Environmental Board · Wednesday, May 11, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 5, 2022

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 4:47 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 04-05-22 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting April 5, 2022 MINUTES

Minutes of April 7, 2022

packet pp.5–14

▶ Watch from 5:15 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION - ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD – PARK BOARD 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, April 7, 2022

Minutes of April 13, 2022

packet pp.15–16

▶ Watch from 5:43 Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES c) 04-13-22 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting April 13, 2022 MINUTES

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Board Member Introductions

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager and Board Liaison

▶ Watch from 6:11

Board Chair and Vice Chair Elections

Evan Brumfield Environmental and Regulatory Program Administrator (Public Works)

▶ Watch from 54:05

5. REPORTS

Board Schedule

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.41–42

Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

2022 Environmental Board Schedule (tentative) All meetings are at 6:30 unless noted otherwise. (updated 4/14/22)

3023 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ my name is nancy davidson and i am the

0:03 ↗ chair of the issaquah environmental

0:04 ↗ board welcome to the wednesday may 11th

0:08 ↗ 2022

0:10 ↗ um

0:11 ↗ environmental board meeting due to the

0:13 ↗ virtual format of today's meeting i'd

0:15 ↗ like to start by providing some

0:16 ↗ guidelines we have participants

0:18 ↗ attending my computer and others who may

0:20 ↗ be attending by phone for all meeting

0:23 ↗ attendees please speak clearly and pause

0:25 ↗ frequently

0:26 ↗ state your name and each time each time

0:29 ↗ before speaking

0:30 ↗ mute your microphone when not speaking

0:33 ↗ if you are having technical issues

0:35 ↗ please try droning the meeting using a

0:36 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

0:38 ↗ tablet

0:39 ↗ or use the call-in information in the

0:41 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

0:44 ↗ and with that i'm going to ask daisy to

0:47 ↗ call for attendance

0:49 ↗ great thank you nancy um we're really

0:51 ↗ excited tonight we have a couple new

0:53 ↗ members still welcome to the board with

0:55 ↗ hanke and ashwin and we also have two

0:58 ↗ returning members that were reappointed

1:00 ↗ don and tom i also just wanted to note

1:03 ↗ that we're welcoming our new

1:04 ↗ sustainability intern billy almanza

1:06 ↗ tonight

1:08 ↗ all right i will go ahead and do roll

1:09 ↗ call tom anderson

1:15 ↗ great tom do you want to test your mic

1:16 ↗ again make sure we can hear you

1:19 ↗ oh i'm sorry i was uh here

1:22 ↗ great thank you

1:24 ↗ ramanathan

1:27 ↗ nancy davidson

1:31 ↗ jamie finch

1:32 ↗ here

1:34 ↗ cameron fisher

1:35 ↗ yeah

1:37 ↗ rishi hazra has an excused absence dan

1:40 ↗ hintz

1:42 ↗ here

1:43 ↗ laura lebeko has an excused absence

1:47 ↗ ashwin manoharan

1:49 ↗ here

1:50 ↗ don mcwilliams

1:52 ↗ here

1:53 ↗ and newcomb

2:00 ↗ and do not see anne on

2:03 ↗ and janet wahl

2:05 ↗ i do not see janet on

2:10 ↗ great that's it nancy

2:12 ↗ so stacy we do have a quorum of the

2:14 ↗ membership here tonight yes we do have a

2:16 ↗ quorum thank you all right great thank

2:18 ↗ you very much now i'm going to give a

2:20 ↗ few guidelines to the board members

2:21 ↗ particularly since we have new board

2:23 ↗ members that are joining us tonight so

2:25 ↗ that you have an understanding of how we

2:26 ↗ kind of conduct the meeting along the

2:28 ↗ way

2:29 ↗ if during the course of the conversation

2:32 ↗ you have a desire to speak you have a

2:34 ↗ chat box on your on that you can open up

2:37 ↗ and we like you to put in chat to all

2:39 ↗ panelists

2:41 ↗ what you need to do is you send a chat

2:43 ↗ to all panos and neither say question or

2:46 ↗ comment please do not include your

2:48 ↗ question or comment in

2:50 ↗ the chat but you will be called on by

2:53 ↗ myself or the presenter to answer those

2:55 ↗ questions and you'll be acknowledged

2:58 ↗ for any commissioners that happen to

3:00 ↗ have to call in on the phone we'll

3:02 ↗ intermittently check

3:04 ↗ in with you to determine if you have

3:05 ↗ comments you can also press star three

3:08 ↗ to raise your hand

3:09 ↗ um

3:10 ↗ with that

3:12 ↗ we aren't going any public comments

3:13 ↗ we'll go to that shortly the next item

3:16 ↗ on our agenda is the approval of the

3:18 ↗ minutes and i'm going to take these one

3:20 ↗ at a time

3:21 ↗ just for

3:22 ↗ um due to some of my personal concerns

3:24 ↗ so the first one we want to talk about

3:26 ↗ is the minutes of april 5th 2022 are

3:30 ↗ there any comments on those minutes

3:32 ↗ if you do have comments please put them

3:34 ↗ in the chat

3:37 ↗ well as the chair i'm going to point out

3:38 ↗ that i do not support approving these

3:40 ↗ minutes there

3:42 ↗ we are a committee that is comprised of

3:44 ↗ folks that are supposed to provide

3:46 ↗ recommendations and comments

3:48 ↗ primarily in talking to stacy earlier

3:50 ↗ today i understand that you're trying to

3:52 ↗ capture only what we do that has

3:55 ↗ action and we don't take action on title

3:58 ↗ 18 on the storm and surface water codes

4:01 ↗ or other things so my concern is our

4:04 ↗ conversations are not getting to council

4:07 ↗ and council specifically asked us to

4:09 ↗ provide recommendations or comments on

4:12 ↗ documents that they've asked us to look

4:14 ↗ at

4:14 ↗ so the minutes of april 5th in my

4:17 ↗ opinion do not reflect our conversation

4:20 ↗ about the transportation improvement

4:22 ↗ plan and i would like to see staff go

4:25 ↗ back and make a robot more robust set of

4:28 ↗ minutes that

4:29 ↗ can be used in our conversa city council

4:32 ↗ to um talk about

4:36 ↗ what we've discussed on that

4:38 ↗ so

4:38 ↗ what i'm going to ask for is a vote on

4:41 ↗ this i usually don't

4:43 ↗ but um i think we should actually have a

4:45 ↗ vote does anyone support a motion to not

4:47 ↗ approve the minutes of april 5th 2022

4:50 ↗ that's my vote my um

4:53 ↗ boy that's

4:55 ↗ the action i'd like to see

4:56 ↗ any is there a second

5:00 ↗ a question nancy

5:02 ↗ sure go ahead

5:03 ↗ i don't see the minutes from april 5th

5:06 ↗ in our package i see april 7th

5:12 ↗ am i missing something

5:15 ↗ it's right it's right after the agenda

5:22 ↗ you don't see it in there

5:29 ↗ in the packet

5:31 ↗ anybody else

5:32 ↗ sorry about that i just zipped by it too

5:34 ↗ quick yeah there's two pages

5:37 ↗ right and i see that i have a second

5:39 ↗ from jamie um

5:41 ↗ and so the motion is now under for

5:43 ↗ consideration and with that tom has

5:45 ↗ asked a question go ahead tom

5:49 ↗ uh yes thank you tom anderson here so i

5:52 ↗ just wanted to clarify the sorts of uh

5:54 ↗ content you would like to see added i i

5:57 ↗ some of the other minutes for example

5:59 ↗ have uh blow by blow comment by comment

6:02 ↗ from the various board members is that

6:04 ↗ the sort of dialogue that you're hoping

6:05 ↗ to have captured here that isn't there

6:07 ↗ is that right

6:09 ↗ um that is not my intent the second

6:11 ↗ agenda item is was a public hearing so

6:13 ↗ it has the blow by blow and has a

6:15 ↗ recording

6:16 ↗ secretary that has to do that because of

6:18 ↗ the different type of meeting it was the

6:21 ↗ environmental board does not take those

6:23 ↗ um do not have pope does not have public

6:25 ↗ hearings so we don't have to have that

6:26 ↗ kind of detail

6:28 ↗ but historically when we've seen minutes

6:30 ↗ in the past we've had a little more

6:32 ↗ detail in terms of you know we asked to

6:34 ↗ have this looked at we've asked we wish

6:37 ↗ this was considered and things like that

6:39 ↗ that's not included in here and it's my

6:42 ↗ understanding that you know we need to

6:44 ↗ get more substance to city council so

6:46 ↗ they understand the concerns or the

6:48 ↗ recommendations of the environmental

6:50 ↗ board

6:52 ↗ okay thank you

6:54 ↗ uh any other questions or comments

6:55 ↗ before we take a vote

6:59 ↗ okay

7:00 ↗ um

7:02 ↗ stacy will you call roll please

7:06 ↗ yes thanks nancy um i was just trying to

7:08 ↗ send you a message i had asked tom to

7:10 ↗ fill in as a regular member since we are

7:13 ↗ missing a couple members tonight um

7:15 ↗ mathoggy could as well although um just

7:18 ↗ to note that she was not present at the

7:20 ↗ april meeting so would likely need to

7:23 ↗ abstain

7:24 ↗ and maybe just a note before we move to

7:26 ↗ roll call it looks like

7:28 ↗ cameron has a comment if if you're okay

7:32 ↗ taking that first

7:33 ↗ please go ahead thank you

7:35 ↗ thank you kim cameron fisher here um i'd

7:37 ↗ like to excuse myself if i could from

7:39 ↗ this vote i wasn't present at the last

7:41 ↗ meeting and i'm unaware of the the

7:43 ↗ meeting minutes in in relation to your

7:46 ↗ concerns nancy

7:48 ↗ thank you cameron appreciate that

7:53 ↗ all right nancy you ready for a roll

7:54 ↗ call or sorry for the vote call

7:57 ↗ yes please okay

7:58 ↗ tom anderson

8:01 ↗ uh please clarify

8:04 ↗ the rest

8:07 ↗ the motion is to not approve the minutes

8:09 ↗ of february 24th

8:11 ↗ oh sorry i was looking at the minutes of

8:13 ↗ excuse me april 5th 2022 and ask staff

8:17 ↗ to bring back a more robust

8:19 ↗ set of minutes that include more of our

8:21 ↗ conversation

8:23 ↗ although

8:24 ↗ yes

8:26 ↗ uh nancy davidson

8:28 ↗ yes

8:29 ↗ jamie finch

8:31 ↗ yes

8:33 ↗ cameron fisher has asked to abstain

8:36 ↗ uh dan hintz

8:38 ↗ yeah i think i'll abstain too i was not

8:40 ↗ present

8:41 ↗ thanks dan

8:43 ↗ uh ashwin i believe you were also not

8:44 ↗ president at the april meeting

8:47 ↗ uh don mcwilliams

8:50 ↗ um i want to say yes but i have to ask

8:53 ↗ you stacy do you have the ability to go

8:55 ↗ back and give us more detailed minutes

8:58 ↗ um i think i do have the ability

9:01 ↗ our clerks were out

9:03 ↗ the last couple of days we are going to

9:05 ↗ talk tomorrow about moving forward but i

9:08 ↗ wouldn't see if that is the

9:11 ↗ recommendation of the board at least for

9:13 ↗ those april 5th minutes

9:15 ↗ that i could make that edit but we'll

9:17 ↗ need to talk with the clerks about

9:18 ↗ moving forward

9:19 ↗ they will also be at our june meeting so

9:21 ↗ we can have that conversation with them

9:23 ↗ as well

9:24 ↗ then i'll go yes

9:38 ↗ so nancy that looks like we have

9:41 ↗ four

9:42 ↗ yeses i believe because of the number of

9:45 ↗ abstentions

9:50 ↗ so the motion carries at this point in

9:51 ↗ time correct

9:57 ↗ stacy um

9:59 ↗ i believe that's correct um i would need

10:01 ↗ to talk to the the clerk since we have a

10:04 ↗ number of obsession abstentions

10:07 ↗ okay so this will be that

10:09 ↗ yeah the motion passed and we can uh

10:12 ↗ double check with the clerks tomorrow

10:14 ↗ and it's challenging when you have two

10:15 ↗ new members two people that have are no

10:17 ↗ longer on the board as well

10:19 ↗ all right

10:20 ↗ um well at this point we will assume

10:22 ↗ that the motion has carried uh now we

10:25 ↗ need to consider the minutes of the

10:26 ↗ april 7th 2022

10:28 ↗ meeting any comments or discussion about

10:30 ↗ those

10:35 ↗ seeing none those minutes are approved

10:37 ↗ as written

10:38 ↗ now we have the minutes of the april 13

10:40 ↗ 2022 meeting and i would like to make a

10:43 ↗ motion that we asked the staff to go

10:45 ↗ back and to further amend those minutes

10:47 ↗ to better reflect the conversation that

10:49 ↗ we had and bring them back to the

10:51 ↗ environmental board for approval

10:53 ↗ do i hear a second

10:57 ↗ yeah i'll second that nancy

10:59 ↗ thanks don uh now we're open for

11:01 ↗ questions or comments on that any

11:03 ↗ questions or comments

11:08 ↗ seeing none stacy will you please take

11:10 ↗ the role yeah nancy it does look like we

11:12 ↗ have a comment from ashwin sorry ashton

11:15 ↗ i'm not sure if that was from earlier or

11:18 ↗ for this yeah that was from earlier okay

11:22 ↗ does it is it important for this one as

11:24 ↗ well is there something we can help you

11:25 ↗ with there ashman sorry i missed it no

11:28 ↗ it's all right i was just gonna i'm

11:29 ↗ asked to remove myself from the vote

11:31 ↗ because i wasn't present okay

11:33 ↗ great

11:36 ↗ okay will you take the roll call of

11:38 ↗ the members now for those

11:40 ↗ many minutes

11:42 ↗ thank you uh tom anderson

11:45 ↗ uh yes

11:47 ↗ uh matangi

11:49 ↗ ramanathan i believe was absent from the

11:52 ↗ meeting or sorry not present not on the

11:54 ↗ board yet

11:57 ↗ uh nancy davidson

11:59 ↗ yay

12:02 ↗ jamie finch

12:05 ↗ i wasn't present but i watched the

12:06 ↗ meeting so i think i

12:08 ↗ probably still

12:11 ↗ i don't know

12:13 ↗ what are your thoughts daisy and weather

12:18 ↗ um

12:20 ↗ yeah good question

12:22 ↗ um

12:23 ↗ you should be able to vote on it because

12:25 ↗ it really is just a comment it's not if

12:27 ↗ you were at the meeting or not per se

12:29 ↗ it's about if you want more details

12:33 ↗ yes

12:34 ↗ that's great uh cameron fisher

12:38 ↗ uh yes

12:40 ↗ more detail please okay

12:42 ↗ uh dan hintz

12:45 ↗ yes

12:48 ↗ uh ashwin was not yet board member um

12:52 ↗ don mcwilliams

12:54 ↗ yes i agree

12:55 ↗ okay so that's one two three

12:59 ↗ six we have six in support nancy

13:03 ↗ all right so the motion um to present

13:06 ↗ more detailed minutes

13:08 ↗ has been approved

13:09 ↗ so we're through that agenda item and

13:11 ↗ i'm sorry to make that a little

13:12 ↗ difficult on everyone

13:14 ↗ but i just think it's important to give

13:16 ↗ good feedback to the city council on the

13:18 ↗ comment on the materials that we're

13:19 ↗ working on i'm moving on to agenda item

13:22 ↗ number three at this point public

13:23 ↗ comments and i'm going to provide some

13:25 ↗ guidelines before we get into the public

13:26 ↗ comments

13:27 ↗ public comments are an important part of

13:29 ↗ the public process we take them

13:31 ↗ seriously and factor them into the

13:33 ↗ decisions we make

13:34 ↗ for members of the public joining us

13:36 ↗ welcome if you have anyone in the

13:38 ↗ meeting now who would like to make

13:40 ↗ public comments please raise your

13:41 ↗ virtual hand to do this if you're on the

13:44 ↗ phone press star 3.

