Loading...
2022-02-02 Hearing Examiner MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER Summary Hearing Minutes February 3, 2022 (Continued from February 2, 2022) [This summary is only provided for the convenience of the reader, to provide an understanding of the testimony presented at the hearing. The summary of testimony is not to be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law, or as indicating what information the examiner found pertinent or significant.] CALL TO ORDER City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING 6107: Appeal of SEPA Determination for the City Stormwater Code Update PLN2021-0052 (continued) Participants: Phil Olbrechts, City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Zack Richardson, Stormwater Engineer, City of Edmonds (February 2 only) Jeffrey Taraday, City Attorney, City of Edmonds Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds Environmental Programs Manager Lora Petso, Applicant, 10616 237th Place S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 City's Presentation of Evidence (continued) Hearing Examiner Olbrechts noted that this was the second day of the Petso DNS appeal regarding stormwater regulations. They left off yesterday with the City's presentation of evidence and finished with the testimony of one of their experts. City Attorney Taraday noted that Kernen Lien would be his next witness. He stated that as with yesterday they would largely be relying on written testimony. He asked Mr. Lien to also explain the circumstances surrounding the 60-day Commerce review to supplement the written testimony. Mr. Lien was sworn in. He discussed the timing of the SEPA process. He referenced WAC 197-11-230, regarding the timing of the integrated SEPA GMA process. As required for all development regulations and Comprehensive Plan updates, notice is provided to Commerce 60 days before adoption. He referenced WAC 197-11-230, 2 and 2(a) and pointed out that notice to Commerce and the SEPA threshold determination do not have to happen at the same time. He noted there still has not been any decision by the City Council on this. Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 1 of 9 SEPA documentation, and the Hearing Examiner's decision will be provided to the City Council moving forward. Mr. Lien referred to WAC 197-11-055(2) Timing of review of proposals. There were some discussions yesterday and in Ms. Petso's briefings about how the code was presented to Council before the SEPA determination was either documented or prepared. He pointed out that the WAC says that the "agency shall prepare its threshold determination and environmental impact statement (EIS), if required, at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision -making process, when the principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified." The early touches to Council were to get guidance from the Council on some of the staff proposals. That is when the principal features of the proposal and the update to the stormwater code were presented. He prepared the SEPA checklist after that. Mr. Taraday referred to Ms. Petso's comment yesterday that the proposed code update was not subsequently changed from the July 2021 draft to the September 2021 draft. She claimed that was evidence showing the July date couldn't have been to confirm elements of the proposal because if it had been then something would have changed. Mr. Lien said his understanding was that the Council confirmed the direction that staff had proposed in the code so no changes were required at that time. Mr. Taraday asked Mr. Lien if he agreed that if the Council had indicated they were not supportive of some of the staff -proposed elements the September draft might have been different. Mr. Lien concurred. Ms. Petso objected to Mr. Taraday's speculation and asking his so-called expert witness to also speculate. Mr. Taraday replied that they had not tried to qualify Mr. Lien as an expert witness although he is the City's designated SEPA official for the purposes of this particular DNS. He stated he had no more questions for Mr. Lien. Cross Examination of Mr. Lien: Ms. Petso referred to her Exhibit 4 (a screenshot of the DOE website) which indicates that PFAS releases will now be regulated under the Model Toxics Control Act (MCTA). She asked Mr. Lien if they consider the Model Toxics Control Act in doing SEPA reviews. Mr. Lien replied that DOE regulates the Model Toxics Control Act. This is one of the other laws considered when doing threshold determinations. He said he would not say if he specifically looked at PFAS when the threshold determination was issued on this. Currently there are no enforceable federal standards for any PFAS compound. Given that there are no enforceable standards and no guidance on PFAS, that would not change the threshold determination. Ms. Petso asked if DOE is regulating PFAS. Mr. Lien was not sure. Ms. Petso referred to Exhibit 8, a letter sent by Mr. Lien, which says they are using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-340. She asked if they were really using that or if that was a carryover from project actions. Mr. Lien replied that was a carryover from a different project proposal where they did use the optional DNS