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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF