
1:38:33 buffer
1:38:35 it mentions that non-native plants can
1:38:38 be used in the buffer if they serve the
1:38:40 same function i think all other areas
1:38:43 that i in in different parts of the code
1:38:47 that we read through it seemed to
1:38:48 require native species i'm just curious
1:38:51 why that particular place was chosen for
1:38:54 non-natives that served the same
1:38:56 function that's the only place i could
1:38:57 find in this language that addressed
1:39:05 all right and thank you commissioner
1:39:07 finch and i
1:39:08 am not done oh i'm sorry
1:39:11 you look like you're done no
1:39:18 yeah i'm sure
1:39:22 i'm trying to find that in here and i am
1:39:25 struggling with trying to find or
1:39:27 finding that particular section here
1:39:31 do you have a section number five
1:39:37 and we have the ppc packet open in the
1:39:40 pages for that one and i think the page
1:39:42 numbering
1:39:45 it is
1:39:49 section f of and i'm not quite it's
1:39:52 right before additional development
1:39:53 standards for wetland buffers which is
1:39:55 18802.230.
1:39:58 it's right before that
1:40:11 and it's actually section e before that
1:40:20 another it's right under boggs was added
1:40:23 in response to public comment
1:40:42 okay i found it
1:41:11 one update it is ian f both of that yeah
1:41:14 that's why i originally called it f i
1:41:15 think that was the one i was actually
1:41:16 referring
1:41:22 that has the criteria for when a
1:41:25 a wetland buffer would have to be
1:41:27 enhanced
1:41:28 on based on development and that's where
1:41:30 it's 50 of the buffer area is covered in
1:41:33 non-invasive species or non-native or
1:41:36 invasive species or
1:41:39 tree canopy is less than 25 and the
1:41:41 slopes of the site are less than 25
1:41:44 but why
1:41:46 yeah i the only thing i can think of on
1:41:48 that is probably a situation where you
1:41:51 have a street trees you know it's in
1:41:53 pre-existing road that happens to be in
1:41:55 a in a wetland wetland buffer nearby
1:42:00 but it may not be um
1:42:03 appropriate in that kind of an
1:42:05 environment to have a particular species
1:42:07 so there's just giving some more
1:42:09 flexibility for for that those kind of
1:42:12 uses when i read this i read something
1:42:15 different like and applicant planning
1:42:16 changes to land use that will increase
1:42:18 impacts the wetland buffer area must
1:42:20 rehabilitate the buffer with native
1:42:21 plant communities that are appropriate
1:42:22 for the ecorigin region or with a plant
1:42:25 community that provides similar
1:42:27 functions and removes the disturbance
1:42:28 activity
1:42:30 that seemed like something different so
1:42:32 that's just an area we don't need to
1:42:35 that's just an area that seems i'm i'm
1:42:37 concerned with that section okay i'm
1:42:39 just curious if there was any uh more
1:42:43 reasons for that um one question this
1:42:45 was related to commissioner lewis is
1:42:47 questioning around monitoring
1:42:49 say someone was to go in
1:42:52 there they impacted a buffer they had
1:42:54 five year monitoring period year five
1:42:57 and a day they go and cut down all of
1:42:59 their plantings and
1:43:01 put down grass what what happens in that
1:43:04 situation
1:43:05 that becomes a code enforcement issue
1:43:09 when that's discovered
1:43:12 code enforcement is brought in and then
1:43:14 they will bring
1:43:15 somebody from our department to work
1:43:17 with the applicant to get that site back
1:43:19 again and it will have to go through
1:43:20 that same process all over
1:43:23 and then a related note what is the
1:43:26 level of staffing or at like proactive
1:43:29 monitoring currently within
1:43:32 the city for those types of
1:43:34 infringements
1:43:38 like the like the code kind of the code
1:43:40 case that you were talking about or just
1:43:42 in general the monitoring that we do
1:43:45 throughout the city
1:43:46 i mean i'm
1:43:48 that being is like
1:43:50 that being probably a prime example of
1:43:53 the type of impact that
1:43:55 type of monitoring that i'd be
1:43:56 interested in
1:43:58 yeah i'm sure there's plenty of other
1:43:59 monitoring but
1:44:01 we have one code enforcement officer and
1:44:03 then we have you know uh
1:44:06 eyes and ears on the ground which are
1:44:08 inspectors and and the residents that
1:44:10 bring up situations like that
1:44:13 i couldn't speak to the frequency
1:44:15 that occurs that we don't catch but i
1:44:17 would say that
1:44:19 most critical area violations are are
1:44:22 brought to our attention at some point
1:44:26 thank you that's all my questions
1:44:31 thank you commissioner finch and it's
1:44:33 just as a reminder that we need to be
1:44:35 asking questions as opposed to
1:44:37 deliberation
1:44:39 jamie you did a great job some of the
1:44:41 other commissioners are starting to
1:44:42 deliberate and we are actually
1:44:45 it's 8 17 we have
1:44:47 three more topics or two more topics to
1:44:50 go through so
1:44:51 we are getting short on time here
1:44:54 so the next
1:44:56 commissioner here uh don mcwilliams you
1:44:59 have the floor
1:45:01 thank you chairfall hopefully mine is
1:45:02 quick um going back to your your comment
1:45:05 you made about no hard structures built
1:45:08 in the buffer area so vaults in what
1:45:11 you're talking about there vaults tanks
1:45:14 certainly lid is preferable but
1:45:17 if the developer cannot meet lid
1:45:21 means to treat their storm water would
1:45:23 you allow a treatment train
1:45:26 vault system in the buffer
1:45:28 to protect water quality
1:45:31 they would the the vault would have to
1:45:33 be contained within the developable site
1:45:35 area outside of the buffer
1:45:43 answers my question thank you okay
1:45:46 thank you very much uh
1:45:48 commissioner mcwilliams and i have not
1:45:50 seen any additional uh questions here so
1:45:53 let's go ahead and open this up for
1:45:55 uh public comment uh stephen do we have
1:45:58 any uh members of the public that would
1:46:00 like to speak on this topic tonight
1:46:02 yes i see a few raised hands some might
1:46:05 be carry over from the previous public
1:46:08 comments so i'm gonna check with them
1:46:09 okay and just a reminder that we need to
1:46:11 keep public comment to less than five
1:46:13 minutes tonight thank you
1:46:17 hi susan you had your hand up did you
1:46:18 want to speak for public comment
1:46:21 no thank you
1:46:24 thank you
1:46:33 hi connie did you want to speak for
1:46:34 public comment tonight
1:46:37 okay i'm gonna move you to panelists now
1:46:40 hey you disabled my video again though
1:46:46 okay here we go
1:46:52 hi just connie again you all have gotten
1:46:55 a lot of stuff from me so i'm
1:46:58 uh feeding back on you we have something
1:47:01 called integrated pest management which
1:47:03 is in a different chapter that we don't
1:47:06 know if it's going to be updated and
1:47:08 that is something that
1:47:10 is mentioned in i believe both the
1:47:13 stream and the wetlands
1:47:16 situation so
1:47:19 that is the place where the
1:47:21 pesticides and herbicides are mainly
1:47:24 ruled
1:47:30 one super general comment i i think the
1:47:33 format that the code is in right now