process, WAC 197-11-355. The reference to WAC 197-11-340, the Determination of Non -Significance, is correct. Mr. Petso followed by asking if his decision to try to limit review to just changes in the code was also a carryover from project review processes. Mr. Lien said it was not. The review of this proposal in his view was the changes to the code. The SEPA review was not a review of the old code. It was just changes to the code that was the subject of the SEPA review. Mr. Petso asked if that is the approach they take for review of project proposals. Mr. Taraday objected to the question and asked for a more specific question because not all project proposals Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 2 of 9 would have the same analysis. Ms. Petso refused to change the question. She asked if there is any particular reason Mr. Lien chose to apply that kind of narrowing of scope for this non -project action. Mr. Lien stated he did not think that was a narrowing of scope; it was the scope of the proposal. Ms. Petso referred to Seattle's checklist and began to ask a question. Mr. Taraday objected to the comparison since Seattle is not a Phase 2 jurisdiction. They are required to adopt their own manual, and it is a much more robust process than what Phase 2 jurisdictions are required to do. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts said he would like to hear the entire question and asked Ms. Petso to continue. Ms. Petso stated that Seattle considers both updated science and changes in the environment in their code update process. Does Edmonds? Mr. Lien stated that the "updated science" is the stormwater manual itself. He referred to Exhibit 1 from Ms. Petso's exhibit list which is the stormwater manual. This proposal is basically adopting the Western Washington Stormwater Manual making those the City's regulations with some specific amendments for the City of Edmonds. The bottom of the page says that "both presumptive and demonstrative approaches are based on best available science and result from existing state and federal laws that require stormwater treatment systems to be properly designed, constructed, and maintained to operate ..." He stated that the manual itself was based on best available science so science was considered in the threshold consideration. He wasn't sure how to answer the question about changes to the environment because this is a non -project action. Ms. Petso commented that at the time the last stormwater manual was passed her property may or may not have flooded to the extent it does now. For her that has been a change in the environment. Is that sort of thing considered? Mr. Lien noted that a non -project proposal review is broader and does not look at specific areas in the city. Ms. Petso referred to some language she had read out loud yesterday from WAC 197-11-330(3) that suggested that it might be quite appropriate to consider whether a proposal might have a different impact in one location than another. Mr. Lien commented that he addressed this in his written testimony. It comes down to the non - project association of this. The implementation of the stormwater code gets down to specifics. The stormwater manual is developed not for a specific site, but how it could be applied to a variety of sites. The site -specific application occurs depends on the physicality of the actual project locations. Ms. Petso said she didn't understand why they would defer the SEPA review to the project stage when at the project stage they defer to existing codes. Mr. Lien explained how the review process works. If there is flooding then it requires a downstream analysis. Ms. Petso referred to the second page of Exhibit 6 regarding a 2016 decision which addressed concerns raised about drainage. On page 6, the ruling states that drainage will be adequately provided and states, "The City's drainage standards impose detailed requirements." If they aren't going to do SEPA when they adopt the code and they aren't going to do SEPA when they implement the code, when is the SEPA review done? Mr. Taraday stated that the question is unfairly characterizing the text she is referring to. Mr. Lien answered that SEPA is being done at both stages, now as well as at projects that trigger SEPA review. There is detailed analysis done at the project stage. What that detailed analysis is is spelled out in the stormwater manual in the City of Edmonds Addendum. Ms. Petso asked if he was saying that the requirements of 18.30 prevent flooding as implemented. Mr. Lien said it is intended to prevent off -site consequences. Ms. Petso asked if they intended to prevent flooding, but it didn't actually prevent flooding, why wouldn't they evaluate at this time how to fix that? Mr. Lien stated that the threshold determination is based on whether or not there are probable adverse impacts. Ms. Petso said her understanding is that there have already been at least one (for her) so why do they not evaluate that when they rewrite the code. Mr. Lien said he didn't think it had been documented that development or stormwater regulations increased flooding for her on the site. Ms. Petso Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 3 of 9 referred to page 6 of 8, Exhibit 21, a chain