Planning Policy Commission · Wednesday, March 9, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Stormwater Code Master Plan

Discussion · Lucy Sloman, Planning Manager Minnie Dhaliwal, Director of Community Planning & Development · packet pp.5–32

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 1:18 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Public Works Engineering 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

3803 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ good evening welcome to the march 9 2022

0:05 ↗ environmental board meeting uh this is a

0:08 ↗ joint meeting of the environmental board

0:10 ↗ and the planning policy commission

0:12 ↗ the primary purpose of the meeting

0:14 ↗ tonight is to discuss updates to the

0:16 ↗ storm and surface water and wastewater

0:17 ↗ codes my name is nancy davidson and i'm

0:20 ↗ the chair of the environmental board and

0:22 ↗ before we get started with our agenda i

0:24 ↗ have a few things to share with all of

0:26 ↗ you

0:27 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:29 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:31 ↗ some guidelines

0:32 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:34 ↗ computers and others who may be

0:36 ↗ attending by phone for all meeting

0:38 ↗ attendees please speak clearly and pause

0:41 ↗ frequently

0:42 ↗ state your name each time before

0:44 ↗ speaking

0:45 ↗ mute your microphone when not speaking

0:48 ↗ and if you are having technical issues

0:50 ↗ please try joining the meeting using a

0:52 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

0:55 ↗ tablet

0:56 ↗ or you can always use the call-in

0:57 ↗ information in the meeting invite to

0:59 ↗ call into the meeting

1:01 ↗ and with that i'd like to note at least

1:03 ↗ for the environmental board we kind of

1:04 ↗ have a first we are now being shown i

1:06 ↗ think on the local tv station for the

1:08 ↗ city of issaquah that may be something

1:10 ↗ ppc ppc's used to but i wanted to at

1:12 ↗ least let the environmental board they

1:14 ↗ are also joining us for the meeting

1:15 ↗ tonight so

1:17 ↗ with that i'm going to go into the first

1:18 ↗ agenda item which is the

1:21 ↗ call to order and the board membership

1:22 ↗ and attendance

1:24 ↗ um

1:26 ↗ please

1:27 ↗ we'll begin with a roll call of those

1:29 ↗ board members and commissioners in

1:31 ↗ attendance please unmute and say here

1:32 ↗ when your name is called and um

1:37 ↗ so with that i'll turn it over to stacy

1:40 ↗ great thank you nancy

1:42 ↗ tom anderson

1:45 ↗ here

1:48 ↗ surya has an excused absence nancy

1:51 ↗ davidson

1:54 ↗ here

1:56 ↗ jamie finch

1:58 ↗ here

2:00 ↗ cameron fisher

2:02 ↗ yeah

2:04 ↗ uh rishi hazra has an excused absence uh

2:08 ↗ dan hinds

2:10 ↗ here

2:13 ↗ laura lebeko

2:19 ↗ laura is here looks like possibly some

2:21 ↗ connectivity issues i'll try and work

2:23 ↗ with her

2:25 ↗ danny maiden

2:31 ↗ don mcwilliams

2:32 ↗ here

2:35 ↗ and newcomer

2:37 ↗ here

2:39 ↗ and janet wahl

2:46 ↗ thanks nancy

2:47 ↗ okay now we'll turn it over to kristen

2:49 ↗ to um

2:51 ↗ do a roll call for the planning policy

2:53 ↗ commission go ahead kristen okay hello

2:56 ↗ uh sarah bader

2:58 ↗ here

3:03 ↗ joy lewis

3:05 ↗ here

3:06 ↗ ryan milligan

3:08 ↗ here

3:10 ↗ matt monahan

3:12 ↗ here

3:13 ↗ jason voice

3:16 ↗ here

3:17 ↗ richard zaragoza

3:19 ↗ here

3:20 ↗ and ron paul has an excused absence

3:22 ↗ tonight

3:24 ↗ thank you

3:25 ↗ so as we go into this meeting i want to

3:27 ↗ remind the board members and the

3:28 ↗ commissioners if you have a desire to

3:30 ↗ speak please send a chat to all

3:32 ↗ panelists participating in the meeting

3:35 ↗ and type question or comment then wait

3:37 ↗ to be acknowledged by i guess it's

3:39 ↗ myself today

3:41 ↗ please do not provide any

3:42 ↗ major comments in the chat

3:45 ↗ if anyone has to be offline or call in

3:47 ↗ on the phone i know that we'll check in

3:49 ↗ with you once in a while to determine

3:52 ↗ if you have any comments or questions

3:55 ↗ with that we'll first go into our second

3:57 ↗ agenda item is public comments and i'd

4:00 ↗ like to provide a few guidelines for

4:01 ↗ members of the public that may want to

4:03 ↗ comment prior to us getting into our

4:06 ↗ agenda items

4:08 ↗ public comments are an important part of

4:09 ↗ the process we take them seriously and

4:12 ↗ factor them into the decisions we make

4:14 ↗ for members of the public joining us

4:16 ↗ you're welcome

4:18 ↗ if there are anyone in the meeting who

4:20 ↗ would like to make comment comments

4:22 ↗ please raise your virtual hand to do

4:24 ↗ this if you're on the phone plus

4:26 ↗ star 3. if you've joined by computer

4:29 ↗ computer or smartphone look for the hand

4:31 ↗ icon this varies by device

4:33 ↗ one option may be to go to the

4:35 ↗ participant panel and select your name

4:37 ↗ then choose raise your hand it may also

4:39 ↗ be located under the reactions menu or

4:42 ↗ more menu and with that i will take a

4:44 ↗ moment and see if anyone has raised

4:46 ↗ their hands stacy

4:49 ↗ thanks nancy

4:51 ↗ i did receive two written public

4:53 ↗ comments that we sent out to the board i

4:55 ↗ did not receive any

4:57 ↗ requests for public comment tonight i do

4:59 ↗ not see anyone raising their hand

5:02 ↗ if you are trying to raise your hand

5:03 ↗ though you can go ahead and send me a

5:06 ↗ chat and i'll let nancy know

5:14 ↗ okay i don't see anything oh it looks

5:16 ↗ like sorry nancy it does look like

5:18 ↗ connie

5:19 ↗ marsh has a comment i will move her

5:22 ↗ up to panelists

5:27 ↗ all right connie you should be able to

5:29 ↗ unmute now

5:31 ↗ yes i am here and i had raised my hand

5:34 ↗ so you you might

5:37 ↗ check to see if hand raising is not

5:39 ↗ working for you

5:41 ↗ yeah

5:42 ↗ so my name is connie marsh and i live up

5:45 ↗ on squawk

5:47 ↗ so i had a couple of days

5:49 ↗ to

5:52 ↗ cogitate

5:53 ↗ on this flooding issue and what i got to

5:57 ↗ was what problem are we trying to solve

6:01 ↗ and it looks like we're trying to solve

6:03 ↗ a future problem

6:04 ↗ of harm

6:06 ↗ from

6:07 ↗ flooding

6:08 ↗ and so having lived the past many years

6:12 ↗ with the city struggling with this same

6:15 ↗ problem

6:16 ↗ um

6:17 ↗ i realized

6:19 ↗ that

6:20 ↗ in order to understand

6:23 ↗ how to toggle the switches

6:26 ↗ in the flood plain and storm water

6:28 ↗ section

6:29 ↗ we actually have to understand

6:32 ↗ the um commitment to the city

6:36 ↗ to

6:37 ↗ create floor

6:39 ↗ uh flood capacity

6:42 ↗ on properties

6:44 ↗ that do not necessarily exist now we

6:46 ↗ have done this all over issaquah creek

6:48 ↗ and on

6:49 ↗ most of our

6:50 ↗ our tributary streams we have actually

6:53 ↗ had property purchased and then we

6:55 ↗ create side channel or flooding capacity

6:58 ↗ in order to keep specific areas from

7:01 ↗ flooding

7:03 ↗ and so

7:04 ↗ along with our code language we need to

7:09 ↗ ensure that we have a plan for the

7:11 ↗ capital expenditures to purchase

7:15 ↗ properties along with

7:17 ↗ potentially the parks department in

7:20 ↗ order to allow

7:21 ↗ extra

7:23 ↗ more flood capacity in these higher rain

7:26 ↗ events

7:27 ↗ as a major tool in in this package to

7:32 ↗ solve the problem of how do we prevent

7:35 ↗ damage from increasing storms and higher

7:37 ↗ flood water

7:39 ↗ and so

7:40 ↗ it is hard for me

7:42 ↗ to get

7:43 ↗ a picture of how all of this

7:46 ↗ would work together to make

7:48 ↗ recommendations for what should happen

7:50 ↗ tonight because i don't know how much

7:53 ↗ can be done

7:55 ↗ by

7:55 ↗ um

7:57 ↗ by creating flood capacity in other

7:59 ↗ places and i don't really understand how

8:02 ↗ you're handling the flood way

8:05 ↗ and the flood way is places that like

8:08 ↗ really flood and they flood just about

8:10 ↗ every time the flood plain is a more

8:12 ↗ extended group

8:13 ↗ and

8:14 ↗ so it seems like you need to

8:17 ↗ to

8:17 ↗ form your considerations on this flood

8:20 ↗ way first because that's the highest

8:23 ↗ risk

8:24 ↗ most damaging

8:26 ↗ section and so you could narrow the

8:28 ↗ focus a little bit by solving priority

8:31 ↗ areas

8:33 ↗ first

8:34 ↗ and then you could sort of move out to

8:37 ↗ places that are likely to flood but it

8:40 ↗ may take a little more time in the

8:41 ↗ future to get to the property damage

8:44 ↗ extent

8:45 ↗ so

8:46 ↗ um

8:47 ↗ it could be i was just with mom for too

8:49 ↗ many hours today that that sounded like

8:51 ↗ a brilliant idea to me but i am a little

8:54 ↗ bit tired of having departments and

8:57 ↗ sections come up in silos when i see the

9:00 ↗ solutions as acting over a variety of

9:03 ↗ departments

9:04 ↗ and getting a variety of funding sources

9:07 ↗ and so i wanted to be sure to to try to

9:10 ↗ highlight that intertwining

9:12 ↗ of plans and departments to make

9:16 ↗ solutions

9:17 ↗ thank you

9:21 ↗ thank you connie

9:22 ↗ stacy do we have any other comments

9:24 ↗ anybody else raise their hand

9:26 ↗ i have not seen anyone else send me a

9:28 ↗ chat please do send me a chat if you'd

9:30 ↗ like to make a public comment

9:36 ↗ i don't see anything else coming through

9:38 ↗ nancy

9:39 ↗ all right thank you very much appreciate

9:40 ↗ the public comments and that section of

9:42 ↗ the agenda is now closed

9:44 ↗ moving on to our third agenda item the

9:46 ↗ first item up is the stormwater code

9:49 ↗ master plan and that will be presented

9:51 ↗ by evan broomfield the environmental and

9:54 ↗ regulatory program administrator gary

9:56 ↗ schumach the utilities engineering

9:58 ↗ manager and paul fent from parametrics

10:00 ↗ and with that i'll turn it over to evan

10:02 ↗ go ahead

10:16 ↗ there's the unmute button all right i

10:18 ↗ can

10:19 ↗ everyone hear me

10:20 ↗ see the screen just fine all right

10:24 ↗ all right so uh yeah i think uh gary

10:27 ↗ would you like to um address connie's

10:30 ↗ comment real quick

10:31 ↗ yes i think it really ties in uh well

10:34 ↗ with this work and yes connie that was a

10:36 ↗ brilliant idea and so brilliant in fact

10:39 ↗ i'm i'm i'm hoping you're still thinking

10:41 ↗ after i say this but we'll be coming

10:43 ↗ back to

10:44 ↗ both of these committees later this year

10:46 ↗ uh with king county my partner uh in

10:49 ↗ crime there uh steve belfast the uh

10:52 ↗ king county rivers manager to talk about

10:54 ↗ uh

10:55 ↗ exactly what you said uh issaquah creek

10:58 ↗ capital investment strategy that ha that

11:01 ↗ is already funded by the county

11:03 ↗ so uh please everybody keep that in mind

11:05 ↗ that what connie talked about is is

11:07 ↗ hugely important i'm glad she's excited

11:10 ↗ about it and yes we are working with

11:11 ↗ jennifer thinking parks on it too

11:13 ↗ so um

11:15 ↗ just let you know that is coming it's

11:17 ↗ separate from separate but intertwined

11:19 ↗ with this

11:20 ↗ uh but i'll just leave it at that and uh

11:22 ↗ again very common and i'm looking

11:24 ↗ forward to bringing that back to you

11:25 ↗ later this year so back to you evan

11:27 ↗ thank you for that quick quick starting

11:29 ↗ comment

11:32 ↗ yeah thanks

11:33 ↗ um so good evening good evening um my

11:36 ↗ name is evan brumfield uh

11:38 ↗ myself and paul fent with parametrics

11:40 ↗ will be presented to you guys tonight

11:43 ↗ paul will introduce himself here in a

11:45 ↗ couple slides

11:46 ↗ myself

11:48 ↗ as nancy stated i'm an environmental

11:49 ↗ regulatory program administrator here

11:51 ↗ for the city

11:52 ↗ um

11:53 ↗ been with the city for almost 14 years

11:55 ↗ now my primary jobs are mpds permit

11:58 ↗ coordination

12:00 ↗ kind of our crs floodplain coordination

12:02 ↗ as well

12:03 ↗ in addition to pollution prevention with

12:05 ↗ businesses around town

12:08 ↗ so why are we here um

12:10 ↗ we have mandatory code updates that need

12:12 ↗ to take place

12:14 ↗ one in our floodplain uh or in our flood

12:17 ↗ code

12:18 ↗ mandated by our community our community

12:20 ↗ rating system uh crs program and the

12:24 ↗ other with our

12:25 ↗ mts permit

12:26 ↗ um those will be

12:29 ↗ largely in part um we're we're updating

12:31 ↗ our stormwater manual um and so

12:35 ↗ for the sake of conversation here

12:36 ↗ tonight and the length of this

12:37 ↗ conversation or this presentation we

12:40 ↗ wanted to just have a conversation with

12:42 ↗ where we can go above and beyond these

12:44 ↗ kind of basic requirements that we'll be

12:45 ↗ going through

12:51 ↗ so oh is my am i am i

12:55 ↗ not moving can you guys still just see

12:57 ↗ the first slide

12:59 ↗ yes it's still on the first slide

13:03 ↗ see here there we

13:04 ↗ go so that's what i just said

13:08 ↗ uh so

13:10 ↗ um so topics that were that we'll be

13:12 ↗ talking about um

13:14 ↗ we're gonna have our future floodplain

13:16 ↗ protection program

13:18 ↗ section that we'll talk about and then

13:20 ↗ we're also going to talk about our

13:21 ↗ future stormwater standards so we'll

13:23 ↗ break up this this presentation into two

13:25 ↗ different sections with discussion after

13:27 ↗ each section so we can really narrow in

13:29 ↗ on the conversation we want to have and

13:31 ↗ so you know if you have that

13:33 ↗ dying topic you want to talk about on

13:35 ↗ that first slide you don't have to wait

13:36 ↗ until the end

13:39 ↗ and uh yeah now i guess we'll hand it on

13:42 ↗ over to paul

13:43 ↗ go ahead and introduce yourself paul

13:46 ↗ hello my name is paul fent i'm with uh

13:48 ↗ parametrics

13:50 ↗ a a local consulting firm

13:52 ↗ and i lead our storm surface water

13:54 ↗ practice uh in the in puget sound region

13:58 ↗ i've had the opportunity to work on

13:59 ↗ storm water management storm and surface

14:01 ↗ water plans and flood management for my

14:04 ↗ entire career i was

14:06 ↗ a flood manager for a county

14:09 ↗ for six years

14:11 ↗ and so i have a lot of familiarity with

14:13 ↗ the overall program and then uh i've

14:15 ↗ been in uh

14:17 ↗ in the area since 1990 and moved to the

14:20 ↗ plateau in 91 and have been here since

14:22 ↗ and working on this type of work and

14:24 ↗ doing floodplain floodplain work for um

14:27 ↗ mostly for municipalities and counties

14:29 ↗ in the area

14:32 ↗ so

14:33 ↗ what i'm going to do today is to talk to

14:34 ↗ you about

14:36 ↗ some approaches that we're taking to

14:37 ↗ flood plain management and flood paint

14:39 ↗ protection and give you a basis for how

14:43 ↗ how

14:44 ↗ what kind of decisions can be made for

14:46 ↗ establishing an appropriate level of

14:48 ↗ flood protection

14:50 ↗ and to look at and answer the questions

14:52 ↗ are there revised flood protection

14:53 ↗ levels needed and then understanding an

14:56 ↗ approach about applying our standards

14:59 ↗ not just continually adding to standards

15:01 ↗ but really starting to evaluate

15:03 ↗ standards that are commensurate with the

15:05 ↗ actual threat of a flood the type of

15:07 ↗ flood the development type

15:10 ↗ type you know how risky or how

15:13 ↗ threatened is a development type by a

15:15 ↗ flood and then what's the available data

15:17 ↗ in order to

15:18 ↗ regulate and enforce and to manage the

15:21 ↗ floodplain codes what's the next slide

15:27 ↗ so i've been uh asked by the by evan and

15:31 ↗ gary to look at into uh considering how

15:34 ↗ would how would we cons how would we

15:36 ↗ think about

15:37 ↗ climate change and how it's affecting

15:38 ↗ flood levels and so on so one of the

15:41 ↗ first things that we need to do is to

15:42 ↗ understand what what kind of magnitudes

15:44 ↗ are we talking about what kind of change

15:45 ↗ are we talking about

15:47 ↗ so there is good guidance that's