13:47 ↗ if you have joined by computer or

13:48 ↗ smartphone please look for a hand icon

13:52 ↗ it will vary by vary by your device but

13:54 ↗ one option may be to go to the

13:56 ↗ participant panel and select your name

13:58 ↗ then choose raise your hand

14:01 ↗ it may also be located under the

14:03 ↗ reactions menu or more menu at this

14:06 ↗ point i

14:08 ↗ if you are called on if there are people

14:09 ↗ that are interested please unmute your

14:11 ↗ microphone

14:13 ↗ state your name address in relationship

14:15 ↗ to the city such as a resident property

14:17 ↗ owner or business owner

14:19 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

14:21 ↗ frequently

14:23 ↗ please limit your comments to five

14:24 ↗ minutes and when you're completed please

14:26 ↗ move your microphone

14:28 ↗ with that if you do not respond after

14:31 ↗ your name or

14:32 ↗ or phone number is called on or if your

14:34 ↗ connection is lost unexpectedly the

14:36 ↗ meeting will need to proceed you're

14:38 ↗ encouraged to rejoin the meeting when

14:40 ↗ and if you are available if that i'm

14:42 ↗ going to turn it over to stacy and see

14:43 ↗ if anybody has raised their hand to

14:45 ↗ provide public comments for this meeting

14:48 ↗ thank you nancy i will just note that we

14:50 ↗ did receive two written comments that

14:52 ↗ were passed on to the board

14:54 ↗ one on the 10th from the seattle king

14:56 ↗ county realtors as well as comments from

14:58 ↗ connie marsh were sent last week on the

15:01 ↗ 5th no one has identified in advance

15:04 ↗ that they wish to speak but we do have

15:06 ↗ connie marsh joining

15:08 ↗ on the phone tonight connie if you want

15:10 ↗ to send me a chat if you're unable to

15:11 ↗ raise your hand

15:13 ↗ and we can move you up to panelists if

15:15 ↗ you just if you would wish to speak

15:17 ↗ tonight

15:25 ↗ it looks like connie is trying to speak

15:27 ↗ just one moment connie and i will move

15:29 ↗ you up to panelist

15:34 ↗ all right connie you should be able to

15:35 ↗ turn on your video and unmute

15:38 ↗ yeah know it's always interesting to see

15:40 ↗ if you can

15:42 ↗ raise your hand

15:43 ↗ um i'm connie marsha i live up on squawk

15:46 ↗ mountain and i just wanted to pop in and

15:48 ↗ say last night

15:50 ↗ they knew

15:52 ↗ one of the new council subcommittees had

15:55 ↗ a meeting about the garbage contract

15:58 ↗ and

15:59 ↗ i really couldn't remember if the waste

16:01 ↗ contract had come to this border or not

16:05 ↗ but um i thought it was interesting that

16:08 ↗ there was an extensive conversation

16:10 ↗ about uv trucks

16:13 ↗ ev trucks and how soon we would be able

16:17 ↗ to get ev trucks

16:19 ↗ and that they are looking at a contract

16:21 ↗ where we would have a dedicated staff

16:23 ↗ person to try to

16:26 ↗ um reduce the waste stream especially in

16:30 ↗ the multi-family housing units

16:32 ↗ and so this would be like a

16:35 ↗ almost like a a city employee that comes

16:37 ↗ with a garbage contract expressly

16:40 ↗ dedicated to reducing the waste stream

16:42 ↗ which i i thought was a a very good

16:46 ↗ thing um

16:48 ↗ so if you're interested it's called the

16:52 ↗ ooh mobility and infrastructure council

16:56 ↗ sub committee

16:58 ↗ and um i think garbage is actually a big

17:01 ↗ deal and our waste stream is a big deal

17:04 ↗ so it's going to be heading to council

17:07 ↗ after a little while so if you want to

17:08 ↗ have comments

17:10 ↗ on that then you could get them in

17:12 ↗ before the council actually went to a

17:14 ↗ vote and if it didn't come to this

17:18 ↗ board

17:19 ↗ and i really can't remember then it

17:21 ↗ should have come to this board because i

17:23 ↗ think that that is

17:24 ↗ part of the environmental responsibility

17:27 ↗ thanks

17:31 ↗ thank you connie

17:34 ↗ and i guess i have a question did we see

17:36 ↗ i don't recall seeing the garbage

17:38 ↗ contract come to us does anyone else

17:40 ↗ stacey did we see that

17:42 ↗ um looking back on previous agendas i

17:44 ↗ believe there was a discussion very

17:46 ↗ early on possibly before the rfp went

17:49 ↗ out but no i don't believe the contract

17:51 ↗ was brought

17:53 ↗ to this board

17:55 ↗ it was something that was discussed

17:56 ↗ about coming this summer to discuss the

17:59 ↗ contract with the board

18:01 ↗ i just put a note out i'll send a link

18:03 ↗ to the meeting materials that connie

18:05 ↗ referenced that includes a staff report

18:08 ↗ that details out

18:09 ↗ the negotiations that have occurred and

18:12 ↗ agreements that have been reached

18:13 ↗ regarding the

18:14 ↗ transition to eb

18:16 ↗ um holler trucks as well as the

18:18 ↗ dedicated waste reduction specialists

18:22 ↗ great thank you

18:25 ↗ okay

18:29 ↗ with that

18:30 ↗ um worth have we completed anybody else

18:34 ↗ provide an interest in providing public

18:36 ↗ comments stacy we do not have any other

18:38 ↗ members of the public

18:40 ↗ okay at this point the public comments

18:42 ↗ section of the agenda is closed next

18:45 ↗ we're moving on to agenda item number

18:46 ↗ four which are our actual um agenda

18:49 ↗ items and the first item on it is um

18:52 ↗ board member introductions and stacey i

18:54 ↗ understand you're going to be leading

18:55 ↗ this conversation thank you great thanks

18:58 ↗ nancy um since we do have a couple new

19:00 ↗ members of the board we want to just to

19:02 ↗ take a couple minutes to get to know

19:04 ↗ folks um tonight so we'll just ask you

19:07 ↗ to share a little bit about yourself

19:09 ↗ maybe about what you do outside of your

19:11 ↗ volunteer work for the city or in your

19:13 ↗ professional life a few comments about

19:16 ↗ why you were interested in participating

19:17 ↗ in the board and then thought it might

19:19 ↗ be nice to hear what everyone's first

19:21 ↗ job was we did this at a recent staff

19:24 ↗ meeting and it was pretty entertaining

19:27 ↗ so just very briefly introduce myself

19:31 ↗ for our new board members stacy van

19:33 ↗ mckenstry i'm the sustainability manager

19:35 ↗ at the city i've just been here about

19:37 ↗ four months

19:38 ↗ and as well as the board liaison i've

19:41 ↗ worked for about 15 years in

19:43 ↗ environmental planning at the local

19:44 ↗ scale prior to that was working at the

19:47 ↗ international scale but i've worked on

19:49 ↗ issues of wildlife conflicts climate

19:51 ↗ adaptation salmon recovery

19:53 ↗ so very excited to be working on

19:56 ↗ sustainability and climate action for

19:57 ↗ the city

19:59 ↗ my first job was working actually at

20:01 ↗ kelsey creek farm i got to scoop out

20:04 ↗ chicken poop from the chicken

20:06 ↗ coop so it's pretty fun

20:08 ↗ working there in the summers and after

20:11 ↗ school

20:12 ↗ so i'll just go ahead and work down our

20:14 ↗ roster but first i will turn it over to

20:17 ↗ our new sustainability intern billy

20:20 ↗ almanza

20:23 ↗ hi everybody my name is billy almanza uh

20:26 ↗ currently an environmental studies major

20:28 ↗ at the university of washington

20:29 ↗ i just started doing this internship to

20:31 ↗ help out stacy with all the planning for

20:33 ↗ the leads for cities and any other

20:35 ↗ programs that are coming along

20:36 ↗ uh as far as my first job i think when i

20:38 ↗ was 16 i was at a fast food restaurant

20:41 ↗ and then recently i was in the navy for

20:43 ↗ a few years so happy to be here

20:47 ↗ thanks billy

20:48 ↗ tom

20:51 ↗ are you talking about adult job or way

20:54 ↗ back to the very beginning very

20:56 ↗ beginning

20:58 ↗ oh well let's see my first paying gig i

21:00 ↗ think i was picking beans for a farm in

21:02 ↗ the

21:03 ↗ valley

21:05 ↗ near auburn

21:07 ↗ i think it was 13 so that was my first

21:10 ↗ pan gig

21:13 ↗ the child labor laws were morally needed

21:18 ↗ great thanks tom can you share a little

21:20 ↗ bit about what you do outside of the

21:22 ↗ environmental board and what your

21:23 ↗ interest was in uh joining this board

21:26 ↗ really

21:28 ↗ yeah oh okay yeah well um i'm retired

21:31 ↗ now i'm a software retired software

21:33 ↗ engineer i worked most of my career on

21:35 ↗ medical devices uh sort of thing but i

21:37 ↗ retired in 2018

21:39 ↗ and uh so uh volunteering for both the

21:42 ↗ isquad history museum

21:44 ↗ and esco helps trails club has been a

21:47 ↗ big part of my life and my reinvention

21:50 ↗ of myself about i'm tom 2.0 now

21:53 ↗ and

21:55 ↗ so these environmental causes so trail

21:57 ↗ related and conservation related

22:00 ↗ activism through the squabs trails club

22:03 ↗ is a big thing

22:04 ↗ for me these days i'm i'm also leading

22:07 ↗ an effort to document the history of

22:09 ↗ this squawops trails club

22:11 ↗ um so that's one of my main things that

22:13 ↗ i've been working on here lately and

22:15 ↗ that's been a fun project

22:18 ↗ as far as so uh you know i i live in

22:20 ↗ issaquah and i'm interested in seeing

22:23 ↗ issaquah continue as a

22:25 ↗ wonderful place to uh live both because

22:28 ↗ of the trail and amenities like that are

22:31 ↗ around it but also

22:32 ↗ um a sustainable lifestyle uh here in

22:36 ↗ town and so attending to these things

22:38 ↗ that we know we need to tend to of of

22:40 ↗ our waste management like we just were

22:42 ↗ talking about and climate action

22:46 ↗ this is what i

22:49 ↗ want to help us towards so that my

22:52 ↗ children and children's children can

22:55 ↗ have a

22:56 ↗ squad to live in and enjoy as well

23:00 ↗ great thanks tom

23:02 ↗ uh matanga you're up next

23:07 ↗ hello um thank you for welcoming uh to

23:10 ↗ the sport uh i'm matangi ramanathan

23:14 ↗ you asked for what i've done before

23:17 ↗ outside of the

23:19 ↗ board

23:20 ↗ so

23:21 ↗ after working 15 years at microsoft uh

23:24 ↗ in different roles and prior to that i

23:25 ↗ was with oracle i recently joined the

23:28 ↗ company called zora

23:30 ↗ zu ora and they are subscription

23:33 ↗ management software company and i'm

23:36 ↗ proud to say that we just

23:37 ↗ uh got carbon neutrality uh

23:41 ↗ claimed

23:42 ↗ how the new travel villa uh yesterday um

23:45 ↗ i'm proud to be part of a new company

23:46 ↗ that is and seeing that trend of

23:51 ↗ looking at the important

23:52 ↗ environment around

23:54 ↗ i'm here to learn

23:56 ↗ i was inspired by my daughter who

23:58 ↗ started

24:00 ↗ something called as

24:01 ↗ iecobus.org where she started

24:04 ↗ interviewing a lot of

24:05 ↗ local vendors who are providing

24:07 ↗ eco-friendly products and that's how i

24:09 ↗ got interested and in fact i should say

24:11 ↗ i was enlightened

24:13 ↗ about the topics and what

24:15 ↗ you know our community can do so i'm

24:17 ↗ definitely here to learn and contribute

24:21 ↗ to further a healthy community as far as

24:23 ↗ my first job i think

24:26 ↗ i taught english

24:28 ↗ to

24:29 ↗ my grandmother's friends and my mother's

24:32 ↗ friends when i started learning english

24:34 ↗ so

24:35 ↗ and i got paid for it as well in small

24:39 ↗ money but yet that's my first job that i

24:41 ↗ remember

24:43 ↗ great thank you welcome

24:45 ↗ nancy

24:47 ↗ hi i'm nancy davidson and i'll start

24:50 ↗ with my first job i worked at taco time

24:52 ↗ outside of salt lake city so everyone

24:54 ↗ you know i was one of those taco time

24:56 ↗ kids

24:56 ↗ um i am a retiree from government work

25:00 ↗ i've done

25:02 ↗ public works primarily and parks

25:06 ↗ my interest has been strongly in the

25:08 ↗ environment

25:09 ↗ i'm an engineer by training but

25:11 ↗ really more interested in being involved

25:13 ↗ in those things and that i think i've

25:16 ↗ answered your questions so at this point

25:17 ↗ i'll pass it on thanks stacey

25:19 ↗ thanks jamie

25:23 ↗ hi i'm jamie uh first job was a soccer

25:26 ↗ referee which is the coldest still i

25:28 ↗ think i've ever been

25:30 ↗ so

25:32 ↗ other than that outside of the board

25:36 ↗ i work in digital product management and

25:40 ↗ also volunteer as a forest steward which

25:43 ↗ actually we have an event this weekend

25:44 ↗ at east sunset trailhead so head out if

25:46 ↗ you're interested in pulling some iv um

25:50 ↗ and then the reason i got involved was