of emails, and stated that it shows that development activity 400 feet south has impacted her property. Mr. Lien said he didn't see anything that said this development or the City's implementation of stormwater management is what caused increased flooding at her site. Ms. Petso stated that at the public testimony portion of the public hearing on the stormwater code update there was also testimony from people in downtown, Perrinville, and at the south end about flooding. When are they going to fix it and how? Mr. Lien reiterated that the scope of the proposal is the Stormwater Management Code that is applied with development. The City of Edmonds was established in 1890 and was largely developed before environmental regulations. The stormwater code does not "fix" existing storm drainage within the city. If a site redevelops or does some additions there is some management that has to occur. It is not intended to go back and fix all the drainage problems in the city that were established and created long before there was any stormwater code. Ms. Petso asked if they evaluated flooding in doing the SEPA analysis. Mr. Lien stated that the intent of the stormwater code is that stormwater is managed on -site in predevelopment condition. Ms. Petso said it is required under WAC 197.11.444 and asked again if they evaluated flooding in doing the SEPA analysis. Mr. Lien replied that there are floodplain management regulations in the city. There are also identified floodplains in the city. Her property is not within the identified floodplains. One of the things the stormwater code was intended to do was to help mitigate flooding in the downtown Edmonds marsh (State Route 104/Dayton Street intersection). The changes in the Edmonds Way basin require retention rather than direct discharge. The stormwater code, in that instance, will reduce flooding there. In Ms. Petso's neighborhood, the stormwater code is intended to manage stormwater on -site and reduce impacts to neighboring properties. In that sense, flooding is considered in the threshold determination. Ms. Petso asked why she can't have mitigation like the marsh does. Mr. Lien asked what mitigation she is proposing. Ms. Petso said she didn't know but stated she was going to ask him about options later. She said Mr. Richardson said yesterday that the only option was a moratorium. She thinks an option would be a lift station, but that sounds expensive. She stated she is not proposing mitigation. She is asking what mitigation the City has the authority to provide and why she can't have that. Mr. Lien asked if she wanted to talk about mitigation now or later. She stated they could come back to that later. Ms. Petso noted Mr. Lien had read the language regarding AKART from the stormwater manual. She said that yesterday Mr. Richardson said he didn't recognize that language. Mr. Taraday objected to that characterization of Mr. Richardson's testimony. Hearing Examiner said the question could be answered without that characterization. Mr. Lien read from the bottom of page 58 to page 59 in the 2019 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington regarding this topic: "Both the Presumptive and Demonstrative approaches are based on best available science and result from existing Federal and State laws that require stormwater treatment systems to be properly designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to: 1. Prevent pollution of state waters and protect water quality, including compliance with state Water Quality Standards. 2. Satisfy state requirements for all known available and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART) of wastes prior to discharge to waters of the State. " Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Ms. Petso said she wanted to make sure that everyone knew that the phrase in the second bullet point is the AKART standard she had referred to yesterday. Ms. Petso referred to her Exhibit 20, the 2004 Best Available Science Report. She asked if this includes a section for CARA (critical aquifer recharge areas). Mr. Lien referred to page 1 of the report which lists the five critical areas identified and then states, "Each of these categories is discussed in detail later in this document, except aquifer recharge areas, which are not a concern in Edmonds." Mr. Lien noted that the Best Available Science Report was updated in 2015 as part of the CAO update. It had similar if not exact language. Ms. Petso asked if the 2015 Best Available Science Report could be included in the record in addition to the 2004 Report. There was no objection to this. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts entered this in her exhibit list as Exhibit 42 — 2015 Best Available Science Report. Mr. Lien emailed the document to everyone present and read the sentence which is similar on page 2 of the document: "There are no critical aquifer recharge areas within Edmonds and thus none are discussed below." Ms. Petso asked Mr. Lien if the NPDES permit is considered when reviewing the stormwater code. Mr. Lien stated his understanding is that the stormwater code is the implementation of the NPDES. Ms. Petso asked what happens if the permit gets violated. Does that slap a moratorium on everything or do they use the old code. Mr. Lien was not sure. He noted that the City is allowed to update the code at any time. They don't have to wait for the new permit, but they are required to do the code updates periodically to still be underneath the permit. Ms. Petso asked if the permit allows the violation of groundwater standards. Mr. Taraday objected and noted that the City's stormwater engineer, Mr. Richardson, gave testimony on this yesterday. It was clearly asked if Mr. Richardson would be needed today for any testimony, and the answer was no. These are questions that either have already been asked of Mr. Richardson or should have been asked of him. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts commented that Mr. Lien was the SEPA responsible official and wasn't limited in his review to just the information he got from Mr. Richardson. He thought it was fair to question Mr. Lien about any additional information he may have considered in his review. Mr. Petso rephrased the question and asked Mr. Lien if he considered whether the NPDES permit permits violations of state groundwater standards in his SEPA review. Mr. Lien responded that the manual and the city code is what implements the permit. If the strategy is implemented correctly, in most cases it should result in compliance with existing regulatory requirements for stormwater. This would not permit contamination of groundwater, at least consistent with state laws. Ms. Petso asked if it is correct that the state requires testing of the existing quality of groundwater before determining whether the groundwater standard has been violated. Mr. Lien was not sure. Ms. Petso referred to a PowerPoint (Exhibit 24) that they looked at yesterday. This showed a phrase that "City provisions cannot be less stringent than Ecology standards and cannot be less stringent than previous versions (without Ecology approval)." That language also appears on page 5 of Exhibit 12, the July 20 minutes. She asked why that language was dropped in Exhibit 26, which is the PowerPoint from September 21. Mr. Lien said he was not involved in preparing any of the PowerPoints. Ms. Petso referred to Exhibit 28, the transmittal of the Watershed Protection Plan, and stated this seems to show that two copies of the Watershed Protection Plan and maps were provided to Phil Williams in December of 2018. She asked why they were not previously incorporated into the city's GIS maps. Mr. Lien replied that it is on the city's webpage and GIS map, under DOH Wellhead Protection Areas. Upon Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 5 of 9 questioning by Ms. Petso, Mr. Lien referred to page 20 of the plan, page 26 of the PDF, and reviewed language from the plan regarding the buffer. Ms. Petso asked to submit the DOH map as evidence because it has the full area for the purposes of demonstrating the wellhead protection area. Mr. Taraday questioned why this would be necessary since Mr. Lien had testified that the city's maps on the website came from the DOH. Upon request by Ms. Petso, Hearing Examiner Olbrechts agreed to hold the hearing record open for the addition of the DOH SWAP (Source Water Assessment Program) map subject to agreement by Mr. Taraday. Ms. Petso asked Mr. Lien how long the City has known about Olympic View's drinking water source. Mr. Lien replied that he first became aware of it with the Madrona project. Ms. Petso referred to Exhibit 34, which shows the transmittal for the 2009 comprehensive plan to Noel Miller, who is Mr. Lien's predecessor. She then referred Exhibit 35, page 1-12 of the PACE comprehensive plan, which lists the Deer Creek Water Supply Protection Plan dated 2001. She asked if Mr. Lien was with the City in 2001. Mr. Lien replied he was not; he started with the City in 2008. Ms. Petso referred to Exhibits 39 and 40 which reference Edmonds City Code 10.35 and 20.100. She asked if those are still laws of Edmonds. Mr. Lien stated that the code online is active as of October 12, 2021. He stated those two provisions are still on the online code. Ms. Petso stated she had asked in her opening brief that the City fix those two sections. She asked if Council had adopted a code during the pendency of this appeal that would repeal or modify those two provisions. Mr. Lien was not aware of changes. Ms. Petso referred to Exhibit 38, under Project Timeline, where it says a receiving waters condition assessment will be due by March 31 and a receiving waters prioritization due by June 30. She asked if they should wait for the condition assessment before finalizing the SEPA. Mr. Lien thought that would be in violation of doing SEPA at the earliest possible moment. Ms. Petso noted that Seattle was able to do a checklist but also indicated that they would be considering other documents. She asked how the other information would be incorporated. Mr. Lien replied that the stormwater code is one requirement, and this is a different requirement for the permit. He reiterated that he is not the stormwater engineer and doesn't know the intricacies. Ms. Petso asked if there is anything that stops the City from incorporating this into its drainage code analysis. Mr. Lien thought there might be a timing issue with the different permit requirements. Ms. Petso asked