15:49 ↗ available that was prepared by uw's

15:52 ↗ climate impacts group and is applied in

15:54 ↗ a tool by the washington department

15:56 ↗ state of fish and wildlife wdf

15:58 ↗ fw

16:00 ↗ and they've done a number of scenarios

16:01 ↗ different

16:02 ↗ climate projection scenarios

16:04 ↗ and we're using those to base some

16:07 ↗ recommendations on what the

16:10 ↗ what's a range of expected changes could

16:12 ↗ that could occur and then to actually

16:14 ↗ select a

16:16 ↗ in within that range select a standard

16:19 ↗ by which we would apply

16:21 ↗ new floodplain standards

16:22 ↗ next slide

16:26 ↗ so these are

16:27 ↗ the model that wdfw has prepared

16:30 ↗ looks at they look at different time

16:32 ↗ frames and so on that these are the

16:34 ↗ results that come from estimates and

16:36 ↗ change based on the 20 80 projections

16:39 ↗ and there are a number of different

16:40 ↗ models that are run and so on and the

16:42 ↗ but these are specific to the local area

16:45 ↗ and we picked out issaquah creek and

16:46 ↗ tibbetts creek since they're dominant in

16:48 ↗ the city and looked at what the

16:50 ↗ different projections are and these are

16:53 ↗ these tables are representing projected

16:55 ↗ percent change in the 100 year flows in

16:57 ↗ these streams

17:00 ↗ and you can see that there's obviously a

17:01 ↗ range of them and when we look at the

17:04 ↗ mean change we're at a 22.9 percent for

17:07 ↗ issaquah creek and tibbetts creek as the

17:08 ↗ mean changes is projected to be about 42

17:11 ↗ percent

17:12 ↗ there are a lot of different reasons why

17:13 ↗ the the changes are different and so on

17:16 ↗ but um and that goes it could be a two

17:19 ↗ or three hour conversation but uh what

17:22 ↗ we're basing everything that i'm going

17:23 ↗ to talk about on from this point on is

17:25 ↗ then that projected mean change in the

17:28 ↗ flows for 2080 in issaquah next slide

17:35 ↗ so this is a table that has quite a bit

17:37 ↗ of information on but i really want to

17:39 ↗ direct you to i'll explain what's in

17:40 ↗ here but i'll direct you to the two

17:42 ↗ places where the arrows are pointing

17:44 ↗ so i looked at the flood insurance

17:46 ↗ studies that are existing and that are

17:48 ↗ that you are used to develop the

17:50 ↗ floodplain maps that are uh that you're

17:52 ↗ regulating your floodplains by right now

17:54 ↗ and one of the things that we're looking

17:55 ↗ at is is that uh trying to determine

17:58 ↗ what is the potential effect of these

18:02 ↗ percent changes in peak flows in 100

18:04 ↗ year so if you look at those two columns

18:06 ↗ on the far right and this and the

18:07 ↗ percent differences you'll notice that

18:10 ↗ when we compare stream flow for the 100

18:12 ↗ year flow versus the 500 year flow at

18:15 ↗ different locations in issaquah creek

18:17 ↗ tippets creek and so on we start to see

18:19 ↗ what the percent changes are between

18:21 ↗ those two

18:22 ↗ so you'll you'll see on the far right

18:24 ↗ column the percent difference in flow

18:26 ↗ rates between the 100 year and the 500

18:28 ↗ year flows in the existing analyses that

18:30 ↗ are in the flood insurance study that's

18:32 ↗ being regulated that the city uses to

18:34 ↗ regulate the flood plains and you'll

18:35 ↗ notice forest clock creek that the

18:38 ↗ difference

18:39 ↗ in the

18:40 ↗ general difference in the between the

18:42 ↗ hundred year and the 500 year isn't the

18:44 ↗ 20 tens but up to 26.3 percent change in

18:48 ↗ or difference in flows

18:50 ↗ and you'll notice in tibbetts creek it's

18:51 ↗ about the 40 so if you go remember going

18:54 ↗ back to the slide before here and you

18:55 ↗ saw that we're in about the mid twenty

18:58 ↗ percent range of projected 20 80 flows

19:00 ↗ for a sequoia creek and in the 40 range

19:03 ↗ for projected future 2080 flows in

19:06 ↗ tibbetts creek you'll see that the

19:08 ↗ difference between the 100 year and the

19:09 ↗ 500 year flows

19:11 ↗ uh in the projections and in the in the

19:13 ↗ existing conditions are very are very

19:15 ↗ similar they're close enough to say

19:17 ↗ so what this table is showing us is that

19:21 ↗ in the future the 80 flows will be close

19:24 ↗ to the 500 year flows

19:26 ↗ as compared to the existing so that

19:29 ↗ that's the that will now become the

19:31 ↗ basis for making some recommendation on

19:34 ↗ how do we

19:35 ↗ project in the future about what kind of

19:37 ↗ flood protection could be used and as a

19:39 ↗ surrogate for any other analyses we feel

19:42 ↗ it's reasonably comfortable it's

19:44 ↗ reasonable to use and we're reasonably

19:46 ↗ comfortable with using the future the

19:48 ↗ existing 500 year flood flows as a

19:51 ↗ surrogate for the future 100 year flows

19:54 ↗ so then the next yeah

19:57 ↗ um do you want to take questions as we

19:59 ↗ go along there is a question that's

20:00 ↗ coming from one of the commissioners or

20:03 ↗ do you want to wait till the end of the

20:04 ↗ presentation i i think it's okay to ask

20:07 ↗ questions i think maybe what i would ask

20:09 ↗ is if there were clarifying questions

20:11 ↗ now while we're in there and then have

20:13 ↗ discussion questions as we get into it

20:15 ↗ as we get to the end okay

20:17 ↗ uh nine i'm milligan i know you have a

20:20 ↗ question hopefully it's a clarifying on

20:21 ↗ this one and not for the overall okay

20:24 ↗ thank you

20:25 ↗ and so you're you're pointing out um the

20:28 ↗ percent difference oh excuse me planning

20:30 ↗ policy commissioner nine in melligan

20:32 ↗ um the

20:34 ↗ stream flow

20:37 ↗ change but does this show us the

20:40 ↗ difference in the capacity of those two

20:43 ↗ streams isaqua creek i think being

20:45 ↗ bigger

20:47 ↗ and how do we

20:48 ↗ how do we see that

20:50 ↗ well i think maybe the way to think

20:52 ↗ about that is is that when you think you

20:54 ↗ know what is

20:55 ↗ how does capacity translate into an

20:57 ↗ understanding it translates best into a

21:00 ↗ water surface elevation or a flood level

21:02 ↗ so whatever we see as is that you know

21:05 ↗ the overall fullness of the stream

21:07 ↗ results in a in a of a certain flow rate

21:11 ↗ this result comes from a certain flow

21:13 ↗ like a hundred year flow we it results

21:16 ↗ in a flood stage so one of the better

21:18 ↗ ways to think about the capacity of

21:20 ↗ those is that what is what is the change

21:23 ↗ in flow rates how does the change in

21:24 ↗ flow rates translate into a change in

21:26 ↗ water levels

21:28 ↗ and so that's the next actually the next

21:30 ↗ thing that i would talk about and if you

21:31 ↗ look at the table that talks about the

21:33 ↗ flood stage and you see the hundred year

21:36 ↗ stage in the 500 stage and the

21:37 ↗ difference between those two we start to

21:40 ↗ see what the what the overall uh

21:43 ↗ capacity is or all the overall resultant

21:46 ↗ flood levels are when the change when

21:48 ↗ when a change in flow occurs so if

21:51 ↗ what that middle set of columns is that

21:53 ↗ triple column is intended to show

21:56 ↗ is that right now there is a certain

21:58 ↗ hundred year flood stage if you and a

22:01 ↗ certain 500 year flood stage if you look

22:03 ↗ at the difference between those two

22:04 ↗ stages you'll get the difference that

22:06 ↗ difference column and so you notice that

22:08 ↗ the difference in flood stages between

22:10 ↗ the 100 year and the 500 year is not

22:12 ↗ that great it's usually around the one

22:14 ↗ half a foot to one and maybe a little

22:16 ↗ bit over a foot range

22:18 ↗ so that's kind of a reflection of the

22:20 ↗ overall capacity that's available for

22:22 ↗ the for the stream as a river continues

22:24 ↗ to rise and rise and rise so the reason

22:26 ↗ i point this out is is that that if

22:29 ↗ we're looking at the idea that we would

22:32 ↗ use the 500 year flood

22:35 ↗ knowledge that we have about what what a

22:37 ↗ flood level is in the 500 year as a

22:40 ↗ surrogate for the future 100 year we

22:43 ↗ could also say that what we expect in

22:45 ↗ the river rise

22:46 ↗ in the future in the 500 year would be

22:49 ↗ the these water levels that are showing

22:50 ↗ the difference so what in the simplest

22:53 ↗ shortest way i could put it is is that

22:55 ↗ we would expect

22:57 ↗ the streams to rise by about a half a

22:59 ↗ foot to a foot in the future due to

23:02 ↗ projected climate change differences for

23:04 ↗ the hundred year flood

23:07 ↗ paul there's two more questions that

23:08 ↗ have come up in your conversation and

23:10 ↗ i'm going to ask don mcwilliams from the

23:12 ↗ environmental board to go next go ahead

23:14 ↗ don

23:15 ↗ hi paul dawn mcwilliams with the

23:17 ↗ environmental board just a quick

23:19 ↗ clarification um your flood stage as i'm

23:22 ↗ reading is in feet and your stream flow

23:25 ↗ is in cfs is that correct that's correct

23:27 ↗ yep okay thank you

23:32 ↗ thank you and nancy davidson the chair

23:34 ↗ of the environmental board had one quick

23:35 ↗ question you talk about a flood stage of

23:38 ↗ um on issaquah creek at the mouth of

23:41 ↗ 37.3

23:42 ↗ has that ever happened in the fall creek

23:45 ↗ just to your knowledge or to anyone's

23:46 ↗ knowledge any of these stages actually

23:48 ↗ been seen in the creeks

23:52 ↗ uh i don't know um i i wouldn't surprise

23:55 ↗ me if they have have been seen i know

23:57 ↗ that the

23:58 ↗ i think it was a 2003 flawed was a

24:00 ↗ really good one and it was probably up

24:01 ↗ there on there

24:03 ↗ yeah nancy this is gary i cannot it's on

24:05 ↗ the king county website so i can take a

24:07 ↗ look and get back to you on that

24:10 ↗ thank you i was just curious given the

24:11 ↗ flooding we've seen thank you

24:17 ↗ okay

24:20 ↗ um so i think again i think that this uh

24:22 ↗ provides a basis for what would be what

24:24 ↗ would we project are the effects of

24:27 ↗ future floods on existing hundred year

24:29 ↗ stages so if we go to the next slide

24:34 ↗ so i think the first thing as far as

24:36 ↗ looking at what kind of floodplain

24:37 ↗ floodplain protection to propose first

24:39 ↗ we look at this uh the protection

24:41 ↗ standard so looking at is it should it

24:43 ↗ be the 500 year should be the 100 year

24:45 ↗ and so on so of course the national

24:48 ↗ standard and the and what the city is

24:50 ↗ required to regulate to is 100 year

24:53 ↗ one can choose other elevations and one

24:55 ↗ can choose other return frequencies of

24:57 ↗ floods

24:59 ↗ the next step in this process is that

25:02 ↗ what i would describe is that rather

25:03 ↗ than universally applying whatever flood

25:06 ↗ protection to 100 year or 500 year

25:08 ↗ whichever one you choose is to actually

25:10 ↗ start separating different development

25:12 ↗ types so critical developments of some

25:14 ↗ types are critical facilities um be

25:18 ↗ regulated to a higher level and less

25:20 ↗ critical facilities potentially regulate

25:22 ↗ to a low a lesser level or a less severe

25:25 ↗ level with a with a condition that

25:27 ↗ there's some consideration of um

25:29 ↗ of its resiliency and its tolerance of

25:31 ↗ flooding

25:32 ↗ and then the third thing is is that is

25:34 ↗ looking at

25:35 ↗ um

25:36 ↗ we have fairly detailed information

25:38 ↗ fairly detailed flood studies on isaqah

25:40 ↗ creek and so on but there are some other

25:42 ↗ areas where there's no detailed study

25:44 ↗ and so the idea that's built into the

25:46 ↗ ordinance right now is to actually

25:48 ↗ provide a little higher level an

25:50 ↗ additional foot of flood standard to

25:52 ↗ areas that have

25:54 ↗ minimal or don't have detailed fun

25:56 ↗ studies right now and so we're

25:58 ↗ addressing the uncertainty with by

25:59 ↗ adding a foot so that's another question

26:01 ↗ is that do you continue to add to

26:04 ↗ address uncertainty by just adding

26:05 ↗ adding another layer of protection so

26:08 ↗ next slide

26:13 ↗ so this is a this is a a table that

26:16 ↗ represents in relatively straight to

26:18 ↗ forward terms a recommendation for

26:21 ↗ how to consider um one of the one

26:25 ↗ recommendation for considering what

26:26 ↗ additional flood standards should be

26:28 ↗ applied uh it could be applied and so

26:31 ↗ the way to think about this is that if

26:33 ↗ you look up

26:34 ↗ on the y-axis here in the 500-100 100

26:37 ↗ year tenure that would be the proposed

26:40 ↗ control standards and um in in the city

26:44 ↗ and then each of the icons represents

26:47 ↗ different types of of facilities or

26:50 ↗ from critical more critical facilities

26:52 ↗ to less critical to less impacted

26:54 ↗ facilities that are a little more

26:56 ↗ tolerant of flooding

26:58 ↗ so the way this would work and i'm not

27:00 ↗ intending to go through this in detail

27:01 ↗ other than maybe an example but the way

27:03 ↗ this would work is is that

27:05 ↗ uh making this decisions would be made

27:07 ↗ about around whether or not these are in

27:11 ↗ fact the right critical facilities or

27:13 ↗ some should be less or more critical

27:15 ↗ whether some of the

27:16 ↗ icons or the elements and types of

27:19 ↗ development should move up in the chart

27:20 ↗ some should move down it's less critical

27:22 ↗ and so on so the main thing is looking

27:24 ↗ at this is from these are the facility

27:27 ↗ types and development of types and then

27:29 ↗ these are the ways that the

27:31 ↗ the proposal is to how these would each

27:34 ↗ be regulated in the future and this

27:36 ↗ table represents

27:38 ↗ um

27:39 ↗ where we have a detailed flood study

27:41 ↗ available so we know we've got a good

27:43 ↗ flood study we have really good

27:44 ↗ information we know what the 500 year

27:46 ↗ flood elevation is here and we would

27:48 ↗ regulate these types of activities

27:50 ↗ according to these flood standards

27:53 ↗ so next slide

27:59 ↗ and just to give you a quick example of

28:00 ↗ a chunk of flood map from the city and

28:03 ↗ to know that all these different zones

28:05 ↗ uh

28:06 ↗ flood zones are available in the city

28:08 ↗ when we talk about flood zones we start

28:10 ↗ to first talk about what's called the

28:12 ↗ zone ae which is an area flood plain

28:14 ↗ that's um that's been calculated uh

28:17 ↗ there's a flood study on it there's been

28:19 ↗ a detail model prepared for it and

28:21 ↗ usually there's a floodway that's been

28:23 ↗ prepared so the flood way is the dashed

28:24 ↗ line that's shown on the map the zone ae

28:27 ↗ means that it's a it's a flood hazard to

28:30 ↗ terminate or a flood insurance

28:32 ↗ determination but ae means that there is

28:34 ↗ an elevation that's been determined

28:36 ↗ um for that part of the flood plain and

28:38 ↗ other uh uh types you have are the zone

28:41 ↗ x's which is generally the 500-year

28:43 ↗ floodplain

28:45 ↗ the zone ahs which is actually a

28:48 ↗ flooding depth that has an elevation set

28:50 ↗ but it tends to be areas of shallow

28:52 ↗ flooding and then you have zone aos

28:55 ↗ which

28:55 ↗ doesn't have a flood level set but it

28:58 ↗ says it's based on a depth of flooding

29:00 ↗ so generally when i break the floodplain

29:03 ↗ stuff into here's an area where we have

29:05 ↗ detailed studying here's an area where

29:06 ↗ we don't have a detailed study a

29:08 ↗ detailed study means you have a zone ae

29:10 ↗ and a floodway and usually a 500-year

29:13 ↗ floodplain less detailed means you have

29:15 ↗ a zone a where there's not an elevation

29:17 ↗ set where you have an ah or an ao which

29:20 ↗ are basically based on shallow flooding

29:22 ↗ of relative to the existing ground

29:24 ↗ rather than absolute flood elevation

29:26 ↗ that's been established

29:28 ↗ so in the next slide

29:29 ↗ [Music]