25:53 ↗ really inspired by isquad alps trails

25:55 ↗ club and the other

25:56 ↗ people as part of

25:58 ↗ mounts of sound greenway that have

26:00 ↗ preserved so much of the green space

26:01 ↗ around this uh around issaquah seeing

26:04 ↗ the impact that citizens can have and

26:06 ↗ and hoping to be part of protecting it

26:09 ↗ and continuing that legacy so yeah

26:14 ↗ thanks jamie cameron

26:18 ↗ oh cameron fisher

26:21 ↗ first job i think i was delivering the

26:23 ↗ weekly newspaper

26:24 ↗ back home

26:26 ↗ in new zealand so

26:27 ↗ when i was about 14 or thereabouts on my

26:30 ↗ bike um

26:32 ↗ but i've been in the u.s since

26:34 ↗ 98 and

26:36 ↗ i live in squawk mountain

26:38 ↗ uh we own a couple of businesses here in

26:40 ↗ isequa so

26:42 ↗ the the

26:43 ↗ preservation of the local area is quite

26:46 ↗ important to

26:48 ↗ my family and i uh one of my businesses

26:51 ↗ is an environmental consulting company

26:53 ↗ i've been working as a biologist since

26:56 ↗ coming to the us um for federal and

26:59 ↗ private industry uh for that time so

27:01 ↗ that is me

27:03 ↗ thank you

27:05 ↗ uh dan

27:08 ↗ um dan hintz um

27:11 ↗ my uh job outside of this is uh managing

27:14 ↗ the restoration program at the mountain

27:16 ↗ sound greenway trust so my background is

27:19 ↗ mostly in ecology

27:20 ↗ uh botany horticulture um and learning

27:24 ↗ more and more about salmon biology as it

27:26 ↗ relates to a lot of the restoration

27:27 ↗ efforts we're doing here in issaquah and

27:29 ↗ across a lot of western washington so

27:33 ↗ um been very passionate about i've lived

27:36 ↗ in music for about three years and

27:37 ↗ obviously the kind of themes from a lot

27:39 ↗ of people here the connection to the

27:40 ↗ natural world trails forests rivers

27:43 ↗ lakes i mean it's pretty

27:45 ↗ dang lucky and also an amazing jumping

27:47 ↗ off spot for the cascades so you know

27:49 ↗ any way we can kind of continue to give

27:50 ↗ back and also definitely learning a lot

27:52 ↗ from being on this board from kind of

27:54 ↗ more of the hands-on work that i've done

27:56 ↗ in the past

27:58 ↗ i guess my first

28:00 ↗ job

28:01 ↗ i grew up outside of chicago so i was

28:03 ↗ doing a lot of lawn mowing raking leaves

28:05 ↗ and shoveling snow

28:07 ↗ my first job with the w-2 was working

28:08 ↗ for my dad and my uncle who owned and

28:10 ↗ ran a small

28:12 ↗ air compressor

28:14 ↗ business in the chicago suburbs so that

28:16 ↗ was i guess my first real job

28:19 ↗ thanks dan

28:23 ↗ hi my name is ashwin i'm currently um a

28:26 ↗ junior at skyline high school and

28:28 ↗ my first job was my first and only job

28:31 ↗ was

28:32 ↗ a few months ago i worked as a

28:34 ↗ basketball referee

28:36 ↗ so yeah i just wrecked um fourth grade

28:38 ↗ basketball

28:39 ↗ and

28:40 ↗ i've always been interested in like the

28:42 ↗ environment especially ecology i think

28:44 ↗ that's what i want to do when i grow up

28:46 ↗ and so i was just looking for ways i

28:48 ↗ could have like a bigger impact on both

28:50 ↗ the community and the environment and i

28:52 ↗ thought that the environmental board was

28:54 ↗ a great way to do both of those things

28:58 ↗ great thanks ashwin basketball ref

29:00 ↗ sounds a little warmer than jamie's

29:02 ↗ outdoor soccer rep experience

29:04 ↗ uh dawn

29:09 ↗ oh

29:10 ↗ don you are on mute

29:13 ↗ you can hear me

29:14 ↗ yes you're a little quiet sorry it took

29:16 ↗ a second to okay to register there my

29:19 ↗ first job was at johnny's super deli in

29:21 ↗ totem lake for three dollars and fifty

29:23 ↗ cents an hour washing dishes

29:27 ↗ my professional

29:28 ↗ career i work in storm water management

29:30 ↗ and water quality for a local

29:33 ↗ municipality and why i joined the

29:36 ↗ environmental board is i've lived around

29:37 ↗ here all my life i've enjoyed the trails

29:39 ↗ the mountains everything that the

29:41 ↗ northwest has to offer and just want to

29:43 ↗ give back to the community a little bit

29:47 ↗ great thanks don

29:49 ↗ all right nancy the one item i just

29:51 ↗ wanted to check in with the board about

29:53 ↗ before we move on to the next agenda

29:55 ↗ item was about developing a roster with

29:58 ↗ contact information so we could share

30:00 ↗ that across the board

30:02 ↗ just maybe see a thumbs up if folks are

30:05 ↗ comfortable

30:07 ↗ providing contact information to other

30:09 ↗ board members

30:11 ↗ all right seeing head nods and and

30:13 ↗ thumbs um i'll reach out to folks just

30:15 ↗ to get confirmation and make sure

30:17 ↗ everyone's comfortable with that but

30:18 ↗ appreciate it

30:20 ↗ uh all right nancy i'll hand it back to

30:21 ↗ you for our next item

30:24 ↗ thank you everybody particularly stacy

30:26 ↗ and it was fun to hear about all of your

30:27 ↗ past careers um we're moving on to the

30:29 ↗ next agenda item and the next one is the

30:32 ↗ board chair and vice chair elections and

30:35 ↗ i'm fortunate that stacy provided me

30:37 ↗ with the script so i know how to do this

30:38 ↗ since i get to conduct it

30:40 ↗ so um here i will be following the

30:43 ↗ script so the following process will be

30:45 ↗ used to elect officers

30:47 ↗ first i will call for nominations when

30:50 ↗ all nominations have been made i will

30:52 ↗ close the nominations if only one

30:54 ↗ nomination is made the member is

30:56 ↗ considered considered elected to the

30:58 ↗ position by unanimous consent

31:01 ↗ if we have multiple nominations

31:04 ↗ board members are provided an

31:06 ↗ opportunity to discuss the nominees i

31:08 ↗ will then ask the board members to cast

31:10 ↗ votes on the nominees in the order they

31:12 ↗ were nominated by a roll call vote

31:15 ↗ ward members may vote only for one

31:17 ↗ nominee per office and may vote for

31:20 ↗ themselves

31:21 ↗ the board member receiving the majority

31:23 ↗ of the votes is declared the chair or

31:25 ↗ the vice chairs that may be

31:28 ↗ are there any questions about the

31:29 ↗ process at this point before i open it

31:31 ↗ up for nominations

31:36 ↗ seeing none

31:38 ↗ the first one we're going to open up is

31:40 ↗ i'm looking for nominations for chair

31:48 ↗ i nominate jamie

31:52 ↗ thank you don we have a um

31:55 ↗ nomination of jamie finch for the chair

31:56 ↗ are there any other nominations to be

31:58 ↗ considered

32:03 ↗ seeing none congratulations jamie i

32:05 ↗ understand in june you'll be taking over

32:07 ↗ as the chair of this

32:08 ↗ thank you for stepping up

32:10 ↗ uh now i'm moving on to the position of

32:12 ↗ vice chair um

32:14 ↗ are there any nominations for the

32:16 ↗ position of night vice chair

32:21 ↗ go ahead jamie

32:23 ↗ i'd like to nominate don mc williams

32:28 ↗ mcwilliams has been nominated are there

32:30 ↗ any other nominations for the position

32:31 ↗ of vice chair

32:36 ↗ seeing none congratulations don you're

32:38 ↗ now the vice chair starting in june of

32:40 ↗ the environmental board thank you all

32:42 ↗ thank you both to jamie and don for

32:43 ↗ stepping up nice job and i look forward

32:46 ↗ to seeing where you take the board next

32:48 ↗ thank you very much

32:49 ↗ [Music]

32:50 ↗ and with that uh that agenda item has

32:53 ↗ concluded and we'll move on to item c of

32:56 ↗ that flood plain and storm water code

32:58 ↗ update and evan i believe you're on for

33:00 ↗ that one thank you

33:15 ↗ all right can you see the presentation

33:21 ↗ we are seeing your webex screen right

33:23 ↗ now so it looks like you just need to

33:25 ↗ switch your screen

33:32 ↗ all right just a second

33:41 ↗ how about now

33:42 ↗ yes

33:43 ↗ all right

33:47 ↗ so uh good evening and and thanks for

33:49 ↗ having us back here to talk uh tonight

33:51 ↗ about stormwater and floodplain code

33:52 ↗ update process

33:54 ↗ my name is evan brumfield and i'm an

33:56 ↗ environmental and regulatory program

33:57 ↗ administrator here for the city

34:00 ↗ we're coming back to to you tonight to

34:02 ↗ close the loop on the feedback that we

34:03 ↗ received

34:04 ↗ at the last meeting with the

34:06 ↗ environmental board and how that

34:07 ↗ feedback was used in the council study

34:09 ↗ session on april 12th

34:12 ↗ we'll also be talking about our

34:13 ↗ stormwater design manual update and

34:15 ↗ areas that we have again identified to

34:17 ↗ go potentially above and beyond to

34:19 ↗ better protect his quasi environment and

34:21 ↗ service waters

34:25 ↗ so how do we get here

34:27 ↗ kicked off

34:28 ↗ by an internal staff meeting in october

34:30 ↗ staff met with consultants to identify

34:33 ↗ areas

34:34 ↗ of mandatory updates as well as areas

34:36 ↗ that we can go above and beyond

34:38 ↗ these basic mandatory requirements

34:41 ↗ we then came to the joint environmental

34:43 ↗ board

34:44 ↗ ppc committee

34:47 ↗ uh meeting on march 9th to present on

34:49 ↗ the areas we could go above and beyond

34:51 ↗ these basic mandatory updates to

34:53 ↗ accommodate for climate change those

34:55 ↗ included future flood pain future

34:57 ↗ floodplain protections and critical

34:59 ↗ drainage review

35:02 ↗ we then presented the options based on

35:04 ↗ feedback we received from the

35:05 ↗ environmental board and pbc

35:08 ↗ to a council study session on april 12th

35:11 ↗ and then after that study session we

35:12 ↗ sent out draft codes for internal review

35:15 ↗ based on recommendations received from

35:16 ↗ both council and the environmental board

35:18 ↗ and ppc

35:20 ↗ so tonight we're here to discuss the

35:22 ↗ process uh

35:23 ↗ the update process and uh stormwater

35:26 ↗ design manual after tonight code will be

35:28 ↗ finalized and cp will be submitted

35:32 ↗ and so then based on the feedback we

35:34 ↗ receive we will be presenting the final

35:36 ↗ code and stormwater design manual

35:37 ↗ updates at the june 7th mobility

35:40 ↗ infrastructure committee meeting within

35:42 ↗ hopeful june 21st council meeting

35:44 ↗ approval to meet our june 30th adoption

35:46 ↗ deadline

35:47 ↗ to update our stormwater design manual

35:55 ↗ so march 9th we presented on the areas

35:57 ↗ where we can go above and beyond these

35:59 ↗ basic uh requirements to the

36:02 ↗ environmental board and planning policy

36:04 ↗ commission

36:06 ↗ in general both the eb and ppc supported

36:09 ↗ the direction staff have taken with the

36:12 ↗ areas identified for climate change

36:13 ↗ accommodation

36:15 ↗ one area from that meeting that we

36:16 ↗ requested more direction on from council

36:18 ↗ is single family residential flood level

36:20 ↗ protections

36:21 ↗ these comments

36:24 ↗ were to keep single-family residential

36:26 ↗ in the base flood elevation or bfe plus

36:28 ↗ one flood protection level instead of

36:30 ↗ increasing protections to the bfe plus

36:33 ↗ two level the desire for this was due to

36:35 ↗ the costs associated with the increased

36:38 ↗ uh protections and visual impacts of the

36:41 ↗ elevated structures

36:44 ↗ so let's talk about costs

36:46 ↗ from past grant applications the city

36:48 ↗ has completed for elevating homes

36:51 ↗ for flood protection we have a ballpark

36:53 ↗ estimate of approximately thirty

36:55 ↗ thousand dollars for every foot raised

36:57 ↗ on an existing single-family residential

36:59 ↗ house

37:00 ↗ so the cost would be approximately

37:02 ↗ thirty thousand dollars

37:04 ↗ to increase protection

37:06 ↗ by one foot to the bfe plus two level

37:10 ↗ new construction would most likely be

37:12 ↗ significantly cheaper as the additional

37:14 ↗ foot of protection to get to bfe plus

37:16 ↗ two would mainly be a material cost for

37:19 ↗ the foundation plumbing and electrical

37:21 ↗ you wouldn't have to raise an existing

37:23 ↗ existing house to then do all that kind

37:25 ↗ of stuff

37:27 ↗ so let's talk about flood insurance

37:28 ↗ claims the last major flood we have all

37:31 ↗ insurance claim information on is from

37:33 ↗ 2009

37:34 ↗ it's important to note that these these

37:36 ↗ following dollar figures are going to be

37:37 ↗ in 2009 uh dollars

37:40 ↗ so there were nine claims for an average

37:42 ↗ claim of 83 000

37:45 ↗ with the highest claim being 446 000 and

37:48 ↗ the lowest being 13 000.