W. Lien if there is a way to incorporate the condition assessment into the SEPA work on the drainage code update. Mr. Lien replied that this it is not part of the SEPA analysis for the non -project code update. He referred to Exhibit 38 and pointed out that the section she was referring to has to do with retrofits, not new development. Ms. Petso asked what the city's SEPA authority allows them to do to mitigate flooding other than flooding the basin. Mr. Taraday objected stating that the question presumes facts that are contrary to previous testimony. Ms. Petso asked if the SEPA authority gives the City any options to mitigate flooding. Mr. Lien replied that the project review gives them the authority to mitigate flooding risks. Ms. Petso asked Mr. Lien to lead them to a GIS map of the stormwater basins. Mr. Lien explained how to find it on the city's website. Ms. Petso asked if basin plans can be done for small basins or just big ones like the Edmonds Way basin. Mr. Lien stated he was not involved in the basin planning. Ms. Petso had no further questions of Mr. Lien. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts commented that the city's review process for stormwater regulations is pretty clear. He asked where the city determined that a public hearing was required. Was this a requirement in the code Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 6 of 9 or was it considered optional? Mr. Lien explained did not think it was not required by the code but is standard practice for the City. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts asked for clarification about the Woodway Court 2 decision picture which shows a lot more than five lots. Mr. Lien explained that there are two subdivisions there. Woodway Court 1 was a 4- lot subdivision which was a staff decision. Woodway Court 2 was a 5-lot subdivision which was reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. There were no appeals with regard to Woodway Court 2. Mr. Taraday referred to the questions Mr. Lien had been asked about preventing flooding. He asked Mr. Lien if he has any reason to believe that the proposal would make flooding in the appellant's basin worse than it is today. Mr. Lien replied that he did not based on Mr. Richardson's testimony yesterday. Mr. Taraday asked if the existing stormwater regulations are causing the flooding problem on the appellant's property. Mr. Lien said he did not have any reason to believe that they are. Mr. Taraday asked if he thought Woodway Court 1 or Woodway Court 2 have caused flooding on the appellant's property. Mr. Lien replied he has not seen anything that would make him draw that conclusion. Mr. Taraday asked if he was familiar with where the appellant's property sits in relation to Southwest Edmonds Watershed Drainage Basin. Mr. Lien responded that she was in the southwest quadrant of the basin. Mr. Taraday asked where her property sits in relation to the topographic lines. Mr. Lien turned on the contour lines and replied that it appears she is at the bottom of the basin. Mr. Taraday asked if the bottom of the basin has any creek or surface outfall. Mr. Lien replied that it does not. Mr. Taraday asked if it is possible that the flooding the appellant has expressed concern about were just caused by changes in the climate such as more powerful storms. Mr. Lien thought it was possible. Mr. Taraday had no further questions of Mr. Lien and stated he had no further witnesses. Recess: The hearing recessed from 2:40-2:50 p.m. Rebuttal: Ms. Petso stated she would save her comments for closing arguments. She asked if she could send them the SWAP map and link now. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts affirmed she could, but then she had technical difficulties. She stated she would have to send it later. There was clarification of exhibits. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts reminded them he had provisionally accepted all of Ms. Petso's exhibits, but Mr. Taraday had requested the opportunity to object. Mr. Taraday objected to including any exhibits that were not used during the testimony. Ms. Petso argued that she was careful to use all but two of them. Mr. Taraday objected to Exhibit 5, the City of Seattle's SEPA Checklist. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts reminded him that he had overruled that objection. Mr. Taraday objected to Exhibit 7, the video, which was not used. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts recalled he had said it could be used for verification of the statements in the minutes. There was discussion about whether video of the City Council meetings should be allowed even though there were not videos for two of the meetings. Ms. Petso argued that they should be for authentication. Mr. Taraday thought if the three council meetings were relevant to these proceedings, then the video from all three should be included. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts agreed with that. Ms. Petso stated the need for a video file of what will be in the record because websites change over time. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts agreed. Mr. Lien stated he would get those three videos (September 21, September 28, and July 20) from the clerk's office and email them to everybody. Mr. Taraday also objected to Exhibit 25 as there was not testimony accompanying the exhibit, and it had not been introduced in the hearing. Ms. Petso stated they have been talking for two days about the raw water quality of the aquifer. This is the only evidence of testing of the quality of the aquifer. She asserted it was relevant. Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Hearing Examiner Olbrechts stated he would admit it. Mr. Taraday asked about Exhibit 26. Ms. Petso explained she had referred to it today even though they did not look at it. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts stated he would admit it. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts expressed concern about Exhibit 36 which is essentially all council packets, agendas, and minutes. He asked if this could be narrowed down. Ms. Petso agreed and said that this could be removed. Mr. Taraday asked about Exhibit 37. Ms. Petso stated this is seen as rebuttal to Mr. Richardson's testimony. Mr. Taraday objected to Exhibit 37 stating it was not clear what the source of the document was or whether it is authoritative. Ms. Petso noted it says, "EPA diagram". Hearing Examiner Olbrechts admitted the document. Mr. Taraday asked if they used Exhibit 41. Ms. Petso stated it is the same as Exhibit 38. She had just started taking photos because websites are updated frequently. Mr. Taraday had no further objections. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts summarized that all of Ms. Petso's exhibits would be entered except Exhibit 36. They also added a couple additional exhibits during the hearing which would be added to his decision — Exhibit 42, 2015 Best Available Science Report; and Exhibit 43, the DOH map (both a photo and a link) which Ms. Petso will provide. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts asked Ms. Petso if she had any objections to the City's list of exhibits. Ms. Petso objected to the written testimony with leading questions and no opportunity to cross examine. She also objected to the Hearing Examiner's reference to those individuals as experts. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts overruled the objections to the written testimony and explained the reasons for this. He stated he would strike his comments referring to them as experts. Closing: Mr. Taraday stated that until he sees the forthcoming DOH map (Exhibit 43) he would object to it. He stated he could provide a brief closing argument today and also submit a supplemental briefing. He said he wanted to discuss a case that was not in his opening brief in any significant way. Ms. Petso liked the idea of a written closing combined with a supplemental briefing. She said she would like to know the name of Mr. Taraday's case that he is going to include in his supplemental briefing. She did not wish for a verbal close today unless Mr. Taraday does one. There was agreement to reserve all closing arguments for written closing. Mr. Taraday stated the case he was referring to is highly applicable to these facts and is Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Department of Natural Resources 156 Wn. App. 274, 232 P.3d 1154 (2010). Verbal Closing Arguments: Mr. Taraday stated that Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Department of Natural Resources is a case also involving DNS on a non -project action so there are similarities there. It is also helpful because it talks about the baseline condition or the continuing uses that maybe weren't environmentally desirable uses, analogous to the arguments that Ms. Petso has made about the continuation of flooding or the continuation of PFAS contamination. The crux of the City's argument in this case is that the stormwater code really isn't Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 8 of 9 changing much. The ways in which it is changing are not relevant to the appellant's drainage basin. He quoted some of the passages from the case which he would be using as support in his written closing arguments. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts reviewed some of the preliminary issues he would be looking at closely so Mr. Taraday and Ms. Petso could consider those in their closing arguments. If the City's baseline argument is correct, a major issue in this case will be whether the hard amendments will create a substantial change in baseline conditions. If there is a change it makes the testimony about PFAS relevant. Another issue is if the stormwater manual is designed to address the impacts of infiltration of PFAS or not. Mr. Richardson was pretty clear that the manual hasn't been designed for that purpose. He would be considering if a worst -case analysis was required and, if so, could it be an addendum to the DNS. He said a lot of the questions he had had to do with the hard amendment. He stated that the record would remain open for the DOH map and link and the three videos from the clerk's office until Monday at 5 p.m. Any objections would be due by Thursday at 5 p.m. The briefs will be due by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, February 17. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 a.m. Hearing Examiner Meeting Minutes Febmary 3, 2022 Page 9 of 9