1:47:35 makes it very hard to find anything
1:47:37 where under one topic it's sort of
1:47:39 splintered into four different areas for
1:47:42 each topic i think they do better all
1:47:44 clustered together i've watched staff
1:47:46 fight trying to figure out where
1:47:48 anything is on all topics i suggest
1:47:51 putting it all in one place per topic
1:47:56 the wetland chapter
1:47:58 is an interesting mishmash of old code
1:48:03 and new code and it's it's filled with
1:48:06 inconsistencies and duplications and is
1:48:09 unclear
1:48:10 on the difference between wetland and
1:48:13 wetland buffer so i would ask for a big
1:48:17 fat edit grooming because the more
1:48:20 language you have the more conflict you
1:48:22 have and the more you you can't hold
1:48:25 people to the rules that you're trying
1:48:26 to apply
1:48:34 it should always be 10 years for
1:48:36 maintenance and monitoring
1:48:38 in a situation like ours where light
1:48:41 is is our our friend and our enemy we
1:48:45 cannot keep our weeds under control in
1:48:48 five years
1:48:49 and barely intense so you have no hope
1:48:52 of having a wetland buffer
1:48:54 actually be
1:48:56 self-sufficient in five years
1:49:00 we basically don't have anybody looking
1:49:02 at whether our wetlands have thrived
1:49:06 over time we have no statistics on that
1:49:09 at all and i watched them just go down
1:49:11 even the city itself creates wetlands
1:49:14 supposedly and then they just disappear
1:49:17 over time so one of the ways to help
1:49:19 solve that
1:49:21 at least for private property is you say
1:49:24 what they said which is these must be
1:49:26 maintained in perpetuity but then you
1:49:30 also like the city of bellevue does
1:49:32 you say that the city has enforcement
1:49:36 power over this and access
1:49:38 to look at these critical areas so that
1:49:42 they actually do have the tools to
1:49:43 enforce because we constantly have the
1:49:46 problem of the city says we can't do
1:49:48 that that's not ours and so our wetlands
1:49:52 have degraded
1:49:54 incredibly over
1:49:56 time and it's so sad it breaks my heart
1:50:00 over and over again um
1:50:02 i had one more
1:50:09 oh yes we need to have our own
1:50:11 mitigation bank if we are going to be
1:50:14 required by um
1:50:17 army corps to
1:50:20 have a mitigated
1:50:21 mitigation bank then we need to
1:50:23 establish our own mitigation banks so
1:50:26 that we can keep our wetland uh
1:50:29 restorations
1:50:31 in our city and you'll notice in all of
1:50:33 this they never talk about actually
1:50:35 improving the wetlands themselves
1:50:38 we need to improve the wetlands not just
1:50:40 the buffers
1:50:41 because that's the way you actually keep
1:50:43 a decent wetland system if you're just
1:50:46 improving the buffers on the lousy
1:50:47 wetland you're not getting anything
1:50:50 so that's a total blank in this code
1:50:53 thank you
1:51:00 okay thank you connie uh chair father is
1:51:03 no other hands raised for public comment
1:51:04 at this time all right and thank you
1:51:06 very much steven uh planner stephen so
1:51:10 with that we are going to go ahead and
1:51:12 turn this over to nancy davidson to go
1:51:14 ahead and continue the environmental
1:51:16 board deliberation so ppc let's turn off
1:51:19 our cameras and give them an opportunity
1:51:22 you can see the floor is yours
1:51:24 thank you um chairfell
1:51:27 so now we are are there any comments
1:51:30 from the environmental board on the
1:51:32 wetlands portion of the critical areas
1:51:34 ordinance
1:51:44 jamie please go ahead
1:51:46 thank you nancy jamie finch
1:51:48 environmental board
1:51:49 a couple of topics i wanted to cover one
1:51:52 i do think we should be really careful
1:51:54 about changes to habitat scores due to
1:51:57 what i in some cases could be
1:51:59 mismanagement of that wetland i think we
1:52:01 need to be
1:52:02 really avoid incentivizing
1:52:06 having wetlands go the wrong way so i
1:52:09 don't know what the right way is that
1:52:10 that's something that i do want to make
1:52:11 sure we we don't encourage uh wetlands
1:52:14 degrading and buffers degrading
1:52:17 um two i would echo connie's comments
1:52:19 related to monitoring requirements i
1:52:22 really think as we think about um
1:52:25 one of the key tenets for this uh this
1:52:28 part of the code is to ensure that
1:52:31 these these things don't degrade over
1:52:33 time and i just think without an
1:52:34 aggressive monitoring approach
1:52:37 as well as the right to monitor uh even
1:52:40 after the initial monitoring period i
1:52:42 think we're
1:52:43 kidding ourselves that these are going
1:52:45 to last and so i really would encourage
1:52:47 the city to not only within title 18 but
1:52:49 also within our operating plan and
1:52:51 budget to look at ways that we could be
1:52:54 encouraging um monitoring and
1:52:56 enforcement of these actions in
1:52:58 particular
1:52:59 and then the last thing um that i will
1:53:02 mention
1:53:04 what was the last thing i was going to
1:53:06 mention um
1:53:12 it'll come back to me but uh
1:53:14 that was the main two items that uh i
1:53:16 could recall right now thank you
1:53:19 thank you jamie uh next we have up we
1:53:21 have cameron fisher cameron please go
1:53:23 ahead
1:53:24 thank you nancy cameron fischer here um
1:53:26 uh two two points um it's uh good to see
1:53:29 the city going towards the ecology
1:53:32 uh rating system and uh guidance it's uh
1:53:37 basically it puts them into a very uh
1:53:40 similar situation to all the other
1:53:42 municipalities in the uh in the region
1:53:45 so uh standardizing that it um listening
1:53:48 to jamie finch's comments there uh the
1:53:51 ratings uh
1:53:52 from from my experience as a wetland
1:53:55 delineator it uh
1:53:57 um it's more on the conservative side
1:53:59 versus the the um the liberal side so uh
1:54:03 it does protect those wetlands and
1:54:05 elevates
1:54:06 potentially elevates those wetlands to a
1:54:08 higher category in some cases uh so uh
1:54:12 uh that can provide provide a little bit
1:54:15 more um
1:54:16 uh protection to those those wetlands uh
1:54:19 second point our second comment i had is
1:54:22 i would encourage a
1:54:23 maintenance as well as monitoring uh the
1:54:26 the period system is sufficient i think
1:54:28 five years ten years um but a
1:54:31 maintenance you know
1:54:33 regular watering for example during the
1:54:35 summer seasons
1:54:38 reduction of invasive plants as plants
1:54:40 that come into a restored area or an
1:54:43 enhanced area should be also
1:54:45 a requirement in there as well so
1:54:48 thank you very much nancy
1:54:50 thank you cameron uh tom anderson please
1:54:53 go ahead
1:54:56 uh thank you uh yes tom anderson here um
1:55:00 so we're talking about wetlands and the
1:55:03 buffers and their health as it affects
1:55:06 uh local
1:55:07 conditions in issaquah and so banking
1:55:12 with uh wetlands far away i mean that
1:55:15 just seems counter counter to the
1:55:17 underlying principle that we're trying
1:55:19 to go for so this ties in with uh connie
1:55:21 march's earlier comments about if we're
1:55:23 going to do banking well then it should
1:55:25 be banked against uh