37:51 ↗ so with the rise in all costs and

37:53 ↗ property values especially since 2009 it

37:56 ↗ is certain that the cost of claims to

37:57 ↗ increase as well

37:59 ↗ so

38:00 ↗ i just have a quick do you i do want

38:02 ↗ questions along the way or do you want

38:03 ↗ to wait until you're completed with your

38:05 ↗ presentation sure questions along the

38:07 ↗ way are fine

38:09 ↗ so i have a question when you're talking

38:11 ↗ just a quick question when you're

38:12 ↗ talking about these claims are they for

38:13 ↗ single family homes or are they for

38:15 ↗ commercial buildings when you're talking

38:16 ↗ 443 versus the other one yes yeah we

38:20 ↗ have they they are for both commercial

38:22 ↗ and single family and i have that

38:24 ↗ breaking broken down uh that i can give

38:26 ↗ it to you as well

38:28 ↗ thanks yeah

38:33 ↗ hold on i've got one more question jamie

38:35 ↗ had a question before you keep going go

38:36 ↗ ahead jamie sorry jamie

38:38 ↗ thanks nancy jamie speaking um

38:41 ↗ evan do you mind just giving us a little

38:42 ↗ refresher on exactly where the bfb

38:45 ↗ versus the flood pain like year where

38:48 ↗ where those are applicable um that was

38:50 ↗ something i just wanted to make sure i

38:52 ↗ was clear on for this conversation

38:54 ↗ yeah so all

38:57 ↗ all of the the floodplain standards will

39:01 ↗ be

39:02 ↗ will be applied to the existing 100 year

39:04 ↗ flood plain

39:06 ↗ footprint that there there's no

39:08 ↗ expansion of of flood of

39:12 ↗ applicability of flood standards the the

39:15 ↗ only thing that's changing is the

39:16 ↗ increased level of protections within

39:19 ↗ that hundred year floodplain

39:21 ↗ i think my question might have been a

39:22 ↗ bit different i i just recall that where

39:25 ↗ we had a defined 500 year floodplain was

39:27 ↗ where the 500-year floodplain would be

39:30 ↗ used in areas where it wasn't we didn't

39:32 ↗ have detailed mapping

39:33 ↗ it would be based on the bfe plus 2. is

39:36 ↗ that correct or am i

39:37 ↗ off base on that and it's bfe plus 2

39:40 ↗ everywhere

39:41 ↗ so it is not a bfe plus two everywhere

39:44 ↗ so there's uh all of our mapped

39:47 ↗ floodplain in isequa

39:49 ↗ if we if we have it mapped so if we know

39:51 ↗ the elevation of the flood

39:54 ↗ the hundred year floodplain then we

39:55 ↗ would yes we would be bfe plus two but

39:58 ↗ in areas where we do not know that like

40:01 ↗ it's it's unknown then we would do

40:04 ↗ uh it wouldn't be a bfe plus two because

40:06 ↗ the bfe isn't known it would be based on

40:08 ↗ the ground elevation

40:10 ↗ uh but i can we have our consultant paul

40:13 ↗ fent here who can speak to that too

40:15 ↗ better if you would like that

40:17 ↗ uh i just since we have two new board

40:20 ↗ members evan just explain the maps of

40:22 ↗ the flood plain and

40:25 ↗ you know kind of what those are and

40:27 ↗ what the

40:28 ↗ one and two mean just make sure that

40:30 ↗ everybody kind of understands what we're

40:31 ↗ talking about because they weren't here

40:33 ↗ for the previous conversation

40:35 ↗ okay

40:36 ↗ so uh in isoqua we have a mapped

40:40 ↗ floodplain and so in these areas

40:43 ↗ they are areas that are have a higher

40:45 ↗ likelihood of flooding

40:47 ↗ basically when we get elevated flows

40:51 ↗ and in issaquah when we speak to the

40:54 ↗ base flood elevation or bfe we are

40:57 ↗ talking about our 100-year blood level

41:00 ↗ and

41:01 ↗ that 100-year flood level is not

41:02 ↗ necessarily a flood that happens

41:05 ↗ every hundred years it is essentially a

41:08 ↗ flood that has a

41:10 ↗ one percent chance of happening every

41:12 ↗ year i believe that's the way it is

41:15 ↗ um

41:16 ↗ so what we are proposing or what we

41:18 ↗ proposed was to use

41:22 ↗ future climate uh data information

41:26 ↗ to

41:27 ↗ uh accommodate uh for climate change to

41:30 ↗ increase uh our current standards are

41:33 ↗ base flood elevation plus one and that

41:36 ↗ plus one is

41:37 ↗ uh

41:38 ↗ to it's a foot of free board

41:41 ↗ that it's it's a protection level uh for

41:44 ↗ flood protection and so what we are

41:45 ↗ doing is increasing that plus one to a

41:48 ↗ plus two to accommodate for future

41:50 ↗ climate change did that make did i

41:52 ↗ explain that correctly

41:54 ↗ do we get that

41:56 ↗ well i understood you but i was here for

41:58 ↗ the last presentation i guess we should

42:00 ↗ ask the people that weren't here for the

42:02 ↗ last presentation ashwin how did he do

42:05 ↗ do you understand it i guess that would

42:06 ↗ be the question

42:08 ↗ yeah yeah that makes sense so the areas

42:10 ↗ that are more exposed to um being

42:13 ↗ damaged by floods

42:14 ↗ um are raised to a higher level

42:17 ↗ is that it

42:18 ↗ yes that's correct our current standard

42:20 ↗ has

42:21 ↗ uh them already elevated and what we're

42:23 ↗ proposing to accommodate for climate

42:25 ↗ change is another foot of additional um

42:29 ↗ protection gotcha yeah that makes sense

42:36 ↗ uh you're muted nancy

42:38 ↗ are you okay if we continue on before we

42:40 ↗ get into our conversation any other

42:42 ↗ questions

42:44 ↗ i had a question do you want me to ask

42:46 ↗ that or

42:47 ↗ sure i see you're up there with a

42:48 ↗ question go ahead i think this might be

42:50 ↗ a good time for you to ask it

42:53 ↗ the bfe plus two level that you talk

42:55 ↗ about has that been implemented anywhere

42:57 ↗ else uh

42:59 ↗ within the county or outside the county

43:01 ↗ to look at the effectiveness

43:04 ↗ uh yeah uh king county has has a

43:07 ↗ basically the the standard is base flood

43:10 ↗ elevation plus one

43:13 ↗ that's to meet the national flood

43:16 ↗ insurance program

43:18 ↗ and king county has elected to go higher

43:20 ↗ than that

43:21 ↗ to a bfe plus two and then also plus

43:24 ↗ three in some areas as well

43:31 ↗ okay evan go ahead sorry to interrupt

43:33 ↗ you but at least right now a little more

43:35 ↗ level on the playing field here thank

43:36 ↗ you

43:38 ↗ um so in general the majority of isquas

43:41 ↗ regulated floodplain is made up of

43:42 ↗ single-family residential

43:44 ↗ the cost of elevating a single-family

43:45 ↗ residential home is negligible compared

43:47 ↗ to the cost savings of being impacted by

43:49 ↗ a flood

43:54 ↗ so with the environmental board and

43:56 ↗ planning policy committee input we

43:58 ↗ brought the the same topics to council

44:00 ↗ to the council study session now we

44:02 ↗ realized that we needed more information

44:04 ↗ as to why it was important to increase

44:06 ↗ these protections from family

44:07 ↗ residential

44:08 ↗ to that bfe plus two level so we brought

44:12 ↗ the comment to council study session

44:13 ↗ based on feedback we received from the

44:15 ↗ joint meeting and then with additional

44:17 ↗ information on the costs that i

44:18 ↗ presented on uh in the previous slide

44:22 ↗ so we presented two recommendations to

44:24 ↗ council

44:26 ↗ one being the acceptance of all the

44:28 ↗ areas included in the in the staff

44:30 ↗ report that went above and beyond these

44:32 ↗ basic requirements to accommodate for

44:34 ↗ climate change and that included the

44:36 ↗ future flood protections

44:37 ↗ and the critical drainage review

44:40 ↗ so in general council

44:43 ↗ unanimously supported

44:45 ↗ recommendations from the administration

44:47 ↗ to accommodate for these above and

44:49 ↗ beyond climate change

44:54 ↗ so now

44:55 ↗ let's talk about the mandatory

44:56 ↗ stormwater updates the mpds permit

44:59 ↗ requires us to update our stormwater

45:01 ↗ design manual by june 30th

45:04 ↗ of this year

45:06 ↗ the intent of the stormwater design

45:07 ↗ manual is to match requirements with the

45:10 ↗ phase ii mpds stormwater permit

45:13 ↗ so just to give

45:16 ↗ would you like me to talk about the mpds

45:18 ↗ permit as well

45:19 ↗ well i have a lot of acronyms yeah i

45:22 ↗ know you are i agree with that so i have

45:24 ↗ one quick question before you go there

45:25 ↗ can i go back to the previous topic just

45:27 ↗ one quick question and that is you talk

45:30 ↗ about a critical drainage review and the

45:31 ↗ question we had for you is how much is

45:33 ↗ that going to cost

45:34 ↗ uh for a single family home or a

45:36 ↗ commercial building and i don't know if

45:38 ↗ you ever we ever saw that answer you may

45:40 ↗ have given it to council could you

45:41 ↗ perhaps discuss that

45:44 ↗ i'm going gonna phone a friend here and

45:46 ↗ paul

45:48 ↗ can you uh unmute and answer that

45:50 ↗ question

45:53 ↗ uh

45:54 ↗ yeah they that i think that remembering

45:56 ↗ the question was um

45:58 ↗ are the capabilities there and then

46:01 ↗ generally what would the

46:02 ↗ what would it do or what the effects and

46:04 ↗ the costs and so on and the capabilities

46:06 ↗ are there uh most consultants that are

46:08 ↗ doing this type of work or development

46:10 ↗ work and so on could do that work

46:13 ↗ um the way the critical drainage review

46:15 ↗ is set up is it's basically a tiered

46:18 ↗ process where depending on the level of

46:21 ↗ uh the type of development

46:23 ↗ and the

46:24 ↗ and the complexity of it and the

46:26 ↗ potential for it to flood those rates

46:28 ↗ those things will increase

46:31 ↗ over

46:32 ↗ over the conditions or the circumstances

46:34 ↗ of the individual application so it's

46:35 ↗ hard to pin down

46:37 ↗ exactly what it would be

46:39 ↗ the

46:40 ↗ most of the work that's done in would be

46:42 ↗ done in critical drainage review is part

46:44 ↗ of the background work that in that an

46:46 ↗ engineer would do anyway in uh preparing

46:49 ↗ a plan for a design of a project

46:51 ↗ understanding what runoff is coming into

46:53 ↗ sites and what's leaving the sites and

46:54 ↗ so on and it would just be in one piece

46:57 ↗ of additional documentation

46:59 ↗ of indicating either there's not a not a

47:02 ↗ high potential or there's a low

47:04 ↗ potential that there would be an adverse

47:05 ↗ effect from a

47:07 ↗ drainage failure or from a storm that's

47:09 ↗ bigger than the design storm

47:11 ↗ and the greater the risk

47:13 ↗ that occurs as far as

47:15 ↗ additional flooding that could occur

47:16 ↗ from the development

47:18 ↗ the more that the

47:20 ↗ applicant would have to evaluate

47:22 ↗ one of the main changes that's going to

47:24 ↗ occur

47:25 ↗ is in the adoption is what's called the

47:27 ↗ offsite drainage analysis so that'll the

47:29 ↗ terms will change from the critical

47:31 ↗ drainage view to that that right now is

47:34 ↗ a an optional requirement in the manual

47:36 ↗ but it follows all the same things that

47:38 ↗ we talked about before in the critical

47:40 ↗ drainage review

47:41 ↗ and uh the main thing that it adds is

47:44 ↗ responsibility to develop mitigations in

47:48 ↗ the event that there is a potential

47:49 ↗ failure

47:50 ↗ and so that's where the additional cost

47:52 ↗ of the of the review would would occur

47:55 ↗ and um

47:57 ↗ again it's it would be a range of costs

47:59 ↗ relative to the potential impacts it's

48:02 ↗ not it's we're talking about potential

48:05 ↗ of

48:06 ↗ of you know thousands of dollars of you

48:09 ↗ know a few thousand dollars for adding

48:11 ↗ that to a thing uh not not tens of

48:14 ↗ thousands or certainly more than that

48:16 ↗ uh it's because mainly because it's part

48:18 ↗ of the origin most of the background

48:20 ↗ information goes into it as part of the

48:22 ↗ original work that the applicants are

48:24 ↗ make doing when they're evaluating their

48:26 ↗ sites anyway

48:28 ↗ so what you're saying is that this is

48:30 ↗ probably less than ten thousand dollars

48:32 ↗ for almost all applications and see

48:34 ↗ because we did get that question or that

48:35 ↗ comment from

48:37 ↗ what was at the realtors association in

48:39 ↗ a letter that came to us and so that's

48:40 ↗ why i'm asking the question to follow on

48:42 ↗ is

48:43 ↗ um we're talking less than 10 000 for

48:45 ↗ commercial and residential properties

48:49 ↗ um it's

48:51 ↗ that if

48:52 ↗ our firm doesn't exactly do that work

48:55 ↗ for developers so i don't know what the

48:57 ↗ usual market is on doing that

49:00 ↗ as far as understanding what that work

49:02 ↗ is is we evaluate and review it and i

49:05 ↗ can make an estimate on

49:07 ↗ the number of hours it would take me to

49:08 ↗ do it based on what i think it's doing

49:10 ↗ and it would be

49:12 ↗ certainly less than 40 hours on most

49:14 ↗ cases other than the very extreme cases

49:16 ↗ and at the normal kind of median rates

49:19 ↗ that we that we would have for an

49:22 ↗ engineering consultant to that it would

49:23 ↗ be less than ten thousand

49:26 ↗ okay thank you um i see we have another

49:28 ↗ question from jamie jamie please go

49:30 ↗ ahead

49:31 ↗ thanks nancy jamie speaking um and i

49:34 ↗ don't know if paul or evan this would be

49:36 ↗ uh you'd be better positioned to answer

49:38 ↗ this

49:38 ↗ um

49:39 ↗ the the flood the maps that we have that

49:43 ↗ that are basically defining these

49:45 ↗ the bfes how often are those updated is

49:48 ↗ that is there a regular cadence or is it

49:49 ↗ kind of one-off how does that work

49:52 ↗ yeah

49:53 ↗ they're updated periodically by fema and

49:56 ↗ then we're required to adopt them when

49:58 ↗ as soon as they're updated so

50:00 ↗ uh we just updated our maps in 2019 or

50:04 ↗ 2020. we just updated uh 2020 was the

50:07 ↗ last time we updated and

50:09 ↗ before that it was in the

50:12 ↗ maybe 2010 or something like that but uh

50:15 ↗ they're they're looking to go more

50:17 ↗ frequently than than 10 years and and

50:19 ↗ really

50:22 ↗ yeah yeah

50:23 ↗ the update should have happened um but

50:25 ↗ they had all the information in like

50:27 ↗ 2015 but it just took you know five

50:29 ↗ years for it to finally become live so

50:33 ↗ thank you

50:34 ↗ yeah

50:35 ↗ great i think that's all of our

50:36 ↗ questions and i just have a one other

50:38 ↗ request for the presenters and that is

50:40 ↗ to try and

50:42 ↗ minimize the acronyms and try and say

50:44 ↗ the whole words because i think you know

50:46 ↗ not all of us are in the

50:48 ↗ business thank you very much

50:55 ↗ so our stormwater design manual is made

50:57 ↗ up of two separate documents we have our

51:00 ↗ department of ecology 2019 stormwater

51:02 ↗ management manual of western washington

51:05 ↗ which we also call our ecology manual

51:08 ↗ and we have the 2022 stonewater design

51:10 ↗ manual addendum what this addendum does

51:13 ↗ is it allows us to be more locally

51:15 ↗ prescriptive

51:16 ↗ of the 2019 ecology manual to fit isquad

51:19 ↗ better

51:23 ↗ so previous as previously stated and

51:25 ↗ maybe i didn't because i got off track

51:27 ↗ but uh the city will be updating

51:29 ↗ uh our current 2014 ecology manual to

51:32 ↗ the most current 2019 ecology manual so

51:35 ↗ the ecology manual provides guidance on

51:38 ↗ the measures necessary

51:41 ↗ sorry

51:42 ↗ necessary to control the quantity and

51:44 ↗ quality of stormwater isco uses this

51:46 ↗ manual to set stormwater requirements

51:48 ↗ for new development and redevelopment

51:50 ↗ projects

51:52 ↗ land developers and development

51:54 ↗ engineers use this manual to design

51:56 ↗ permanent stormwater control plans

51:58 ↗ create construction stormwater pollution

52:00 ↗ prevention plans and determine

52:02 ↗ stormwater infrastructure

52:04 ↗ businesses use this manual to help

52:06 ↗ design their stormwater pollution

52:08 ↗ prevention plans

52:10 ↗ the 2019 manual update will continue to

52:12 ↗ help us comply with these permits the

52:14 ↗ 2019 ecology manual changes include

52:17 ↗ increased alignment with permitting and

52:19 ↗ performance standards

52:21 ↗ clarifications and inclusions of

52:23 ↗ additional source control bmps

52:25 ↗ additional modeling requirements and

52:27 ↗ other considerations

52:32 ↗ just a quick question and a bmp is

52:35 ↗ thank thank you best management practice

52:40 ↗ uh

52:41 ↗ so the addendum allows us to be more

52:43 ↗ locally prescriptive of the 2019 ecology

52:45 ↗ manual to fit a squad better

52:47 ↗ while most of ecology's

52:49 ↗ of the 2019 ecology manual is applicable

52:52 ↗ to the city of issaquah

52:54 ↗ several significant differences are

52:55 ↗ contained in the 2022 stormwater design

52:58 ↗ manual addendum and through other city

53:00 ↗ requirements for development permitting

53:02 ↗ including

53:04 ↗ the centralisqua area alternative flow

53:06 ↗ control standard

53:08 ↗ the central isquad area seasonably

53:11 ↗ seasonally saturated soil assumption

53:16 ↗ the turbidity standard of 100 ntus is

53:18 ↗ the discharge notification level for all

53:20 ↗ projects in the city at all times up to

53:22 ↗ the 10-year storm so ntus is

53:26 ↗ a measure of

53:29 ↗ basically how how cloudy water is

53:32 ↗ um it is it is a measuring unit

53:36 ↗ larger projects that require their own

53:37 ↗ construction stormwater permit through

53:39 ↗ ecology have a discharge notification

53:42 ↗ level of 250 and to use so isquads

53:46 ↗ decided in previous updates to be more

53:48 ↗ proactive and restrictive on stormwater

53:49 ↗ discharging from a construction site and

53:51 ↗ these larger projects are required to

53:53 ↗ meet our more restrictive standard

53:57 ↗ we also have our our cpd department our

53:59 ↗ community planning development that

54:01 ↗ conducts all our stormwater review

54:04 ↗ and then uh number five is the inclusion

54:07 ↗ now of our critical drainage review

54:09 ↗ which will is going to be including this

54:11 ↗ offside analysis in the in the manual

54:13 ↗ which will be an assessment of

54:15 ↗ consequences and risks of stormwater

54:18 ↗ system failures

54:21 ↗ let's see a question coming up yes it

54:24 ↗ appears uh dan has a question for you

54:25 ↗ dan please go ahead

54:27 ↗ thanks nancy dan uh speaking evan can

54:30 ↗ you just explain a little bit more

54:31 ↗ number one and two i guess i'm having a

54:32 ↗ hard time understanding and i know

54:35 ↗ there's a little more detail in the memo

54:38 ↗ existing land use to be assumed to the

54:40 ↗ pre-developed condition

54:42 ↗ can you can you just kind of parse that

54:44 ↗ out a little bit for those first two and

54:45 ↗ what the impacts are

54:47 ↗ yeah so the alternative flow control

54:49 ↗ standard modifies the flow control

54:51 ↗ standard and the valley floor

54:54 ↗ area of downtown issaquah so in these

54:56 ↗ sub basins the pre-developed condition

54:58 ↗ can be assumed to be the existing site

55:00 ↗ conditions

55:01 ↗ instead of forested like other areas of

55:04 ↗ town

55:05 ↗ okay

55:06 ↗ and

55:07 ↗ yeah the seasonally saturated soil

55:09 ↗ assumption so in

55:11 ↗ in 2011 the city conducted a technical

55:13 ↗ analysis

55:14 ↗ uh in coordination with the department

55:16 ↗ of ecology into the pre-developed

55:18 ↗ hydrology of the area

55:20 ↗ and

55:21 ↗ specifically where seasonal seasonably

55:24 ↗ saturated soil uh conditions can be

55:26 ↗ documented near the surface

55:28 ↗ and be assumed

55:31 ↗ does that answer your question no that's

55:33 ↗ that's that's very helpful yeah okay

55:36 ↗ and evan we have another question here

55:38 ↗ don mcwilliams had one go ahead don

55:40 ↗ please

55:41 ↗ hi evan dawn here um

55:44 ↗ on number one your alternative flow

55:45 ↗ control standard for the valley floor

55:47 ↗ there is that using the 60 40 assumption

55:51 ↗ where where are you guys getting that

55:52 ↗ from

55:54 ↗ uh i will be

55:56 ↗ phoning a friend here

55:57 ↗ we have our our stormwater reviewer on

56:00 ↗ the phone stacey

56:02 ↗ do you have the answer to that

56:06 ↗ um yeah this is stacey rush you can hear

56:08 ↗ me yes yeah

56:10 ↗ yeah the

56:11 ↗ this focus this alternative flow control

56:13 ↗ standard was not based on the 6040 it

56:16 ↗ was something that issaquah presented to

56:18 ↗ ecology back in 2016

56:22 ↗ i think it was so it's already in place

56:24 ↗ it's not a new requirement and

56:26 ↗ it looked at the valley floor and said

56:28 ↗ well this area is you know typically has

56:31 ↗ seasonally saturated soils and the

56:34 ↗ runoff is

56:35 ↗ piped directly to

56:37 ↗ um lake washington it's all piped all

56:39 ↗ the way from that area to lake sammamish

56:42 ↗ sorry not like washington so there was

56:45 ↗ so doing flow control typically you kind

56:47 ↗ of want flow control like if you're

56:48 ↗ going to streams and and things for

56:50 ↗ protection but in this area

56:53 ↗ um issaquah made the case that it wasn't

56:56 ↗ really needed and it wouldn't really

56:57 ↗ help stormwater standards to do that and

56:59 ↗ ecology agreed and approved it back in

57:02 ↗ 2016.