29:34 ↗ so here's the same type of slide for

29:38 ↗ developments that that are occurring in

29:40 ↗ areas where there's not a detailed study

29:42 ↗ so these are where there's a zone a

29:44 ↗ zone a o or potentially a zone a h

29:48 ↗ and it's again it's the same type of

29:50 ↗ table it's based on what the development

29:52 ↗ type is and what the standard could be

29:55 ↗ so you notice that instead of saying the

29:57 ↗ 500 year or the 100 year and so on we

29:59 ↗ use the terms bfe plus one plus zero or

30:03 ↗ b of e plus one and plus two bfe is base

30:06 ↗ flood elevation the base flood elevation

30:08 ↗ is the 100 year flood elevation so what

30:10 ↗ these mean is is that that in the tops

30:13 ↗ tier the top two rows of data of uh

30:16 ↗ activity types that we would recommend

30:18 ↗ applying the base flood elevation or the

30:20 ↗ hundred year plus two feet the middle

30:23 ↗ set base flood elevation hundred year

30:24 ↗ plus one foot and then the bottom set

30:27 ↗ just the base flood elevation just the

30:28 ↗ hundred year and the basis for these

30:30 ↗ differences between the one or the two

30:32 ↗ is is that we assume the base flood plus

30:35 ↗ two

30:36 ↗ is considers one foot to change from the

30:39 ↗ 100 year elevation or estimated 100

30:42 ↗ elevation to get to the 500 and then

30:44 ↗ plus one foot for the lack of certainty

30:47 ↗ based on not having any data so one foot

30:49 ↗ for 500 year one foot for uncertainty

30:51 ↗ the middle set is just assumed to be one

30:53 ↗ foot for uncertainty so you're

30:55 ↗ regulating to the existing hundred year

30:57 ↗ not to the 500 and the base flood

30:59 ↗ elevation alone without any changes is

31:01 ↗ just regulating it's usually things that

31:03 ↗ are very like parklands and so on things

31:06 ↗ that are very tolerant of flooding and

31:08 ↗ so on and don't need high standards

31:10 ↗ applied to them for flooding so that's

31:12 ↗ how this table is set up and the

31:13 ↗ decisions that would need to be made

31:15 ↗ around what types of activities go and

31:17 ↗ what columns and so on

31:20 ↗ i'll have a question on this so

31:23 ↗ is this fema's recommendation or is this

31:25 ↗ recommendations that you're making

31:27 ↗ putting forward these are

31:28 ↗ recommendations that we're we're putting

31:30 ↗ forward okay thank you

31:32 ↗ okay

31:34 ↗ next slide

31:38 ↗ so i show you this slide here so this is

31:41 ↗ this is a table that we use in order to

31:43 ↗ create those two graphics that you've

31:44 ↗ seen before so this is just basically a

31:47 ↗ ver

31:48 ↗ narrative form of the what's shown in

31:50 ↗ the tables before the reason i show this

31:52 ↗ is not to look through it in detail and

31:54 ↗ so but rather to point to out the column

31:56 ↗ on the right which is called flood

31:57 ↗ resiliency

31:59 ↗ and one of the things that one of the

32:00 ↗ aspects of this floodplain thing is we

32:02 ↗ think is important is that in most of

32:04 ↗ these activity areas there should also

32:07 ↗ be a layer or of evaluation that's

32:10 ↗ considering resiliency what i mean by

32:12 ↗ resiliency is that what's the tolerance

32:15 ↗ of that development activity to flooding

32:17 ↗ and the way i would explain maybe some

32:20 ↗ of the differences is that if a house

32:22 ↗ floods you generally have damages and

32:24 ↗ things have to be repaired or replaced

32:26 ↗ and so on if a parking lot floods

32:28 ↗ it gets wet it dries out and then it's

32:31 ↗ not flooded anymore and it's not damaged

32:34 ↗ so that's kind of a really general

32:36 ↗ example of what the difference is or the

32:38 ↗ layer you know kind of bookends and

32:40 ↗ layers of things that are resilient and

32:42 ↗ i think that it's really important to

32:43 ↗ think about the idea that there's also a

32:46 ↗ consideration of the resiliency of these

32:48 ↗ different activities to make sure that

32:50 ↗ we're not

32:52 ↗ just allowing flooding to occur without

32:54 ↗ considering what the negative

32:55 ↗ consequences are of the flooding and so

32:57 ↗ on so we do have a recommendation that

32:59 ↗ there's a resiliency a test on some of

33:02 ↗ the different types of activities

33:04 ↗ and one of the things that could result

33:06 ↗ in is is that a less a lesser standard

33:09 ↗ than what would be normally applied here

33:10 ↗ because the activity is very resilient

33:13 ↗ the other thing that could occur is they

33:15 ↗ said well if you don't want to do a

33:16 ↗ resiliency test just apply the higher

33:18 ↗ standards so you kind of have a an

33:20 ↗ either or so you always have the

33:22 ↗ certainty of applying the standard but

33:24 ↗ you have basically a bit of an off ramp

33:26 ↗ to demonstrate that i don't need to show

33:29 ↗ a or provide this level of protection

33:32 ↗ because my activity is fairly resilient

33:35 ↗ and won't be damaged by floods so that's

33:37 ↗ i just wanted to point this out as far

33:39 ↗ as another layer that's being

33:40 ↗ contemplated within the flood flood

33:42 ↗ protection

33:44 ↗ so next slide

33:48 ↗ so these are you've kind of already

33:50 ↗ heard this but these are our

33:52 ↗ recommendations that we that we

33:54 ↗ recommend a 500 year for critical

33:56 ↗ development to address climate and that

33:57 ↗ that extra foot addresses climate change

34:01 ↗ and then use the 100 year plus for

34:02 ↗ damage proof facilities or facilities

34:05 ↗ are disrupted so and so things that are

34:07 ↗ less

34:08 ↗ that are

34:08 ↗ resilient or things that can flood that

34:11 ↗ are maybe nuisances or like a parking

34:13 ↗ lot that floods and so on it might

34:14 ↗ disrupt business for a day but it's it

34:17 ↗ recovers quickly so a lesser standard

34:19 ↗ and then consideration of applying the

34:21 ↗ resiliency tests to

34:23 ↗ uh different types of developments to

34:25 ↗ make decisions around whether or not

34:27 ↗ something can have a higher standard or

34:29 ↗ can get by with a lesser standard but be

34:31 ↗ more resilient and flood proofed

34:36 ↗ i think this is where we pause for

34:39 ↗ is there one more there we go

34:41 ↗ and then i think just

34:43 ↗ really i just want to emphasize what we

34:45 ↗ mean by using the 500 year so the

34:48 ↗ recommendation isn't to go to a 500-year

34:51 ↗ standard the recommendation is to

34:53 ↗ continue to use the 100-year standard

34:55 ↗ but use the 500-year data as a way to as

34:59 ↗ a surrogate of what the future 100 year

35:02 ↗ will be so rather than waiting for

35:04 ↗ something to figure out or waiting to

35:06 ↗ determine what that is use what we know

35:08 ↗ with the 500 year as that surrogate for

35:10 ↗ the future hundred years

35:16 ↗ all right and we can open it up for any

35:17 ↗ uh any questions discussions right now

35:22 ↗ thank you evan does anybody have any

35:23 ↗ questions i see a few coming in

35:26 ↗ don mcwilliams from the environmental

35:28 ↗ board please go ahead

35:30 ↗ so maybe it's more of a clarification

35:32 ↗ and paul i don't know if this is for you

35:33 ↗ or for evan or gary

35:35 ↗ so let me let me understand this so you

35:37 ↗ guys are

35:38 ↗ are saying that we should apply a

35:40 ↗ 500-year standard for future development

35:43 ↗ in those critical areas where we could

35:45 ↗ see that type of flooding

35:47 ↗ but yet stick with the 100 year standard

35:50 ↗ in more of the residential communities

35:52 ↗ or where we have parking lots and those

35:54 ↗ kind of things is is that what you're

35:56 ↗ getting at here

35:59 ↗ i think i wouldn't necessarily describe

36:01 ↗ it as like residential areas because for

36:03 ↗ example i think we have uh single-family

36:05 ↗ residences in that hundred year in the

36:07 ↗ 500-year category and so on it's more of

36:09 ↗ the idea like

36:11 ↗ does a

36:12 ↗ does do all roadways have to be elevated

36:15 ↗ by the uh the future hundred year do all

36:19 ↗ uh all parking lots need to be there do

36:21 ↗ we if you're building a small facility

36:23 ↗ for a park uh for a park does that need

36:26 ↗ to be elevated above 100 500 years so i

36:29 ↗ think that there's an intent that

36:31 ↗ the 500 year surrogate for the 100 year

36:34 ↗ be applied to all

36:35 ↗ things that would be

36:37 ↗ disruptive or damaged by flooding so

36:40 ↗ that would be houses and so on or

36:42 ↗ significant facilities like hospitals

36:44 ↗ and schools and so on or major roadways

36:46 ↗ but that other things that are

36:48 ↗ less more tolerant of flooding or less

36:51 ↗ impacted or not disrupted by flooding is

36:54 ↗ just to continue to maintain the

36:55 ↗ 100-year

36:56 ↗ uh level until until and if that the

36:59 ↗ 100-year flood

37:00 ↗ flows are updated

37:03 ↗ in the in the models

37:04 ↗ and my second question would be as a

37:06 ↗ cost analysis been done on this to see

37:09 ↗ the impacts

37:10 ↗ no

37:11 ↗ okay

37:12 ↗ thank you

37:14 ↗ um jamie finch go ahead please

37:17 ↗ thanks nancy jamie finch from the

37:19 ↗ environmental board

37:21 ↗ thanks paul for the presentation um

37:24 ↗ one of the just overarching questions i

37:26 ↗ just wanted to make sure that i truly

37:27 ↗ understand how a standard whatever that

37:30 ↗ standard is would be applied to a

37:33 ↗ project and so could you just walk me

37:35 ↗ through

37:36 ↗ like

37:37 ↗ maybe taking one of the projects at the

37:39 ↗ top if it happened to be in a flood

37:41 ↗ plain that was

37:42 ↗ that was uh

37:44 ↗ that was basically dictated to not that

37:46 ↗ that need to be above that standard how

37:48 ↗ that would work and what the the

37:50 ↗ process would look like

37:53 ↗ i can give you a general sense of what

37:55 ↗ the process is and maybe ask if evan can

37:58 ↗ do more what the city is doing i think

38:00 ↗ the way to think about this is that the

38:02 ↗ actual process would be no different

38:05 ↗ meaning that you come into for the

38:06 ↗ development proposal part of your

38:08 ↗ development or you're proposing

38:10 ↗ something it would be in the hundred

38:11 ↗ year flood plain and therefore it

38:12 ↗ triggers the ordinance and then you

38:14 ↗ would have to apply the standards in the

38:15 ↗ ordinance this would be has more to do

38:17 ↗ with the standards to apply than rather

38:19 ↗ than your the process that it goes

38:21 ↗ through so right now you would go in

38:23 ↗ there and for example you're building a

38:25 ↗ you know real simply if you're building

38:26 ↗ a house you would put it at the 100 year

38:28 ↗ 100 year plus one foot that would be the

38:30 ↗ standard so uh so now that would be the

38:33 ↗ same process and the only difference

38:34 ↗ would be the standard would be different

38:36 ↗ that would be that you would raise it to

38:37 ↗ the 500 year or the 500 plus one if

38:40 ↗ you're um you know in an area with you

38:42 ↗ where you didn't have the detail

38:44 ↗ the other part though that there would

38:46 ↗ be an added process to this would be

38:49 ↗ is if there is the resiliency review

38:51 ↗ required and so and expect and if

38:53 ↗ there's a resiliency

38:55 ↗ review there would be a set of policies

38:57 ↗ or standards that would be what are the

38:58 ↗ things that are included in this review

39:00 ↗ what are the what are the approaches

39:02 ↗ meaning like add a standard or do things

39:05 ↗ that are make the

39:07 ↗ development proposal more resilient to

39:09 ↗ those floods make it you know so they

39:11 ↗ can survive and not be damaged property

39:13 ↗ damage or public risk risk to public

39:16 ↗ safety

39:17 ↗ and then document that that's happened

39:18 ↗ and so on so that that would be the

39:20 ↗ other part of the review process that

39:22 ↗ would be

39:22 ↗ also analyzed out in parallel along with

39:26 ↗ setting the standard that would be

39:28 ↗ applied by the flood ordinance

39:30 ↗ jamie i just wanted to add i think that

39:32 ↗ last piece that paul just said kind of

39:35 ↗ addressed

39:36 ↗ don's question about that's where the

39:38 ↗ cost benefit

39:39 ↗ analysis is um

39:42 ↗ kind of on a so so yes to don's to know

39:45 ↗ to down's question we didn't do a global

39:48 ↗ cost analysis

39:50 ↗ is that just you know good wrapper

39:52 ↗ orange around that but this stem is a

39:53 ↗ way to get at a cost cost-benefit

39:55 ↗ analysis

39:56 ↗ on a specific case

39:59 ↗ one other thing i want to point out

40:00 ↗ about the resiliency and what's

40:02 ↗ important is that i'm sure one of the

40:04 ↗ things that comes up

40:06 ↗ when you're applying flood standards

40:07 ↗ especially the flood standards change is

40:09 ↗ if you're doing infill you have existing

40:11 ↗ development you're adding redeveloping a

40:13 ↗ site and all of a sudden you have a site

40:15 ↗ that's in the flood plains here and then

40:16 ↗ you have a different standard and all of

40:18 ↗ a sudden they're mismatching there's

40:19 ↗ some some inconsistency between those

40:21 ↗ the resilience review is one pathway to

40:25 ↗ making up you know to addressing those

40:28 ↗ changes that are not just inconvenient

40:31 ↗ but that are really kind of disruptive

40:33 ↗ that the idea that something is really

40:35 ↗ mismatches even though it's next to each

40:36 ↗ other and so on and so the resilience

40:38 ↗ review does give you the opportunity to

40:40 ↗ consider

40:41 ↗ some other approach to

40:43 ↗ making the development consistent with

40:45 ↗ what's already built there but still

40:47 ↗ considering that it's reasonably flood

40:50 ↗ proof to reasonably protected and

40:51 ↗ reasonably resilient from the fund

40:54 ↗ thanks that's all super helpful um you

40:57 ↗ kind of hit on one of my other questions

40:59 ↗ um this this standard would it apply to

41:02 ↗ projects that are like redevelopments of

41:06 ↗ a certain

41:07 ↗ do we do we have we gotten that far in

41:09 ↗ the like application of this where we

41:11 ↗ would see this being applied

41:13 ↗ uh this different standard than my

41:15 ↗ understanding of what has been done in

41:16 ↗ the past

41:18 ↗ i would defer the city on a specific

41:21 ↗ example to say something

41:24 ↗ yeah but i if i could just mention one

41:25 ↗ thing is is that again the approach is

41:27 ↗ the same and meaning that it's just the

41:30 ↗ standard that gets applied

41:31 ↗ that might be different

41:34 ↗ yeah and that that's that's right jamie

41:36 ↗ it's

41:37 ↗ there's no

41:38 ↗ we're not increasing uh

41:41 ↗ the i guess requirements for who would

41:43 ↗ need a permit who would need to elevate

41:45 ↗ anything like that it is purely just

41:47 ↗ changing the standard

41:48 ↗ of elevating just one foot more

41:52 ↗ okay thanks um and then related to that

41:55 ↗ foot i just want to make sure i

41:56 ↗ understand where we are proposing going

41:59 ↗ above and so i think one of those is the

42:02 ↗ going to the 500 for some of these

42:05 ↗ some of the types of development is the

42:08 ↗ other part of that the one foot that

42:10 ↗ we're taking in addition on areas that

42:11 ↗ aren't mapped or are there other aspects

42:13 ↗ of like where we're going above kind of

42:15 ↗ minimum requirements

42:19 ↗ uh i think the short answer is no i

42:22 ↗ think that it's really just related to

42:24 ↗ one foot for the to get to address

42:27 ↗ climate change in one foot to address

42:28 ↗ uncertainty

42:33 ↗ i'm not sure i follow it

42:36 ↗ is that what is the

42:37 ↗ what is the base requirement of fema or

42:40 ↗ whoever would dictate is there a

42:42 ↗ requirement is that something that the

42:43 ↗ city can set

42:45 ↗ um

42:46 ↗ just trying to understand like what we

42:48 ↗ are relative to

42:49 ↗ yeah so our current our current

42:51 ↗ requirement um that we have

42:53 ↗ through fema and our crs program is bfe

42:56 ↗ plus one that's that's what we're we're

42:59 ↗ building all our development too

43:04 ↗ thank you i think that

43:06 ↗ those are all my questions thanks

43:09 ↗ thanks jamie

43:10 ↗ next we have a question from nina

43:12 ↗ mulligan go ahead nina

43:14 ↗ thank you nancy nine to milligan

43:16 ↗ planning policy commission i have uh two

43:19 ↗ main questions one is um maybe uh to be

43:22 ↗ deferred but uh in the context of this

43:25 ↗ in the second half of tonight i think

43:27 ↗ we're going to be talking about how we

43:28 ↗ might manage mitigate and reduce the

43:31 ↗ impacts of increased flooding

43:34 ↗ but have any of those

43:36 ↗ measures that we might take to reduce

43:39 ↗ the impacts

43:41 ↗ um

43:41 ↗ is that considered here or is this just

43:44 ↗ a

43:44 ↗ trajectory that's

43:47 ↗ um i'm just living with

43:50 ↗ it's um

43:52 ↗ it's not that that's a separate thing

43:54 ↗ and it's not they're not um they're

43:56 ↗ they're not

43:57 ↗ they're not interdependent they are

43:59 ↗ separate things

44:00 ↗ okay okay

44:01 ↗ that's good that's it uh thank you and

44:03 ↗ then um i did want to ask about this

44:05 ↗ chart um to me the

44:08 ↗ top

44:09 ↗ row

44:10 ↗ looks to me like one thing is not like

44:13 ↗ the others and that is the key

44:15 ↗ facilities can you explain a little more

44:17 ↗ why we would put hospitals and emergency

44:19 ↗ management in the same column as those

44:22 ↗ other uses

44:24 ↗ that's my final question

44:26 ↗ um i think that that the idea that if

44:29 ↗ we're going to if 100

44:31 ↗ right now everything is

44:33 ↗ any

44:34 ↗ key facilities is based on a base flood

44:37 ↗ elevation plus one and so on so that's

44:39 ↗ 100 year

44:40 ↗ and you do have the opportunity to um

44:43 ↗ to do more than that for key facilities

44:46 ↗ i think the idea is is that these are

44:48 ↗ facilities that would be

44:49 ↗ i that those types of facilities would

44:51 ↗ be harmed if they were disrupted not

44:53 ↗ that they would be damaged and so um

44:57 ↗ and and that there really isn't any

45:00 ↗ any other consideration that was built

45:02 ↗ into this that is addressing any other

45:05 ↗ potential risk or hazard mitigation

45:07 ↗ other than addressing climate change

45:09 ↗ versus the one foot and the uncertainty

45:11 ↗ which is the other foot

45:16 ↗ is that it for you nina

45:18 ↗ okay thank you uh next we have joey

45:21 ↗ lewis go ahead joy

45:24 ↗ thank you chair davidson uh commissioner

45:26 ↗ joy lewis for ppc um thank you to jamie

45:29 ↗ he actually asked a couple of my

45:31 ↗ questions but i want to piggyback a

45:32 ↗ little bit on what he was

45:34 ↗ saying evan you've been talking about um

45:36 ↗ the base flood elevation of being a plus

45:39 ↗ one but i got the impression that we

45:41 ↗ were doing base flood elevation was 100

45:43 ↗ plus two it was plus one for the 500

45:46 ↗ year

45:48 ↗ is it not plus two

45:50 ↗ are you saying what we currently have so

45:52 ↗ you're no what you're proposing what

45:53 ↗ we're proposing to move forward with the

45:55 ↗ change would be actually b plus two

45:57 ↗ right

45:58 ↗ uh yes that is correct okay um and i'm

46:02 ↗ i'm curious um

46:04 ↗ on a more broad spectrum when we think

46:06 ↗ about um rather than just the effects

46:09 ↗ of water on environment are there more

46:12 ↗ deleterious effects that ends up

46:13 ↗ happening with having more

46:16 ↗ flooding events you know for instance we

46:17 ↗ talk a lot about the effects of

46:19 ↗ chemicals with tire runoff for instance

46:21 ↗ into our creeks and streams when we have

46:23 ↗ more frequent mass flooding events

46:26 ↗ are there uh issues that are not being

46:28 ↗ addressed right now and how we protect

46:32 ↗ the environment

46:34 ↗ so yeah we have in our floodplain cone

46:37 ↗ currently

46:38 ↗ we have you know stipulations on

46:41 ↗ um storage of hazardous materials all

46:43 ↗ that kind of stuff in our floodplain so

46:44 ↗ that that is something that we currently

46:46 ↗ are addressing

46:47 ↗ in our code as it is right now

46:49 ↗ so would that be an example of how um

46:52 ↗ there would be a code change effectively

46:53 ↗ that would from from making these

46:55 ↗ decisions now would then have an example

46:57 ↗ of a code change that would then end up

46:59 ↗ needing to be corrected

47:02 ↗ as far as hazardous material storage and

47:05 ↗ and how that can have an impact yeah

47:07 ↗ like so like i said we already have that

47:09 ↗ in our in our code as it is right now so

47:11 ↗ there's no code change

47:13 ↗ needed for that

47:15 ↗ so we wouldn't be needing to do anything