1:55:27 well in our neighborhood in our vicinity
1:55:30 uh if not in the city limits well
1:55:32 something really close
1:55:34 i didn't see anything in there about
1:55:37 that i i really think
1:55:39 keeping things local is
1:55:41 an important principle
1:55:44 to keep in mind especially for
1:55:47 ecological things uh thank you that's
1:55:49 all i had
1:55:51 thank you tom jamie
1:55:54 finch again go ahead
1:55:56 thanks nancy this was the one that i
1:55:57 forgot um
1:55:59 i would just encourage the city to look
1:56:00 at uh the line of questioning that nancy
1:56:03 had earlier which was how to how to
1:56:06 encourage people to move out out of
1:56:08 buffers and basically
1:56:10 encourage the with redevelopment how we
1:56:13 can improve
1:56:15 um the location of structures and
1:56:17 whatnot that just seems like a huge
1:56:18 opportunity for us um similarly
1:56:22 ways to incentivize people to improve
1:56:24 the buffers and improve the wetlands
1:56:26 themselves i think those are just areas
1:56:28 that i know there's not easy answers to
1:56:31 those but uh
1:56:32 it would be great if there were
1:56:34 more ideas on on how that could be done
1:56:36 thank you
1:56:39 thank you jamie and jamie just stole my
1:56:41 thunder so i don't have a lot more
1:56:42 comments to make above and beyond that
1:56:44 but i would encourage you to really
1:56:46 think about trying to get the same
1:56:48 buffer widths on existing developments
1:56:50 if you can if there's a way to
1:56:52 incentivize it so with that that
1:56:54 concludes the environmental board's
1:56:55 comments on the wetlands areas and i
1:56:58 will now turn it back to chair fall to
1:57:00 go ahead and move us on thank you very
1:57:03 commissioner davidson
1:57:05 chair davidson you actually had one more
1:57:07 comment left
1:57:10 i did and i'm sorry i don't see it so um
1:57:15 did somebody else have a comment raise
1:57:17 your hand
1:57:18 board member anderson
1:57:19 uh by all withdrawal
1:57:21 oh i'm sorry
1:57:23 oh sorry thank you
1:57:28 all right thank you all and so now we'll
1:57:31 go ahead and uh
1:57:33 move over to
1:57:35 this the third topic
1:57:42 uh duelist are you uh going to be
1:57:44 presenting on the third
1:57:46 topic
1:57:48 fish and wildlife habitat all right this
1:57:51 one is streams unless you want me to do
1:57:53 fish and wildlife right now and go back
1:57:55 to streams but i have streams next on my
1:57:57 presentation
1:57:59 uh let's see so i had geological hazards
1:58:01 i had wetlands i had fish and wildlife
1:58:03 and then i had critical aquifer which
1:58:06 were the four topics i have okay
1:58:08 um streams are included in the fish and
1:58:11 wildlife habitat conservation area so i
1:58:14 kind of separate them out i can condense
1:58:17 them into one presentation and then do
1:58:19 deliberations and comments afterwards or
1:58:22 comments and deliberations okay perfect
1:58:26 all right go ahead the floor is yours
1:58:35 all right so with this one i'm going to
1:58:37 combine the two they're they're combined
1:58:40 in the
1:58:41 proposed code um streams are a section
1:58:44 in the fish and wildlife habitat
1:58:45 conservation areas but pull apart
1:58:47 streams because they have specific
1:58:49 buffer requirements and in certain
1:58:51 development standards that are outside
1:58:52 of the fish and wildlife habitat
1:58:54 conservation area so
1:58:57 i will i'll get into more on on
1:58:59 the fish and wildlife because that is an
1:59:01 entirely new section um so for streams
1:59:07 this is included in the fish and
1:59:09 wildlife habitat conservation areas the
1:59:12 goals we pulled from
1:59:14 the comp plan and the strategic plan um
1:59:17 specifically to conserve and protect
1:59:18 environmental critical areas from loss
1:59:20 and degradation and enhance wetland and
1:59:23 riparian corridors in the cities lakes
1:59:25 creeks and streams to improve
1:59:27 environmental function
1:59:31 the major changes similar to wetlands we
1:59:33 eliminated the 25 buffer reduction for
1:59:36 streams
1:59:39 we've incorporated uh washington
1:59:43 department of fish and wildlife stream
1:59:45 classification so
1:59:46 in our in our current code we have a
1:59:48 different classification system than
1:59:53 we're right now we're just going to
1:59:54 match the two to make it just for for
1:59:59 we define fish use and expand stream
2:00:02 protections the streams that have
2:00:04 potential for for fish use so
2:00:06 often there might be a fish blockage
2:00:08 downstream um upstream would be habitat
2:00:11 but it's blocked that will now be
2:00:13 protected as fish habitat and and be
2:00:16 considered a fish bearing stream um and
2:00:18 then we've also expanded our definition
2:00:21 of stream to capture fish use um
2:00:24 if there is a connection a downstream
2:00:27 connection to waters of the states
2:00:29 um and then offer the same protections
2:00:32 for those
2:00:33 as as streams so if if uh if a water
2:00:37 force that is not um a stream has the
2:00:41 presence of fish then it will be
2:00:43 considered a fish bearing stream
2:00:50 um so here is a chart of
2:00:52 our current stream classification and
2:00:55 our proposed classification so currently
2:00:58 we use class one
2:01:00 we have two different types of class two
2:01:02 um class two with salmonids class two
2:01:06 that's without salmonids but it still
2:01:08 may contain fish species a class three
2:01:11 and a class four class four are
2:01:14 channelized streams so these were
2:01:16 historic streams that were straight and
2:01:18 narrowed and um
2:01:21 um been altered in in some fashion
2:01:24 but they're still streams um with the
2:01:27 class two
2:01:29 and with the two different types of
2:01:31 class two um
2:01:33 we've now combined them to just be
2:01:36 type f so fish so now we just capture
2:01:39 all fish class one are type s which are
2:01:42 shorelines of the state so these are
2:01:45 streams large enough to
2:01:47 fall under shoreline jurisdiction and
2:01:48 governed by the shoreline master program
2:01:51 um in issaquah that's uh east fork
2:01:54 issaquah creek and issaquah creek
2:01:57 class 3
2:01:58 will now be
2:02:00 non-fish-bearing seasonal streams and
2:02:03 then class 4 will be captured as a
2:02:06 non-fish bearing seasonal stream type ns
2:02:10 and the buffer sizes for those
2:02:12 are remaining the same the the only
2:02:15 difference is the class 2 that may have
2:02:17 contained fish but not salmonids will
2:02:19 increase from 75 to 100 feet
2:02:26 similar to the wetlands we've eliminated
2:02:29 the density credit calculations um
2:02:32 you know as described before this
2:02:34 allowed development to take
2:02:35 the development potential of the
2:02:37 critical area and transfer it to the
2:02:39 developable site area
2:02:42 and again same with wetlands uh kind of
2:02:49 eliminated stormwater structures from
2:02:51 within stream buffers i'm still allowing
2:02:53 certain low impact development
2:02:56 but any any vaults bubble up structures
2:02:58 flow spreaders those aren't allowed
2:03:00 within the wetland
2:03:02 and another change we made is that
2:03:05 we've included a section regarding
2:03:06 culvert replacement so if a new or