57:04 ↗ okay it still has water quality involved

57:06 ↗ in it yes that is that area is only it's

57:08 ↗ only for flow control

57:11 ↗ water quality is still required in that

57:13 ↗ area and that was kind of a

57:15 ↗ misunderstanding in our pre in our

57:17 ↗ current addendum that we've been using

57:18 ↗ that it wasn't spelled out very clearly

57:21 ↗ but i've been making it trying to make

57:22 ↗ it clear when i do reviews but yeah

57:24 ↗ definitely they just don't have to do

57:26 ↗ water quality treatment just not flow

57:28 ↗ control

57:29 ↗ okay thank you for the clarification

57:31 ↗ well i guess i have a follow-on question

57:33 ↗ to that i guess i'm surprised to hear we

57:35 ↗ don't need flow control in the um

57:38 ↗ in the valley floor and the reason i say

57:40 ↗ that is because it's receiving what a

57:42 ↗ lot of runoff from squawk and tiger

57:44 ↗ mountains and there are many creeks in

57:46 ↗ the area many of which flood

57:48 ↗ um why would flood control not be

57:51 ↗ important in the central issaquah area i

57:54 ↗ mean is that the right thing to do is

57:55 ↗ what i'm asking is that really the

57:57 ↗ standard that we want to hold this

57:59 ↗ community to given

58:01 ↗ the amount of land that is contributing

58:03 ↗ to issaquah creek and

58:04 ↗ its very various tributaries

58:07 ↗ um i was not part of that made this

58:10 ↗ recommendation to ecology

58:13 ↗ um so i'm not exactly sure how to answer

58:16 ↗ your question

58:17 ↗ yeah that that's something

58:19 ↗ that we'll have to

58:21 ↗ uh run up the flagpole and

58:23 ↗ and talk with him and get back to you

58:25 ↗ and get an answer on for sure

58:27 ↗ hey evan so this is alan quinn

58:30 ↗ chime in it's okay

58:32 ↗ so i guess well we're still they're

58:34 ↗ still providing flow control we're just

58:35 ↗ not it's not to the pre-forested

58:38 ↗ you know forested condition is

58:40 ↗ pre-developed forested right it's still

58:42 ↗ it's existing site so they still have to

58:43 ↗ do flow control it's not so we're not

58:47 ↗ doing what they call the duration

58:48 ↗ standard matching standard

58:50 ↗ to forested conditions

58:53 ↗ which is what happened to yeah so

58:56 ↗ so i guess i'm trying to understand so

58:57 ↗ what you're what i'm hearing you say

58:59 ↗ ellen just to make sure i understand it

59:01 ↗ is that the standard for central

59:03 ↗ issaquah area is different than other

59:05 ↗ areas but it still is required to do

59:07 ↗ some level of flow control

59:10 ↗ that's correct

59:11 ↗ and yeah so that analysis was done i

59:14 ↗ guess stacey mentioned we weren't

59:15 ↗ involved in that i believe was nhc was a

59:18 ↗ consultant that did the work for the

59:19 ↗ city and they weren't using i think it's

59:21 ↗ the 80 20 rule but um but in any case

59:24 ↗ yeah they didn't use they didn't look at

59:26 ↗ land use back in 19

59:28 ↗ whatever that date was um they did this

59:30 ↗ other analysis and looked at the

59:31 ↗ hydrology geomorphology of the streams

59:35 ↗ and

59:35 ↗ you know concluding like stacey had said

59:37 ↗ it's just an all-pipe system uh then it

59:39 ↗ it doesn't make any sense to do a

59:41 ↗ pre-forced

59:42 ↗ duration standard because there's no

59:44 ↗ erodible channels it's all pipe or ditch

59:47 ↗ and so so that's why the you know it's

59:50 ↗ that area is is not doesn't have to

59:52 ↗ follow that um

59:54 ↗ the pre-developed condition or forested

59:56 ↗ condition

59:57 ↗ so it's really the areas outside of

59:58 ↗ those you know up in the hillsides where

1:00:00 ↗ you have a erodable channel channels

1:00:02 ↗ that can be roaded with high velocity

1:00:04 ↗ flows

1:00:06 ↗ i guess i'm going to keep pushing a

1:00:08 ↗ little bit on this one because i'm

1:00:09 ↗ having a hard time buying that there's

1:00:10 ↗ not erodible areas in the central

1:00:12 ↗ issaquah area okay

1:00:14 ↗ so and

1:00:16 ↗ what i'm my only interest is to do the

1:00:18 ↗ right thing and i really want to protect

1:00:20 ↗ the creeks and streams in this community

1:00:22 ↗ it's really important to me this that's

1:00:24 ↗ probably why i'm on here so i'm really

1:00:26 ↗ concerned that the standard we're

1:00:28 ↗ putting in central issaquah area is

1:00:32 ↗ maybe too loose

1:00:33 ↗ compared to what we might be expecting

1:00:35 ↗ elsewhere and that's why i'm asking the

1:00:37 ↗ questions i'm asking because i think

1:00:40 ↗ if we're doing these addendums i'm

1:00:42 ↗ questioning if we're doing the right

1:00:43 ↗ thing for the community

1:00:49 ↗ yeah noted and and we'll we'll have to

1:00:52 ↗ uh come back to you

1:00:53 ↗ on that

1:00:55 ↗ we can't make the decision here tonight

1:00:57 ↗ all right

1:00:59 ↗ yeah we can't look at it more and also i

1:01:02 ↗ just want to point out the seasonally

1:01:03 ↗ saturated soils assumption it's not just

1:01:05 ↗ a blanket adjustment

1:01:07 ↗ um projects have to provide geotechnical

1:01:10 ↗ analysis that that confirms that it the

1:01:13 ↗ soils are seasonally saturated

1:01:17 ↗ and

1:01:18 ↗ um

1:01:20 ↗ yeah

1:01:21 ↗ i'm not sure what elsa said that's a big

1:01:23 ↗ long report done by

1:01:25 ↗ um

1:01:26 ↗ nhc yeah we'll look at i've been looking

1:01:29 ↗ to have it we can stace and i will

1:01:30 ↗ review it and get back to you it also

1:01:32 ↗ like

1:01:33 ↗ part of it they do need to provide flow

1:01:35 ↗ control as allen was was making the

1:01:37 ↗ difference they don't have to go back to

1:01:38 ↗ foresting conditions they had allowed to

1:01:40 ↗ use existing and a lot of the

1:01:43 ↗ valley floor is already developed with

1:01:45 ↗ existing impervious surface areas so

1:01:47 ↗ that's why a lot of projects do not

1:01:49 ↗ trigger any additional flow control

1:01:51 ↗ because they're

1:01:52 ↗ they're not at they're not because you

1:01:53 ↗ get a you don't have to do it right now

1:01:55 ↗ under our current standards if you're

1:01:57 ↗ adding less than 10 000 square feet new

1:02:00 ↗ impervious or replacing you don't have

1:02:02 ↗ to provide flow control

1:02:05 ↗ so a lot of the parcels they already

1:02:06 ↗ have existing impervious and they're not

1:02:08 ↗ going to add they're going to add less

1:02:09 ↗ than 10 000 square feet so they will not

1:02:11 ↗ be providing any flow control

1:02:15 ↗ well i guess

1:02:16 ↗ just to kind of finalize

1:02:18 ↗ my perspective on this and then i

1:02:20 ↗ understand you'll get back this i can

1:02:22 ↗ look at costco and those great big

1:02:24 ↗ buildings going in there some of which

1:02:25 ↗ weren't there before

1:02:27 ↗ and they're right next to issaquah creek

1:02:29 ↗ and i'm hoping they're providing flow

1:02:31 ↗ control so that's my that's and i'm

1:02:34 ↗ envisioning that

1:02:35 ↗ target and others i look at redmond and

1:02:38 ↗ bellevue and what's going on with their

1:02:39 ↗ central areas i know we're not going as

1:02:42 ↗ big as those

1:02:43 ↗ but um there's a lot of potential there

1:02:45 ↗ so

1:02:46 ↗ um i that is my concern

1:02:50 ↗ costco is not in the flow control exempt

1:02:53 ↗ or the flow control alternative flow

1:02:54 ↗ control area it's very specific um

1:02:57 ↗ outlined map for that area and yes

1:02:59 ↗ costco used those existing ponds and

1:03:03 ↗ they did provide detention and water

1:03:05 ↗ quality treatment prior to issaquah

1:03:07 ↗ creek

1:03:09 ↗ okay

1:03:10 ↗ well that that's just giving you that as

1:03:13 ↗ an example that was my comment thank you

1:03:17 ↗ i guess evan i have one question for you

1:03:19 ↗ to follow up with that hearing nancy's

1:03:20 ↗ comments um and recognizing her concerns

1:03:24 ↗ so in the central issaquah area

1:03:27 ↗ is the majority of

1:03:29 ↗ the storm water directly piped to the

1:03:32 ↗ lake or is it going through the stream

1:03:35 ↗ more so on new construction rather than

1:03:38 ↗ so redevelopment rather than

1:03:40 ↗ existing

1:03:43 ↗ and i'll have to phone a friend again

1:03:45 ↗ here stacy do you wait what was this i'm

1:03:48 ↗ sorry what was the specific question so

1:03:50 ↗ you're not requiring flow control in the

1:03:52 ↗ down in the central issaquah area um

1:03:55 ↗ you're using existing standards and yeah

1:03:57 ↗ i get that i know the regulations but

1:04:00 ↗ that

1:04:00 ↗ is the majority of the storm water goes

1:04:03 ↗ straight to the lake or does it go

1:04:04 ↗ through issaquah creek on its way there

1:04:07 ↗ so that where do they go straight to the

1:04:08 ↗ lake okay

1:04:11 ↗ it's piped that's that was what the

1:04:14 ↗ study showed that it went it went

1:04:16 ↗ directly to it was piped entirely to

1:04:18 ↗ lake sammamish

1:04:21 ↗ so that minimizes the

1:04:23 ↗ impacts on issaquah creek yes and i

1:04:26 ↗ think we could prepare kind of maybe a

1:04:29 ↗ summary because

1:04:30 ↗ maybe some of you are not don't want to

1:04:32 ↗ read the entire thick report that was

1:04:34 ↗ prepared by it but we could attach that

1:04:36 ↗ too and send it and send it to

1:04:38 ↗ you think a high level summary would be

1:04:41 ↗ nice yeah

1:04:42 ↗ that would be the healthier i mean bear

1:04:44 ↗ in mind that it you know had to go

1:04:45 ↗ through ecology review um

1:04:47 ↗ which is substantial so

1:04:50 ↗ yeah so i i think it's you know it says

1:04:52 ↗ done before

1:04:54 ↗ julie and evan and i were here but it

1:04:56 ↗ was a rigorous review by ecology and i

1:04:57 ↗ said nac did the work so um but we'll

1:05:01 ↗ dig up and get it back get back to you

1:05:02 ↗ on it

1:05:03 ↗ thank you very much i appreciate it

1:05:05 ↗ appreciate that

1:05:07 ↗ yeah thanks for the question

1:05:10 ↗ and then we'll also um

1:05:12 ↗ so to get back here to number six

1:05:14 ↗ um we're also going to be adopting

1:05:16 ↗ certain sections from the king county

1:05:17 ↗ service water design manual which is an

1:05:20 ↗ equivalent manual to the ecology manual

1:05:22 ↗ and we're doing this

1:05:24 ↗ in in two separate areas with chapter

1:05:27 ↗ four

1:05:28 ↗ the uh

1:05:29 ↗ conveyance system analysis and design

1:05:32 ↗ and that's mainly due to um in general

1:05:35 ↗ the 2019 ecology manual doesn't really

1:05:37 ↗ address conveyance meaning it doesn't

1:05:40 ↗ have minimum minimum requirements for

1:05:42 ↗ conveyance of stormwater the ecology

1:05:44 ↗ manual leaves it up to local

1:05:45 ↗ jurisdictions to have specifics on how

1:05:47 ↗ stormwater is to be conveyed

1:05:50 ↗ and so what we've been doing this is

1:05:53 ↗ again something that we've already been

1:05:55 ↗ doing over the last five six years

1:05:57 ↗ but now we want to put it into our

1:05:59 ↗ addendum so what we've been doing is

1:06:02 ↗ sending

1:06:03 ↗ applicants to the king county service

1:06:05 ↗ water design manual to be able to

1:06:08 ↗ design their conveyance and so we're

1:06:11 ↗ going to continue to do our stormwater

1:06:13 ↗ reviewers are going to continue to to do

1:06:15 ↗ this

1:06:16 ↗ but we are just adding it into our

1:06:17 ↗ addendum and to be more transparent in

1:06:19 ↗ our requirements

1:06:21 ↗ they were also

1:06:23 ↗ um adopting the isil pluvial map uh

1:06:25 ↗ which is the used to

1:06:28 ↗ to determine the 10-year storm

1:06:30 ↗ precipitation levels in issaquah

1:06:32 ↗ this year or this update uh in ecology

1:06:36 ↗ manual they actually do have isil

1:06:38 ↗ pluvial maps uh but they're not as

1:06:42 ↗ locally specific as the king county

1:06:43 ↗ manual so we want to use the they're

1:06:45 ↗ more user-friendly

1:06:48 ↗ evan for those that don't know would you

1:06:50 ↗ explain what isopuvio map is

1:06:53 ↗ uh basically is a map that has

1:06:57 ↗ gradient lines going across it that show

1:07:00 ↗ precipitation levels

1:07:02 ↗ that determine a certain storm level

1:07:06 ↗ did that

1:07:07 ↗ describe it enough

1:07:09 ↗ i don't know what the term isopluvial i

1:07:11 ↗ can't define that uh off the top of my

1:07:14 ↗ head

1:07:16 ↗ no i think you did pretty good it

1:07:18 ↗ determines the 10-year 20-year 50-year

1:07:20 ↗ 100-year storm

1:07:22 ↗ yep precipitation amounts

1:07:26 ↗ so uh further in our addendum here while

1:07:29 ↗ we were updating uh it we came across a

1:07:32 ↗ couple areas where we thought again that

1:07:34 ↗ we could do more to protect isquas

1:07:36 ↗ environment in service waters

1:07:38 ↗ one of these areas is in the project

1:07:40 ↗ thresholds that trigger stormwater

1:07:42 ↗ minimum requirements during

1:07:43 ↗ redevelopment so when i mention minimum

1:07:46 ↗ requirements

1:07:47 ↗ it's kind of like the bread and butter

1:07:49 ↗ of stormwater requirements there's nine

1:07:52 ↗ separate minimum requirements

1:07:54 ↗ ones that are notable that

1:07:57 ↗ you would most likely know are

1:07:59 ↗ minimum requirement five which is lid or

1:08:02 ↗ low impact development uh minimum

1:08:04 ↗ requirement six which is runoff

1:08:05 ↗ treatment and water quality and minimum

1:08:08 ↗ requirement seven which is flow control

1:08:10 ↗ so or like how you detain your

1:08:12 ↗ stormwater on your site

1:08:14 ↗ so in 3a in this table

1:08:17 ↗ for redevelopment if a project is

1:08:19 ↗ redeveloping

1:08:22 ↗ and the value of the improvements is

1:08:24 ↗ less than 50 of the total site assessed

1:08:27 ↗ value

1:08:28 ↗ then that project would need to only

1:08:29 ↗ account for the new hard surfaces added

1:08:32 ↗ as a part of that project

1:08:34 ↗ so

1:08:35 ↗ new hard surfaces are are defined as a

1:08:37 ↗ surface that is changed from a pervious

1:08:40 ↗ surface to an impervious surface so at

1:08:42 ↗ pervious it's so the example i give is

1:08:46 ↗ you know if we have a big grass open

1:08:48 ↗ field uh that now

