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

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

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Fendt replied that he is not aware of anyone going there, inspiration for this analysis comes from executive order at end of Obama administration recommended that certain federal facilities standard be 500-year or plus…
DAVIDSON requested to keep comments short.
a) HINTZ requested that we separate out parks related facilities, trails, bridges.
Board members requested that we have a chance to vote on whether to return in person.
The Environmental Board authorized Vynne McKinstry to provide a summary of Title 18 comments to date in a memo format to City Council.