2:03:09 redevelopment impacts a culvert it may
2:03:12 have to be replaced to allow fish
2:03:13 passage if it's determined there is
2:03:15 potential fish habitat upstream from the
2:03:17 culvert
2:03:21 i'm just going to skip over this and go
2:03:23 right into the fish and wildlife habitat
2:03:27 so this is an entirely new section
2:03:30 um the growth management act has us
2:03:33 um to offer protection for a variety of
2:03:37 different habitat and plant species
2:03:41 so this offers protections for wetlands
2:03:43 streams natural areas and habitat for
2:03:46 plants and animals
2:03:51 so what what counts as a fish and
2:03:53 wildlife
2:03:55 habitat conservation area
2:03:57 if the site has federally or state
2:04:00 listed endangered threatened and
2:04:01 sensitive species
2:04:03 all waters of the state
2:04:05 so this this will capture streams um
2:04:08 rivers lakes ponds um
2:04:13 biodiversity and habitat corridors
2:04:15 washington department of fish and
2:04:17 wildlife has
2:04:19 mapped
2:04:21 these wildlife and habitat corridors if
2:04:25 these corridors are present on site
2:04:28 further protections will need to be made
2:04:30 to ensure that that corridor remains
2:04:35 may have to alter their plans to protect
2:04:37 a particular area on site or offer some
2:04:40 further protections for the continued
2:04:42 use of the corridor and then also also
2:04:44 natural areas um lakes the mammoth state
2:04:46 park squawk and tiger mountains
2:04:49 those are all considered fish and
2:04:51 wildlife habitat conservation areas
2:04:56 we have a few tools
2:04:58 to to figure out
2:05:01 where these are located so this slide
2:05:04 shows a priori priority habitat and
2:05:07 species interactive map that wdfw um
2:05:12 has on their website it's an interactive
2:05:14 map it's got parcels
2:05:17 the colors represent habitats or
2:05:19 particular species listed for protection
2:05:21 when you click on a particular property
2:05:23 it will generate a report similar to the
2:05:26 one that's on the the right side of the
2:05:28 screen
2:05:31 and everything that's known to be on
2:05:33 site will be on there
2:05:35 if a project falls into an area further
2:05:37 analysis will be required with the
2:05:39 critical area area report and mitigation
2:05:42 of that particular habitat or protection
2:05:44 of that species will need to be
2:05:46 demonstrated in the report which will be
2:05:48 third party peer-reviewed
2:05:52 and then that concludes streams and fish
2:05:55 and wildlife habitat conservation areas
2:06:02 all right and thank you very much uh
2:06:03 planner tools so let's go ahead and
2:06:05 we'll open it up for
2:06:07 uh commissioner questions and again
2:06:09 please remember questions not
2:06:11 deliberations and uh so if you have a
2:06:14 question please go ahead and put it in
2:06:15 your in the chat window
2:06:40 and player deals a good question for you
2:06:42 do you go by doug or doulas
2:06:46 i mean
2:06:48 it's douglas
2:06:50 it's just a misspelling i typed fast and
2:06:53 i wasn't able to rename it steven's not
2:06:56 able to
2:06:57 rename me so but it is doug or douglas
2:07:01 so steven just pinged me he says it's
2:07:03 not duelist it's doug
2:07:07 okay well that's a lot easier to
2:07:08 pronounce
2:07:10 okay so the first commissioner here is
2:07:13 commissioner lewis you have the floor
2:07:17 thank you chairfall uh doug on page 75
2:07:20 that table about the stream buffer with
2:07:23 um can you help me understand
2:07:25 uh why we kept so many of the numbers
2:07:28 the same
2:07:33 i'm going to actually defer to
2:07:36 many if that's okay with you please yeah
2:07:41 yeah so i think with this update um
2:07:43 we've focused on aligning it with the
2:07:46 categories that the fish and wildlife
2:07:49 updating the um
2:07:51 the definition so br you know bringing
2:07:54 that in alignment and then obviously the
2:07:56 the lowest uh buffer of 25 feet we've
2:07:59 eliminated that we've made some buffer
2:08:01 widths from 75 to 100 feet
2:08:04 we have a shoreline
2:08:06 master program that we you know
2:08:08 department of ecology approved last year
2:08:10 you all worked on that and you know or
2:08:12 the year before that
2:08:14 um that has the shoreline uh streams
2:08:17 that are uh typed as a hundred foot
2:08:19 buffer
2:08:20 um so all of those things factored into
2:08:23 where what we know of a at this point um
2:08:27 there isn't that clear guidance from
2:08:29 department of ecology on the buffer with
2:08:32 as it is for the wetlands
2:08:34 obviously ecology approves our shoreline
2:08:37 which two of our streams are within the
2:08:39 shoreline jurisdiction and they approved
2:08:40 the hundred foot so that's that was our
2:08:43 thought process with
2:08:44 with bringing this in alignment with uh
2:08:47 what we know
2:08:49 of the different you know um
2:08:52 studies that are out there there are
2:08:53 some studies out there that are sort of
2:08:56 brand new
2:08:57 and if we decide to to go down that path
2:09:00 we'll probably need to
2:09:02 do more on the fields assessment of what
2:09:05 what the conditions are what the urban
2:09:07 environment in isoqua is and what those
2:09:09 buffer which
2:09:11 you know
2:09:12 should be we could do a more
2:09:14 research just on the streams but because
2:09:16 this is part of our title 18 update uh
2:09:19 we brought it as far along given all the
2:09:22 information that we had uh of the
2:09:24 circumstances that we're you know
2:09:26 bringing bringing the definition
2:09:28 aligning the the types of the streams
2:09:30 knowing our shoreline was updated this
2:09:33 is what we put together as a first draft
2:09:35 i don't know if that answers your
2:09:36 question
2:09:38 it it does that is helpful um
2:09:41 going off of those um
2:09:43 stream buffers i'm curious
2:09:47 on page 78 on e it talks about trails
2:09:50 and the allowance of both public and
2:09:51 private trails through that
2:09:54 through that through that buffer the
2:09:56 language to me is very odd in that
2:09:58 paragraph and i'm curious if you can
2:10:00 talk to me more about how we can remove
2:10:03 vegetation to create a trail but then
2:10:06 that vegetation needs to be
2:10:08 added somewhere else but if there is no
2:10:11 space then we have to mitigate it
2:10:12 somewhere else that paragraph in
2:10:14 particular about trails we didn't really
2:10:15 get any information about and i'm hoping
2:10:17 you guys can kind of clarify a little
2:10:19 bit about
2:10:20 being able to go through the buffer to
2:10:22 create a trailable public and private
2:10:25 uh so the shoreline management act you
2:10:28 know goals of that are also
2:10:31 recreation and water dependent uses and
2:10:34 those kind of things the growth
2:10:35 management act has more of a focus of
2:10:37 protection
2:10:38 so i i think for recreation purposes and
2:10:41 things like that the trail section in we
2:10:44 we discussed trails in three different
2:10:45 sections so one is in the steep slopes
2:10:47 area one in the wetland and one in the
2:10:50 in the
2:10:51 um stream buffers uh the idea there is
2:10:54 that if they are put in you still have
2:10:56 to mitigate any impact that might come