1:08:50 ↗ someone has come on board permitted and

1:08:53 ↗ paved it into a parking lot that is a

1:08:56 ↗ change from a pervious surface to now an

1:08:58 ↗ impervious surface

1:08:59 ↗ and and and now would be a new hard

1:09:02 ↗ surface

1:09:04 ↗ i have a question for you on that evan

1:09:06 ↗ yeah that's okay

1:09:07 ↗ so suppose someone comes in and puts a

1:09:09 ↗ green roof on it and still does that so

1:09:12 ↗ that it's kind of a trade-off thing

1:09:14 ↗ is that um how will that affect it

1:09:18 ↗ are you following what i'm thinking so

1:09:20 ↗ you know i know what you're saying

1:09:22 ↗ yes yeah uh and i i would

1:09:25 ↗ that's again a stormwater reviewer stacy

1:09:27 ↗ turn the camera on stacey

1:09:29 ↗ yeah um

1:09:31 ↗ green roofs are treated but per the

1:09:34 ↗ manual you can count those as fifty

1:09:36 ↗ percent impervious and fifty percent

1:09:38 ↗ pervious so they're kind of a fifty

1:09:40 ↗ fifty thing it doesn't give you it

1:09:42 ↗ doesn't count it as a hundred percent

1:09:44 ↗ pervious but at least but it does take

1:09:46 ↗ into account

1:09:48 ↗ the some infiltration some

1:09:50 ↗ retention of rain

1:09:54 ↗ so if i'm redeveloping i'm going to pick

1:09:56 ↗ on target again because it seems to be

1:09:58 ↗ my

1:09:59 ↗ commercial building of choice

1:10:01 ↗ and and they come in and they're

1:10:03 ↗ redeveloping and putting a green roof on

1:10:05 ↗ and want to pave more areas somewhere

1:10:06 ↗ else i don't know where that would be

1:10:08 ↗ but let's just pretend there is some

1:10:09 ↗ place can they use that as a trade-off

1:10:11 ↗ to avoid hitting this trigger

1:10:14 ↗ um no um to hit the threshold which is

1:10:19 ↗ what the the two thousand the five

1:10:21 ↗ thousand the ten thousand those are

1:10:22 ↗ thresholds and they have to look at the

1:10:24 ↗ site as a whole of what they're doing

1:10:26 ↗ like if they're adding a building

1:10:28 ↗ doesn't matter what the roof type is but

1:10:29 ↗ it's a hard surface

1:10:31 ↗ how they would show how they're meeting

1:10:33 ↗ flow control that's when they can take

1:10:35 ↗ the credit they can't take a credit to

1:10:37 ↗ stay below a threshold they but they can

1:10:40 ↗ use it to to show how they're mitigating

1:10:42 ↗ for that impervious area

1:10:44 ↗ so i assume the language says that in

1:10:47 ↗ some way shape or form in the code

1:10:50 ↗ or whatever

1:10:51 ↗ okay great thank you i think i think

1:10:53 ↗ that's one of the questions that has

1:10:55 ↗ been that we've brought up to clarify

1:10:57 ↗ better in the addendum because i know

1:11:00 ↗ what since i've been reviewing private

1:11:01 ↗ projects under

1:11:03 ↗ the current addendum that that question

1:11:05 ↗ came up a lot and it was like ah nice

1:11:07 ↗ try but no you have to to meet the

1:11:08 ↗ thresholds you got to go by the actual

1:11:10 ↗ hard surface you're adding and then

1:11:12 ↗ you can use that to show how you're

1:11:14 ↗ mitigating but it's not it doesn't

1:11:16 ↗ reduce the threshold

1:11:19 ↗ thank you very much

1:11:22 ↗ nancy we have a question from jamie

1:11:25 ↗ sorry i missed it thanks go ahead jamie

1:11:28 ↗ thanks nancy jamie speaking um i just

1:11:30 ↗ had a clarifying question

1:11:33 ↗ i'm a little bit confused by number one

1:11:36 ↗ i would expect as opposed to or that to

1:11:39 ↗ be and because it would seem like

1:11:42 ↗ to be in that level it could need like

1:11:44 ↗ the level above it is

1:11:46 ↗ either one of those being thresholds met

1:11:49 ↗ shouldn't should that one say and am i

1:11:52 ↗ thinking about that correctly or what am

1:11:54 ↗ i missing

1:11:57 ↗ do you want me to answer that yeah sure

1:11:59 ↗ yeah go ahead stacy um what it's looking

1:12:01 ↗ at is because some projects will have

1:12:04 ↗ um

1:12:05 ↗ some square footage of land disturbance

1:12:07 ↗ but maybe they're not adding any hard

1:12:10 ↗ surface so that's what that ore is

1:12:12 ↗ trying the intent is to capture that

1:12:15 ↗ the first one is if you're replacing

1:12:17 ↗ hard surface but if the other one you

1:12:19 ↗ might still be disturbing a bunch of

1:12:20 ↗ land but you're not adding or replacing

1:12:23 ↗ hard surface but those still could

1:12:25 ↗ create an erosion control problem too

1:12:27 ↗ so it's for two types of projects

1:12:31 ↗ but i think that's consistent with what

1:12:32 ↗ i was saying

1:12:34 ↗ is that and maybe i'm missing it but it

1:12:37 ↗ just seems like in your the example you

1:12:40 ↗ just mentioned if someone hasn't

1:12:42 ↗ the way i read this if someone hasn't

1:12:45 ↗ done it hasn't met both of those

1:12:47 ↗ thresholds they would be like say they

1:12:49 ↗ haven't disturbed any of they have

1:12:51 ↗ they're not adding any hard services but

1:12:52 ↗ they've added eight thousand square feet

1:12:54 ↗ of land disturbance

1:12:56 ↗ it's a little bit unclear in my reading

1:12:58 ↗ of this chart on what where they would

1:12:59 ↗ fall

1:13:01 ↗ ah okay yeah the the intention that

1:13:04 ↗ maybe we need to clarify this or

1:13:05 ↗ something in the chart the intention was

1:13:07 ↗ that if you're meeting one of those

1:13:09 ↗ that's why there's an or not you don't

1:13:11 ↗ have to meet both but if you're meeting

1:13:13 ↗ at least one of those then the um tsc is

1:13:17 ↗ required

1:13:20 ↗ um so i think yeah we can evan maybe we

1:13:22 ↗ can work on how to clear and alan we can

1:13:24 ↗ work on how to clarify this

1:13:26 ↗ so we we've this is an internal table

1:13:29 ↗ that we've uh

1:13:33 ↗ there is there's flowcharts that are in

1:13:35 ↗ the ecology manual that say all the same

1:13:38 ↗ stuff but they are very confusing to

1:13:41 ↗ follow and so

1:13:42 ↗ uh this was made in 2016 as an attempt

1:13:46 ↗ to

1:13:47 ↗ uh make it more easily digestible to uh

1:13:51 ↗ the average person

1:13:53 ↗ and we've been kind of going back and

1:13:54 ↗ forth on whether to keep this table in

1:13:56 ↗ the new one or to remove it and just

1:13:59 ↗ have the flow charts

1:14:01 ↗ yeah

1:14:02 ↗ so maybe yeah it's it's a good thing

1:14:04 ↗ that we can look at uh jamie thank you

1:14:06 ↗ for that and and uh

1:14:08 ↗ yeah we definitely want we want it to be

1:14:10 ↗ as clear as possible so that makes sense

1:14:22 ↗ so

1:14:23 ↗ getting back here so on 3a we're talking

1:14:25 ↗ about the redevelopment

1:14:27 ↗ and if it's below that fifty percent

1:14:30 ↗ fifty percent threshold they only have

1:14:31 ↗ to account for the new hard surfaces in

1:14:33 ↗ their minimum requirements

1:14:36 ↗ if we compare that with with 3b here in

1:14:39 ↗ redevelopment

1:14:40 ↗ this these are for projects redeveloping

1:14:43 ↗ that the value of the improvements is

1:14:45 ↗ more than 50 of the total assessed value

1:14:48 ↗ in this project we need to account for

1:14:49 ↗ both new

1:14:51 ↗ and

1:14:52 ↗ replaced hard surfaces as part of this

1:14:55 ↗ project so a replace hard surface would

1:14:57 ↗ be

1:14:58 ↗ um

1:14:59 ↗ nancy you gave the example of you know

1:15:01 ↗ building a building over a parking lot

1:15:03 ↗ that that kind of thing so you would be

1:15:05 ↗ um

1:15:06 ↗ for a definition for structures it would

1:15:08 ↗ be the removal and replacement of

1:15:10 ↗ imperfect services down to the

1:15:12 ↗ foundation

1:15:14 ↗ and for other impervious services like a

1:15:16 ↗ parking lot it would be the removal

1:15:19 ↗ down to bare soil or base course or

1:15:20 ↗ replacement so the example i give for

1:15:22 ↗ this always is you know we're driving

1:15:23 ↗ into

1:15:24 ↗ the target parking lot and we see uh

1:15:27 ↗ cracks in the parking lot you know it

1:15:29 ↗ kind of looks like the alligator back uh

1:15:30 ↗ it's called alligatoring

1:15:32 ↗ so the remedy for that is you remove

1:15:34 ↗ that broken concrete up you fix the

1:15:37 ↗ subgrade below which is the gravel and

1:15:38 ↗ then you repave it so you are replacing

1:15:42 ↗ that hard surface that was broken up

1:15:44 ↗ with new impervious surface so that is a

1:15:46 ↗ replaced hard surface

1:15:48 ↗ so the question we have that we really

1:15:51 ↗ want more guidance on is should we

1:15:54 ↗ be

1:15:54 ↗ uh should we be treating

1:15:56 ↗ all redevelopment the same

1:15:58 ↗ so why would we want to consider this so

1:16:00 ↗ a significant amount of redevelopment

1:16:03 ↗ projects are currently only accounting

1:16:05 ↗ for new hard surfaces missing out on

1:16:07 ↗ potential stormwater flow control and

1:16:09 ↗ water quality treatment of existing

1:16:11 ↗ pollution generating hard surfaces

1:16:14 ↗ further protecting our environment and

1:16:15 ↗ accounting for past development

1:16:17 ↗ so that's something we would like some

1:16:19 ↗ more uh discussion on

1:16:24 ↗ another uh

1:16:25 ↗ oh

1:16:27 ↗ jamie go ahead

1:16:29 ↗ thanks evan uh just a quick question on

1:16:31 ↗ that so

1:16:32 ↗ i just want taking your example so say

1:16:36 ↗ i have a lot

1:16:37 ↗ and it's got a certain amount of hard

1:16:40 ↗ surfaces or impervious surfaces

1:16:41 ↗ currently

1:16:43 ↗ basically what you're asking us is

1:16:45 ↗ should like let's say i want to add a

1:16:47 ↗ bunch of i don't know park a bunch of

1:16:49 ↗ concrete big area of concrete you're

1:16:52 ↗ asking should not only

1:16:54 ↗ and i'm

1:16:55 ↗ it's is it only the replaced so even if

1:16:58 ↗ i wasn't like i have a bunch of

1:17:00 ↗ impervious surfaces i'm not touching

1:17:01 ↗ them currently i'm just adding all these

1:17:03 ↗ other paved areas is that still it's

1:17:07 ↗ just those new paved areas that would be

1:17:08 ↗ considered

1:17:10 ↗ uh yes if you were with the update i

1:17:12 ↗ guess sorry you had the update

1:17:15 ↗ yeah if you were below that 50 threshold

1:17:17 ↗ so let's say you're this partial that

1:17:20 ↗ you own is worth a million dollars and

1:17:23 ↗ this concrete work that you're doing is

1:17:25 ↗ 400 000

1:17:27 ↗ so you're you're staying below that 50

1:17:30 ↗ threshold then yes only the new hard

1:17:32 ↗ surfaces that you are adding would have

1:17:34 ↗ to be accounted for in stormwater

1:17:36 ↗ management in in the stormwater

1:17:38 ↗ requirements

1:17:39 ↗ so that new concrete that you would be

1:17:42 ↗ putting in

1:17:43 ↗ not the existing impervious surface on

1:17:45 ↗ the site

1:17:50 ↗ so the question is should we show if if

1:17:53 ↗ someone is doing that

1:17:54 ↗ should we account be accounting

1:17:56 ↗ for the existing impervious that's

1:17:59 ↗ already on the site plus that concrete

1:18:02 ↗ uh work that is being done that

1:18:05 ↗ if that concrete work was above that

1:18:08 ↗ fifty percent threshold so five hundred

1:18:10 ↗ and one thousand dollars then they would

1:18:12 ↗ have to account for both the new and

1:18:14 ↗ replaced

1:18:16 ↗ if they replaced anything but yeah so

1:18:17 ↗ taking my example if instead of just

1:18:20 ↗ paving the new i also had some damaged

1:18:22 ↗ portions of the existing and i was

1:18:24 ↗ trying to do this all at the same time

1:18:25 ↗ and then that cost 150 000 i could end

1:18:28 ↗ up triggering because i would end up

1:18:31 ↗ 550k so over half

1:18:37 ↗ and i had another question that goes

1:18:39 ↗ with this as well evan yeah

1:18:41 ↗ and you just triggered a couple of them

1:18:44 ↗ another one on top of it the first one

1:18:46 ↗ would be is is there a time frame like

1:18:48 ↗ could you do one one year and one the

1:18:50 ↗ next year based on what the conversation

1:18:51 ↗ you and jamie just had

1:18:53 ↗ and would that trigger it

1:18:55 ↗ is there a time frame between

1:18:56 ↗ improvements

1:18:58 ↗ uh stacy

1:19:00 ↗ yeah

1:19:01 ↗ yeah um

1:19:03 ↗ that's a good point and that's what kind

1:19:05 ↗ of we see happening in development

1:19:07 ↗ they'll do something one year maybe wait

1:19:08 ↗ a few years do another section another

1:19:11 ↗ year

1:19:12 ↗ and

1:19:13 ↗ that there isn't really any clear

1:19:15 ↗ language that says they can't do that

1:19:17 ↗ it's like it's a new project each time

1:19:19 ↗ but i don't think that's ecology's

1:19:21 ↗ intent

1:19:22 ↗ is for them to do something a little bit

1:19:25 ↗ you know every few years the intent was

1:19:28 ↗ to look at it all but

1:19:29 ↗ we do not have clear

1:19:31 ↗ because i've seen that happen and and

1:19:34 ↗ i'm looking at the codes and it's like

1:19:35 ↗ i'm not finding a clear code that says

1:19:37 ↗ they have to

1:19:39 ↗ they can't just do the incremental so if

1:19:41 ↗ that's something that we want to prevent

1:19:43 ↗ we would need to be clear on that in the

1:19:46 ↗ addendum

1:19:47 ↗ okay

1:19:49 ↗ well i'm this adds a comment to it i

1:19:51 ↗ think that's something we should be

1:19:52 ↗ clear about in the addendum that would

1:19:54 ↗ be my comment to you um and define what

1:19:56 ↗ the terms is you know you

1:19:58 ↗ it's considered the same project if it

1:20:00 ↗ happens you know if

1:20:02 ↗ improvements are made every year

1:20:04 ↗ over a period of time the second

1:20:06 ↗ question i have that goes with it right

1:20:08 ↗ down here on second and uh sunset there

1:20:11 ↗ is a house or a fairly large structure

1:20:13 ↗ that was torn down and it's now become a

1:20:14 ↗ vacant lot i suspect it will end up

1:20:17 ↗ being some kind of commercial building

1:20:18 ↗ not sure where it's at in the cities so

1:20:21 ↗ now that they've taken that structure

1:20:22 ↗ down it's probably been down for two

1:20:24 ↗ years because of coba and they're

1:20:25 ↗ probably getting financing and um

1:20:27 ↗ permits

1:20:29 ↗ it's

1:20:31 ↗ so they but they had a big building on

1:20:32 ↗ it two years ago where did they fit in

1:20:35 ↗ this whole thing

1:20:37 ↗ [Music]

