2018-08-20_Painted_Hills_Submittal_Meeting_Minutes2018-08-20 Painted Hills CLOMR Submittal
Attendees: Ben Goodmansen, Justin Penner, Todd Whipple with Whipple Consulting Engineers, Bryan
Walker, and Nathan Smith, on the phone is Dave Black property owner, Read Stapleton- DOWL
consultants, Ken Puhn, West Consultants for the applicant. Henry Allen, Erik Lamb, Ken Harper on the
phone and Deanna Horton for the City
This meeting is to review a new submittal from the applicant regarding the Conditional Letter of Map
Revision for the floodplain for the Painted Hills development.
Mr. Goodmansen stated that the applicant was submitting a CLOMR based on fill. Due to previous
submittals the amount of fill has changed and the proposal has changed from a CLOMR to a CLOMR-F,
from a levy proposal to a fill proposal. It has taken this long to amend and revised all of the necessary
components. Now all items have been revised. Mr. Goodmansen will respond to the Jan. 17, 2017
comment letter, but will not address the levy comments since those are not relevant.
The comments regarding the flood control plans were extensive as are the water plan. Water and sewer
plans to stub into the property. Gustin pipe plan, which is in the county at 40th, needed to have this in
the review because it floods the property in the earlier plan. Now need to revise the SEPA check list.
The archeological study which has been completed. References to schools are in the checklist. Not
much has changed, just the addition of the fill and this will be amended and restated in one
comprehensive document. The SEPA checklist was the starting point. The applicant did not do a strike
through, they rewrote paragraphs and updated based on the fill. We have an updated checklist. The
final checklist, the levees are eliminated, the new one lists the fill.
A Traffic Impact Analysis letter was submitted to be turned into the traffic engineer. It addresses how
the applicant will mitigate thresholds on traffic. Gave him a letter for when the applicant would do
certain things. Plans changed on frontage roads, storm drainage changed, change frontage
improvements.
Along with the new CLOMR submittal there is a new narrative for Henry and Chad to get a review on
how to tackle the project along with design project details, updated narrative on how will handle the
project with the fill. Includes the Larry Dawes wetland study and the how to handle the creeks and the
lots which will encroach along the buffer zone. Does not include all the geo-tech, just what is relative to
the narrative.
The applicant supplied one copy of the Draft CLOMR-F in two 3-ring binders, in appendix L is a copy of
the scan copies of the CLOMR.
Ken Puhn commented the material in the appendices, total application, the geo tech, those are all part
of the appendices. As a submittal package – can be duplicate data. Ken Harper, what are the actual
The new land disturbance permit. The application has been signed by Bryan Walker and we have
authorization for him to sign it. New notification. Needs to mesh with a land disturbance. Does this
need to be re-noticed to the community. Could be a revised land use disturbance permit? There are no
changes to lot layouts, there is just a change to how they are handling the floodplain.
Dave Black asked how the City would respond regarding the schools since this was one of the
neighborhood’s biggest concerns. The City can’t speak for them it is up to them to respond to their
capacity.
Mr. Smith stated the applicant will bring in a revised land disturbance permit. The CLOMR application
came in parts 1&2, SEPA will be updated.
Mr. Harper asked Mr. Stapleton if he felt the new CLOMR would raise new issues, impacts, mitigation
measures, different than former measures. Mr. Stapleton said he felt the DEIS would be on floodplains
and traffic, scoping would be on the same. With updated SEPA checklist it would capture other
comments and those can filed with it. Then the document can stay focused on traffic and the
floodplain. The direction will simplify things for the DEIS. If the floodplain gets simplified and then some
of the issues get simplified. Do we have a third alternative? The scoping references there alternatives
which would get resolved later. We do have a 3rd alternative? Mr. Whipple said we have one until the
day after this meeting and submittal. We will go through and get through and prepare as Mr.
Stapleton’s 3rd alternative.
Mr. Walker said the stage is set for the city to review this now submittal now, he wanted to talk about a
schedule? He was interested in the dates for the next movement. Mr. Lamb explained the City was not
really ready to talk about timelines. Staff is planning and meeting and talking internally to discuss what
are our next steps will be.
When would be acceptable to begin the conversation with Mr. Stapleton regarding the draft EIS? It was
determined that this conversation requires several people’s review who are not in the room. The City
can’t commit people who are not here, on vacation, or to what their work load is. On the other hand, if
Mr. Black wants to have a discussion with Mr. Stapleton about what you want to do. Can the City be
prepared at this stage, Mr. Walker wanted to know what was reasonable. Mr. Whipple said our
project, the draft EIS, is not going to be submitted to the City until the CLOMR is accepted by City and
sent to FEMA. He said these plans are part of the CLOMR. He commented that traffic is done. How
long before we can expect any kind of a review. Mr. Allen stated it would be at least a month before a
review of the CLOMR could begin. The SEPA discussion can happen and we can have a discussion over
the DEIS. The only thing we don’t have a SEPA approval over is the flood study. This is the only last
work product waiting a review.
The applicant would like to have a meeting in a month, to discuss how to move forward on the DEIS. It
will be a conversation about how they are going to move forward.
Staff will be reviewing the WAC and the municipal code to determine what kind of notices must be sent
out based on this new submittal. Need to determine what will be sent out as revised documents and
what will be sent out as new documents.ere