47:17 ↗ different on that one example but on

47:19 ↗ others how does i'm curious what is the

47:21 ↗ example of how what is the code how does

47:23 ↗ it look different right by changing the

47:25 ↗ current plus one to a plus two

47:28 ↗ what does that end up looking like

47:30 ↗ so that that would be in our free board

47:32 ↗ requirements essentially is how we would

47:35 ↗ we would identify that so our free board

47:37 ↗ is that

47:39 ↗ so we have that base flood elevation and

47:40 ↗ then that plus one right is what we're

47:42 ↗ talking about that's one foot of free

47:44 ↗ board so basically we are increasing to

47:47 ↗ two feet two foot of freeboard so that's

47:49 ↗ that's where that would be addressed in

47:50 ↗ our code

47:53 ↗ and when we make those changes what do

47:55 ↗ you find that the fallout would end up

47:57 ↗ being

47:58 ↗ obviously we're going to have better

47:59 ↗ protections on one end but on the other

48:00 ↗ hand how do we update our facilities in

48:03 ↗ a way what does that end up looking like

48:04 ↗ with those code changes

48:08 ↗ can you repeat that question i don't i

48:10 ↗ don't really understand i guess what i'm

48:11 ↗ trying to understand is

48:12 ↗ when we adopt a policy and we want to be

48:15 ↗ making code to be able to reflect that

48:17 ↗ what are we for seeing right now as

48:18 ↗ being an issue with this we want to make

48:20 ↗ this change we find that this is

48:22 ↗ necessary

48:23 ↗ what are we going to end up seeing as

48:25 ↗ being some fallout of this decision

48:29 ↗ i don't necessarily see the fallout i

48:31 ↗ mean the fallout would be you know we

48:32 ↗ would have potentially

48:35 ↗ structures at different heights you know

48:36 ↗ so it may be visually not as appealing

48:39 ↗ there could potentially most likely be a

48:41 ↗ cost increase if if you are elevating

48:43 ↗ the structure higher you know and have a

48:46 ↗ higher standard um

48:48 ↗ but i mean let me let me jump in i think

48:50 ↗ i think i'll go ahead gary i think i'm

48:52 ↗ going where you're going as well too

48:54 ↗ is that yeah the the fallout or the the

48:57 ↗ cost let's say joy right because we've

48:59 ↗ got the benefit right a fire protection

49:02 ↗ the cost to

49:03 ↗ that development project when when

49:05 ↗ they're redeveloping would be

49:07 ↗ uh one of two things one either building

49:09 ↗ higher

49:10 ↗ right so that's going to be a cost or

49:13 ↗ uh flood proofing so they don't have to

49:15 ↗ meet that elevation that would be that

49:16 ↗ resiliency so there's there's going to

49:18 ↗ be a cost

49:19 ↗ for redevelopment in that area

49:22 ↗ but evan i'm not

49:24 ↗ that's with redevelopment what about uh

49:26 ↗ with joy's question about

49:28 ↗ existing

49:29 ↗ facilities

49:31 ↗ um would there be a fallout to them or

49:33 ↗ is this just for

49:36 ↗ properties that are redeveloping

49:39 ↗ yeah i don't think to existing

49:41 ↗ facilities there wouldn't be a fallout

49:45 ↗ thank you so much for that clarification

49:47 ↗ i did want to piggyback on some comments

49:48 ↗ from chair davidson i had had questions

49:51 ↗ about um the fullness and flow rate when

49:54 ↗ we do when we are in a flood stage i'm

49:55 ↗ curious

49:56 ↗ uh if we've if we've had um what the

49:59 ↗ flow has been at the times we've had a

50:01 ↗ flooding event right have we hit those

50:04 ↗ similar markers that we were seeing in

50:06 ↗ the data and by the way i do want to

50:07 ↗ shout out a big thank you for including

50:10 ↗ those estimates of the flooding flows

50:12 ↗ they were great data points and i think

50:14 ↗ that they really show that we should be

50:15 ↗ moving and planning towards a model of a

50:17 ↗ 500-year flooding event

50:19 ↗ um and i'm curious if you guys could

50:21 ↗ answer you know how many times we've

50:23 ↗ been hitting

50:24 ↗ those marks in the last 20 years and in

50:27 ↗ five years

50:28 ↗ yeah joy i'll i'm gonna

50:30 ↗ one eye i'm watching the screen another

50:32 ↗ one i'm looking at my other screen going

50:33 ↗ on king county's website i'm gonna i'll

50:35 ↗ probably get that to you either after

50:37 ↗ this meeting or tomorrow look at that

50:38 ↗ data awesome thank you so much guys not

50:41 ↗ as easy as i thought to get

50:44 ↗ so i'm the next one with questions and

50:47 ↗ i'm curious um i think the proposal that

50:49 ↗ you have before us is very interesting

50:51 ↗ are there any other jurisdictions that

50:53 ↗ are looking at a 500-year event as their

50:55 ↗ flood stage plus a certain amount of you

50:57 ↗ know a foot or two feet

51:00 ↗ um right now i'm not aware of

51:03 ↗ of anybody that is going there the uh

51:06 ↗ one of the one one of the

51:09 ↗ you know lack of a better word

51:10 ↗ inspirations for this analysis had uh

51:13 ↗ did's come from

51:15 ↗ um

51:16 ↗ the executive order um at the near the

51:19 ↗ end of the obama administration that had

51:22 ↗ recommended for certain federal

51:23 ↗ facilities that the standard be 500 year

51:26 ↗ or plus three over 100 years whichever

51:29 ↗ is less

51:31 ↗ and so

51:32 ↗ part of doing the analysis to decide

51:34 ↗ what

51:35 ↗ is the difference between if you're

51:37 ↗ choosing 100 year plus something versus

51:39 ↗ the 500 is why i went into the analysis

51:43 ↗ about saying what are what is the actual

51:44 ↗ real difference between the 500 and 100

51:47 ↗ a year being having looked at this a lot

51:49 ↗ and knowing that it's not three feet and

51:52 ↗ that it's something less than that and

51:54 ↗ so i would say that there is some

51:55 ↗ inspiration in from that um from the

51:58 ↗ executive order about uh critical

52:00 ↗ facilities and you know not not in the

52:02 ↗ same term as way it's used maybe in

52:04 ↗ growth management but other facilities

52:06 ↗ about flood plain management and so on

52:08 ↗ about the 500 year maybe being a decent

52:11 ↗ surrogate for

52:12 ↗ uh to address climate change

52:15 ↗ so i need to clarify something that you

52:16 ↗ said paul so

52:18 ↗ you didn't think that the current

52:20 ↗ hundred year flood plane plus three was

52:22 ↗ accurate but really that's what we're

52:24 ↗ talking about in lower issaquah creek

52:27 ↗ because we're talking about base flood

52:29 ↗ elevation plus two feet and base flood

52:31 ↗ elevation if we use the 500-year

52:33 ↗ standard is about a foot above what it

52:36 ↗ is

52:38 ↗ with the 100-year standard so we're

52:39 ↗ really at 100 your standard plus three

52:42 ↗ is that accurate i'm just trying to make

52:43 ↗ sure i understand the data

52:45 ↗ you know that

52:46 ↗ it's that's double counting one of the

52:48 ↗ feet so

52:49 ↗ one of the feat is uh is just to get

52:52 ↗ from the 100 to the 500 the other foot

52:54 ↗ is for the uncertainty of the plus one

52:56 ↗ so it's it is just the base flood

52:58 ↗ elevation here means existing base flood

53:01 ↗ elevation and on based on existing stuff

53:04 ↗ not on

53:05 ↗ changing the 100 to the 500 and that

53:08 ↗ becomes the base flood and then doing

53:09 ↗ plus

53:11 ↗ okay now you've really confused me and

53:12 ↗ i'm sorry i'm just not tracking so is

53:15 ↗ the proposal you're asking us to

53:16 ↗ consider to use the current hundred year

53:19 ↗ flood plain

53:21 ↗ let's talk about house

53:23 ↗ plus two

53:24 ↗ or are you talking about and we're in

53:26 ↗ lower isoquake creek or are you talking

53:28 ↗ about the 500-year floodplain

53:31 ↗ plus one or something i'm

53:33 ↗ can you clarify what the proposal is the

53:35 ↗ administration's putting forward

53:37 ↗ yes

53:38 ↗ so the uh right now any like for example

53:40 ↗ on this chart that's being seen base

53:42 ↗ float elation is based on existing 100

53:44 ↗ year flood

53:46 ↗ and then one foot is to it is to you go

53:49 ↗ to 500 year or generally one foot so

53:52 ↗ rather than just choosing one foot we

53:54 ↗ use that as an example is that we'd say

53:57 ↗ that you would actually go to the 500

53:59 ↗ year as as basically the first foot and

54:01 ↗ we have data on that and then add one

54:03 ↗ foot to that so it's the base any

54:05 ↗ anytime we talk about base flood

54:06 ↗ elevation right now in any of this any

54:08 ↗ of these materials we're talking about

54:09 ↗ the existing 100 year

54:11 ↗ and then we talk about using the 500

54:14 ↗ year

54:15 ↗ as a surrogate for what we think the

54:16 ↗ future 100 year will be

54:23 ↗ okay i'm still confused okay and i'm

54:26 ↗ maybe other people get this but can i

54:28 ↗ give it could i give it a try just to

54:29 ↗ make sure

54:31 ↗ um go ahead gary because i you know i do

54:34 ↗ storm water so this really has me

54:36 ↗ confused now let's just let's just take

54:38 ↗ the 500 year out of it because i think

54:39 ↗ that's just a surrogate so

54:41 ↗ um using this table

54:43 ↗ uh the base flood of elevation is one

54:46 ↗ hundred year okay

54:48 ↗ going to the next one base flood

54:50 ↗ elevation plus one that's our current

54:52 ↗ standard

54:53 ↗ that's today

54:54 ↗ right our current standard is base flood

54:56 ↗ elevation or 100 year plus one

55:00 ↗ what we're asking you

55:02 ↗ is

55:03 ↗ for these critical facilities

55:06 ↗ should we go to base flood elevation

55:09 ↗ plus

55:10 ↗ two

55:11 ↗ that's the ask is in our code today

55:13 ↗ correct me if i'm on evan but we are at

55:16 ↗ base flood elevation plus one for

55:18 ↗ everything no matter the facility so the

55:21 ↗ only thing we're really saying is hey

55:26 ↗ for these critical facilities we think

55:28 ↗ we should go that extra foot

55:31 ↗ and add that layer on or or do you just

55:34 ↗ want us to stay the same at baseline

55:36 ↗ elevation one

55:37 ↗ is that does that help

55:39 ↗ yeah that helps a lot gary just last

55:41 ↗ let's let me ask one last follow-on on

55:43 ↗ the people in the lower part of the

55:45 ↗ chart which are attached garages and

55:46 ↗ stuff are we proposing any change to

55:49 ↗ them along the way i'm talking about the

55:51 ↗ lower part of that table that's a great

55:52 ↗ great point evan

55:54 ↗ that's what i yeah i guess i miss that

55:56 ↗ too with the ones in bfe just by

55:58 ↗ themselves currently today

56:01 ↗ are they subject to bfe plus one

56:05 ↗ uh no because the

56:06 ↗ our regulations are too

56:08 ↗ habitable

56:10 ↗ uh structures that are

56:12 ↗ uh habitated by people so

56:15 ↗ as long as uh they are truly just a shed

56:18 ↗ or something like that then no they do

56:20 ↗ not uh have to meet the bfe standard

56:22 ↗ okay so that's so everything so bfe plus

56:24 ↗ one and bfe stay the same it's only the

56:27 ↗ very top column that we really proposing

56:30 ↗ a change to

56:31 ↗ yeah we're not we we are not allowed by

56:33 ↗ fema to

56:35 ↗ deregulate anything we can always

56:37 ↗ increase our um our protections

56:40 ↗ got it

56:41 ↗ okay thank you for the clarification

56:43 ↗ gary i think i understand it's much

56:45 ↗ better um sorry if it was a little slow

56:47 ↗ on the uptake on that one um

56:51 ↗ we really tried to weave in the 500 as

56:53 ↗ just a real surrogate to get your your

56:55 ↗ hands around it right about what it

56:57 ↗ means i think we just

56:59 ↗ we've been looking at this for so many

57:01 ↗ months that we kind of get it it's just

57:02 ↗ it gets a little hard to explain so

57:04 ↗ thank you for your patience oh no

57:06 ↗ problem okay uh now we have a question

57:09 ↗ from anne newcomb go ahead ann

57:14 ↗ thanks um my question was already

57:16 ↗ answered but

57:18 ↗ thanks for all this great work you're

57:19 ↗ doing

57:23 ↗ thank you and uh next we have jason

57:25 ↗ boyce go ahead jason

57:29 ↗ uh thank you chair and thank you

57:31 ↗ gentlemen for the presentation

57:33 ↗ so just a couple of clarifying things

57:35 ↗ for me

57:36 ↗ first of all we're only talking about

57:39 ↗ these different standards

57:41 ↗ in areas of flooding correct we're not

57:43 ↗ talking about houses built on hills

57:46 ↗ stores built on hills these are just

57:48 ↗ parts that are in the flood plain

57:49 ↗ correct

57:51 ↗ yes

57:52 ↗ okay so that helps a lot because again

57:54 ↗ this isn't like a city-wide ordinance

57:56 ↗ like we were talking about the different

57:57 ↗ zones zone a zone

57:59 ↗ ao so again we're just talking about

58:01 ↗ flood plain areas when we're determining

58:04 ↗ whether or not to use these different

58:07 ↗ regulations and

58:08 ↗ things like that

58:10 ↗ another thing is you just mentioned mr

58:12 ↗ shimak

58:13 ↗ um

58:14 ↗ facilities so if we were to go to bfe

58:17 ↗ plus two

58:20 ↗ we are you actually talking about

58:21 ↗ residential development

58:23 ↗ or are you just talking about key

58:25 ↗ facilities like hospitals

58:27 ↗ um

58:28 ↗ police fire or are you also talking

58:31 ↗ about residential and commercial

58:34 ↗ well you know these charts i'm trying to

58:36 ↗ look through this here too could you

58:37 ↗ remind us on this one where the

58:39 ↗ residential that does fall into bfd plus

58:41 ↗ two correct yeah the the residential

58:43 ↗ isn't beautiful yes

58:44 ↗ yes

58:45 ↗ okay because i think someone alluded to

58:47 ↗ earlier is

58:48 ↗ um basically backfilling some of those

58:51 ↗ areas would present a big cost and again

58:53 ↗ we're not talking izaqua doesn't have

58:55 ↗ the land anymore i think for big land

58:57 ↗ agreements so we're talking really about

58:58 ↗ smaller regional developers not big

59:01 ↗ national developers

59:03 ↗ so that is important to also hear and

59:05 ↗ then finally it was alluded to very

59:08 ↗ briefly but again so as the standards

59:10 ↗ change the other thing we'd have to look

59:12 ↗ at is if somebody was

59:14 ↗ redeveloping in an area that's already

59:16 ↗ been established you would have

59:21 ↗ little tells little hills

59:23 ↗ going throughout which would obviously

59:25 ↗ deserve this disturb the sight line

59:27 ↗ least of all and then i think you also

59:29 ↗ start getting into

59:32 ↗ property heights and things like that

59:34 ↗ and pretty much i know we wouldn't

59:35 ↗ probably as a city start establishing

59:38 ↗ different different height lines

59:40 ↗ so that basically means the new

59:42 ↗ development if we were to go to bf2

59:44 ↗ would actually start losing

59:47 ↗ i guess

59:48 ↗ square footage

59:50 ↗ correct

59:51 ↗ so not only would it kind of be an

59:53 ↗ aesthetic

59:54 ↗ situation where you could be going

59:56 ↗ through let's just say for example like

59:58 ↗ old town

59:59 ↗ if you started developing individual

1:00:01 ↗ lots there you know you'd have to start

1:00:03 ↗ building these one foot up

1:00:05 ↗ and their neighbor would still be on the

1:00:06 ↗ original plane

1:00:08 ↗ and then they also have their own height

1:00:09 ↗ lines so again the developer will also

1:00:12 ↗ be losing square footage and

1:00:15 ↗ basically living space correct

1:00:18 ↗ that it's a good point i need to think

1:00:20 ↗ through all of that but i think where

1:00:21 ↗ you're heading is correct that is one of

1:00:22 ↗ those as joyce mentioned uh the fallouts

1:00:25 ↗ for this but um and paul and evan you

1:00:28 ↗ can correct me if i'm wrong

1:00:30 ↗ there's another reason that that might

1:00:32 ↗ occur anyway um as we get more remember

1:00:35 ↗ this is the

1:00:37 ↗ as paul mentioned this is the

1:00:39 ↗ the process and application of the

1:00:42 ↗ standard for something that redevelops

1:00:44 ↗ and this is assuming that the the 100

1:00:47 ↗ year base flood stays the same but as we

1:00:49 ↗ collect more data

1:00:51 ↗ that's going to go up right so i just

1:00:53 ↗ mentioned this

1:00:55 ↗ the work we're doing with king county

1:00:56 ↗ we're going to be reevaluating the 100

1:00:58 ↗ year flooded and that may go up based on

1:01:01 ↗ beta better data could go down so so we

1:01:04 ↗ already have that potential what you're

1:01:05 ↗ talking about but but you're absolutely

1:01:07 ↗ right this could this could exacerbate

1:01:09 ↗ the issue

1:01:10 ↗ okay no and i appreciate it because like

1:01:12 ↗ i said there's a lot i like in you guys

1:01:13 ↗ presentation i think

1:01:15 ↗ um you know again sometimes looking to

1:01:17 ↗ be the devil's advocate and that's one

1:01:20 ↗ of the few negatives that i see and

1:01:21 ↗ again it happens with other things when

1:01:23 ↗ we're developing

1:01:24 ↗ eventually at some point the new

1:01:26 ↗ standard has to set in right and it does

1:01:29 ↗ start differentiating itself from what's

1:01:31 ↗ been established there already so again

1:01:33 ↗ but just as long as everybody knows it

1:01:34 ↗ because i think the difference between a

1:01:36 ↗ foot and two feet does start to become

1:01:39 ↗ okay that starts affecting the decision

1:01:41 ↗ whether or not we want to continue with

1:01:43 ↗ the 2080

1:01:46 ↗ flow or really i mean do we want to do

1:01:48 ↗ the extra foot on top of it because like

1:01:50 ↗ you said now you're talking about two

1:01:51 ↗ feet of backfill

1:01:53 ↗ and again you're starting to look at

1:01:54 ↗ larger discrepancies right so

1:01:57 ↗ that that's my concern but i do like how

1:01:59 ↗ it's broken down into as far as

1:02:01 ↗ developments not just having one

1:02:02 ↗ standard i think that's great so again a

1:02:04 ↗ lot lot that i like but

1:02:06 ↗ that one's definitely a straight line

1:02:08 ↗ it's a great point thank you jason it's

1:02:10 ↗ a great point okay thank you

1:02:13 ↗ great uh next we have a question from

1:02:15 ↗ dan heintz go ahead dan

1:02:18 ↗ yeah dan uh hints from the environmental

1:02:20 ↗ board here um i think i have a pretty

1:02:22 ↗ good understanding of like the modeling

1:02:24 ↗ of um

1:02:25 ↗ some of the flow rates you know

1:02:27 ↗ obviously there's the current rain

1:02:29 ↗ gauges on some of these creeks and kind

1:02:30 ↗ of some of the climate projections i'd

1:02:32 ↗ be curious the modeling for you know how

1:02:34 ↗ you're determining the base flow

1:02:36 ↗ elevations or the actual water water

1:02:38 ↗ surface levels is that primarily off the

1:02:41 ↗ fema firm maps this is something i'm a

1:02:42 ↗ little ignorant about i'm just hoping to

1:02:44 ↗ learn a little bit more and how how

1:02:46 ↗ accurate are those you know maps in

1:02:48 ↗ terms of the

1:02:49 ↗ topography and actual full extent of you

1:02:52 ↗ know these flood levels at certain bfes

1:02:55 ↗ i'm not sure i'm asking this right but

1:02:56 ↗ my loose understanding is that fema maps

1:02:58 ↗ are

1:02:59 ↗ cross sections at pretty big intervals

1:03:02 ↗ so they're pretty coarse but correct me

1:03:04 ↗ if i'm wrong on that i'm just i'm just

1:03:05 ↗ curious how confident we feel about you

1:03:07 ↗ know the delineation of you know

1:03:09 ↗ 100-year 500-year floodplain based on

1:03:11 ↗ the

1:03:12 ↗ um

1:03:13 ↗ the floodplain maps we currently have

1:03:15 ↗ which i know get revised occasionally

1:03:17 ↗ for you know certain stretches but i'd

1:03:19 ↗ just be curious to hear a little bit

1:03:20 ↗ more about how confident we are in that

1:03:22 ↗ data

1:03:24 ↗ um

1:03:25 ↗ in in a general sense the um

1:03:29 ↗ you know the more that something has

1:03:30 ↗ been looked at and the more frequently

1:03:32 ↗ it's been looked at the generally each

1:03:33 ↗ model refines

1:03:35 ↗ it has more information and refines the

1:03:37 ↗ last answer

1:03:38 ↗ and so on so if you were to generally

1:03:40 ↗ ask that question you say there's some

1:03:42 ↗ really crappy flood studies and some

1:03:44 ↗ really really excellent flood studies

1:03:46 ↗ and i i would suggest that uh your

1:03:49 ↗ updates are fairly recent and fairly

1:03:51 ↗ detailed and they're probably in better

1:03:53 ↗ condition than most are so on the

1:03:55 ↗ average of all flood maps everywhere

1:03:57 ↗ you're probably above average if not

1:03:59 ↗ well above average yeah just just to add

1:04:01 ↗ on to that that

1:04:03 ↗ the

1:04:04 ↗ yes and the end is king county

1:04:08 ↗ and this is going to be my talk in a few

1:04:10 ↗ months

1:04:11 ↗ it's going to update that the 100 year

1:04:13 ↗ 500 year and then a climate change

1:04:15 ↗ projection on the flows

1:04:17 ↗ that's because uh king county council

1:04:20 ↗ wanted thought it was important for that

1:04:22 ↗ to happen on issaquah creek after the

1:04:24 ↗ last what was the the 20 2019 uh 29 20

1:04:29 ↗ 20 20