1:20:40 ↗ i am not sure i guess we would look at

1:20:43 ↗ it and say okay you're adding well if

1:20:46 ↗ they've already taken the building down

1:20:48 ↗ that means it's going to be all any

1:20:50 ↗ impervious they add is going to be all

1:20:52 ↗ new and replaced

1:20:57 ↗ the two years ago they had a great big

1:20:58 ↗ structure sitting there

1:21:00 ↗ right and now you're saying it's all but

1:21:02 ↗ now you're saying it's a parking lot now

1:21:04 ↗ or it's no it's green grass it's grass

1:21:08 ↗ ah it's been like that i mean i think

1:21:10 ↗ that's something that needs to be

1:21:11 ↗ clarified because people will get

1:21:13 ↗ creative

1:21:14 ↗ oh yeah they do it i see those and it

1:21:16 ↗ frustrates me when i don't have

1:21:18 ↗ something to back up because i think

1:21:19 ↗ yeah they would say hey it's green grass

1:21:21 ↗ right now and we'd be like

1:21:24 ↗ but but it would still even if it's

1:21:26 ↗ going to be even if it would count as if

1:21:28 ↗ we accounted for the existing structure

1:21:31 ↗ there and they counted as replaced

1:21:32 ↗ that's why they have to do flow control

1:21:34 ↗ and water quality treatment for new and

1:21:36 ↗ replaced so we could call it replacing

1:21:39 ↗ the and not new and they still would

1:21:40 ↗ have to do requirements

1:21:44 ↗ i just hope that we can get clarity in

1:21:46 ↗ this for structure for opportunities

1:21:48 ↗ like this

1:21:49 ↗ certainly

1:21:53 ↗ i'm adding a note now

1:21:57 ↗ thank you that's all my questions and

1:21:58 ↗ comments

1:22:00 ↗ uh anybody else before i change the

1:22:02 ↗ slide

1:22:06 ↗ all right

1:22:09 ↗ so another item we're bringing up to you

1:22:11 ↗ is uh for discussion

1:22:13 ↗ uh is on enhanced treatment so currently

1:22:16 ↗ in the ecology manual enhanced treatment

1:22:18 ↗ is not required for parking lots

1:22:20 ↗ dedicated solely to parking of employees

1:22:23 ↗ private vehicles at commercial and

1:22:25 ↗ industrial sites

1:22:27 ↗ so let's talk about treatment

1:22:28 ↗ specifically enhanced verse basic

1:22:30 ↗ treatment so as of right now in the

1:22:32 ↗ ecology manual

1:22:35 ↗ these employee-only parking lots only

1:22:37 ↗ need to implement basic treatment

1:22:39 ↗ basic treatment

1:22:42 ↗ treats for total suspended solids or

1:22:45 ↗ basically it's solids that are found in

1:22:47 ↗ storm water so that could be

1:22:49 ↗ sediment or litter uh different stuff

1:22:51 ↗ like that

1:22:52 ↗ so enhanced treatment is

1:22:54 ↗ it it treats for that basic treatment

1:22:57 ↗ plus it treats for dissolved metals and

1:23:00 ↗ specifically copper and zinc

1:23:04 ↗ so one thing we know about copper

1:23:06 ↗ is that uh copper is known to cause

1:23:09 ↗ issues with juvenile salmon

1:23:11 ↗ um so copper sources include both

1:23:14 ↗ vehicle brakes or include vehicle brakes

1:23:17 ↗ and zinc sources include both tire dust

1:23:19 ↗ and motor oils

1:23:21 ↗ so

1:23:22 ↗ i guess question that we're asking you

1:23:24 ↗ as well is should we treat all parking

1:23:25 ↗ lots the same in issaquah and something

1:23:27 ↗ to note is uh in the king county manual

1:23:30 ↗ they do not allow this exception so um

1:23:34 ↗ basically

1:23:35 ↗ yep so that

1:23:36 ↗ that's what we're asking for more guns

1:23:38 ↗ on and i see some comments coming in

1:23:43 ↗ um yes jamie

1:23:45 ↗ is has your question been answered i

1:23:47 ↗ think we've already gotten told this is

1:23:48 ↗ a new question

1:23:50 ↗ i have a lot of questions um

1:23:52 ↗ my question was i just want to make sure

1:23:54 ↗ i understand

1:23:55 ↗ so like

1:23:56 ↗ non-commercial and industrial sites what

1:23:59 ↗ is is enhanced treatment required for

1:24:01 ↗ those parking lots

1:24:03 ↗ i just want to make sure i understand

1:24:04 ↗ like what is the is is the commercial

1:24:06 ↗ and industrial site the exception and

1:24:08 ↗ that they just require basic now and

1:24:10 ↗ then all other parking lots require

1:24:12 ↗ enhanced or what's the current state

1:24:16 ↗ stacy

1:24:21 ↗ yes um

1:24:23 ↗ well

1:24:24 ↗ parking lots the only thing right now

1:24:26 ↗ um

1:24:27 ↗ that you have parking lots it doesn't

1:24:29 ↗ matter if it's commercial or industrial

1:24:31 ↗ or whatever those are enhanced treatment

1:24:34 ↗ and

1:24:36 ↗ single family street or street

1:24:38 ↗ residentials and streets of cert it

1:24:40 ↗ depends on the adt on the level of

1:24:43 ↗ traffic but those are typically

1:24:45 ↗ typically single family is just basic

1:24:47 ↗ and commercial multi-family is enhanced

1:24:51 ↗ treatment but there's

1:24:53 ↗ an exemption or an exception written in

1:24:55 ↗ the ecology manual that gives a break

1:24:58 ↗ for commercial

1:24:59 ↗ um commercial industrial sites that if

1:25:02 ↗ they're if their parking lot is only

1:25:03 ↗ employees coming in parking they don't

1:25:06 ↗ have any customers parking there then

1:25:09 ↗ they're allowed to reduce the level down

1:25:11 ↗ to basic

1:25:12 ↗ and that's something that i don't really

1:25:15 ↗ support that

1:25:16 ↗ and and the king county manual it's not

1:25:18 ↗ that exception is not in there

1:25:22 ↗ um so that's what we're asking that's

1:25:23 ↗ the difference that's i just wanted to

1:25:25 ↗ make sure i understood like what saying

1:25:27 ↗ should we treat all parking lots the

1:25:28 ↗ same means and it sounds like it's

1:25:30 ↗ bringing

1:25:31 ↗ this commercial industrial sites

1:25:33 ↗ employee parking up to the standard that

1:25:36 ↗ any other parking lot that customers

1:25:38 ↗ would be

1:25:39 ↗ using they would be the same standard

1:25:41 ↗ for those two is that correct that's

1:25:43 ↗ correct okay yes i think the theory

1:25:45 ↗ behind is that if you have employees

1:25:46 ↗ driving in and and then driving in at

1:25:49 ↗ the beginning of the day and driving out

1:25:50 ↗ at the end of the day you're not seeing

1:25:52 ↗ the big the turnover that you would for

1:25:54 ↗ customers that come in for a few hours

1:25:56 ↗ and leave and so that's their that's

1:25:59 ↗ that's the ecology's reasoning for

1:26:00 ↗ allowing this exception

1:26:02 ↗ but you still have you still have a lot

1:26:04 ↗ of um

1:26:06 ↗ particles and things that are on that

1:26:08 ↗ parking lot

1:26:11 ↗ so we have a comment from don don go

1:26:13 ↗ ahead please

1:26:16 ↗ um yeah you guys asked should we treat

1:26:18 ↗ all parking lots the same of course i

1:26:19 ↗ mean

1:26:20 ↗ i don't know where this came from from

1:26:22 ↗ ecology it's an old remnant that's been

1:26:24 ↗ around for a while but

1:26:25 ↗ uh

1:26:26 ↗ you're still getting the same pollutants

1:26:28 ↗ you're still getting the same problems

1:26:29 ↗ and now with the recent six ppd problems

1:26:32 ↗ we're seeing yes enhanced treatment for

1:26:34 ↗ all of our humans please

1:26:37 ↗ that's what staff is supporting and we

1:26:39 ↗ just wanted to make sure

1:26:42 ↗ uh we have a few more questions

1:26:44 ↗ you have a question

1:26:47 ↗ actually it was answered by the previous

1:26:48 ↗ one i was curious as to why uh you know

1:26:51 ↗ in a commercial

1:26:53 ↗ place like employee alone

1:26:56 ↗ uh

1:26:57 ↗ parking place would have a different

1:26:58 ↗ treatment than

1:27:01 ↗ customers coming in i think stacy

1:27:03 ↗ answered that question thank you very

1:27:05 ↗ much

1:27:05 ↗ tom you have a question

1:27:08 ↗ uh yes tom anderson here i'm just

1:27:10 ↗ wondering uh so is there any data to

1:27:13 ↗ support

1:27:14 ↗ that

1:27:15 ↗ that distinction between the two types i

1:27:17 ↗ mean have measurements been made and we

1:27:19 ↗ determine oh yeah there's only

1:27:22 ↗ 30 percent of the contaminants found on

1:27:25 ↗ these employee-based sites or or was it

1:27:27 ↗ just kind of a

1:27:29 ↗ seat of the pants sort of distinction

1:27:30 ↗ that was arrived at

1:27:34 ↗ yeah i have not read any data that

1:27:36 ↗ supports it ecology must have something

1:27:39 ↗ to support it and it's it's not a new

1:27:41 ↗ exception it's been in their manual for

1:27:43 ↗ a while

1:27:46 ↗ yeah so we don't have any data to

1:27:49 ↗ that goes one way or the other outside

1:27:52 ↗ of we know that parking lots are a

1:27:54 ↗ pollution generating surface

1:27:57 ↗ and

1:27:58 ↗ so

1:27:58 ↗ yeah

1:28:00 ↗ so

1:28:01 ↗ okay great so

1:28:03 ↗ i guess i'm gonna ask the board do

1:28:05 ↗ we believe that the city should be

1:28:07 ↗ trading all parking lots the same and

1:28:10 ↗ what i'd like to do is get a thumbs up

1:28:11 ↗ or thumbs down or unless you have

1:28:13 ↗ another way of doing it but just kind of

1:28:15 ↗ that's not a vote it's just kind of a

1:28:17 ↗ general feel for the board so evan has

1:28:19 ↗ clearer direction has that helped you

1:28:20 ↗ evan

1:28:21 ↗ yeah and at the very end we can kind of

1:28:23 ↗ we'll we can talk about these two

1:28:25 ↗ uh as well um but yes we can do it now

1:28:28 ↗ too

1:28:28 ↗ okay so can i get a thought can you show

1:28:31 ↗ me your thumbs um if you support um

1:28:35 ↗ treating all parking lots the same

1:28:40 ↗ and i got a school scroll through all of

1:28:42 ↗ you guys so i can see it all and it

1:28:44 ↗ looks like

1:28:45 ↗ all the participants tonight agree with

1:28:47 ↗ that comment so thank you very much

1:28:50 ↗ all right

1:28:55 ↗ okay and uh final thing i want to talk

1:28:58 ↗ about tonight is

1:29:00 ↗ a new mpds requirement that's going to

1:29:01 ↗ be coming to issaquah

1:29:03 ↗ and that's going to be our source

1:29:04 ↗ control program

1:29:06 ↗ but good news is that isquad has a long

1:29:08 ↗ history of successful source control

1:29:10 ↗ programs aimed at reducing and

1:29:12 ↗ eliminating non-storm water discharges

1:29:14 ↗ into city-owned storm uh into our

1:29:17 ↗ city-owned stormwater systems and waters

1:29:19 ↗ of the state

1:29:20 ↗ so the existing source control program

1:29:22 ↗ at the city currently implement

1:29:24 ↗ that the certi that the city currently

1:29:26 ↗ implements has been above and beyond the

1:29:28 ↗ mpds permit requirements

1:29:30 ↗ the mps permit evan

1:29:34 ↗ can you tell me what an mtps permit is

1:29:36 ↗ yeah

1:29:38 ↗ so uh it's a stormwater permit uh that

1:29:43 ↗ allows issaquah to discharge our

1:29:46 ↗ stormwater to water of the state which

1:29:48 ↗ is a state that is owned by not

1:29:50 ↗ issaquah

1:29:52 ↗ and it is

1:29:53 ↗ ecology

1:29:54 ↗ uh facilitates the the permit

1:29:57 ↗ and so we have certain requirements that

1:29:59 ↗ we are required to implement

1:30:02 ↗ thank you evan yes the city will be

1:30:04 ↗ shifting our existing source control

1:30:07 ↗ program into a new source control mpds

1:30:10 ↗ program so the source control

1:30:12 ↗ inspections will be inspecting our

1:30:14 ↗ existing business sites

1:30:16 ↗ for pollution and then potential

1:30:17 ↗ pollution sources

1:30:19 ↗ the city will then work with these

1:30:20 ↗ businesses to eliminate the pollution

1:30:23 ↗ source

1:30:24 ↗ uh the pollution source through

1:30:25 ↗ operational bmps or best management

1:30:27 ↗ practices

1:30:29 ↗ uh and or structural and treatment bmps

1:30:31 ↗ if necessary

1:30:33 ↗ so examples of operational uh best

1:30:36 ↗ management practices are in like this

1:30:38 ↗ photo on the right here a vactor truck

1:30:40 ↗ coming in cleaning out catch basins it

1:30:43 ↗ could be a sweeper coming and sweeping a

1:30:45 ↗ parking lot to remove built up debris

1:30:49 ↗ and then

1:30:50 ↗ if this operational bmps that we're

1:30:52 ↗ working with this prop property owner or

1:30:54 ↗ business owner are not working then at

1:30:56 ↗ that point is when we would step up and

1:30:58 ↗ start working with structural or

1:31:00 ↗ treatment bmps which

1:31:02 ↗ looking at this photo here on the left

1:31:04 ↗ like a dumpster area that's has a catch

1:31:06 ↗ basin near it getting lots of input if

1:31:09 ↗ they are not doing

1:31:13 ↗ their best effort for operational bmps

1:31:15 ↗ then we would make them cover that

1:31:17 ↗ dumpster area with with a roof so there

1:31:19 ↗ would be no rainwater intrusion

1:31:21 ↗ happening there to allow for any runoff

1:31:28 ↗ so the next steps uh we'll be finalizing

1:31:31 ↗ the draft code and then submitting rcpa

1:31:34 ↗ uh that's really

1:31:36 ↗ what's left

1:31:38 ↗ and sipa is

1:31:40 ↗ sipa is i do not know the acronym i i

1:31:44 ↗ cannot

1:31:45 ↗ it's the state's environmental policy

1:31:47 ↗ yeah okay thank you

1:31:53 ↗ so

1:31:54 ↗ the discussion we've kind of touched on

1:31:55 ↗ this a little bit already with should we

1:31:57 ↗ treat all parking lots the same in

1:31:59 ↗ issaquah

1:32:00 ↗ um but another thing you know that we

1:32:03 ↗ want to touch on as well is should we

1:32:04 ↗ treat all redevelopment the same so

1:32:06 ↗ should we account for new and replace

1:32:08 ↗ hard surfaces

1:32:10 ↗ in all redevelopment regardless if that

1:32:12 ↗ 50 threshold is triggered

1:32:19 ↗ so are there any comments on that first

1:32:21 ↗ bullet um set of bullets that evan just

1:32:24 ↗ described

1:32:25 ↗ about treating all redevelopment the

1:32:27 ↗ same any comments or discussion about

1:32:29 ↗ that

1:32:33 ↗ yeah when my gut instinct says yes but i

1:32:36 ↗ know there's a cost associated with it

1:32:38 ↗ it's a pretty big price tag so

1:32:42 ↗ i'd have to better understand that

1:32:44 ↗ before i could make a commitment one way

1:32:45 ↗ or another

1:32:49 ↗ yep thank you yeah when we're aware of

1:32:51 ↗ that as well

1:32:54 ↗ are there any other uh jamie it appears

1:32:57 ↗ to have a question go ahead jamie

1:32:59 ↗ i think tom had a question before me

1:33:02 ↗ oh yes tim anderson here i just

1:33:04 ↗ wondered well so how does that align

1:33:07 ↗ with the county

1:33:08 ↗ um

1:33:09 ↗ do they make that

1:33:11 ↗ distinction as well

1:33:14 ↗ uh i do i don't know exactly what would

1:33:17 ↗ be in the king county manual but i know

1:33:19 ↗ for the most part that

1:33:21 ↗ we i think would be pretty unique to

1:33:23 ↗ treat all redevelopment the same so i

1:33:26 ↗ think for the most part

1:33:27 ↗ um well in the ecology manual it states

1:33:30 ↗ exactly that that if you're below that

1:33:32 ↗ 50 threshold that you only have to

1:33:34 ↗ account for new hard surfaces

1:33:37 ↗ and so there's many different

1:33:38 ↗ jurisdictions that have adopted the

1:33:41 ↗ ecology manual and so i can speak to

1:33:43 ↗ that

1:33:44 ↗ but

1:33:44 ↗ the king county service water design

1:33:46 ↗ manual we don't have and so i don't know

1:33:49 ↗ if that is necessarily in there

1:33:52 ↗ we could look that up but i think if my

1:33:55 ↗ recollection is correct it is in the

1:33:56 ↗ king county manual also

1:33:59 ↗ yeah i'm not sure the latest version but

1:34:00 ↗ i know it's in the past versions it's

1:34:02 ↗ been in there

1:34:03 ↗ ecology sort of copied it from king

1:34:05 ↗ county actually it's sort of how it

1:34:06 ↗ worked in a lot of ways but

1:34:13 ↗ go ahead stacy um one of the reasons why

1:34:16 ↗ i wanted to bring this question up is

1:34:18 ↗ because where i see it getting used is

1:34:20 ↗ not on small projects it's on big

1:34:23 ↗ projects big large like commercial sites

1:34:25 ↗ because

1:34:26 ↗ they're

1:34:27 ↗ the dollar cost of what their

1:34:30 ↗ improvements on that site are worth are

1:34:33 ↗ we are huge they're really high so they

1:34:35 ↗ can do a lot of changes and still fall

1:34:38 ↗ under that 50

1:34:40 ↗ cost

1:34:41 ↗ because they have a much higher

1:34:43 ↗ um amount for that 100 percent to the

1:34:46 ↗ the target amount whereas small projects

1:34:49 ↗ they can trigger it pretty easily um be

1:34:52 ↗ above the 50 because their improvements

1:34:54 ↗ are on such a smaller scale

1:34:57 ↗ um versus like like residential it's a

1:35:00 ↗ much smaller scale than the big projects

1:35:02 ↗ so they can hit that 50 so i actually

1:35:04 ↗ feel like i see this exemption used more

1:35:07 ↗ on bigger projects than small projects

1:35:13 ↗ thanks for that clarification um jamie

1:35:15 ↗ you had a question

1:35:18 ↗ yeah and stacy's

1:35:20 ↗ answered one of my questions was just

1:35:22 ↗ like kind of the the city's

1:35:24 ↗ thinking or the reasoning for suggesting

1:35:27 ↗ this

1:35:28 ↗ um

1:35:29 ↗ one of the things and i thought this is

1:35:31 ↗ certainly not my area of strength but

1:35:33 ↗ um

1:35:35 ↗ do we have

1:35:37 ↗ large numbers so like a a large project

1:35:39 ↗ that stacy might be seeing or doesn't

1:35:41 ↗ need to be large but

1:35:42 ↗ we have standards for levels of

1:35:44 ↗ impervious surfaces those standards have

1:35:46 ↗ presumably changed over time is that

1:35:49 ↗ fair enough

1:35:51 ↗ or have those standards been fairly

1:35:52 ↗ consistent

1:35:53 ↗ are you talking about the level what do

1:35:55 ↗ you mean by level i mean the amount of

1:35:57 ↗ footage the level of impervious service

1:35:58 ↗ that's that's acceptable on a given

1:36:01 ↗ piece of

1:36:03 ↗ piece of land

1:36:04 ↗ um well because that that comes under

1:36:07 ↗ our planning um

1:36:09 ↗ codes and like people they're allowed a

1:36:11 ↗ certain allowable lot coverage

1:36:13 ↗ impervious slot coverage and that can

1:36:16 ↗ vary i mean there's residential areas

1:36:18 ↗ that have like 50 but then there's some

1:36:20 ↗ areas of the city where you can go up to

1:36:21 ↗ 80 or 90 percent um allowed impervious

1:36:25 ↗ area so and i don't know that those

1:36:27 ↗ numbers have changed that much over the

1:36:29 ↗ years

1:36:30 ↗ okay i was just curious if there's any

1:36:32 ↗ tie-in like without of cour like with

1:36:36 ↗ properties that have impervious services

1:36:38 ↗ well above what the property

1:36:40 ↗ requirements are if that's another kind

1:36:42 ↗ of wrinkle here that that should be

1:36:45 ↗ considered just and

1:36:47 ↗ if it's a property that is already out

1:36:48 ↗ of kind of out of compliance or

1:36:50 ↗ grandfathered in is there anything there

1:36:52 ↗ that should be considered and i don't

1:36:54 ↗ know how that comes together but that's

1:36:55 ↗ just a question or a topic that

1:36:58 ↗ um uh i would just raise

1:37:01 ↗ yeah i mean we have we have sites that