2:10:58 from from uh putting the the trail
2:11:01 within the buffer
2:11:03 so maybe you can help me understand then
2:11:05 for specifically our trails through uh
2:11:07 with this section on the fish and
2:11:10 wildlife habitat is this a part is this
2:11:12 a carryover code from previous is this
2:11:15 an alignment with state with state
2:11:17 standard standards or is this new our
2:11:20 previous code did allow um
2:11:22 trails within the buffers and we've kept
2:11:25 that here uh it is aligned with the
2:11:27 state's requirements it does require
2:11:29 mitigation for any impacts
2:11:32 okay thanks minnie
2:11:38 all right thank you uh commissioner
2:11:39 lewis and commissioner finch you have
2:11:41 the floor
2:11:42 thank you chair fall jamie finch
2:11:44 environmental board
2:11:45 um i was curious we looked at the
2:11:47 shoreline master program
2:11:49 whenever that was a week a few weeks ago
2:11:52 are there any instances where what we
2:11:54 have for streams or the
2:11:56 acronym with starting with f
2:11:59 to that
2:12:00 would have those waters would have more
2:12:02 protection under those portions of the
2:12:04 code i'm just trying to understand that
2:12:06 like how those relate to each other
2:12:09 yeah the
2:12:11 shoreline master program
2:12:13 does have
2:12:15 different allowances for water dependent
2:12:19 you'll find more leniency along the lake
2:12:22 in issaquah
2:12:23 mostly because the shoreline master
2:12:26 program adopts a critical areas
2:12:28 ordinance um as an appendix so the
2:12:30 stream standards that are in the
2:12:32 critical areas ordinance kind of become
2:12:34 the smp
2:12:36 um but there are instances because of
2:12:38 the way that the shoreline management
2:12:40 act and the shoreline master programs
2:12:42 are structured
2:12:43 that allow for
2:12:45 greater use along
2:12:47 the shorelines of the state versus
2:12:51 streams or weapons
2:12:54 okay that's helpful but in terms of like
2:12:55 buffers and those types of things
2:12:57 they're that's not the case it's just
2:12:59 potential use
2:13:00 of those specific uses could be yeah so
2:13:04 there's for the shoreline master program
2:13:06 there's um like water access is big for
2:13:10 to allow public water access
2:13:13 um that's something that's not really
2:13:15 discussed in the critical areas
2:13:17 ordinance but for the lakeshore
2:13:20 you know there's allowances for for
2:13:22 paths down to the water there's
2:13:24 allowances for water dependent uses and
2:13:26 those those items aren't included in the
2:13:28 critical areas ordinance but
2:13:31 the water dependent uses at least for us
2:13:34 are along the lake
2:13:35 mostly because our streams are
2:13:38 the the code for streams is the critical
2:13:41 areas code and that gets adopted by ref
2:13:43 or adopted by appendix
2:13:45 okay that's so cool um i said one more
2:13:47 question
2:13:48 um there was mention of stream channel
2:13:50 stabilization
2:13:52 could you just
2:13:53 and it would reference some like
2:13:55 requirements that i i wasn't sure on
2:13:57 where those references led to could you
2:13:59 help me understand kind of what that
2:14:02 there's variations of what that would
2:14:04 look like but i'm just trying to
2:14:05 i'm picturing something bad and i just
2:14:07 want to make sure i understand what that
2:14:09 would look like yeah
2:14:11 historically it was pretty bad
2:14:14 you're talking about like rip rap
2:14:17 um for for streams so just heart
2:14:19 armoring along the stream to prevent
2:14:21 erosion um now
2:14:24 though it's not discussed as
2:14:26 much in the critical areas code in the
2:14:28 smp there's a there's a provision for
2:14:31 biostabilization or using some form of
2:14:34 soft shore so it's using using a
2:14:36 combination of natural and man-made
2:14:40 elements to create a more natural
2:14:42 shoreline to provide stabilization that
2:14:44 way further versus just throwing up
2:14:47 rip-rap um or a big concrete wall
2:14:51 and that's more of what we're going to
2:14:53 be looking for when it comes to stream
2:14:56 stabilization
2:14:58 most of the stabilization will probably
2:15:00 occur along issaquah creek which will be
2:15:01 governed by the smp and in that that's
2:15:05 the first
2:15:07 stabilization is is the is the top
2:15:10 unless you can unless you can
2:15:11 demonstrate that it will not work and
2:15:13 you need to do some form of hard
2:15:15 structural armoring
2:15:17 okay so but right now if it's not if
2:15:20 it's not sort of a shoreline of the
2:15:22 state we don't have
2:15:24 specific requirements around what that
2:15:25 would look like
2:15:27 thank you
2:15:32 okay and thank you very much
2:15:34 commissioner finch and
2:15:38 commissioner
2:15:39 and newcomb you have the floor
2:15:42 oh hey anne newcomb here just a quick
2:15:45 question i noticed you had um tiger and
2:15:47 squawk
2:15:49 yeah tiger and squawk were in your fish
2:15:51 and wildlife um habitat corridors and
2:15:55 like some amish but not cougar
2:15:58 players that
2:16:00 i think it's
2:16:03 and squawk there there are
2:16:07 state managed parks or natural areas
2:16:10 there and and that's why
2:16:13 that is but i don't know maybe squawk
2:16:15 was included on that and i just missed
2:16:17 it um
2:16:19 but i know like the there's like the
2:16:21 cougar mountain natural area
2:16:24 um so that's why though that was
2:16:26 included
2:16:28 i saw tiger and squawk but not cooker
2:16:32 so anyway
2:16:35 i bet there's some corridors on cougar
2:16:39 and if you expanded that map out you'll
2:16:41 see that there's
2:16:42 you know and you could start clicking
2:16:44 around you'll see that there's corridors
2:16:47 kind of throughout most of them follow
2:16:49 streams or small you know smaller water
2:16:51 courses but you do find
2:16:53 corridors and then the connections
2:16:55 between the two
2:16:57 cool great thank you yep
2:17:00 and thank you commissioner newcomb and
2:17:02 commissioner uh davidson you have the
2:17:04 floor
2:17:07 thank you very much and i only have i
2:17:08 have two questions but i did i typed in
2:17:11 twice i apologize the first one is for
2:17:13 you doug in terms of the interaction of
2:17:16 this between
2:17:18 this and the floodway so if we look at
2:17:20 these things i know we got a
2:17:21 presentation last night on the
2:17:24 floodplain and you know what plans are
2:17:26 there if you talk about the stream
2:17:27 buffers particularly like on it's a
2:17:29 clock creek just to take that if you use
2:17:32 the buffer we
2:17:33 outside will the buffers keep us outside
2:17:35 the flood way have you ever done that
2:17:37 kind of analysis
2:17:40 not not an in-depth analysis most of the
2:17:42 time yes it keeps you out of of the
2:17:45 floodplain
2:17:47 there are areas along issaquah creek
2:17:50 where that does not occur in that that's
2:17:52 the south end of the city where the the
2:17:54 100 year flood plain extends far beyond
2:17:59 the 100 foot buffer so then you fall
2:18:01 into the requirements of having to
2:18:04 to you know the stream buffer
2:18:05 requirements but then you have the flood
2:18:07 hazard requirements as well and those
2:18:09 get looked at
2:18:10 and you know they'll get looked at