1:04:30 ↗ that they put that into the budget and

1:04:32 ↗ they are doing that because

1:04:34 ↗ they want to ask the question you're

1:04:36 ↗ asking dan as

1:04:37 ↗ they they're we're all comfortable uh

1:04:40 ↗ with the maps that were done and i think

1:04:41 ↗ that was in 2017 2018 2020 2020 but with

1:04:46 ↗ some of the data i think it takes a long

1:04:47 ↗ time to get those maps i think the data

1:04:49 ↗ might have came from 2018 beyond but

1:04:52 ↗ they felt like let's do this let's put

1:04:53 ↗ the money let's vest it in issaquah

1:04:55 ↗ creek to to get that um uncertainty even

1:04:59 ↗ better

1:05:00 ↗ that's super exciting thanks gary that

1:05:02 ↗ is exciting thank you

1:05:04 ↗ all right dan i'm going to move on are

1:05:05 ↗ you okay get all your questions asked

1:05:07 ↗ okay

1:05:08 ↗ um i did get a question that came

1:05:10 ↗ through to all panelists and yes we are

1:05:12 ↗ going to provide an opportunity for

1:05:14 ↗ comments on this proposal to kind of get

1:05:16 ↗ a recommendation

1:05:17 ↗ after questions so hold your comments to

1:05:20 ↗ after questions if you could please

1:05:22 ↗ it's going to be a little longer time

1:05:23 ↗ and i'm going to jump over to someone we

1:05:25 ↗ haven't heard yet from yet richard

1:05:27 ↗ zargoza go ahead richard

1:05:32 ↗ thank you richard sergus i'm with pp

1:05:34 ↗ so

1:05:36 ↗ i'm not sure if you have

1:05:38 ↗ i'm curious

1:05:39 ↗ do these new higher

1:05:42 ↗ fact

1:05:43 ↗ insurance costs premiums things like

1:05:45 ↗ that

1:05:46 ↗ since new buildings would be

1:05:48 ↗ that much safer

1:05:53 ↗ i can i think i i got your question now

1:05:56 ↗ you're kind of broken up there or i was

1:05:58 ↗ um i think you're are you asking do

1:06:00 ↗ residents or businesses will they see a

1:06:02 ↗ greater uh discount in their insurance

1:06:05 ↗ is that your yes yeah will there be any

1:06:07 ↗ impact on those types of things with the

1:06:09 ↗ greater standards yeah so currently we

1:06:11 ↗ have a 25 rate discount for our

1:06:14 ↗ residents um that's in our through our

1:06:16 ↗ crs program

1:06:18 ↗ and yes if if we are if we have a

1:06:20 ↗ greater

1:06:22 ↗ bfe so if we are going from a one to a

1:06:24 ↗ two we would get more points in the crs

1:06:27 ↗ program which could potentially

1:06:30 ↗ rank us up and which would then give

1:06:33 ↗ a potentially five percent more rate

1:06:36 ↗ discount so we could go to a from 25 to

1:06:39 ↗ 30 but i mean there's more factors that

1:06:41 ↗ play than than just a one foot bfe but

1:06:43 ↗ it would get us more points heading

1:06:45 ↗ towards that route

1:06:47 ↗ thank you

1:06:51 ↗ okay um

1:06:53 ↗ jamie i'm going to ask you to go quickly

1:06:55 ↗ please

1:06:57 ↗ all right nancy jamie finch

1:06:58 ↗ environmental board um

1:07:00 ↗ quick question so there was mention of

1:07:02 ↗ when something is not mapped there being

1:07:04 ↗ extra foot

1:07:05 ↗ is the table we're looking at the mapped

1:07:08 ↗ or the unmapped

1:07:11 ↗ this is the map there is the the

1:07:14 ↗ ordinance has to trigger be triggered

1:07:16 ↗ and that would have to be development in

1:07:17 ↗ the mapped areas

1:07:20 ↗ okay so the plus one for unmapped would

1:07:23 ↗ be in addition to this

1:07:25 ↗ is that

1:07:28 ↗ there's not a standard for unmapped

1:07:30 ↗ areas

1:07:33 ↗ i i think meant uh jamie are you talking

1:07:36 ↗ about the data not available or unmapped

1:07:39 ↗ so i thought one of the slides i was

1:07:41 ↗ talking to

1:07:42 ↗ earlier was about a difference

1:07:46 ↗ the slide we're looking at right now is

1:07:48 ↗ for when uh flood information is not uh

1:07:50 ↗ available for a 500

1:07:52 ↗ evan can you go back to the other

1:07:58 ↗ is this one that you had uh i think you

1:08:01 ↗ had for for areas that have detailed

1:08:03 ↗ study is what i'm talking about yeah

1:08:05 ↗ that's the that's

1:08:07 ↗ that one

1:08:10 ↗ sorry this one okay so

1:08:12 ↗ no i think it was the previous one with

1:08:14 ↗ the 500 100

1:08:16 ↗ i think that's what these are from this

1:08:18 ↗ this is where we have the details

1:08:21 ↗ so it's really like bfe plus one when we

1:08:23 ↗ have a detailed floodplain is that

1:08:25 ↗ correct

1:08:26 ↗ because that would be close to the 500

1:08:28 ↗ like it's the 500 year but like if

1:08:30 ↗ you're trying to apply that to our the

1:08:32 ↗ other one it's the equivalent of a bfe

1:08:34 ↗ plus one

1:08:35 ↗ yeah okay quick

1:08:38 ↗ how much of this how much of the city

1:08:41 ↗ and where the development would be

1:08:42 ↗ occurring is

1:08:44 ↗ mapped versus unmapped

1:08:49 ↗ um yeah i don't have the the acreage of

1:08:51 ↗ our floodplain off the top of my head

1:08:53 ↗ but we can get that to you is that

1:08:55 ↗ majority maps just

1:08:57 ↗ thinking i'm just looking at the fema

1:08:59 ↗ site i'm just curious is that like do we

1:09:01 ↗ think it's the majority of like central

1:09:03 ↗ issaquah and or do we do just not have

1:09:06 ↗ any idea without

1:09:08 ↗ more research

1:09:11 ↗ issaquah creek is all detailed correct

1:09:12 ↗ is that correct

1:09:14 ↗ yes

1:09:15 ↗ uh how about tibbetts

1:09:17 ↗ yes

1:09:18 ↗ okay so those those two so that's a

1:09:20 ↗ great point jamie maybe we should have

1:09:22 ↗ put that on this and i think maybe for

1:09:23 ↗ the next round we will so for this one

1:09:25 ↗ that you're looking at we have the meat

1:09:27 ↗ tibbetts and all of tibbetts and all of

1:09:29 ↗ uh issaquah creek would be with this uh

1:09:32 ↗ uh slide here and then um when we do the

1:09:37 ↗ other side we can we can put those areas

1:09:39 ↗ on there that's a great point

1:09:41 ↗ i think that would help everybody

1:09:42 ↗ through this a little bit better

1:09:45 ↗ thank you

1:09:46 ↗ yeah thank you jamie it's really good we

1:09:48 ↗ missed that

1:09:50 ↗ all right with that i'm gonna um

1:09:52 ↗ end the questions and now i'm going to

1:09:54 ↗ be looking for anyone on either of the

1:09:57 ↗ commission or the board that have

1:09:58 ↗ comments to provide to staff on this

1:10:00 ↗ issue

1:10:01 ↗ so i'm opening it up for comments please

1:10:05 ↗ uh domic williams please go ahead

1:10:08 ↗ yeah first i want to thank you guys for

1:10:10 ↗ this study this is wonderful

1:10:12 ↗ it explains a lot it's it's very

1:10:14 ↗ thoughtful thank you for taking the time

1:10:15 ↗ to put this together

1:10:17 ↗ i completely agree on key facilities

1:10:20 ↗ being at bfe plus two that makes sense

1:10:22 ↗ so public structures hospitals anything

1:10:25 ↗ like that big apartment buildings

1:10:26 ↗ roadways

1:10:28 ↗ the one thing i'd like you to think

1:10:29 ↗ about is residential so if i'm a

1:10:31 ↗ homeowner and i'm currently at the old

1:10:33 ↗ standards of bfe and i want to redevelop

1:10:36 ↗ my house maybe put an add-on or

1:10:38 ↗ something like that think about the

1:10:39 ↗ impacts that bfe plus two would have on

1:10:42 ↗ those homeowners it could be a hardship

1:10:44 ↗ on some of them

1:10:45 ↗ if they want to do that

1:10:47 ↗ i just i'm worried about that cost to

1:10:50 ↗ them

1:10:52 ↗ thank you

1:10:54 ↗ great thank you very much don

1:10:57 ↗ next we have cameron fisher go ahead

1:10:59 ↗ cameron

1:11:00 ↗ thank you nancy cameron fisher the

1:11:01 ↗ environment award uh firstly i just want

1:11:03 ↗ to thank the three of you for the

1:11:04 ↗ presentation tonight um very informative

1:11:08 ↗ i i would like to encourage uh the

1:11:11 ↗ follow-on from the question from jamie

1:11:13 ↗ uh finch there earlier it's a gis uh

1:11:16 ↗ overlay uh of what what is versus what

1:11:19 ↗ will be

1:11:20 ↗ i think that would be that would

1:11:22 ↗ demonstrate uh

1:11:23 ↗ visually

1:11:24 ↗ be a great tool uh to have and uh and

1:11:28 ↗ and want to reiterate uh dominic

1:11:31 ↗ williams's point about the add-ons to

1:11:33 ↗ the existing single firmware residents

1:11:36 ↗ but also keeping those uh those

1:11:39 ↗ key infrastructures the hospitals what

1:11:41 ↗ whatever at a higher elevation i think

1:11:43 ↗ you guys are on a great track and uh

1:11:46 ↗ thank you very much for sharing

1:11:49 ↗ thank you cameron uh jason voice go

1:11:51 ↗ ahead please

1:11:53 ↗ you chair i'll echo uh

1:11:57 ↗ two previous

1:11:58 ↗ comments

1:11:59 ↗ um i agree i think i like first of all i

1:12:02 ↗ like how you guys broke it down with the

1:12:03 ↗ developments i think that's great i also

1:12:05 ↗ like the idea

1:12:06 ↗ of resiliency

1:12:09 ↗ a little bit of trade-off i think that

1:12:10 ↗ that's helpful because again there is a

1:12:12 ↗ difference between a parking lot

1:12:14 ↗ and possibly a storage versus a school

1:12:18 ↗ especially as we start putting more

1:12:20 ↗ infrastructure into the central isoqua

1:12:22 ↗ area um i also do agree though as far as

1:12:25 ↗ residential that could be considered a

1:12:27 ↗ hardship and again we're starting to

1:12:28 ↗ look at more single lots being sold and

1:12:30 ↗ i also just worried about the aesthetic

1:12:33 ↗ view

1:12:34 ↗ of a neighborhood that's in a flood

1:12:35 ↗ plain because most of those are going to

1:12:36 ↗ be pretty well established

1:12:38 ↗ there's not a whole lot of new

1:12:39 ↗ development going on at the moment

1:12:42 ↗ and again i'm kind of thinking of the

1:12:43 ↗ central issaquah area so i liked

1:12:46 ↗ i believe it was

1:12:48 ↗ dawn's comments um so again i think that

1:12:51 ↗ was the only thing that really kind of

1:12:53 ↗ that i'm concerned about um schools

1:12:56 ↗ hospitals i don't know if we're gonna be

1:12:57 ↗ building too many of those in the

1:12:58 ↗ floodplain but yeah those those seem

1:13:00 ↗ like they should be a little bit

1:13:03 ↗ regarded possibly to the 500-year plan

1:13:07 ↗ but yeah as far as residential that's my

1:13:09 ↗ main concern and i would keep that

1:13:11 ↗ um

1:13:12 ↗ basically at the bfe plus one so thank

1:13:15 ↗ you

1:13:16 ↗ thank you jason uh next we have nine of

1:13:18 ↗ million go ahead nina please

1:13:21 ↗ thank you chair um this is mine in

1:13:24 ↗ milligan planning policy commission and

1:13:26 ↗ i want to plus one to the

1:13:29 ↗ first comments from mr mcwilliams and

1:13:31 ↗ also mr fisher and i think we're kind of

1:13:34 ↗ ganging up on that

1:13:35 ↗ but i want to add

1:13:38 ↗ a little bit of a nuance in another

1:13:40 ↗ group so key facilities and that's where

1:13:42 ↗ i was heading earlier with the hospitals

1:13:43 ↗ and such but i also saw in a column

1:13:46 ↗ further to the right uh that assisted

1:13:49 ↗ living was bundled into another group

1:13:51 ↗ and what i want to point out here is not

1:13:54 ↗ just the fact of resiliency of

1:13:56 ↗ recovering after a flood but one of the

1:13:58 ↗ more critical things that have to

1:13:59 ↗ continue

1:14:01 ↗ to

1:14:02 ↗ occur even when there is a flood or the

1:14:05 ↗ most vulnerable

1:14:06 ↗ um

1:14:08 ↗ trapped populations you know so we we

1:14:10 ↗ aren't including maybe schools because

1:14:12 ↗ we hope that a flood event we might be

1:14:15 ↗ able to prevent

1:14:16 ↗ um gathering at a school i mean that's

1:14:18 ↗ that's a that's um

1:14:20 ↗ that's in um

1:14:23 ↗ it's a variable you can go to school or

1:14:25 ↗ not go to school if you live in assisted

1:14:26 ↗ living you're kind of trapped there and

1:14:29 ↗ so i want to consider assisted living

1:14:32 ↗ with hospitals and the other key

1:14:33 ↗ facilities as being the ones that are

1:14:36 ↗ most in need of the

1:14:38 ↗ higher standard

1:14:40 ↗ and

1:14:41 ↗ we're going to talk about it in the next

1:14:43 ↗ section i think about crs

1:14:45 ↗ insurance

1:14:46 ↗ um

1:14:47 ↗ agreeing with the speakers before me

1:14:50 ↗ about

1:14:51 ↗ not wanting to put a burden on the

1:14:53 ↗ single-family residence or any other

1:14:54 ↗ residence but i do want to balance that

1:14:56 ↗ with the benefit that we want to provide

1:14:58 ↗ to them and the cost of their insurance

1:15:01 ↗ not only does that

1:15:03 ↗ speak to

1:15:04 ↗ just general cost but also housing

1:15:06 ↗ affordability

1:15:08 ↗ that's it thank you

1:15:09 ↗ thank you nina uh next we have richard

1:15:11 ↗ zargoza go ahead richard please

1:15:16 ↗ thank you richardson goes with ppc i

1:15:18 ↗ just want to mirror some of the other

1:15:20 ↗ commenters i i like the

1:15:22 ↗ using the fiber

1:15:24 ↗ surrogate for 100 year and

1:15:26 ↗ until that data comes in

1:15:28 ↗ i also like having those variables of

1:15:31 ↗ one

1:15:32 ↗ plus one or put with different zones i

1:15:34 ↗ think that makes a lot of sense based on

1:15:36 ↗ the resiliency point i think that's

1:15:38 ↗ great

1:15:38 ↗ um

1:15:40 ↗ and i also wanted to kind of mirror his

1:15:42 ↗ comment on the

1:15:43 ↗ assisted liberalities i think makes a

1:15:45 ↗ lot of sense also

1:15:48 ↗ thank you richard uh next we have ann

1:15:50 ↗ you come go ahead ann

1:15:53 ↗ hi anne newcomb here from the

1:15:55 ↗ environmental board

1:15:56 ↗ um

1:15:57 ↗ so i just want to toss an idea out of

1:16:00 ↗ maybe for single family residents

1:16:03 ↗ of separating

1:16:05 ↗ a remodel from new construction so maybe

1:16:08 ↗ keep the new construction in

1:16:11 ↗ the bfe plus two

1:16:13 ↗ um

1:16:14 ↗ and but if somebody just wants to

1:16:16 ↗ remodel then maybe not have

1:16:20 ↗ make them raise things up

1:16:22 ↗ another foot

1:16:25 ↗ and also want to say and i think it's

1:16:27 ↗ really great that you are

1:16:29 ↗ [Music]

1:16:30 ↗ going to be using

1:16:32 ↗ um data and things that king county is

1:16:37 ↗ working on now um makes sense to

1:16:39 ↗ piggyback on that and save money in time

1:16:44 ↗ and thank you so much for

1:16:47 ↗ you know um

1:16:49 ↗ thinking about climate change because it

1:16:51 ↗ is coming

1:16:53 ↗ the what the more the glaciers melt

1:16:56 ↗ which is happening really quickly the

1:16:58 ↗ more precipitation

1:16:59 ↗ the more precipitation that's in the

1:17:01 ↗ atmosphere and the more

1:17:04 ↗ precipitation is going to come down so

1:17:06 ↗ thanks for looking into the future

1:17:08 ↗ appreciate it

1:17:10 ↗ thank you and jamie go ahead please

1:17:12 ↗ jamie pinch

1:17:14 ↗ thanks nancy jamie finch environmental

1:17:16 ↗ board um

1:17:17 ↗ i do think um

1:17:19 ↗ as my questions alluded to i think it'd

1:17:20 ↗ be really helpful to understand maps

1:17:22 ↗ versus unmapped because it almost i

1:17:24 ↗ would guess if most of our flood risks

1:17:27 ↗ are mapped then most of the areas that

1:17:29 ↗ this would apply would be

1:17:30 ↗ that first page so that does seem like

1:17:32 ↗ where we should be spending the most

1:17:34 ↗ time and

1:17:35 ↗ that will have the most impact is the

1:17:37 ↗ 500 year the 100 year and the 10-year in

1:17:39 ↗ the

1:17:40 ↗ in the um

1:17:42 ↗ in the mapped areas i think one question

1:17:44 ↗ i would have is

1:17:45 ↗ and or one piece of feedback is it would

1:17:47 ↗ be interesting to see so we've used 500

1:17:50 ↗ as a as a kind of

1:17:53 ↗ the best uh projection of what that

1:17:55 ↗ could look like it would be interesting

1:17:56 ↗ to actually compare the logic that we've

1:17:59 ↗ applied on that slide to what we've

1:18:00 ↗ applied with the bfe plus two and the

1:18:02 ↗ unmapped and the bfe plus ones to see

1:18:04 ↗ where they actually align

1:18:06 ↗ um i think the only other thing that i

1:18:09 ↗ would say is that i think i in generally

1:18:11 ↗ support the way that that you're

1:18:12 ↗ approaching this i think it's just

1:18:14 ↗ making sure that we're

1:18:15 ↗ um

1:18:17 ↗ that we're clearly stating impacts and

1:18:19 ↗ where we'd expect that these would apply

1:18:22 ↗ i just think that'll be helpful for

1:18:23 ↗ later stages so i appreciate all the

1:18:25 ↗ work that's gone into this though thank

1:18:26 ↗ you

1:18:28 ↗ great joy go ahead joy lewis please

1:18:34 ↗ thank you chair davidson uh commissioner

1:18:36 ↗ joy lewis for ppc i i also agree with

1:18:39 ↗ the bfe of plus two i think it's

1:18:42 ↗ completely

1:18:43 ↗ necessary based on the data that we've

1:18:45 ↗ seen and i i do want to also point out

1:18:47 ↗ that this difference of facility types

1:18:49 ↗ versus the resiliency as an alternative

1:18:51 ↗ i think it's a very smart play and it's

1:18:53 ↗ one that we really do need to think

1:18:54 ↗ about as nina pointed out the use and

1:18:57 ↗ not just the infrastructure of that

1:18:59 ↗ resiliency um i think one example that

1:19:01 ↗ she gave of schools i would actually

1:19:03 ↗ give the opposite point and say in the

1:19:05 ↗ event of a mass flooding where it's our

1:19:07 ↗ largest place that we would put

1:19:08 ↗ displaced people it's often going to be

1:19:10 ↗ a school here in issaquah so we want to

1:19:12 ↗ make sure we've seen in other disaster

1:19:14 ↗ areas that have happened in the country

1:19:16 ↗ where the places where people go to seek

1:19:17 ↗ shelter end up being some of the largest

1:19:19 ↗ victims from poor planning so we want to

1:19:20 ↗ make sure that we actually shore up kind

1:19:22 ↗ of

1:19:23 ↗ those events i do want to echo my

1:19:25 ↗ concern

1:19:26 ↗ about what does it mean to have more

1:19:28 ↗ backfill in a community when we're

1:19:30 ↗ requiring it only on new development

1:19:33 ↗ versus just

1:19:34 ↗ having it um on someone doing a remodel

1:19:37 ↗ for instance yes there is a financial

1:19:39 ↗ hardship but to jamie's point about the

1:19:41 ↗ map versus the unmapped when we know

1:19:43 ↗ that we have vulnerable properties i

1:19:45 ↗ think it's very relevant to kind of

1:19:46 ↗ wonder well if we end up having what

1:19:49 ↗ what is going to be the effect of having

1:19:50 ↗ different backfill in our community does

1:19:52 ↗ that mean that some um homes are going

1:19:54 ↗ to be elevated making even likelier

1:19:57 ↗ flooding catastrophe for their neighbors

1:19:59 ↗ when you have this kind of up down

1:20:00 ↗ situation so it would be great to hear

1:20:02 ↗ more the next time that we speak kind of

1:20:05 ↗ about

1:20:05 ↗ the real world implications what are we

1:20:07 ↗ proposing and why to be able to see are

1:20:09 ↗ we actually creating greater harm with

1:20:11 ↗ some of this and maybe

1:20:13 ↗ having those trade-offs and benefits for

1:20:15 ↗ instance we talked about you know height

1:20:17 ↗ standards do we now need to amend our

1:20:19 ↗ code to be a plus two or are we just

1:20:21 ↗ going to say now uh development needs to

1:20:23 ↗ eat that two feet i think these are

1:20:25 ↗ important things that we need to address

1:20:27 ↗ um before necessarily making the blanket

1:20:29 ↗ decision but right now it's as shown i

1:20:31 ↗ do support the bfe of plus two so thank

1:20:34 ↗ you

1:20:36 ↗ okay we are have a lot more things on

1:20:37 ↗ our agenda yet tonight including some

1:20:39 ↗ more work from public works so i'm going

1:20:41 ↗ to ask you to try and keep your comments

1:20:43 ↗ short and try not to repeat kind of what

1:20:45 ↗ happened before i'm sorry to do this to

1:20:47 ↗ you but i know it's going to be tight so

1:20:49 ↗ dan quickly dan

1:20:51 ↗ i can be quick and just add uh on some

1:20:53 ↗ of the uh facilities and just kind of

1:20:56 ↗ the bfe level so kind of lower on that

1:20:58 ↗ chart there's a lot of

1:20:59 ↗ parks related facilities trails

1:21:01 ↗ sidewalks um

1:21:03 ↗ and i'm just going to advocate for still

1:21:05 ↗ separating some of those out you know i

1:21:07 ↗ don't i don't see you unless i'm missing

1:21:08 ↗ at bridges specifically addressed in

1:21:10 ↗ there i guess my concern is if there's

1:21:12 ↗ infrastructure that's going in even

1:21:14 ↗ that's considered fairly low impact and

1:21:16 ↗ low risk you know i i really don't want

1:21:18 ↗ to see incentive to then you know armor

1:21:20 ↗ banks or do some sort of kind of bank uh

1:21:22 ↗ you know armoring to protect those

1:21:24 ↗ resources so bridges to me are pretty

1:21:25 ↗ big investments if they're not even

1:21:27 ↗ roads even just for trails regional

1:21:29 ↗ trails uh some of the issac crete

1:21:30 ↗ corridor stuff that i know has been

1:21:32 ↗ discussed with park so i would just like

1:21:34 ↗ to consider that a little bit more if

1:21:35 ↗ there's a little bit more nuance to some

1:21:37 ↗ of those facilities kind of the lower

1:21:39 ↗ end of that chart

1:21:40 ↗ [Music]