1:37:03 ↗ they call them um what is it

1:37:05 ↗ non-conforming sites where maybe they

1:37:07 ↗ have higher than the allowable lot

1:37:09 ↗ impervious area and if they redevelop

1:37:12 ↗ them then they are supposed to reduce we

1:37:15 ↗ usually ask for them to reduce and make

1:37:18 ↗ it in compliance but that's only if

1:37:20 ↗ they're doing redevelopment

1:37:22 ↗ if they're leaving it the same we don't

1:37:23 ↗ ask people to reduce the amount of

1:37:25 ↗ impervious area

1:37:27 ↗ okay and the 50 thing doesn't really

1:37:30 ↗ come into play for those

1:37:32 ↗ okay thank you

1:37:35 ↗ great we have a question from don gunn

1:37:37 ↗ go ahead please

1:37:39 ↗ more of a comment than a question so i

1:37:41 ↗ go back to the target example that we've

1:37:43 ↗ been talking about if target were to

1:37:44 ↗ replace that entire parking lot

1:37:47 ↗ i think the right thing to do would be

1:37:49 ↗ to ask them to put in treatment at that

1:37:53 ↗ point or flow control and treatment if

1:37:55 ↗ it triggers both

1:37:57 ↗ and not just let them replace it in kind

1:38:00 ↗ under where you're at now so just

1:38:02 ↗ something to consider

1:38:07 ↗ and i would totally support that

1:38:10 ↗ but that's not kind of the way our

1:38:12 ↗ current stuff is

1:38:16 ↗ i think there's that whole pavement

1:38:17 ↗ section in the current addendum that

1:38:19 ↗ says that as long as you're not

1:38:20 ↗ increasing the area and and you're

1:38:24 ↗ changing the pavement it doesn't count

1:38:25 ↗ as new impervious

1:38:28 ↗ it just it feels like a game right

1:38:30 ↗ oh totally they can play the game yeah

1:38:33 ↗ and that's what we see a lot we see that

1:38:35 ↗ every summer when people are out there

1:38:36 ↗ doing their redoing their parking lots

1:38:38 ↗ or and as long as they're not expanding

1:38:40 ↗ them then it's kind of frustrating

1:38:42 ↗ because that's your time to retrofit

1:38:44 ↗ things is when they're doing development

1:38:46 ↗ yeah when you have it opened up

1:38:47 ↗ currently our our requirements don't

1:38:49 ↗ allow that but i would support adding

1:38:50 ↗ those to the addendum

1:38:55 ↗ i guess my my take on it would be you

1:38:57 ↗ know there should be some threshold i

1:38:59 ↗ mean i think repaving your parking lots

1:39:01 ↗ one thing or repairing your parking lots

1:39:03 ↗ one thing but if you're redeveloping

1:39:05 ↗ your parking lot and turning it into

1:39:07 ↗ something bigger it should trigger you

1:39:10 ↗ doing the right thing which is the

1:39:12 ↗ stormwater control so i think there

1:39:13 ↗ needs to be some thought of some how to

1:39:15 ↗ put that language together i may have to

1:39:18 ↗ talk to the city attorney about how to

1:39:19 ↗ do it but i tend to agree with what uh

1:39:22 ↗ don just said which is if they

1:39:25 ↗ make that all

1:39:26 ↗ not parking lot and turn it into some

1:39:28 ↗ kind of more development they should be

1:39:31 ↗ doing something else to make it work

1:39:33 ↗ that's my comments

1:39:34 ↗ uh jamie you have a comment

1:39:36 ↗ yeah i was just gonna say basically the

1:39:38 ↗ same thing is i feel like this is pretty

1:39:41 ↗ complex and so i don't know that i have

1:39:44 ↗ like really

1:39:45 ↗ i don't feel confident giving you one

1:39:47 ↗ answer but it just seems like i think we

1:39:50 ↗ we all seem aligned on the goal i do

1:39:53 ↗ think we should avoid

1:39:55 ↗ how do we avoid unintended consequences

1:39:57 ↗ of having terrible shape parking like we

1:39:59 ↗ don't want

1:40:00 ↗ and i don't know what there's some

1:40:01 ↗ balance there and i don't know what the

1:40:03 ↗ answer is but i think that's going to be

1:40:05 ↗ probably a more nuanced look at how we

1:40:08 ↗ could do this in a way that

1:40:10 ↗ protects in the situations we want but

1:40:11 ↗ doesn't keep um

1:40:14 ↗ doesn't have unintended consequences

1:40:15 ↗ that none of us might want that might

1:40:17 ↗ actually be detrimental so

1:40:20 ↗ yeah thank you

1:40:25 ↗ are there any other comments from the

1:40:26 ↗ board

1:40:29 ↗ evan did you get the direction you were

1:40:31 ↗ looking for from us

1:40:33 ↗ yes no thank you very much and i you

1:40:35 ↗ know we have some homework to do and

1:40:37 ↗ and um

1:40:39 ↗ you know i think we all want the same

1:40:41 ↗ thing but we got to figure out how to do

1:40:42 ↗ it

1:40:43 ↗ so uh

1:40:45 ↗ we'll

1:40:45 ↗ we'll keep working at it and uh

1:40:48 ↗ well we'll we'll get there i just wanted

1:40:50 ↗ to add one more thing

1:40:53 ↗ that

1:40:53 ↗ this also if we're looking at this like

1:40:55 ↗ the whole thing about um not giving a

1:40:57 ↗ pass for ones if they're replacing

1:40:59 ↗ impervious with an in-kind material this

1:41:01 ↗ comes up a lot on capital projects and

1:41:05 ↗ um our our capital projects like public

1:41:07 ↗ works or parks or something they say hey

1:41:08 ↗ it was already impervious before why do

1:41:10 ↗ we have to do something now when we're

1:41:12 ↗ doing more and you know

1:41:14 ↗ impervious for that same footprint that

1:41:16 ↗ comes up a lot so i just want to caution

1:41:18 ↗ that if we say

1:41:20 ↗ we want them to do more that also is

1:41:21 ↗ going to increase costs and capital

1:41:23 ↗ projects too not just private

1:41:24 ↗ development

1:41:26 ↗ well personally i think it's great if we

1:41:28 ↗ all do the same thing if we treat

1:41:30 ↗ government projects the same way as we

1:41:32 ↗ ask a commercial developer to do i think

1:41:34 ↗ it's the right thing to do personally i

1:41:35 ↗ think we should all youtube we walk the

1:41:38 ↗ talk or we talk you know has as they say

1:41:40 ↗ well i just want to say to all of you

1:41:42 ↗ you've been very patient with their

1:41:44 ↗ questions and comments you did a very

1:41:46 ↗ nice job on your presentation and i want

1:41:48 ↗ to thank you all for the time you've

1:41:49 ↗ given to us tonight thank you very much

1:41:53 ↗ thank you

1:41:55 ↗ all right thank you

1:41:57 ↗ i'm going to move on to the next agenda

1:41:58 ↗ item unless there's anything else for

1:42:00 ↗ the good of the order i gotta get back

1:42:01 ↗ to it sorry

1:42:03 ↗ uh

1:42:04 ↗ back to my agenda

1:42:05 ↗ so that concludes our agenda items at

1:42:08 ↗ this point we're gonna move on to item

1:42:10 ↗ five on the agenda which is reports and

1:42:12 ↗ i'm to turn it over to stacy to talk

1:42:15 ↗ about board schedule and any other

1:42:17 ↗ uh reports that she has

1:42:22 ↗ great thanks nancy i was just going to

1:42:24 ↗ pull up the updated schedule

1:42:29 ↗ right billy are you able to

1:42:31 ↗ see that schedule can you give me a

1:42:32 ↗ thumbs up great

1:42:34 ↗ all right so just a couple of notes

1:42:36 ↗ around our um

1:42:38 ↗ our updated schedule

1:42:41 ↗ so as you received several notices uh

1:42:45 ↗ over the last week we are planning to

1:42:47 ↗ return to person in june that's a month

1:42:50 ↗ ahead of schedule

1:42:52 ↗ so our next meeting will be in person at

1:42:54 ↗ tibbetts manor will be sending out more

1:42:56 ↗ information

1:42:57 ↗ ahead of that meeting

1:42:59 ↗ our meetings will continue to be hybrid

1:43:03 ↗ the remote option will only be for

1:43:06 ↗ members of the public or presenting

1:43:08 ↗ staff so board members are expected to

1:43:10 ↗ be there in person

1:43:13 ↗ as i mentioned in my email last week

1:43:16 ↗ we do recognize that this is quite a

1:43:18 ↗ transition

1:43:20 ↗ and i'll also talk with our new chair

1:43:22 ↗ and vice chair

1:43:23 ↗ about possibly having some social time

1:43:25 ↗ whether that's at the june meeting or a

1:43:27 ↗ future meeting where we can get together

1:43:30 ↗ outside of our scheduled meeting time

1:43:33 ↗ either before or after

1:43:36 ↗ just a couple quick updates on our

1:43:38 ↗ calendar um so today we were also going

1:43:41 ↗ to give you a preview of performance

1:43:44 ↗ reporting

1:43:45 ↗ um we decided to pull that from the

1:43:48 ↗ agenda today expecting that we would

1:43:50 ↗ want to have the whole time for the

1:43:51 ↗ storm water code review

1:43:55 ↗ and then

1:43:56 ↗ we are though preparing for that

1:43:58 ↗ presentation in july

1:44:01 ↗ thought that we'd be

1:44:02 ↗ more prepared to bring you a complete

1:44:04 ↗ set of draft icap performance measures

1:44:08 ↗ as well as display what a dashboard

1:44:10 ↗ might look like at that meeting

1:44:12 ↗ for our june meeting we still are

1:44:14 ↗ planning to

1:44:16 ↗ discuss the stormwater wastewater master

1:44:18 ↗ plan i'll be in touch with our public

1:44:20 ↗ works teams to make sure that we are on

1:44:22 ↗ track for that

1:44:24 ↗ and alert you if we do

1:44:26 ↗ need to adjust that agenda

1:44:28 ↗ also in june we're going to be having a

1:44:30 ↗ for some of you a refresh

1:44:32 ↗ refresher training

1:44:34 ↗ for some of you it'll be a new training

1:44:36 ↗ on open public meeting act

1:44:38 ↗ public records

1:44:40 ↗ as i demonstrated tonight we will also

1:44:43 ↗ be having a refresher on robert's rules

1:44:45 ↗ which would have been helpful prior to

1:44:47 ↗ our vote on the

1:44:49 ↗ approval of the meeting minutes from

1:44:51 ↗ previous

1:44:52 ↗ meetings tonight

1:44:55 ↗ couple other updates

1:44:57 ↗ just wanted to highlight that we are

1:44:59 ↗ starting to talk about possibly doing a

1:45:00 ↗ wildlife corridor study

1:45:03 ↗ some internal conversations

1:45:06 ↗ conversations with potential consultants

1:45:08 ↗ happening now

1:45:10 ↗ i've just put a placeholder for july

1:45:12 ↗ meeting in case those conversations to

1:45:15 ↗ progress to a point where we're ready to

1:45:17 ↗ bring questions

1:45:19 ↗ as well as scope for feedback from the

1:45:22 ↗ environmental board

1:45:24 ↗ and then as we discussed at our last

1:45:25 ↗ meeting we've also added in a discussion

1:45:28 ↗ on our emergency management plan for

1:45:30 ↗ august we're going to do that along with

1:45:33 ↗ our discussion on the climate

1:45:35 ↗ vulnerability assessment

1:45:37 ↗ which is kicking off tomorrow with our

1:45:39 ↗ consultant team

1:45:42 ↗ and i think those

1:45:44 ↗ are my updates on the board schedule

1:45:47 ↗ i'll just pause here see if there are

1:45:49 ↗ any questions about what is coming up

1:45:52 ↗ over the next couple months

1:45:54 ↗ stacey i have a quick com question and

1:45:56 ↗ that is connie brought up the issue of

1:45:58 ↗ the um solid waste contract and the

1:46:00 ↗ discussion that's happening can we

1:46:02 ↗ perhaps add that to the agenda fairly

1:46:04 ↗ soon or rather than later

1:46:06 ↗ yes thank you um yeah i will check with

1:46:09 ↗ public works team and see if they can

1:46:11 ↗ provide an update um and some discussion

1:46:14 ↗ at our june meeting if we're able to fit

1:46:17 ↗ that in since they'll be there for the

1:46:19 ↗ the master plan update

1:46:22 ↗ are there any other questions or

1:46:23 ↗ comments from the board

1:46:25 ↗ yeah nancy i had another question um i

1:46:27 ↗ thought that there was mention of one

1:46:29 ↗ final touch point on title 18 like all

1:46:32 ↗ of the code comprehensive do we know

1:46:34 ↗ when that's expected back

1:46:36 ↗ i didn't see that i saw kind of a note

1:46:38 ↗ that it might be

1:46:40 ↗ yeah um i am in touch with our planning

1:46:43 ↗ team about that right now i have some

1:46:45 ↗ time potentially held in august for an

1:46:47 ↗ update um that as you're noting that is

1:46:51 ↗ not really the the touch point that is

1:46:53 ↗ just for an update so i will talk

1:46:55 ↗ further with the planning team see what

1:46:56 ↗ the expectations are um for bringing

1:46:59 ↗ back the full title 18 packet

1:47:02 ↗ great thanks stacey yeah

1:47:05 ↗ anything else

1:47:07 ↗ okay um

1:47:09 ↗ great i do have just a couple quick

1:47:10 ↗ updates nancy

1:47:12 ↗ go ahead

1:47:13 ↗ great so just a few updates on climate

1:47:15 ↗ action plan as i've spoken to before i'm

1:47:18 ↗ committed to

1:47:20 ↗ bring you updates each month on where we

1:47:23 ↗ are

1:47:24 ↗ so as i mentioned the climate

1:47:25 ↗ vulnerability assessment we have our

1:47:27 ↗ kickoff meeting with consultants

1:47:29 ↗ tomorrow

1:47:30 ↗ um

1:47:31 ↗ we will be talking to you all about that

1:47:33 ↗ later on in the summer we'll also be

1:47:35 ↗ meeting with the equity board at least

1:47:37 ↗ twice over the summer to seek their

1:47:38 ↗ feedback on our approach

1:47:41 ↗ our climate action challenge launched

1:47:44 ↗ i invite you all to join if you haven't

1:47:47 ↗ we are starting to talk amongst staff

1:47:50 ↗ our electeds and boards about how to

1:47:53 ↗ better promote the climate action

1:47:54 ↗ challenge and get folks involved we will

1:47:57 ↗ have some additional capacity on this

1:47:58 ↗ summer to start to do more outreach

1:48:01 ↗ both to staff but also to the community

1:48:04 ↗ to businesses schools and other various

1:48:06 ↗ groups

1:48:08 ↗ our heat pump campaign is also getting

1:48:10 ↗ ready to launch

1:48:11 ↗ we have made a decision to switch our

1:48:14 ↗ approach

1:48:15 ↗ after talking with the city of seattle

1:48:18 ↗ where instead of working directly with

1:48:20 ↗ installers the east side cities and our

1:48:22 ↗ nonprofit partner will be working with a

1:48:25 ↗ distributor this will help

1:48:27 ↗ both protect the cities from any issues

1:48:30 ↗ arise but also

1:48:33 ↗ we anticipate

1:48:35 ↗ result in a better relationship between

1:48:37 ↗ the installer and

1:48:40 ↗ the homeowners

1:48:42 ↗ because the distributor has a little

1:48:43 ↗ more weight they're keeping a close eye

1:48:45 ↗ on those installers and can ask for

1:48:48 ↗ corrections improvements to be made if

1:48:50 ↗ needed

1:48:51 ↗ we did hold an event yesterday with

1:48:54 ↗ folks that were interested in supporting

1:48:56 ↗ the cities in terms of doing outreach

1:48:58 ↗ participating as

1:49:00 ↗ advisors to this program as it launches

1:49:04 ↗ we had about seven folks from issaquah

1:49:05 ↗ participate which was great and newcomb

1:49:08 ↗ was there

1:49:09 ↗ as well so folks are really getting

1:49:11 ↗ excited about this campaign launching

1:49:13 ↗ and you'll see more coming from us in

1:49:16 ↗ terms of scheduling those workshops

1:49:18 ↗ probably in the next month or so

1:49:21 ↗ we are also still proceeding with our

1:49:24 ↗ budget request to council

1:49:26 ↗ one ask will be to support the

1:49:28 ↗ low-income

1:49:30 ↗ multi-family heat pump

1:49:32 ↗ program and then the other is to support

1:49:35 ↗ a clean building initiative to work with

1:49:39 ↗ building owners in the community to meet

1:49:42 ↗ some state

1:49:44 ↗ energy efficiency requirements ahead of

1:49:46 ↗ the timeline for

1:49:48 ↗ for the state compliance we'll be

1:49:51 ↗ bringing that budget request to council

1:49:54 ↗ in late june and early july

1:49:57 ↗ and then the last update is our lead for

1:50:00 ↗ cities program we completed the

1:50:02 ↗ orientation a couple of weeks ago i'm

1:50:05 ↗ even more excited now about this

1:50:07 ↗ opportunity to really learn from other

1:50:09 ↗ cities it will help us identify some

1:50:11 ↗ specific policies that we can advance in

1:50:14 ↗ issaquah to better meet our greenhouse

1:50:16 ↗ gas emission targets and our other

1:50:18 ↗ sustainability goals

1:50:20 ↗ we will continue to report back to the

1:50:22 ↗ board

1:50:23 ↗ about the progress in the the lead for

1:50:25 ↗ cities

1:50:27 ↗ program and really do anticipate

1:50:29 ↗ engaging you further as we start to

1:50:30 ↗ identify what the policy

1:50:33 ↗ opportunities might be

1:50:35 ↗ for uh meeting the leed certification

1:50:39 ↗ but also for helping us meet our climate

1:50:42 ↗ action plan

1:50:43 ↗ targets

1:50:44 ↗ those are all my updates

1:50:48 ↗ great

1:50:50 ↗ okay that that concludes the report

1:50:52 ↗ section of the agenda with that we'll

1:50:55 ↗ turn it over to other business or

1:50:56 ↗ announcements and does anybody have any

1:50:59 ↗ other business or announcements that

1:51:00 ↗ they'd like to share with us all

1:51:05 ↗ yeah i have one i i just wanted to

1:51:07 ↗ really thank nancy for everything that

1:51:08 ↗ she's done over the last year um

1:51:11 ↗ a lot i've gotten to see a lot of it

1:51:13 ↗ front row and center i think you guys

1:51:15 ↗ all see it as well but it's just

1:51:17 ↗ incredible the amount of work and how

1:51:18 ↗ much she really cares and

1:51:20 ↗ i just want to thank you i've learned a

1:51:21 ↗ ton from her and really appreciate

1:51:23 ↗ everything she's contributed over the

1:51:25 ↗ last year to get us to where we are

1:51:26 ↗ today so thank you nancy

1:51:28 ↗ thanks jamie i appreciate that

1:51:31 ↗ thanks guys it's been fun so

1:51:34 ↗ with that

1:51:36 ↗ um i don't think we have anything more

1:51:38 ↗ unless anybody else

1:51:40 ↗ with that thank you all for your time

1:51:42 ↗ this evening and we'll i guess most of

1:51:44 ↗ us will see you in person in june so

1:51:46 ↗ best wishes to you all good night

1:51:49 ↗ thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (10)

Nancy Davidson

Jamie Finch

Don McQuilliams

Cameron Fisher

Dan Hintz

Anne Newcomb (Unexcused Absence)

Ashwin Manoharan

Janet Wall

Tom Anderson

Muthangi Ramanathan

Staff (2)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

Billy Almanza, Sustainability Intern

Excused

Rishi Hazra*

Lara Lebeiko

Recommendations & actions (6)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent for the date of April 7,
The minutes were not approved for the dates of April 5, 2022, or April 13,2022.
The Board requested additional detail be added.
The Board requested an overview on the mapping of the floodplains and clarification on the BFE plus one and two standards that were mentioned, and whether entities such as the county were enforcing such standards.
The Board requested clarification on the information presented in the 2022 addendum pertaining to the Central Issaquah area alternative flow control standard and Central Issaquah’s seasonally saturated soil assumption.
As the flow control methods were different for Central Issaquah, the Board requested clarification on whether stormwater was being transferred straight to Lake Sammamish or being passed through Issaquah Creek on its way…