2:18:12 together between
2:18:14 you know reviewers in our department and
2:18:17 um we have a floodplain engineer who
2:18:19 will look at that as well for flood
2:18:20 hazard permits and we work closely
2:18:23 together
2:18:25 just trying to understand how the two
2:18:27 interact and i guess the other question
2:18:29 i have for you and it ties to both this
2:18:31 the um
2:18:32 the streams and the fish and wildlife
2:18:35 habitat areas and the um and the
2:18:38 wetlands and that is how does
2:18:40 groundwater interact with all this
2:18:42 because if you look at several areas in
2:18:44 the city particularly in the valley
2:18:45 floor where the groundwater is in the
2:18:48 winter becomes surface water if you look
2:18:50 at tibbetts creek park you can look in
2:18:53 many places in old town the groundwater
2:18:56 is right there at ground level or above
2:18:58 and how are we
2:19:00 in dealing with that one along in this
2:19:02 in the critical areas
2:19:04 with this stream section i mean it's
2:19:09 it's not looked at now
2:19:12 it will be looked at when we do the
2:19:15 storm and surface water master program
2:19:17 that's an opportunity to look at it but
2:19:19 with this we're just focused on the
2:19:22 actual critical area itself and not so
2:19:24 much on
2:19:25 the the ground water though you know we
2:19:28 get into cara the critical area
2:19:30 there's a critical op for recharge area
2:19:33 next um
2:19:34 so there may there's maybe some things
2:19:37 with that but in terms of
2:19:39 the interaction between groundwater and
2:19:41 streams we're not really looking at the
2:19:43 two together when it streams
2:19:47 okay thank you
2:19:50 all right and thank you commissioner
2:19:51 davidson
2:19:53 uh let's see
2:20:00 okay uh i do want to bring up that we
2:20:02 are running short on time um it's
2:20:05 already 8 52 we are already half hour
2:20:08 over so
2:20:10 let's go ahead and move on to public
2:20:12 comment
2:20:13 i'll go ahead and open up public comment
2:20:16 at 8 52 for this specific topic and uh
2:20:19 stephen do we have any um
2:20:21 members of the public that would like to
2:20:23 make comment tonight
2:20:24 yes i have
2:20:26 one raised hand by connie i'm gonna move
2:20:28 on a her now and make her a panelist
2:20:35 all right
2:20:38 okay this is connie again so
2:20:43 it's actually state law that
2:20:46 this code update has to include best
2:20:48 available science
2:20:53 department of fish and wildlife
2:20:57 seems to be our basis for best available
2:20:59 science
2:21:00 for our stream corridors
2:21:02 yet they are not using the best
2:21:05 available sciences provided by fish and
2:21:07 wildlife to provide
2:21:09 the uh buffer guidance in this situation
2:21:13 is unclear to me
2:21:16 or i'm unable to understand sort of the
2:21:18 pathway
2:21:19 for when
2:21:21 these standard codes are in effect
2:21:25 and when you have to go do a
2:21:28 a mitigation or management report that
2:21:31 considers department of fish and
2:21:33 wildlife
2:21:34 guidance i'm also not
2:21:37 clear there's some language in there
2:21:39 saying that the buffer will not be
2:21:42 reduced to less than 100 feet on
2:21:47 buffer
2:21:49 averaging and so i don't really
2:21:51 understand
2:21:52 how that works but i am very sure that
2:21:55 they are not achieving best available
2:21:57 science buffers for their streams and um
2:22:00 so i totally disagree with that i also
2:22:03 think that the fish and wildlife habitat
2:22:05 conservation area needs to be an
2:22:06 overarching chapter because it it
2:22:09 contains all kinds of habitat and it
2:22:11 does not work to have it sort of tucked
2:22:14 into the streams chapter it's more like
2:22:16 the smp where it should be overarching
2:22:19 and then the
2:22:21 last thing i have no i have two more
2:22:23 things the
2:22:25 there is a thing that is called a
2:22:28 species of local concern
2:22:31 and this is another map feature from
2:22:34 department of fish and wildlife and
2:22:36 we're using a
2:22:38 biodiversity
2:22:40 and habitat corridors
2:22:43 is are those
2:22:45 being considered to be the same thing
2:22:47 but using
2:22:49 slightly different language
2:22:51 i would like to see
2:22:53 streams being considered riparian
2:22:55 management zones because it's not the
2:22:58 streams themselves it's actually the
2:23:00 area around the streams and the buffers
2:23:05 create the habitat that feed the fish
2:23:08 that keep everybody going and so just to
2:23:10 call them streams
2:23:12 seems like um
2:23:14 an inappropriate
2:23:16 visual for what we're trying to
2:23:20 do thank you very much
2:23:37 i do not see any of their hands raised
2:23:40 okay very good thank you and so with
2:23:43 that i will go ahead and open up to
2:23:46 the environmental board
2:23:49 to deliberate and just remember there is
2:23:51 a shortage of time we
2:23:53 julie has until
2:23:56 15 so we
2:23:58 need to get this wrapped up so she can
2:24:00 go on to the topic before she has to
2:24:02 leave tonight
2:24:03 all right thank you nancy you have the
2:24:05 floor
2:24:06 thank you are there any comments on this
2:24:09 particular topic from the environmental
2:24:11 board
2:24:19 jamie please go ahead
2:24:21 thank you nancy jamie finch
2:24:23 environmental board i would just echo a
2:24:25 lot of the same comments we had or i had
2:24:27 around buffers and
2:24:29 hoping to get people out of the buffers
2:24:31 of streams similar to wetlands with
2:24:33 redevelopment
2:24:35 as well as
2:24:36 being proactive about monitoring and
2:24:39 then the only other item i would add is
2:24:41 what i was questioning around around
2:24:42 stream stabilization that just seems
2:24:45 like a potential
2:24:46 issue that we should probably just make
2:24:48 consistent across our waterways thank
2:24:54 are there any other comments from the
2:24:55 environmental board
2:25:03 okay um i just have one small comment i
2:25:06 too agree with connie which is that kind
2:25:09 of the water areas that we're talking
2:25:11 about in this is kind of overarching
2:25:14 including the shoreline master plan
2:25:16 the stream section and then the fish and
2:25:18 wildlife and i would encourage you to
2:25:20 really think about it in a holistic way
2:25:23 and it just doesn't feel like that's
2:25:25 coming across in this code as we look at
2:25:28 it and we want to make sure that we're
2:25:31 trying to do the best we can with it
2:25:33 that's just kind of as i read it that
2:25:34 was my interpretation
2:25:37 any other comments from the
2:25:38 environmental board
2:25:41 seeing that i'm going to turn it back to
2:25:42 chair paul fall sorry about that thank
2:25:45 thank you very much commissioner
2:25:47 davidson
2:25:48 so with that uh the last topic here is
2:25:52 critical aquifer and recharge areas
2:25:59 looks like
2:26:01 are you presenting on that one as well
2:26:05 excellent okay so the floor is yours
2:26:20 all right so i will i will just make
2:26:22 this quick um and go through here
2:26:24 because i know we are really limited on
2:26:26 time so this is the update 1810 796 the
2:26:30 cara so this is the critical aquifer
2:26:32 recharge area
2:26:34 this is what protects
2:26:36 our groundwater so
2:26:39 this establishes groundwater protection
2:26:41 standards and protects degradation and
2:26:43 depletion caused by developments and and
2:26:46 this is a
2:26:48 this is a big area because about 50
2:26:50 percent of isquad's drinking water comes
2:26:54 groundwater and and wells that we have
2:26:56 in the city
2:26:58 so the major changes are
2:27:00 increased
2:27:01 care classification um the
2:27:05 the classification maps have been
2:27:07 revised um
2:27:09 development triggered studies and update
2:27:12 to prohibited and restricted uses
2:27:17 the basics rain and surface water
2:27:19 replenish the groundwater through
2:27:21 infiltration and i've already spoken
2:27:23 about where fifty percent of our our
2:27:26 drinking water comes from
2:27:29 and just needs needs protection needs
2:27:32 protection from hazardous materials and
2:27:34 development that's within the city
2:27:36 hazardous toxic
2:27:38 materials specifically um
2:27:41 and also to allow the aquifer to
2:27:44 continue to recharge so that the water
2:27:46 is is available
2:27:49 in the future
2:27:52 so the major changes um
2:27:55 the recommendations have been worked on
2:27:57 for years between public works and their
2:28:00 consultant to update the the cara
2:28:04 their work has been captured by the
2:28:06 title 18 update since car regulations
2:28:08 are located in our current 1810
2:28:13 incorporate updated car maps into city
2:28:16 code so part of part of their work was
2:28:18 to analyze the groundwater how long it
2:28:21 takes the groundwater to get from one
2:28:23 particular area of the city to the
2:28:25 wellhead capture area
2:28:27 and there i have a map on the next slide
2:28:29 that will
2:28:31 show that
2:28:35 there are
2:28:36 prohibited land uses within certain
2:28:40 certain karas
2:28:43 based on the potential for groundwater
2:28:45 contamination so
2:28:47 an example would be a new fuel station
2:28:50 within cara 1 would would be a
2:28:52 prohibited use existing fuel stations
2:28:54 would still be allowed to exist but no
2:28:57 new stations would be allowed
2:29:01 and then adds references to imc 1329 so
2:29:05 this allows for greater best management
2:29:08 practices to prevent groundwater
2:29:10 contamination
2:29:13 so here is a a side-by-side comparison
2:29:16 the the left is our current um
2:29:20 cara map showing
2:29:23 well head capture area and uh zones for
2:29:26 recharge
2:29:28 and then on the right is the new map
2:29:30 based on analysis that public works and
2:29:32 their consultants have been working on
2:29:35 to better understand
2:29:38 the groundwater's movements and
2:29:41 how to protect the groundwater so the
2:29:44 drinking water is is not contaminated
2:29:50 with that's
2:29:52 questions
2:29:57 all right and thank you very much
2:29:59 planner douglas so let's go ahead and
2:30:00 open up for questions and the first
2:30:02 question that i have is from
2:30:09 commissioner finch you have the floor
2:30:14 i think don i actually haven't said
2:30:16 anything don
2:30:17 first comment on this one
2:30:19 oh okay i have uh don mcwilliams so
2:30:22 you're not uh you're not gonna speak
2:30:24 then because i got you down here at 8
2:30:27 yeah that was for the the prior one
2:30:29 okay that's for the private section
2:30:31 excellent and uh so commissioner
2:30:33 mcwilliams you have the floor then
2:30:36 uh thank you chairfall hey doug can you
2:30:38 flip back to that map real quick and
2:30:41 just show us if you're allowed to where
2:30:43 the wells actually exist in instagram
2:30:47 i don't know if you can actually
2:30:49 tell us that or not
2:30:54 i don't know the
2:30:56 exact location
2:31:03 and maybe
2:31:04 i think julie is on here as well can
2:31:07 kind of point me but i think there is
2:31:11 a well in this area here
2:31:14 and then another one somewhere in this
2:31:16 area julie do i have that correct yeah i
2:31:19 can't see your mouse um but
2:31:21 i'm on the street i'm on the wrong
2:31:23 screen okay yeah generally all of its
2:31:26 aqua's drinking water wells and most of
2:31:28 sammamish's as well are kind of along
2:31:30 the i-90 corridor so in the heart of the
2:31:33 city in that darker blue class one
2:31:35 classification and that's why
2:31:37 that classification was assigned as well
2:31:39 just because of uh
2:31:41 drinking water protection for those
2:31:42 wealth
2:31:43 mainly in that dark blue area what's is
2:31:45 there anything in the light green area
2:31:47 that supplies drinking water in new
2:31:48 squad
2:31:49 not to the public no
2:31:54 that's all i had thank you doug
2:32:01 okay and thank you
2:32:03 commissioner mcwilliams and commissioner
2:32:05 lewis you have the floor
2:32:07 thank you chair fall commissioner joy
2:32:09 lewis uh one question on cara is on
2:32:12 point b is the hydrologic um
2:32:15 hydrogeologic study done by staff in
2:32:17 house or is this one that we use a
2:32:18 consultant for
2:32:20 it's done by a consultant geosyntek
2:32:24 thank you
2:32:30 okay and thank you commissioner lewis
2:32:32 and commissioner finch
2:32:33 you have the floor
2:32:35 thank you chairfall jamie finch mariano
2:32:37 board i was just curious um it seemed
2:32:39 like we had a lot of the same time lines
2:32:42 or designations on the old map and then
2:32:46 on the new map i'm just curious the
2:32:49 the difference in
2:32:51 what what is that just an update and how
2:32:53 we're able to track things or
2:32:55 speak to like why that area has gotten
2:32:57 significantly larger
2:32:59 since the the last study was done
2:33:04 i can speak to that um
2:33:07 the old study was done in about 2004 and
2:33:10 that was really just based off of our uh
2:33:13 understanding of lithology at the time
2:33:14 from soil borings
2:33:17 the new study that was done by our
2:33:18 consultant was done about 2019
2:33:21 and was done in like a 3d modeling world
2:33:25 not only looking at what we know about
2:33:27 subsurface lithology but really mapping
2:33:29 that more in a 3d area and then they
2:33:31 could drop like these hypothetical water
2:33:33 particles into that model and see what
2:33:36 they do as
2:33:38 different wells would draw that water
2:33:40 and then also they reverse that so they
2:33:42 kind of did some some ground truthing of
2:33:44 that model in that in that way
2:33:46 so it's a combination of recharge
2:33:48 how easily groundwater moves through
2:33:50 that soil
2:33:51 um and how long it takes that water uh
2:33:55 to get to those wells and proximity to
2:33:57 the wells
2:33:58 great super helpful thank you
2:34:04 okay and thank you commissioner finch
2:34:06 i'm not seeing any additional questions
2:34:09 i just want to make sure everyone's had
2:34:10 a chance to ask questions
2:34:12 uh ppc has been kind of quiet tonight so
2:34:15 uh is there any members from ppc that
2:34:17 would like to ask a question
2:34:24 okay i am not seeing any so with that uh
2:34:27 we'll go ahead and
2:34:30 stephen are there any members of the
2:34:32 public that would like to ask questions
2:34:34 about this topic
2:34:38 yes i see one raised hand
2:34:40 connie i'm gonna mute you now and make
2:34:43 you a panelist
2:34:48 so i'm gonna i'm gonna tip you all over
2:34:54 this is a little work but not a lot of