1:21:42 ↗ um i'm gonna take on the next comment i

1:21:44 ↗ would encourage uh the city to talk to

1:21:47 ↗ the city attorney about

1:21:49 ↗ this uh new standard that we're talking

1:21:50 ↗ about the reason i say that is if no

1:21:53 ↗ other jurisdiction is doing the bfe plus

1:21:55 ↗ two um we need to make sure we have our

1:21:57 ↗ ducks in a row so that if someone that's

1:21:59 ↗ coming in for a major redevelopment

1:22:00 ↗ doesn't sue us and make sure that we

1:22:03 ↗ have something as a basis of how we came

1:22:05 ↗ up with it i mean i think you presented

1:22:06 ↗ some of that but i want to make sure

1:22:08 ↗ that we're short enough not spending a

1:22:09 ↗ lot of money on

1:22:11 ↗ protecting this new standard that will

1:22:14 ↗ probably be codified and then find that

1:22:16 ↗ it backfires

1:22:18 ↗ on us so that would be my encouragement

1:22:20 ↗ to city staff

1:22:22 ↗ and nina do you have anything really

1:22:24 ↗ important to add

1:22:26 ↗ just want to tell joy lewis she changed

1:22:28 ↗ my mind about schools so i agree with

1:22:31 ↗ the commissioner lewis about schools

1:22:33 ↗ thank you

1:22:35 ↗ okay folks we have more on the agenda

1:22:37 ↗ from public works so we're going to move

1:22:38 ↗ right into it and i would encourage you

1:22:40 ↗ that to

1:22:42 ↗ if you don't have anything to add to a

1:22:43 ↗ comment or a question please let's stop

1:22:46 ↗ so that we can get through this agenda

1:22:48 ↗ tonight it's a tough one

1:22:49 ↗ thank you

1:22:54 ↗ so much

1:22:55 ↗ yeah go ahead

1:22:57 ↗ okay uh you guys can see my screen again

1:23:01 ↗ we're good okay paul go ahead

1:23:03 ↗ right so the net the second next topic

1:23:05 ↗ is uh future storm water management

1:23:07 ↗ standards and this has to do with

1:23:09 ↗ what are the standards that would be

1:23:10 ↗ applied and what is the basically just

1:23:13 ↗ getting at what the rainfall record is

1:23:14 ↗ that's used in the evaluation for

1:23:16 ↗ designing

1:23:17 ↗ stormwater management facilities like

1:23:19 ↗ detention ponds and so on led facilities

1:23:22 ↗ and the like and then for designing

1:23:23 ↗ conveyance which means storm sewers and

1:23:26 ↗ ditches and pipes and so on

1:23:28 ↗ and

1:23:30 ↗ right now

1:23:31 ↗ king county is working on an update and

1:23:33 ↗ updating these records and so on and so

1:23:35 ↗ our recommendation is is to

1:23:37 ↗ uh wait for king county and the reason i

1:23:39 ↗ say that is is that it is a very it's a

1:23:41 ↗ complicated analysis and uh they're

1:23:44 ↗ doing you know a lot of work on it it's

1:23:46 ↗ not inexpensive

1:23:48 ↗ and and then they'll end up at about the

1:23:50 ↗ same place that you would end up if we

1:23:52 ↗ went through this analysis so

1:23:54 ↗ our recommendation is to wait until king

1:23:56 ↗ county does the update and use their

1:23:59 ↗ updated stormwater

1:24:01 ↗ standards for your evaluation of

1:24:04 ↗ stormwater control and for conveyance

1:24:06 ↗ facilities

1:24:13 ↗ are there any questions or comments

1:24:15 ↗ before we move on

1:24:19 ↗ seeing none keep going

1:24:22 ↗ okay

1:24:23 ↗ so the third element is as we described

1:24:25 ↗ as a is a a newer element and this has

1:24:28 ↗ to do with what we we've termed critical

1:24:30 ↗ drainage review

1:24:32 ↗ and uh the purpose of this is to really

1:24:34 ↗ rather than just say that uh a standard

1:24:37 ↗ should be increased you know like if if

1:24:38 ↗ the 10 year is good then the 25 year

1:24:40 ↗ must be better and 100 year must be even

1:24:42 ↗ better so let's just keep doing this the

1:24:44 ↗ the idea is is to think about rather

1:24:46 ↗ than just evaluating what the protection

1:24:49 ↗ standard is is to also consider

1:24:53 ↗ relativity and so considering what the

1:24:55 ↗ negative consequences are of a failure

1:24:57 ↗ so first looking into it and saying

1:24:59 ↗ rather than here's the system as it's

1:25:01 ↗ working everything's going to be working

1:25:02 ↗ fine what happens if some part of the

1:25:03 ↗ system fails and then what are those

1:25:05 ↗ negative consequences then the next part

1:25:08 ↗ of that is to estimate well based on

1:25:10 ↗ what the actual threat or risk is

1:25:12 ↗ what what does that failure mean and

1:25:14 ↗ then the third part is is that do

1:25:17 ↗ an analysis to minimize what that risk

1:25:20 ↗ is or minimize what that threat is and

1:25:22 ↗ then also think about what's the

1:25:24 ↗ appropriate level of analysis to do to

1:25:26 ↗ consider the risk so

1:25:28 ↗ rather than just saying that um

1:25:31 ↗ everybody does a really detailed study

1:25:33 ↗ on potential risk no matter if you're

1:25:35 ↗ building uh you know adding on to your

1:25:37 ↗ house or if you're building a 500 lot

1:25:39 ↗ subdivision that the idea is that the

1:25:42 ↗ different levels there's different

1:25:43 ↗ levels of analysis that are done to

1:25:46 ↗ consider what the critical impacts are

1:25:49 ↗ what the critical potential impacts the

1:25:50 ↗ negative consequences are

1:25:52 ↗ and and think about this in terms of

1:25:55 ↗ risk management and thick

1:25:57 ↗ failure management rather than just

1:25:59 ↗ universally applying a much greater

1:26:01 ↗ standard to everything and having

1:26:03 ↗ everything cost of whether it needs it

1:26:04 ↗ or not

1:26:06 ↗ so you can go to the next slide

1:26:10 ↗ so i've already kind of talked about

1:26:11 ↗ this about first the first step in this

1:26:13 ↗ would be consider what are the failure

1:26:14 ↗ pathways so what what is an evaluation

1:26:17 ↗ of thinking if this ditch overflows

1:26:19 ↗ where does the water go what are what

1:26:21 ↗ are affected and then there's the and

1:26:22 ↗ the consequences are really addressing

1:26:25 ↗ and these kind of go in order first

1:26:27 ↗ consequences is a potential loss of life

1:26:29 ↗ is there property loss and so on so it

1:26:31 ↗ keeps going down and down the list and

1:26:33 ↗ so on into less and less

1:26:35 ↗ consequential consequences and that it's

1:26:37 ↗ important to look at those consequences

1:26:39 ↗ and so on as far as evaluating what

1:26:41 ↗ should be the

1:26:43 ↗ uh

1:26:44 ↗ mitigation measures and so on so after

1:26:46 ↗ we consider the consequences and we go

1:26:48 ↗ what's the likelihood of that

1:26:49 ↗ consequence what's the magnitude is it

1:26:51 ↗ something that's really big and it'll be

1:26:53 ↗ widespread is it going to happen every

1:26:55 ↗ year or every five years or every 10

1:26:57 ↗ years it's not going to happen every 500

1:26:59 ↗ so look at the magnitude and frequency

1:27:00 ↗ of that potential consequence and then

1:27:02 ↗ consider what the mitigation should be

1:27:04 ↗ and i think that the last line is what's

1:27:06 ↗ really important is applying the

1:27:07 ↗ appropriate analysis level due to the

1:27:09 ↗ severity of the impact and the cost of

1:27:11 ↗ the mitigation so doing an analysis

1:27:14 ↗ either from a just a narrative that

1:27:16 ↗ evaluates that says the impacts would be

1:27:19 ↗ considered to be low all the way to

1:27:20 ↗ doing an engineering a true engineering

1:27:22 ↗ cost benefit analysis that say

1:27:25 ↗ in order to protect this type of

1:27:26 ↗ facility we need to spend this much

1:27:28 ↗ money and apply this standard to that in

1:27:31 ↗ order to protect against the posit

1:27:34 ↗ potential negative consequences so next

1:27:37 ↗ slide

1:27:41 ↗ so this is a real generalized approach

1:27:44 ↗ and just kind of hopefully helps

1:27:46 ↗ understand kind of how this would be be

1:27:48 ↗ looked at and i look at these different

1:27:50 ↗ steps that would be put in here so the

1:27:51 ↗ first thing that we would do is look at

1:27:53 ↗ any development proposal and understand

1:27:56 ↗ relative to what's happening in that

1:27:58 ↗ development proposal what are the what

1:28:00 ↗ are the consequent what are the

1:28:01 ↗ likelihood the location the likelihood

1:28:03 ↗ and consequences of failure so that's

1:28:04 ↗ where the first thing we would do is

1:28:06 ↗ review the drainage pass where does the

1:28:07 ↗ water go if part of the system fails is

1:28:10 ↗ anybody flooded what happens if

1:28:12 ↗ something upstream of this facility

1:28:13 ↗ fails what could happen to the facility

1:28:16 ↗ and then the second the second step is

1:28:18 ↗ really looking at um

1:28:20 ↗ if if the water go gets to a stream or

1:28:23 ↗ gets to a receiving water that's well

1:28:25 ↗ controlled then that usually means that

1:28:27 ↗ there's that there's low consequences to

1:28:30 ↗ drainage failures and so on so when we

1:28:32 ↗ move to the step five elements you'll

1:28:34 ↗ see it says move to step 5d which

1:28:37 ↗ basically you identify that the pathway

1:28:39 ↗ of water goes to stream there's no

1:28:41 ↗ impact notice needed

1:28:43 ↗ now the next then the next step step two

1:28:46 ↗ to storm water facility that's just

1:28:48 ↗ another

1:28:48 ↗ um

1:28:49 ↗ evaluation of is it going to a

1:28:51 ↗ controlled facility so i'm going to skip

1:28:53 ↗ over that one

1:28:54 ↗ it's the next uh two steps that really

1:28:56 ↗ matter so the first one is uh step three

1:28:59 ↗ is what we talked about the consequences

1:29:00 ↗ so if something floods or fails what

1:29:03 ↗ happens so for example if you are have a

1:29:06 ↗ project and you have a road and the

1:29:08 ↗ houses are lower than the road and the

1:29:10 ↗ water is running down the the roadway

1:29:12 ↗ and it jumps over the

1:29:13 ↗ over the the curb and goes down to a

1:29:16 ↗ house there's a fairly significant

1:29:18 ↗ consequence so really looking at those

1:29:20 ↗ types of things and really evaluating

1:29:22 ↗ what the consequences are then the next

1:29:24 ↗ step in that is looking again what

1:29:26 ↗ what's the development type that's

1:29:27 ↗ affected is it a house versus is it a

1:29:30 ↗ street or is it a parking lot or

1:29:32 ↗ something like that

1:29:33 ↗ and then the next step in this process

1:29:35 ↗ to look at let's say okay we look looks

1:29:37 ↗ like it could be

1:29:39 ↗ serious that there's a flood there's a

1:29:40 ↗ significant or not insignificant

1:29:42 ↗ consequence how often are we expecting

1:29:45 ↗ that that to happen how bad will it be

1:29:47 ↗ that's the step four part and once we go

1:29:49 ↗ through this then you see the reference

1:29:51 ↗ to the table and the table's the next

1:29:52 ↗ thing we're going to look at but it

1:29:53 ↗ really is a breakdown of um

1:29:56 ↗ what the type of development is and what

1:29:58 ↗ the potential magnitude of the

1:30:00 ↗ consequences are so if you go to the

1:30:02 ↗ next table

1:30:04 ↗ or the next slide

1:30:07 ↗ again this is a lot of detail but i

1:30:08 ↗ really want us to focus on the concept

1:30:10 ↗ rather than on the detail and so on and

1:30:12 ↗ that the idea is is that this is when

1:30:15 ↗ you look at the consequences that

1:30:16 ↗ depending on the type of

1:30:18 ↗ activity or the type of thing that's

1:30:20 ↗ affected you know an occupied structure

1:30:22 ↗ is affected a lot differently than if

1:30:24 ↗ it's just a nuisance because somebody's

1:30:25 ↗ yard floods and so on those are those

1:30:27 ↗ require different steps in the critical

1:30:29 ↗ drainage review different evaluations

1:30:32 ↗ and different mitigations and so there's

1:30:35 ↗ this is a process to go through that

1:30:37 ↗ would look at in the review during the

1:30:39 ↗ drainage review to look at what these

1:30:41 ↗ what these things are what the potential

1:30:42 ↗ is and then address the mitigations so

1:30:46 ↗ when you look at the solutions part if

1:30:48 ↗ this is a severe

1:30:49 ↗ uh severe potential effect

1:30:52 ↗ and if it's likely to happen

1:30:55 ↗ and the effect adverse effects of what

1:30:57 ↗ could happen uh are could be severe then

1:31:00 ↗ an engineering impact analysis would be

1:31:02 ↗ done if it's less effective like it's

1:31:04 ↗ unlikely to cause a problem or if it

1:31:06 ↗ just floods a yard or something that's

1:31:07 ↗ uh

1:31:08 ↗ less less impactful then we would uh

1:31:11 ↗ result in it would result in a narrative

1:31:13 ↗ which would say here's what we're doing

1:31:15 ↗ to mitigate things here's how we're

1:31:16 ↗ resilient here's why it's not an effect

1:31:18 ↗ so this is

1:31:19 ↗ again generally thinking about this in

1:31:21 ↗ terms of

1:31:22 ↗ evaluating

1:31:24 ↗ potential adverse effects based on their

1:31:27 ↗ potential magnitude and then applying an

1:31:29 ↗ evaluation method like an engineering

1:31:32 ↗ cost benefit analysis down to just a

1:31:33 ↗ narrative that says you've addressed it

1:31:35 ↗ and you've mitigated it so you provide a

1:31:37 ↗ range of responses in the review and

1:31:39 ↗ arrange a range of review types

1:31:42 ↗ to go through and then a range of

1:31:44 ↗ responses based on the potential that is

1:31:46 ↗ going to have an adverse effect so next

1:31:48 ↗ next slime

1:31:52 ↗ so this is this is a summary for the

1:31:54 ↗ last two parts that we still we would

1:31:55 ↗ recommend that the stormwater standards

1:31:58 ↗ wait to wait for king county on applying

1:32:00 ↗ that and then we would uh suggest adding

1:32:02 ↗ a critical drainage review to the review

1:32:04 ↗ process to consider what the adverse

1:32:06 ↗ effects are of

1:32:08 ↗ of

1:32:09 ↗ failures in the system changes in the

1:32:11 ↗ system potential future flooding due to

1:32:14 ↗ climate change potential future flooding

1:32:15 ↗ due to development and any other

1:32:17 ↗ potential that's there and i'll consider

1:32:19 ↗ that and provide a mitigation strategy

1:32:21 ↗ and a review process to consider it

1:32:26 ↗ okay i guess at this point we're open

1:32:28 ↗ for questions correct

1:32:30 ↗ yes

1:32:31 ↗ so i have the first question i'll go

1:32:33 ↗ ahead and start um this is nancy

1:32:35 ↗ davidson chair of the environmental

1:32:36 ↗ board um

1:32:39 ↗ am curious who you would be expecting to

1:32:41 ↗ do a critical drainage review would that

1:32:43 ↗ be done by the city or is that done by

1:32:44 ↗ the applicant and what is the standard

1:32:48 ↗ upon which you would require that like

1:32:50 ↗ if it's an addition to a house or is it

1:32:52 ↗ a major building or school or when when

1:32:55 ↗ is it triggered

1:32:58 ↗ i think it would be triggered at this uh

1:33:00 ↗ it would be an add-on to the

1:33:03 ↗ uh stormwater review so when the

1:33:05 ↗ whatever projects trigger stormwater

1:33:07 ↗ reviews of the stormwater manual it

1:33:09 ↗ would be added to that

1:33:12 ↗ and who would be doing it would it be

1:33:14 ↗ the city or would it be done by the

1:33:15 ↗ applicant

1:33:18 ↗ the applicant would be responsible for

1:33:20 ↗ evaluating it

1:33:23 ↗ so

1:33:24 ↗ if you are

1:33:25 ↗ a house located in the flood plain

1:33:28 ↗ or in the

1:33:30 ↗ in this storm water area they would be

1:33:32 ↗ required to do this type of thing or

1:33:34 ↗ could they rely on the downstream

1:33:36 ↗ um commercial building that just did it

1:33:45 ↗ um i'm not sure i understand i i think

1:33:47 ↗ uh the the

1:33:52 ↗ if they if there is other information

1:33:54 ↗ that was prepared that relates to the

1:33:56 ↗ same potential risks yes they could rely

1:33:58 ↗ on somebody else's work

1:34:00 ↗ but uh that that that wouldn't i don't

1:34:02 ↗ think that would come up that often

1:34:05 ↗ and what is the potential why are we

1:34:08 ↗ doing this what is the what is the

1:34:10 ↗ benefit that comes to the city as a

1:34:12 ↗ result of requiring this critical

1:34:14 ↗ drainage review

1:34:19 ↗ that one says gary um this really is a

1:34:22 ↗ resiliency

1:34:24 ↗ piece right as someone mentioned earlier

1:34:26 ↗ no matter what i think paul you may have

1:34:28 ↗ mentioned it no matter what you choose

1:34:29 ↗ at your design level

1:34:31 ↗ there's always the potential for a

1:34:33 ↗ greater storm right i've heard that from

1:34:35 ↗ a number of this community right we set

1:34:37 ↗ these standards but yet there's a bigger

1:34:38 ↗ storm every year

1:34:40 ↗ so this is a way to uh to lev to just

1:34:44 ↗ address that uh so paul mentioned

1:34:46 ↗ failure is is one of the reasons to look

1:34:48 ↗ at that potential failure after it's

1:34:50 ↗ been built but um you know i think the

1:34:53 ↗ the overriding issue here is

1:34:55 ↗ uh

1:34:56 ↗ as we're seeing always the potential for

1:34:58 ↗ a bigger storm and than our standard so

1:35:00 ↗ let's look and see what the risks are

1:35:03 ↗ and paul can you just go back to that

1:35:04 ↗ last uh uh i think you had one slide

1:35:07 ↗ where it showed where were where this

1:35:08 ↗ would be applied to and i

1:35:11 ↗ and uh where back to that uh i'm sorry

1:35:14 ↗ the one you just had on evan

1:35:17 ↗ um

1:35:19 ↗ where would nancy was talking about

1:35:21 ↗ single-family development that would be

1:35:22 ↗ an occupied structure but this is really

1:35:25 ↗ for more

1:35:26 ↗ flow control facilities correct

1:35:29 ↗ so this would be more commercial

1:35:31 ↗ in practical application this would be

1:35:33 ↗ more commercial facilities

1:35:38 ↗ okay so that's

1:35:39 ↗ is that right evan

1:35:41 ↗ well the this table right here is is

1:35:44 ↗ what structure whatever is being

1:35:46 ↗ impacted but

1:35:49 ↗ yeah so

1:35:50 ↗ basically we're we're putting this

1:35:52 ↗ forward as in the previous uh part of

1:35:56 ↗ the stormwater standard presentation we

1:35:58 ↗ talked about how we're going to wait for

1:36:00 ↗ king county to complete their

1:36:02 ↗ uh the rainfall modeling so then we can

1:36:04 ↗ get accurate detention sizing so this is

1:36:06 ↗ more or less a stop gap of ways that we

1:36:09 ↗ can potentially address detention while

1:36:12 ↗ we're waiting for that information to

1:36:13 ↗ come out

1:36:14 ↗ that we can really get more localized

1:36:16 ↗ review

1:36:17 ↗ of of drainage review

1:36:20 ↗ for these for these various projects

1:36:22 ↗ instead of having a blanket detention

1:36:24 ↗ requirement across the city where right

1:36:26 ↗ now we don't have the data for that

1:36:29 ↗ that then this will

1:36:30 ↗ um it's that stop gap that we're trying

1:36:33 ↗ to we're trying to get that detention um

1:36:35 ↗ without having that blanket requirement

1:36:36 ↗ citywide

1:36:38 ↗ so the end result of this is to

1:36:40 ↗ potentially get right sized as best you

1:36:43 ↗ can uh detention facilities for new

1:36:46 ↗ buildings and new development

1:36:48 ↗ or redevelopment as the case may be as

1:36:50 ↗ it would be triggered in our normal

1:36:52 ↗ stormwater standards

1:36:53 ↗ okay

1:36:54 ↗ all right that clarifies things thank

1:36:56 ↗ you for answering my question sorry i

1:36:58 ↗ started uh

1:36:59 ↗ go ahead please

1:37:01 ↗ thank you chad davidson uh nina milligan

1:37:04 ↗ planning

1:37:05 ↗ i just want to ask about that the same

1:37:06 ↗ chart so stay here

1:37:08 ↗ sometimes we're using you know the 5c or

1:37:11 ↗ the 5b but i don't see any five a's on

1:37:14 ↗ here um are there any that are supposed

1:37:16 ↗ to be 5a

1:37:18 ↗ and when you're at step four

1:37:22 ↗ um

1:37:24 ↗ i'm just trying to make sense of this

1:37:25 ↗ when you're at step four you're going to

1:37:27 ↗ five a or b

1:37:28 ↗ how do i

1:37:30 ↗ just tell me a little bit more about

1:37:31 ↗ that that's it thanks

1:37:33 ↗ uh the step four is where and this was

1:37:37 ↗ uh this was mostly to illustrate that

1:37:39 ↗ how we break it down by the different

1:37:41 ↗ activity types and so on step four is

1:37:43 ↗ what sends it to the uh impact analysis

1:37:45 ↗ or not so if you if you have one of

1:37:48 ↗ these things and it looks like there's a

1:37:49 ↗ possibility then you look and see well

1:37:52 ↗ would take a thousand-year

1:37:54 ↗ flood in order to cause this and so then

1:37:56 ↗ it

1:37:56 ↗ tends to say

1:37:58 ↗ write that you know document that do the

1:38:01 ↗ impact review documented and so on

1:38:02 ↗ provide any resiliency that might be

1:38:04 ↗ useful to any steps that could be taken

1:38:07 ↗ so all the stuff that's in the step four

1:38:08 ↗ is where it goes into where the five a

1:38:11 ↗ and five b are and that's just generally

1:38:13 ↗ uh a um comes through with the magnitude

1:38:16 ↗ and frequency so if there's if there's a

1:38:18 ↗ high frequency and there's high

1:38:19 ↗ magnitude it's then it goes to five so

1:38:22 ↗ yeah this is a good way to

1:38:23 ↗ wait to see this and look that

1:38:30 ↗ sorry thank you nina uh next question is

1:38:33 ↗ from jamie jamie go ahead

1:38:37 ↗ thanks nancy jamie finch from the

1:38:39 ↗ environmental board i had withdrawn my

1:38:41 ↗ question but i actually have another one

1:38:42 ↗ that came up as a result of one of the

1:38:44 ↗ responses

1:38:46 ↗ um

1:38:47 ↗ is this seen as a temporary it sounded

1:38:49 ↗ like this was a temporary measure would

1:38:51 ↗ this be something that would stop being

1:38:53 ↗ required after the king county data was

1:38:56 ↗ uh accessible or is that

1:38:58 ↗ was that not a correct interpretation of

1:39:00 ↗ the previous comments

1:39:03 ↗ yeah that's that's something that we

1:39:05 ↗ would decide when that data came out

1:39:07 ↗ and so i mean this is this is what you

1:39:09 ↗ know this is what we're having right now

1:39:11 ↗ and so when that data comes out then we

1:39:13 ↗ can have that discussion again but um

1:39:16 ↗ yeah as of right now it's it's here

1:39:18 ↗ we're not planning for it to be

1:39:19 ↗ temporary but it could if that data

1:39:22 ↗ comes out and you know we it it applies

1:39:24 ↗ to us

1:39:26 ↗ thank you i think jamie just add on we

1:39:28 ↗ would see you know what you know there

1:39:30 ↗ could be just a lot of other benefits we

1:39:31 ↗ get from going through this process to

1:39:33 ↗ look at you know the

1:39:34 ↗ what happens if right because again even

1:39:37 ↗ if we change the standards when uh king

1:39:40 ↗ county comes out with the

1:39:41 ↗ and we adopt that there's always could

1:39:43 ↗ be a bigger storm so just going through

1:39:45 ↗ that and understand again this we're

1:39:46 ↗ really looking for things that really

1:39:48 ↗ could cause a major issue right

1:39:51 ↗ um during catastrophic so so it's

1:39:54 ↗ something we might want to keep on you

1:39:55 ↗ know forever or like evan would say and

1:39:57 ↗ it might go away uh when we get better

1:39:59 ↗ data yeah

1:40:01 ↗ i just i wanted to make sure i just

1:40:02 ↗ understood the city's position i wasn't

1:40:04 ↗ providing a comment either way i just

1:40:06 ↗ want to make sure i understood so we'll

1:40:08 ↗ we'll pretty much be going through every

1:40:10 ↗ five years we'll be updating our

1:40:11 ↗ stormwater standards as as a new manual

1:40:14 ↗ comes up they're pretty much lining it

1:40:15 ↗ up that every five years we're going to

1:40:16 ↗ have a new manual that will have to

1:40:19 ↗ amend our code and update our standards

1:40:21 ↗ and all that and so

1:40:23 ↗ you know that that will take that every

1:40:25 ↗ five years as a complete review of of

1:40:28 ↗ where our code's at and where we can be

1:40:29 ↗ improving

1:40:32 ↗ great thank you

1:40:34 ↗ all right next we have don mcwilliams

1:40:37 ↗ don please go ahead

1:40:39 ↗ so nancy you addressed my questions

1:40:41 ↗ around uh likelihood and consequence of

1:40:43 ↗ failure thank you for asking those evan

1:40:45 ↗ i do have a question um regarding the

1:40:47 ↗ npds permit and the requirement to

1:40:50 ↗ update your standards you're saying

1:40:52 ↗ you're waiting one to two years for king

1:40:54 ↗ county standards but ecology says that

1:40:56 ↗ we have to do it this year so

1:40:58 ↗ i don't use king county standards so

1:41:00 ↗ can you help me with that a little bit

1:41:02 ↗ yeah we're we use ecology standards as

1:41:04 ↗ well and so um where

1:41:07 ↗ what that slide is saying is we're

1:41:09 ↗ hoping to get that rainfall data in one

1:41:11 ↗ to two years that we can then maybe use

1:41:13 ↗ for our detention standards and so um

1:41:16 ↗ but as of right now no we we will adopt

1:41:19 ↗ this code by june 30th 2022. so um but

1:41:24 ↗ yeah this

1:41:25 ↗ we i didn't i wasn't able to talk about

1:41:27 ↗ that because we're trying to just

1:41:28 ↗ concentrate on these kind of where we

1:41:30 ↗ can go above and beyond the permit

1:41:31 ↗ requirements

1:41:32 ↗ but um but yeah no that that king county

1:41:34 ↗ data is

1:41:36 ↗ does not affect uh the the current

1:41:38 ↗ deadline of the permit

1:41:40 ↗ for these things

1:41:41 ↗ appreciate them

1:41:44 ↗ done that's it okay we'll move on to joy

1:41:47 ↗ lewis joey please go ahead

1:41:51 ↗ chair dudes and i have a comment not a

1:41:53 ↗ question are you ready for that

1:41:55 ↗ any more questions

1:41:57 ↗ okay i'm gonna move on go ahead joy

1:41:59 ↗ we're in the comment sections now thank

1:42:01 ↗ you commissioner joy lowes for ppc i

1:42:03 ↗ want to echo um that uh it's completely

1:42:07 ↗ reasonable to be able to wait for uh the

1:42:09 ↗ new standards as needed uh from the

1:42:11 ↗ manual from king county but i do want to

1:42:13 ↗ point out that i think it's rel it would

1:42:14 ↗ be a good work item in the next two

1:42:16 ↗ years while we're waiting to really have

1:42:18 ↗ create a framework for ideals for

1:42:19 ↗ regulations that we want to have so we

1:42:21 ↗ have an easy apples to apples comparison

1:42:23 ↗ so that when we uh get the king county

1:42:26 ↗ manual we can see how closely our

1:42:27 ↗ community standards align to that rather

1:42:29 ↗ than waiting for the manual to come out

1:42:30 ↗ and see oh do we want to adopt this in

1:42:32 ↗ bulk i think it would be nice to be able

1:42:34 ↗ to have some internal staff review of

1:42:36 ↗ kind of what we want to see and see if

1:42:38 ↗ that kind of aligns when we do get that

1:42:39 ↗ information as far as the critical

1:42:41 ↗ drainage review i think the approach is

1:42:43 ↗ really well laid out i really appreciate

1:42:45 ↗ that

1:42:45 ↗ uh and i think the analysis where we're

1:42:47 ↗ lacking or you know failing with review

1:42:49 ↗ so we can see where we can go better and

1:42:51 ↗ beyond the basic requirements is really

1:42:53 ↗ necessary to be able to have that

1:42:54 ↗ fine-tooth comb of where we want to go

1:42:56 ↗ above and beyond so thank you very much

1:43:00 ↗ okay thank you uh now we have a comment

1:43:03 ↗ from jb finch jamie please go ahead

1:43:05 ↗ thanks nancy jamie finch environmental

1:43:07 ↗ board

1:43:08 ↗ i generally support the direction that

1:43:10 ↗ staff is taking i think my one request

1:43:12 ↗ for the next step was something that i'd

1:43:14 ↗ sent an email is just better

1:43:15 ↗ understanding costs and any timelines

1:43:17 ↗ associated with the critical drainage

1:43:19 ↗ reviews to

1:43:20 ↗ as we move this further along that would

1:43:22 ↗ be which i think is probably a part of

1:43:24 ↗ what you would do at the next step

1:43:25 ↗ anyways but that would be really helpful

1:43:27 ↗ to

1:43:28 ↗ just help put this in context for what

1:43:29 ↗ that would mean for

1:43:31 ↗ anyone looking to go through a process

1:43:32 ↗ thank you

1:43:35 ↗ any other comments quickly

1:43:40 ↗ seeing none

1:43:42 ↗ any other feedback public works needs

1:43:44 ↗ from us evan

1:43:45 ↗ have you gotten what you needed from the

1:43:47 ↗ two committees

1:43:49 ↗ i have

1:43:50 ↗ yes okay well thank you all this was a

1:43:54 ↗ lengthy conversation about this um and

1:43:56 ↗ very much appreciate staff's great

1:43:58 ↗ presentations and responding to the

1:44:00 ↗ questions it was fairly lengthy but you

1:44:02 ↗ did a great job getting us all on the

1:44:04 ↗ same page and look forward to your next

1:44:06 ↗ opportunity to bring this forward to us

1:44:08 ↗ which will be when evan roughly

1:44:11 ↗ uh we are scheduled to come back again

1:44:13 ↗ in may

1:44:14 ↗ as of right now

1:44:16 ↗ great thank you very much

1:44:20 ↗ gary did you have something thank you

1:44:22 ↗ okay thank you all for all your

1:44:24 ↗ participation i'm going to encourage ppc

1:44:26 ↗ to stay on for the neighborhood meetings

1:44:28 ↗ and checklist because i know that's

1:44:29 ↗ ultimately go to you but if you choose

1:44:31 ↗ to go off at this time you're more than

1:44:33 ↗ welcome to you we've really appreciated

1:44:35 ↗ the opportunity to interact with you and

1:44:37 ↗ look for look forward to meeting with

1:44:39 ↗ you tomorrow night

1:44:42 ↗ with that

1:44:43 ↗ i'm going to turn this over to our next

1:44:45 ↗ agenda item which is neighborhood

1:44:47 ↗ meetings and checklist and uh will be

1:44:49 ↗ presented by lucy sloman the product

1:44:52 ↗ planning manager in

1:44:54 ↗ in many the director of community

1:44:56 ↗ planning and development please go ahead

1:44:59 ↗ good evening

1:45:01 ↗ i am going to

1:45:03 ↗ share my screen

1:45:13 ↗ and

1:45:14 ↗ i was reminded that um

1:45:17 ↗ the uh neighborhood checklist does not

1:45:20 ↗ go to ppc

1:45:21 ↗ so uh you are again more than welcome to

1:45:25 ↗ stay um for curiosity um and we welcome

1:45:29 ↗ um having a big audience but um just in

1:45:32 ↗ case you're getting tired

1:45:34 ↗ um

1:45:35 ↗ so uh can you all see my screen someone

1:45:37 ↗ give me a nod super uh you will notice

1:45:41 ↗ that uh what is up on your screen um

1:45:45 ↗ has the date of august 11 2021 and

1:45:48 ↗ that's because it is the um presentation

1:45:51 ↗ deck that we used last year when we came

1:45:53 ↗ to you

1:45:54 ↗ with a few uh slides added uh from the

1:45:59 ↗ memo that you received and the reason

1:46:01 ↗ we're doing that is you know much of

1:46:03 ↗ this is about orientation to the same

1:46:06 ↗ kinds of things that we began discussing

1:46:08 ↗ last august

1:46:12 ↗ um

1:46:14 ↗ the reason we were there last august

1:46:17 ↗ was because we had held five

1:46:18 ↗ environmental neighborhood meetings

1:46:21 ↗ and after that we were supposed to come

1:46:23 ↗ and talk to you about the environmental

1:46:24 ↗ neighborhood checklist

1:46:26 ↗ and that's what we're here to talk about

1:46:29 ↗ again tonight and to get your feedback

1:46:32 ↗ uh the environmental board was

1:46:34 ↗ established in october 2020 with the

1:46:37 ↗ objective to protect preserve enhance

1:46:40 ↗ the natural environment take action

1:46:44 ↗ and

1:46:45 ↗ advise the mayor and various other

1:46:47 ↗ groups on plans policies regulations and

1:46:50 ↗ programs related to environmental

1:46:52 ↗ stewardship

1:46:55 ↗ rivers and streams one of their main

1:46:57 ↗ responsibilities was reviewing

1:46:59 ↗ individual projects

1:47:01 ↗ along with code changes to certain kinds

1:47:03 ↗ of regulations

1:47:05 ↗ the environmental board is not reviewing

1:47:08 ↗ individual projects but you are looking

1:47:10 ↗ at the same kinds of policy and plan

1:47:13 ↗ code changes but even more importantly

1:47:16 ↗ policy and plan implications from the

1:47:18 ↗ projects

1:47:20 ↗ the review is really limited to level

1:47:23 ↗ two or higher land use permits with

1:47:25 ↗ critical area studies

1:47:29 ↗ so the purpose of the needy meeting the

1:47:32 ↗ environmental neighborhood meeting was

1:47:34 ↗ to give the community an opportunity to

1:47:36 ↗ understand the proposal

1:47:38 ↗ and to provide thoughts and concerns

1:47:41 ↗ before a decision was rendered

1:47:44 ↗ the kinds of permits i think

1:47:47 ↗ there are these two sort of buckets

1:47:50 ↗ level zero and one does not come to you

1:47:52 ↗ and you can see examples of those are

1:47:54 ↗ building permits signs

1:47:56 ↗ tree removal

1:47:58 ↗ level two through six does

1:48:01 ↗ come

1:48:02 ↗ does go to these neighborhood meetings

1:48:04 ↗ and the results of those

1:48:06 ↗ come to you and i'm going to provide a

1:48:07 ↗ little more information since that's

1:48:11 ↗ so key to what we're doing

1:48:14 ↗ this is a chart that was in your memo

1:48:16 ↗ you'll notice that the word examiner is

1:48:18 ↗ in red the reason it is is because it

1:48:22 ↗ somehow disappeared and didn't end up in

1:48:23 ↗ the memo and i just wanted to

1:48:26 ↗ note that correction

1:48:30 ↗ there are certain kinds of levels of

1:48:32 ↗ permits levels two through five those

1:48:34 ↗ are official land use permits

1:48:37 ↗ but we also have advisory meetings um

1:48:39 ↗ there are two kinds that exist in code

1:48:41 ↗ right now neighborhood meetings and

1:48:43 ↗ community conferences

1:48:45 ↗ these are advisory and happen early in

1:48:47 ↗ the process

1:48:52 ↗ in particular the one that we're talking

1:48:54 ↗ about

1:48:55 ↗ in association with the neighborhood

1:48:58 ↗ checklist meeting checklist

1:49:00 ↗ is the neighborhood meeting

1:49:02 ↗ um

1:49:04 ↗ one thing that we mentioned in the memo

1:49:06 ↗ and is not particularly related to why

1:49:09 ↗ we're here tonight

1:49:10 ↗ is that through the title 18 update

1:49:13 ↗ process

1:49:14 ↗ we're talking about consolidating the

1:49:16 ↗ various advisory meetings we have

1:49:19 ↗ instead of having all these many varied

1:49:22 ↗ types having one kind uh that so that if

1:49:25 ↗ the process is clear the submittal

1:49:28 ↗ requirements are clearer

1:49:30 ↗ it just makes a lot more predictability

1:49:32 ↗ because there's also a lot of variation

1:49:33 ↗ within the city

1:49:35 ↗ so um the other thing that we wanted to

1:49:38 ↗ show through this chart is for the kinds

1:49:40 ↗ of permits that

1:49:42 ↗ could come to you because they

1:49:44 ↗ or could have to have an environmental

1:49:46 ↗ neighborhood meeting

1:49:48 ↗ because they have a critical area some

1:49:50 ↗ are decided by staff

1:49:52 ↗ some are decided by a development

1:49:54 ↗ commission some are divided decided by a

1:49:57 ↗ hearing examiner others by counsel so

1:50:00 ↗ there's many decision makers that are

1:50:02 ↗ involved with these kinds of permits

1:50:05 ↗ this slide has been used this kind of

1:50:08 ↗ crazy slide has been used since the very

1:50:11 ↗ beginning it was involved it was used as

1:50:14 ↗ part of the adoption process

1:50:16 ↗ um and we used it last year when we were

1:50:19 ↗ speaking with you

1:50:21 ↗ i think the the part that we're really

1:50:23 ↗ interested in is the part with this blue

1:50:26 ↗ dashed box around it but you can see

1:50:29 ↗ that the kind of this two sorting

1:50:31 ↗ components of this is does it have

1:50:34 ↗ critical areas or not if it doesn't have

1:50:36 ↗ critical areas obviously it's not

1:50:38 ↗ involved with this process

1:50:40 ↗ and if it does have critical areas but

1:50:42 ↗ it's a level zero or one it is not

1:50:45 ↗ involved with this process

1:50:47 ↗ so what we're talking about projects

1:50:49 ↗ with critical areas level two and above

1:50:52 ↗ early in the process once we get a

1:50:54 ↗ critical area con

1:50:56 ↗ study that's been prepared by their

1:50:58 ↗ consultant

1:51:01 ↗ we take it to a neighborhood

1:51:03 ↗ environmental meeting it may be it will

1:51:05 ↗ be peer-reviewed it may or may not have

1:51:08 ↗ been peer-reviewed before it goes

1:51:10 ↗ uh to the neighborhood

1:51:12 ↗ environmental meeting

1:51:14 ↗ once we hold that meeting

1:51:17 ↗ and hear from the public

1:51:18 ↗ then we continue working with the

1:51:20 ↗ applicant to finalize the critical area

1:51:22 ↗ studies

1:51:24 ↗ and the typically a staff report before

1:51:26 ↗ it goes on to a decision maker

1:51:30 ↗ so the two tools

1:51:33 ↗ that were attached to the agenda bill

1:51:35 ↗ establishing the environmental board

1:51:38 ↗ one is the neighborhood meeting handout

1:51:41 ↗ which is prepared before the meeting

1:51:43 ↗ to help uh the public under get some

1:51:46 ↗ context on the critical areas and

1:51:48 ↗ understand the project

1:51:50 ↗ the other is the checklist which is

1:51:53 ↗ prepared after the meeting to summarize

1:51:56 ↗ what happened at the meeting

1:51:57 ↗ but to also provide information to

1:52:00 ↗ contribute to you advising on all these

1:52:02 ↗ plans and policies to the various groups

1:52:05 ↗ that look to you for that advice

1:52:10 ↗ these are the first five projects

1:52:12 ↗ that came to you

1:52:14 ↗ and that we talked about last year

1:52:17 ↗ and they were a variety of projects that

1:52:19 ↗ was a really uh just coincidental and

1:52:22 ↗ wonderful thing that they were public

1:52:24 ↗ and private they were all five levels

1:52:27 ↗ they had the full range of critical

1:52:28 ↗ areas and we had a wide range of people

1:52:31 ↗ who attended

1:52:34 ↗ and as i mentioned the checklist was

1:52:36 ↗ supposed to be reviewed

1:52:39 ↗ by you after those five meetings had

1:52:41 ↗ taken place

1:52:42 ↗ so what we proposed to you last year was

1:52:45 ↗ to either retain the checklist as it was

1:52:48 ↗ originally provided or identify changes

1:52:51 ↗ and the things that we want to consider

1:52:52 ↗ is

1:52:53 ↗ what would make it more useful what

1:52:55 ↗ would help you identify and inform on

1:52:59 ↗ issues

1:53:00 ↗ and what kind of information is actually

1:53:02 ↗ available there's a lot of things that

1:53:04 ↗ we might want to know about but it might

1:53:05 ↗ be very difficult to collect that

1:53:07 ↗ information

1:53:10 ↗ these are the kinds of things that are

1:53:12 ↗ in the checklist that was attached to

1:53:14 ↗ the agenda bill setting up the

1:53:16 ↗ environmental board

1:53:18 ↗ looking at wildlife habitat

1:53:21 ↗ and corridors controlling light and

1:53:23 ↗ glare

1:53:24 ↗ impacts to scenic resources

1:53:27 ↗ projects in flood hazard areas

1:53:30 ↗ uh projects that would

1:53:32 ↗ create vibrations and noise and have the

1:53:35 ↗ drainage related to the critical area

1:53:39 ↗ after hearing from you that really the

1:53:43 ↗ disaggregated information that was in

1:53:46 ↗ the five checklist that came to you last

1:53:48 ↗ year didn't really help you see

1:53:51 ↗ patterns identify impacts didn't provide

1:53:55 ↗ the kind of information high level

1:53:58 ↗ information that would help you

1:54:01 ↗ and uh in thinking about that more

1:54:04 ↗ this was a

1:54:06 ↗ preliminary list of topics

1:54:09 ↗ related to

1:54:11 ↗ projects that cpd reviews

1:54:14 ↗ so there are other projects in the city

1:54:16 ↗ that may

1:54:18 ↗ impact critical areas

1:54:20 ↗ but the checklist is only related to

1:54:23 ↗ projects that are going through cpd

1:54:26 ↗ so what we looked at was

1:54:29 ↗ try uh information that we could collect

1:54:31 ↗ on trees

1:54:33 ↗ on critical areas and on shorelines

1:54:36 ↗ and

1:54:37 ↗ what we want to hear from you this was a

1:54:39 ↗ big build up to this what we want to

1:54:41 ↗ hear from you

1:54:42 ↗ is are these the kinds of things that by

1:54:45 ↗ collecting this information would begin

1:54:47 ↗ to help you see the patterns

1:54:50 ↗ and

1:54:51 ↗ be able to give that kind of policy

1:54:53 ↗ advice that that the city is looking to

1:54:56 ↗ you for

1:55:00 ↗ so again

1:55:02 ↗ we're looking for your feedback

1:55:04 ↗ on these changes to the checklist

1:55:07 ↗ um then we would it you know once we

1:55:09 ↗ hear from you tonight then we can begin

1:55:11 ↗ to work on how we're going to collect

1:55:14 ↗ uh collect this

1:55:16 ↗ um we are required to return to you

1:55:19 ↗ annually so

1:55:21 ↗ uh we're looking at how uh what we can

1:55:24 ↗ do before that next annual uh meeting

1:55:28 ↗ and you know the fourth bullet on here

1:55:30 ↗ has already been taking place and why

1:55:31 ↗ you're there tomorrow night with ppc

1:55:34 ↗ is because

1:55:36 ↗ you are intimately involved in um

1:55:38 ↗ certain of our quote unquote buckets for

1:55:42 ↗ title 18 update

1:55:46 ↗ so that concludes my presentation

1:55:51 ↗ thank you lucy um are there any comments

1:55:54 ↗ or questions or questions let's start

1:55:55 ↗ with questions first please for lucy

1:55:58 ↗ and

1:55:59 ↗ jamie did you have a question

1:56:06 ↗ jamie um

1:56:08 ↗ i i didn't have an immediate question

1:56:12 ↗ other than the ones that i already had

1:56:13 ↗ sent over um which i can cover

1:56:16 ↗ um

1:56:18 ↗ yeah i think i i was just wanting to

1:56:19 ↗ make sure i understood uh

1:56:23 ↗ because it seems like there's two

1:56:24 ↗ different things going on there's the

1:56:26 ↗ uh

1:56:27 ↗ desire to collect information and then

1:56:29 ↗ there's some sort of summary

1:56:31 ↗ that i think was also mentioned and to

1:56:33 ↗ be clear we're talking about the the

1:56:35 ↗ data collection part is really where

1:56:37 ↗ you're wanting feedback right now is

1:56:38 ↗ that accurate

1:56:40 ↗ like what should you be collecting or

1:56:41 ↗ making sure that you can provide

1:56:44 ↗ for the in the check like from the

1:56:46 ↗ individual projects is that accurate

1:56:49 ↗ yes i think that's true um and then

1:56:51 ↗ we're going to have to figure out how

1:56:53 ↗ much

1:56:54 ↗ if any analysis that we're doing but i

1:56:57 ↗ think i think what

1:56:59 ↗ and and i think we're looking for

1:57:00 ↗ confirmation so i'm not stating this as

1:57:02 ↗ a given fact but i think we're looking

1:57:04 ↗ for confirmation that the things that

1:57:06 ↗ were in the checklist last year

1:57:08 ↗ although they're not things that you

1:57:10 ↗ aren't interested in

1:57:11 ↗ it just didn't really help guide you in

1:57:14 ↗ providing any kind of advice on policies

1:57:17 ↗ plans regulations etc

1:57:21 ↗ thank

1:57:22 ↗ you

1:57:24 ↗ are there any other comments from the

1:57:25 ↗ environmental board or even ppc that are

1:57:28 ↗ here

1:57:31 ↗ don go ahead please dominic williams

1:57:34 ↗ lucy i think my biggest comment was

1:57:36 ↗ around the the measuring of square feet

1:57:39 ↗ of the critical areas net gain or loss

1:57:42 ↗ um

1:57:43 ↗ i'm a statistics person so i would find

1:57:45 ↗ that very useful on a year-to-year basis

1:57:47 ↗ to

1:57:48 ↗ see that just to kind of measure the

1:57:50 ↗ performance of of how we're doing

1:57:53 ↗ so did you um

1:57:56 ↗ did you feel that that did or didn't

1:57:58 ↗ appear in our list i just want to make

1:58:00 ↗ sure that i'm i'm tracking

1:58:02 ↗ what you're um

1:58:05 ↗ that we're meshing in terms of our

1:58:07 ↗ understanding

1:58:10 ↗ um to be honest loosely i didn't go

1:58:12 ↗ through your critical or your checklist

1:58:14 ↗ in detail but yeah just what i'm looking

1:58:17 ↗ for is just kind of a high level summary

1:58:19 ↗ it doesn't have a project by project

1:58:21 ↗ basis just

1:58:22 ↗ an annual summary of it's kind of a how

1:58:25 ↗ you doing report type of thing okay

1:58:27 ↗ thank you

1:58:30 ↗ joy lewis go ahead you can

1:58:32 ↗ join on in

1:58:34 ↗ thank you so much chair davidson thank

1:58:36 ↗ you uh commissioner joy lewis for ppc i

1:58:38 ↗ want to thank you for humoring me uh i

1:58:40 ↗ come at this from the perspective of

1:58:42 ↗ somebody who worked to help create your

1:58:43 ↗ board and somebody who was actively um

1:58:46 ↗ involved in this very step right now of

1:58:48 ↗ having this review of how we triggered

1:58:50 ↗ it we advocated for it the public

1:58:52 ↗ advocated for it and my broad stroke

1:58:54 ↗ comment is that what i want to make sure

1:58:56 ↗ is that as you fine-tune this checklist

1:58:58 ↗ to be able to better use this tool for

1:59:00 ↗ your um for how you move forward what i

1:59:03 ↗ want to make sure is that as things are