2:34:57 this is this actually is
2:35:00 an upgrade
2:35:02 now don't think
2:35:04 thank you
2:35:11 thank you connie and then i um
2:35:13 have one more
2:35:15 comment from kyler
2:35:17 i'm gonna
2:35:19 unmute you now and make you a panelist
2:35:22 i'll be very quick um
2:35:24 i just wanted to echo my previous
2:35:26 comment
2:35:27 um that i hope that you read my letter
2:35:29 and that you consider the impact that
2:35:32 this has to the development agreement
2:35:34 that lakeside industries has with the
2:35:36 city of issaquah because that is a
2:35:38 contract and
2:35:40 i believe that this new change is
2:35:43 inconsistent with that contract
2:35:45 um it's also inconsistent with the
2:35:47 zoning
2:35:49 so thanks
2:36:00 chair fall that is all the hands i see
2:36:03 okay excellent thank you and so with
2:36:05 that i'm going to close public comment
2:36:07 at 908
2:36:11 i'm going to hand this over to nancy for
2:36:14 deliberations
2:36:16 chair fall if i can make just a quick
2:36:18 comment too i think one of the requests
2:36:20 uh from kyler was to get a copy of the
2:36:23 report we'd be happy to set up a meeting
2:36:25 and provide uh additional information on
2:36:27 that just wanted to to acknowledge that
2:36:30 that would be happy to provide the
2:36:31 supporting documentation
2:36:33 and have a conversation about the
2:36:36 development agreement with them
2:36:38 excellent thank you for that comment
2:36:40 there and uh so nancy you have the floor
2:36:45 thank you very much um are there any
2:36:47 comments
2:36:49 from the environmental board on this
2:36:51 topic
2:36:55 we'll all start it off i really
2:36:57 appreciate the regulations that you've
2:36:58 provided in here i think it is a big
2:37:00 step forward and i want to say i'm
2:37:02 totally in support of what direction and
2:37:06 the way this was written
2:37:07 and the requirements that are identified
2:37:09 within it so
2:37:11 great job
2:37:12 that's my comment
2:37:18 any other comments
2:37:21 okay saying none we are closed on that
2:37:24 one thank you
2:37:25 commissioner fall for our chairperson
2:37:27 fall for letting us provide comments
2:37:29 all right and thank you very much uh
2:37:31 commissioner
2:37:32 davidson
2:37:33 so with that uh we're gonna go ahead and
2:37:37 close out
2:37:38 and the next set of business here now
2:37:41 chris and i mentioned we have
2:37:43 meeting minutes to approve except i
2:37:45 don't have any meeting minutes in my
2:37:47 packet
2:37:50 am i the only one
2:37:52 who doesn't see the meeting minutes
2:37:58 stephen or kristen can you speak to that
2:38:02 yeah give me one second to switch my
2:38:04 screens uh for tonight's meeting there
2:38:06 were meeting minutes for february 10th
2:38:08 and february 24th
2:38:16 beginning of the package your fault page
2:38:20 you know what i'm looking at a printed
2:38:22 out copy so they're not in my copy
2:38:26 um okay i'm going to assume that other
2:38:28 people have looked at it so with that
2:38:33 the meeting minutes
2:38:35 mini what are the meeting minute dates
2:38:40 the meeting minute dates were for
2:38:41 february 10th and for february 24th
2:38:47 so with that said uh
2:38:50 [Music]
2:38:51 are there any changes or questions to
2:38:54 february 10th meeting minutes
2:38:58 okay we're hearing none uh we'll go
2:39:00 ahead and approve those and are there
2:39:02 any questions or corrections for the
2:39:04 february 24th meeting minutes
2:39:09 seeing none uh those meeting minutes are
2:39:11 approved as well
2:39:15 okay with that now we'll go ahead and go
2:39:17 over to
2:39:21 reports
2:39:22 excuse me chair fall
2:39:24 this is nancy davidson the chair of the
2:39:26 environmental board um at this point i
2:39:29 think our work is done with your
2:39:31 committee do you need us to continue to
2:39:32 participate in this meeting
2:39:34 no you are more than welcome to uh sign
2:39:37 off if you'd like
2:39:38 well thank you for the opportunity on
2:39:40 behalf of the board we appreciate the
2:39:41 opportunity to give your comments and
2:39:43 have a good evening thank you
2:39:45 thank you bye
2:39:49 chairfall i just have a couple of
2:39:51 updates for you tonight
2:39:53 city council met earlier this week in
2:39:56 person for the first time
2:39:59 there is not yet a plan for boards and
2:40:01 commissions to be meeting in person but
2:40:03 that will be kind of the next discussion
2:40:04 now that they've started to meet in
2:40:05 person
2:40:06 we'll let the board's commissions know
2:40:09 once those discussions have happened
2:40:11 at that meeting they approved the
2:40:14 housing
2:40:15 housing action plan
2:40:17 implementation grant
2:40:18 and so we're going to be working
2:40:21 diligently on that project
2:40:23 and the last thing is just our next ppc
2:40:25 meeting is on march 24th where
2:40:28 the commission will be deliberating on
2:40:29 the the entire national environment
2:40:32 topic
2:40:32 minnie did you have anything to add for
2:40:34 updates
2:40:36 no nothing
2:40:37 more to add thank you
2:40:42 cheerful that's it for uh come for staff
2:40:45 update updates
2:40:46 excellent all right and with that uh any
2:40:49 other business announcements
2:40:52 or is that it
2:40:54 i think you kind of combined the reports
2:40:57 other business and announcements all
2:40:58 into one category which is fine
2:41:01 we just killed two birds with one stone
2:41:03 so is that commissioner uh commissioner
2:41:05 lewis you put a comment on point of
2:41:07 order
2:41:09 thank you i do have a quick point of
2:41:11 order and that's on the reasonable use
2:41:13 exemptions we never covered that uh part
2:41:15 of our packet tonight and uh i'm curious
2:41:19 of staff we'll be covering it in more in
2:41:20 depth in the next time we meet on the
2:41:24 yeah i'm we're happy to provide any
2:41:26 additional information you want on that
2:41:28 i think in in our response back to
2:41:29 community comments we did include a
2:41:31 handout and i think that was an email
2:41:33 that went out to all of you so there is
2:41:35 some information
2:41:36 as a response to a comment that was in
2:41:38 your packets but um in your emails but
2:41:41 we're happy to cover that on the 24th if
2:41:43 you need additional information
2:41:45 certainly we've discussed um
2:41:48 the questions that i have about it and
2:41:49 so since it wasn't discussed with the
2:41:51 environmental board i think it would be
2:41:52 nice in a public forum for us to be able
2:41:53 to go over that um
2:41:56 on the 24th
2:41:59 thank you
2:42:03 okay and with that uh we're going to
2:42:05 close at 9 14.
2:42:11 all right thank you everybody take care
2:42:13 y'all thank you
2:42:14 have a good night

Attendance

Council / Members (15)
Faul
Voiss
Commissioners Bader
Lewis
Monahan
Zaragoza Absence: Commissioner Milligan (Excused) Environmental Board Members Present: Chair Davidson
Vice-Chair Finch
Board Members Anderson
Fisher
McQuilliams
Newcomb
Wall Absence: Board Member Hazra (Excused) Board Members Bollapragada (Unexcused)
Hintz (Unexcused)
Lebeiko (Unexcused)
Madan (Unexcused)
Staff (1)
Emily Appleton, Engineering Manager, CP&D Millie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CP&D Stephen Padua