1:59:05 ↗ being taken out that they're being those

1:59:06 ↗ things are coming out somewhere else if

1:59:09 ↗ the wording and how the information is

1:59:11 ↗ coming to you is not helpful then you're

1:59:13 ↗ asking staff to be able to give you that

1:59:15 ↗ information that same thing in a

1:59:17 ↗ different way what i caution against at

1:59:19 ↗ this early stage right now is taking out

1:59:22 ↗ what is currently existing and

1:59:24 ↗ supplanting it with something else

1:59:25 ↗ because you have an annual review

1:59:27 ↗ opportunity

1:59:28 ↗ i encourage to have more building of

1:59:30 ↗ your checklist right now in the process

1:59:32 ↗ i encourage

1:59:34 ↗ asking staff to go deeper into things

1:59:36 ↗ that you find are useful rather than

1:59:38 ↗ reformatting the checklist if you want

1:59:41 ↗ to change something i ask that you think

1:59:43 ↗ about having staff put it in a different

1:59:45 ↗ way include that information in a

1:59:47 ↗ different light and have your checklist

1:59:49 ↗ grow in a way that makes sense to you

1:59:50 ↗ guys

1:59:51 ↗ and to how the public perceives it

1:59:53 ↗ because the biggest point of this

1:59:55 ↗ process is the involvement of community

1:59:58 ↗ to really be enhanced and encouraged

2:00:00 ↗ it's something that we saw was being

2:00:02 ↗ supplanted uh from the from rivers and

2:00:05 ↗ streams needing to be disbanded it's not

2:00:07 ↗ necessarily in your core objective but

2:00:09 ↗ it's something that's vital to how you

2:00:11 ↗ interact and so how the community gets

2:00:14 ↗ this information is also important it's

2:00:16 ↗ not just how you guys use the tool it's

2:00:18 ↗ how everybody is getting this

2:00:19 ↗ information so i just really want to

2:00:20 ↗ make sure that the checklist is

2:00:22 ↗ something that grows that it functions

2:00:24 ↗ for you guys without necessarily cutting

2:00:26 ↗ out some of the things that currently

2:00:28 ↗ exist that maybe are not aligning to the

2:00:30 ↗ new idea so thank you so much

2:00:33 ↗ thank you joy

2:00:35 ↗ um i would like to point out add a few

2:00:37 ↗ comments myself

2:00:39 ↗ having reviewed the critical areas

2:00:41 ↗ ordinance there's a lot of areas that

2:00:42 ↗ are identified as critical areas in that

2:00:45 ↗ that aren't included in the materials

2:00:47 ↗ that you provided including you know

2:00:50 ↗ areas like fish and wildlife habitat

2:00:53 ↗ conservation areas minorities those all

2:00:55 ↗ should be included in this we shouldn't

2:00:57 ↗ be leaving any critical area out of the

2:00:59 ↗ presentation that comes to us in the

2:01:01 ↗ future so that we see the impacts to all

2:01:03 ↗ areas that you guys are evaluating the

2:01:06 ↗ second piece you pointed out to me which

2:01:08 ↗ kind of you pointed out which is this is

2:01:10 ↗ only

2:01:11 ↗ applies to the community development or

2:01:13 ↗ community planning

2:01:15 ↗ what whatever uh department and that

2:01:18 ↗ there are other areas that could impact

2:01:19 ↗ critical areas along the way and that

2:01:22 ↗ troubled me and how do we get the

2:01:23 ↗ information on the environmental impacts

2:01:26 ↗ or the environmental

2:01:27 ↗ consequences to do that because this

2:01:30 ↗ board isn't just focused on you it's

2:01:31 ↗ focused on the whole city so it feels

2:01:34 ↗ like

2:01:35 ↗ we need to find a way to bring that in

2:01:37 ↗ and i know that's a big task for you

2:01:38 ↗ lucy but it's something i'm asking you

2:01:40 ↗ or many to raise the administration to

2:01:43 ↗ say you know we feel like we have an

2:01:45 ↗ obligation to look at this not just for

2:01:47 ↗ what's coming through your departments

2:01:49 ↗ but coming throughout the city so that

2:01:51 ↗ we are looking at an overall picture and

2:01:53 ↗ how can we do that and of course that

2:01:55 ↗ probably might fall on stacey but anyway

2:01:57 ↗ i just think we need to be looking at

2:01:59 ↗ the whole picture when this is presented

2:02:00 ↗ to us not just the pieces though the

2:02:02 ↗ bulk of it i'm sure will come through

2:02:04 ↗ you those are my comments

2:02:06 ↗ any other comments from the

2:02:07 ↗ environmental board

2:02:10 ↗ nancy i had a comment if i could

2:02:13 ↗ go ahead might have missed mine yeah um

2:02:16 ↗ i think uh in general i would echo what

2:02:18 ↗ nancy and joy had said i do want to make

2:02:21 ↗ sure that we're not losing access to

2:02:23 ↗ data um just because of the format

2:02:25 ↗ previously not necessarily being the

2:02:27 ↗ right way for us to really get the right

2:02:29 ↗ information and and ensuring that this a

2:02:32 ↗ lot of the critical area information a

2:02:33 ↗ lot of the other policy topics that we

2:02:35 ↗ might um be capturing information that

2:02:38 ↗ would help us make decisions on in the

2:02:40 ↗ future that we're not

2:02:42 ↗ cutting those out too early in it and so

2:02:44 ↗ i think

2:02:45 ↗ it would be really helpful to understand

2:02:47 ↗ if there are things that are too

2:02:48 ↗ difficult to to get on a project level

2:02:51 ↗ that we should have that conversation

2:02:52 ↗ but otherwise it would be great to have

2:02:54 ↗ it tracked and i do think one of the

2:02:56 ↗ most important things for the

2:02:57 ↗ environmental board is how do we report

2:03:00 ↗ on that data in a way that at the end of

2:03:02 ↗ the year we can see how people are using

2:03:04 ↗ different incentives how people are

2:03:05 ↗ using different options in the code

2:03:08 ↗ um those are the types of things that i

2:03:09 ↗ really hope that we'll be able to use

2:03:11 ↗ this date like i see this like i was

2:03:13 ↗ saying before as a data collection tool

2:03:15 ↗ and a really valuable tool for not only

2:03:18 ↗ the public to have information on how

2:03:19 ↗ people are

2:03:20 ↗ how people are using the existing code

2:03:23 ↗ but really for us to help make policy

2:03:25 ↗ decisions in the future so i do think um

2:03:28 ↗ the reportability of it is really

2:03:30 ↗ important and then i also think that as

2:03:31 ↗ we look out and we look at the different

2:03:34 ↗ code updates that we'll have

2:03:36 ↗ here two years out we it's i'm glad that

2:03:38 ↗ we have a year annual review because

2:03:40 ↗ there may be new questions that come up

2:03:42 ↗ that we need to make sure we get

2:03:43 ↗ feedback on but i do want to make sure

2:03:45 ↗ we don't lose the data and

2:03:48 ↗ that we we have the data collection side

2:03:49 ↗ we figure out what we really want to

2:03:51 ↗ make sure we have on that and then we

2:03:53 ↗ also and i don't know if it's a separate

2:03:54 ↗ thing that we work with staceon but the

2:03:56 ↗ reporting side and how we access that

2:03:58 ↗ data is also similarly really important

2:04:01 ↗ in my mind thank you

2:04:06 ↗ any other comments from environmental

2:04:08 ↗ board meeting members excuse me

2:04:13 ↗ okay go ahead lucy um oh go ahead minnie

2:04:18 ↗ well i was just gonna summarize to just

2:04:20 ↗ make sure we um we this is what we're

2:04:22 ↗ going to do based on the feedback today

2:04:25 ↗ we'll

2:04:26 ↗ keep the the data collection that we

2:04:28 ↗ already have for at least 2022

2:04:31 ↗ um well

2:04:32 ↗ once the new critical area code is

2:04:34 ↗ updated we'll kind of align a few more

2:04:36 ↗ things that like the fish and wildlife

2:04:39 ↗ corridors and other things for 2023 but

2:04:42 ↗ for 2022 the data collection will be

2:04:44 ↗ there

2:04:45 ↗ uh based on what's already there we'll

2:04:47 ↗ look at synthesizing and summarizing

2:04:50 ↗ that information in a more collective

2:04:53 ↗ way because in the past we gave you

2:04:55 ↗ project by project

2:04:57 ↗ but we will do some cumulative analysis

2:05:00 ↗ of that and present that to you um

2:05:02 ↗ in

2:05:03 ↗ for this year

2:05:04 ↗ uh and then i think the other thing i

2:05:07 ↗ heard was uh perhaps a more

2:05:10 ↗ not just the impacts but enhancements

2:05:12 ↗ that for instance the green esa quad

2:05:15 ↗ program does so so when we talked about

2:05:17 ↗ cp community planning and development

2:05:19 ↗ versus the other city programs um

2:05:22 ↗ so that would be i think they already

2:05:24 ↗ report to the parks board of the number

2:05:27 ↗ of trees planted the number of

2:05:29 ↗ mitigation areas done so we can pull you

2:05:31 ↗ know we can work with stacy to work with

2:05:33 ↗ parks department to pull some of the

2:05:35 ↗ information

2:05:36 ↗ but

2:05:37 ↗ and focus on the permit side which is

2:05:39 ↗ more of the

2:05:41 ↗ um you know how many what projects were

2:05:43 ↗ built that had wetlands on the property

2:05:45 ↗ or the streams and things of that nature

2:05:47 ↗ so we can work on synthesizing the

2:05:49 ↗ information as a cover to what but we'll

2:05:52 ↗ keep the checklist the same for it for

2:05:55 ↗ at least this year

2:05:56 ↗ is that

2:05:58 ↗ right understand did i hear you all

2:06:00 ↗ correctly

2:06:01 ↗ yes i think that's what i heard as well

2:06:03 ↗ any other comments

2:06:06 ↗ well it sounds like a great summary

2:06:08 ↗ okay okay

2:06:10 ↗ lucy did you have something you wanted

2:06:12 ↗ to add

2:06:13 ↗ i think the only thing

2:06:15 ↗ that i was

2:06:16 ↗ noting while listening to you all is you

2:06:18 ↗ know the previous or the the current

2:06:21 ↗ checklist is very qualitative

2:06:24 ↗ and i think what we heard from you all

2:06:27 ↗ last year and um in trying to put this

2:06:30 ↗ list together was to try and um have

2:06:32 ↗ quantitative

2:06:34 ↗ uh

2:06:35 ↗ information and what we're hearing is

2:06:38 ↗ you're not in you want to maintain both

2:06:40 ↗ you want both qualitative and

2:06:42 ↗ quantitative collection

2:06:45 ↗ and

2:06:46 ↗ some synthesis of that and um

2:06:48 ↗ really just wanted to confirm that

2:06:52 ↗ that perception that i had in in

2:06:54 ↗ listening to the comments this evening

2:06:57 ↗ would agree with your your summary there

2:06:59 ↗ lucy i think uh we are looking for both

2:07:02 ↗ sides of this so

2:07:03 ↗ anyway so we can report back and at

2:07:06 ↗ least acknowledge how much what we've

2:07:08 ↗ done

2:07:09 ↗ and what we've accomplished so

2:07:12 ↗ with that i think we've we're going to

2:07:14 ↗ close out the discussion on neighborhood

2:07:16 ↗ meetings in the checklist

2:07:18 ↗ and move on to the next portion of this

2:07:20 ↗ which is reports

2:07:22 ↗ and thank you very much lucy and many

2:07:24 ↗ for joining us you're welcome to stay

2:07:26 ↗ always as is ppc and we're going to move

2:07:29 ↗ on to the

2:07:30 ↗ environmental board calendar go ahead

2:07:32 ↗ stacy

2:07:35 ↗ thank you nancy i know we're running

2:07:37 ↗ late so i will be brief i did just want

2:07:39 ↗ to note that at the very end of the

2:07:42 ↗ of tonight's packet is the updated

2:07:44 ↗ calendar we had to make a few

2:07:46 ↗ adjustments due to some meetings running

2:07:48 ↗ over and having to adjust agenda topics

2:07:51 ↗ and then there's also a number of

2:07:53 ↗ timelines that the city is operating

2:07:56 ↗ under that we've had to add some extra

2:07:57 ↗ meetings to ensure that there was a

2:08:00 ↗ sufficient time for environmental board

2:08:01 ↗ feedback so

2:08:03 ↗ please do take a note

2:08:05 ↗ of those

2:08:07 ↗ changes to the agenda i've highlighted

2:08:09 ↗ them and particularly the two additional

2:08:11 ↗ meetings for april

2:08:13 ↗ one will be for input on the

2:08:15 ↗ transportation improvement plan on april

2:08:17 ↗ 5th and then a joint meeting with ppc

2:08:19 ↗ and parks on the 7th to talk about title

2:08:22 ↗ 18 tree canopy

2:08:24 ↗ so i know we're cramming in a lot in

2:08:27 ↗ april and just really want to appreciate

2:08:30 ↗ all of your time and all of your

2:08:31 ↗ feedback that's going into the city

2:08:33 ↗ processes

2:08:35 ↗ i have a couple other updates nancy if

2:08:37 ↗ it's okay to walk through those next

2:08:40 ↗ go ahead stacy

2:08:42 ↗ great thank you

2:08:43 ↗ um so in terms of in-person meetings uh

2:08:46 ↗ no update on that just to note that

2:08:48 ↗ council did do a hybrid meeting

2:08:51 ↗ earlier this week

2:08:53 ↗ i have heard that we anticipate

2:08:55 ↗ continuing to have our meetings

2:08:56 ↗ virtually

2:08:58 ↗ through at least may

2:09:00 ↗ but no definitive date on when we might

2:09:02 ↗ move to in person but i will keep

2:09:03 ↗ everyone updated as i'm sure folks are

2:09:06 ↗ anxious to meet in person as soon as

2:09:09 ↗ it is possible and safe to do so

2:09:11 ↗ um i wanted oh

2:09:13 ↗ question

2:09:14 ↗ no and does go ahead anne

2:09:18 ↗ can we vote on that

2:09:20 ↗ because maybe some of us don't really

2:09:22 ↗ want to meet in person

2:09:23 ↗ so rather than just assuming maybe we

2:09:25 ↗ could take a vote

2:09:27 ↗ yeah my understanding is

2:09:30 ↗ there will be some discussions with the

2:09:31 ↗ boards and commissions about going back

2:09:33 ↗ in person and whether

2:09:36 ↗ there'll be

2:09:37 ↗ allowance for board commission members

2:09:39 ↗ to attend virtually or if it'll be

2:09:42 ↗ expected in person once we transition

2:09:44 ↗ there

2:09:45 ↗ and the public will be allowed to attend

2:09:46 ↗ virtually i think there's a lot more

2:09:48 ↗ discussion to happen there but i will

2:09:51 ↗ bring that information to you and

2:09:54 ↗ determine if we can yeah make that uh

2:09:56 ↗ decision as a board how to move forward

2:09:58 ↗ cool yeah definitely hear the concern we

2:10:01 ↗ are the environmental board and it saves

2:10:02 ↗ on

2:10:03 ↗ gas too

2:10:06 ↗ yeah thank you

2:10:08 ↗ great um and then i wanted to

2:10:10 ↗ acknowledge brianna she has been our

2:10:12 ↗ sustainability sustainability intern

2:10:14 ↗ over the last few months

2:10:16 ↗ she has taken on a huge workload with

2:10:18 ↗ grad school so she'll be

2:10:20 ↗ transitioning out of

2:10:22 ↗ the city

2:10:23 ↗ this week so just really appreciate all

2:10:25 ↗ the time and effort she's put into the

2:10:27 ↗ program

2:10:28 ↗ we are going to be hiring a new

2:10:29 ↗ sustainability intern if you know anyone

2:10:32 ↗ that might be interested definitely let

2:10:33 ↗ me know

2:10:36 ↗ that is it for updates nancy and i'm

2:10:39 ↗ happy to provide that

2:10:41 ↗ other item if we want to talk about that

2:10:43 ↗ in other business or announcements

2:10:45 ↗ whenever it's appropriate

2:10:48 ↗ well at this point we're moving on to

2:10:50 ↗ other business and announcements and go

2:10:51 ↗ ahead stacy

2:10:53 ↗ all right thank you

2:10:56 ↗ so we have heard an interest in ensuring

2:10:58 ↗ that we capture the environmental

2:11:00 ↗ board's title 18 commons as a package to

2:11:03 ↗ present them to city council

2:11:06 ↗ after several internal discussions

2:11:08 ↗ meeting with nancy and jamie we've

2:11:10 ↗ determined a process that we think would

2:11:12 ↗ meet that need as well as some tight

2:11:14 ↗ timelines we're working under

2:11:17 ↗ the process that we are proposing is

2:11:19 ↗ that i would prepare a letter on behalf

2:11:22 ↗ of the environmental board in which i

2:11:24 ↗ would summarize the board's comments

2:11:27 ↗ concerns feedback

2:11:30 ↗ on title 18 from both our february 24th

2:11:33 ↗ as well as tomorrow night's meeting

2:11:36 ↗ i would package up that letter really

2:11:38 ↗ just pulling from directly

2:11:40 ↗ from the meeting summaries

2:11:42 ↗ um so that that letter could be

2:11:44 ↗ presented to ppc as well as city council

2:11:48 ↗ the one challenge with

2:11:51 ↗ this is that there wouldn't be a chance

2:11:53 ↗ for this letter to come to the one of

2:11:55 ↗ our board meetings for an approval

2:11:58 ↗ so instead i would need to be authorized

2:12:00 ↗ tonight by you all to go ahead and

2:12:02 ↗ develop that letter

2:12:04 ↗ i would send it out to you on monday for

2:12:07 ↗ a review of any

2:12:08 ↗ any major errors that needed to be fixed

2:12:10 ↗ before it went into the ppc packet

2:12:14 ↗ next thursday

2:12:15 ↗ and then from there it would go on to

2:12:17 ↗ counsel for their

2:12:19 ↗ meeting at the end of the month on title

2:12:21 ↗ 18.

2:12:23 ↗ so nancy i guess what i'm asking in the

2:12:25 ↗ board tonight is for authorization

2:12:28 ↗ to prepare that letter on behalf of the

2:12:30 ↗ board again i would just be taking those

2:12:33 ↗ comments that are already captured in

2:12:34 ↗ our

2:12:35 ↗ meeting summaries or from tomorrow

2:12:37 ↗ night's discussion and packaging them

2:12:40 ↗ for

2:12:40 ↗ ppc and city council

2:12:44 ↗ okay thank you stacy and i guess i just

2:12:46 ↗ want to point out why this came up in

2:12:48 ↗ establishing the board one of the

2:12:51 ↗ sections of it identifies that the

2:12:53 ↗ duties and responsibilities of the board

2:12:55 ↗ is to

2:12:57 ↗ establish formal board written

2:12:59 ↗ statements or reports to document the

2:13:01 ↗ board's recommendations on items that

2:13:03 ↗ they review and accompany

2:13:06 ↗ these items throughout the various

2:13:07 ↗ approval processes

2:13:10 ↗ that then allows

2:13:11 ↗ the rest of it says it allows like ppc

2:13:14 ↗ and the city council

2:13:15 ↗ to hear from us and to take into

2:13:17 ↗ consideration our comments and

2:13:19 ↗ recommendations

2:13:20 ↗ so

2:13:21 ↗ after talking it over with jamie and

2:13:23 ↗ stacy and i know stacy's been doing a

2:13:25 ↗ lot of work internally to try and figure

2:13:26 ↗ this one out this was the best approach

2:13:29 ↗ we felt we could get to on

2:13:31 ↗ the quickly moving title 18 critical

2:13:34 ↗ areas and other pieces that are going

2:13:36 ↗ forward so that's kind of why we're

2:13:39 ↗ doing this is we need to get our voice

2:13:41 ↗ in front of ppc in a written way and

2:13:43 ↗ also in front of the city council so um

2:13:46 ↗ with that are there any comments on the

2:13:48 ↗ proposal that stacy has put forward on

2:13:51 ↗ how to do this

2:13:56 ↗ seeing none um i would like a thumbs up

2:14:00 ↗ from everybody if you would like us to

2:14:02 ↗ move forward and prepare

2:14:04 ↗ this as um stacey has stated

2:14:08 ↗ okay you've got approval from all of us

2:14:10 ↗ we're going to move forward with that

2:14:11 ↗ process

2:14:12 ↗ i hope that helps

2:14:14 ↗ all right thanks

2:14:16 ↗ i think we have one more comment i think

2:14:18 ↗ or uh report and that would be from

2:14:20 ↗ jamie jamie do you want to go ahead

2:14:23 ↗ thanks nancy jamie speaking um yeah i

2:14:25 ↗ just wanted to provide an update on the

2:14:27 ↗ community capital finance task force

2:14:30 ↗ um

2:14:31 ↗ so on monday night cynthia and myself

2:14:35 ↗ presented to city council uh it was very

2:14:37 ↗ similar to the recommendations i had

2:14:39 ↗ already shared with you around uh some

2:14:42 ↗ of the priorities being transportation

2:14:45 ↗ with with uh tbd sales tax

2:14:48 ↗ or a transportation benefit district

2:14:50 ↗ sales taxes as the uh the funding tool

2:14:53 ↗ that we were interested in pursuing as

2:14:55 ↗ well as a long list i don't want to go

2:14:56 ↗ into all of the different

2:14:57 ↗ recommendations i think that that was

2:14:59 ↗ the biggest one um that that recommended

2:15:02 ↗ or those recommendations were accepted

2:15:04 ↗ by city council that just means

2:15:06 ↗ they're taking it into consideration as

2:15:08 ↗ they figure out next steps um for

2:15:11 ↗ uh

2:15:12 ↗ whatever might come next and i think

2:15:14 ↗ there will be more details shared on

2:15:16 ↗ that i do think

2:15:17 ↗ some of the areas that we'll just want

2:15:18 ↗ to make sure we stay engaged on is how

2:15:21 ↗ transportation or other

2:15:23 ↗ revenue tools um that might come about

2:15:26 ↗ how they might be

2:15:28 ↗ used for things like

2:15:30 ↗ the climate action plan or other things

2:15:31 ↗ that might uh be relevant to some of the

2:15:35 ↗ the the goals that our team has but uh

2:15:38 ↗ that that's just the update if you have

2:15:40 ↗ if you want more information um the

2:15:41 ↗ agenda packet from monday night has a

2:15:45 ↗ very high level summary i don't want to

2:15:46 ↗ talk through all of them but um that

2:15:48 ↗ would probably be the quickest way to

2:15:50 ↗ get up to speed on

2:15:52 ↗ what all the recommendations coming out

2:15:53 ↗ of that task force were

2:15:55 ↗ um and uh yeah if anyone has any

2:15:58 ↗ questions happy to to go deeper but uh

2:16:00 ↗ that would probably be the easiest way

2:16:02 ↗ to get a an initial look thank you

2:16:07 ↗ thank you jamie any questions for jamie

2:16:11 ↗ seeing none is it is there any other

2:16:13 ↗ business to come before the

2:16:14 ↗ environmental board

2:16:17 ↗ well thank you all for your patience we

2:16:19 ↗ went a little long tonight it's 8 46 as

2:16:21 ↗ we conclude and i want to remind you we

2:16:23 ↗ have a very lengthy meeting tomorrow

2:16:25 ↗ night with ppc to talk about the

2:16:27 ↗ critical areas piece so happy reading

2:16:29 ↗ and have a good evening and see it all

2:16:31 ↗ tomorrow

2:16:32 ↗ good night

2:16:34 ↗ thanks everybody everyone see you

2:16:36 ↗ tomorrow night thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (12)

Voiss

Commissioners Bader

Lewis

Milligan

Monahan

Zaragoza Absence: Chair Faul Environmental Board: Chair Davidson

Vice-Chair Finch

Board Members Finch

Hintz

Lebeiko

McQuilliams

Newcomb Absence: Board Member Bollapragada (Excused) Board Member Hazra (Excused) Board Member Madan (Unexcused) Board Member Wall (Excused)

Staff (2)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CP&D Lucy Sloman, Current Planning Manager, CP&D Evan Brumfield, Environmental

Regulatory Program Administrator Gary Schimek, Utilities Engineering Manager Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager Briana Weekes, Sustainability Intern 2