>>:Hi there, everybody.
Welcome to tonight’s meeting. My name is Val Lazdins. I’m
the planning director for Howard County. OK. The mic is
on. Can you hear me? How about now? Good? How about now? Is
that better? How about now?>>:Yes.>>:OK. Technology. So, yeah, if
you could all please take your seats. Welcome to tonight’s
meeting. It’s great to see that we’ve got so many people
here interested in the future of Ellicott City. This has
been a long-term project that we’ve – the county has had
underway and, you know, we have a lot of information to
share with you this evening. It’s been a tough process.
There have been a lot of very difficult decisions that have
been made throughout this entire process. We’ve had, as
I said, numerous community meetings to gain input. And
we’re at a point, now, where we’re just about ready to wrap
the master plan process and to proceed on to developing the
plan. We were at this stage back in May of 2018 before the
flood hit, and so we kind of rewound the entire process and
restarted it. And this is the culmination. We’ll be coming
back out to you again with additional input once the
draft plan is completed. So before we begin, how many of
you have been in previous meetings? OK. So we have a lot
of educated people here. Great. And I’d also like to
welcome – I don’t know where he is now – Councilman
Weinstein – there he is. Welcome. He’s not going to be
speaking this evening, so the burden is on the staff. So
with that, what I’m going to do is to go through the agenda
first. We’re going to recap where we’ve been in the
process that began after the 2016 flood, kind of revisit
the steps that we’ve been through and some of the
findings that have been drawn from that effort, and then I’m
going to turn it over to our consultant team. They’ll be
sharing new information with you. And then we’ll have an
opportunity for discussion following the presentation. So
if you could hold your questions until the end, we’ve
got a lot of information that we need to go through. We’ll
stay here until it – you know, we’ve cycled through most of
the questions and comments. We’ll try to get through them
all, but we do have a time limit on this evening for the
room itself. And we’ll spell out next steps there and have
an opportunity, then, for any additional offline
conversation. So with that, I’ll talk a little bit about
where we’ve been. So tonight you’re going to see some new
and refined master plan concepts. They’re in response
to a five-year plan. It’s a near-term plan. It’s an
implementation plan for specific projects for Ellicott
City. And you’ll have many ways to provide input this
evening. We’ve got an online option that’s going to be live
early next week and we’ll keep it active through
mid-November. We also have a comment input form that you
can turn in at the end of the evening, or we encourage you
to take it home and then help fill out your online survey.
Again, that will be going live early next week. Then we also
have some index cards that, if you could write your key
questions on, we’re going to have staff kind of roaming
around at the end. Turn your questions – comment cards in,
and then you’ll have an opportunity to speak at the
microphone. So again, we’ve got a lot of information to
cover and please, if you’re not on our email list to
receive master plan notifications, go on our
website and – this address – and sign up. So before the
2018 flood occurred, we determined that a master plan
needed to be done for Ellicott City. It needed to be
comprehensive. We relied on citizen input to help shape it
– to rebuild Ellicott City. And it also had to address
multiple objectives. Ellicott city’s a complex location,
it’s a historic community, it’s a gem when it comes to
architectural character, it’s a vital downtown, and we
wanted to make sure that the master plan reflected
infrastructure changes to alleviate flooding, but we
knew that those may affect the urban design character of
Ellicott City. So that was an important consideration. And
it had to be broad because it’s not just about downtown
Ellicott City. This plan is about the entire watershed,
which makes it very challenging. So why this
comprehensive approach? Again, Ellicott City’s an important
tourism resource. It’s a designated sustainable
community, it’s a Maryland Main Street, and it has
historic features qualifying it both as a local county
district as well as a national registered district. So in –
as a result of the 2016 flood, the Department of Planning and
Zoning, together with other county departments – we did a
nationwide search to find a consultant team to help us
develop this master plan. We wanted somebody with national
experience. We wanted somebody with flood experience. And we
wanted somebody who was good at community outreach. So we
ended up hiring a facilitator – many of you probably
participated in those meetings – somebody with post-Katrina
and post-9/11 experience in New York City. We were lucky
because we were able to hire a local firm that had national
experience with these types of planning efforts with
specialties in urban design, engineering, historic
preservation, development economics, environmental
planning and, again, the importance of community
outreach. And they’ve been involved in other
flood-impacted communities. So that was a real great thing.
We didn’t – we looked nationally but we were able to
find somebody local here from the Baltimore area, although
they do have other team members who come from other
locations. As part of the 2016 flood, we initiated a pretty
extensive public outreach effort. Following the 2016
flood, there was a community advisory group that was
established. That was established after the July
30th flood, and it was chaired by former county executive
Robey. We held numerous listening and learning
sessions to get the community ready for the master plan. At
that point, the community was in pain. People had gone
through, you know, traumatic experiences and it wasn’t fair
to begin the process of – well, what do you think the
future of Ellicott City was? – when they were still going
through a process just dealing with what they had just
experienced. So when the master plan kicked off, we
formed a master plan advisory team. It included property
owners, business owners, residents, and members of the
nonprofit community. Their role was to advise as the –
and be a sounding board as the plan was being developed. As
part of that process, we hosted four public workshops
at key milestones along the way and interviewed dozens of
stakeholders throughout that effort. As part of our
outreach process, we had multiple opportunities for the
public to provide input through a community survey
that was online. As part of that process, a vision for
Ellicott City was developed, and its watershed – that it
would be a model resilient community that thrives by
protecting its people, commerce, history, culture and
natural environment. That vision was underpinned by four
pillars. How Ellicott City would rebuild, with an
emphasis on resilience and placemaking – the importance
of making sure that people recognized Ellicott City as an
important place in the county. From an environmental
perspective – to protect the environment. To preserve
Ellicott City’s heritage. And to make sure that the
downtown’s economy is revitalized because it had
taken such a huge hit in 2016. So the process through the CAG
– the community advisory group began to develop ideas. Those
ideas were generated at the meetings, through our online
survey – and we ended up with about 300 different ideas on
how to address the flooding in Ellicott City and how it
should be – rebuild and what are the important things that
we, as planners, need to recognize. There was also a
hydrology and hydraulics model that was developed. And that’s
a term that is going to be used throughout the evening,
and I just want to explain to you what – quickly, what a
hydraulics and hydrology model is – an H and H model. So the
hydrology part of it is related to the study of
rainfall and water as it relates to geography and
geology. The hydraulics portion of it is, once that
water hits the ground – it’s geared towards physics. How
does that water react when it is being contained and
directed through various streams and manmade devices?
And there are a number of projects that were identified
through that H and H analysis. And also through the master
plan process, the Hudson Bend was identified. And the Hudson
Bend, basically, is an opening of the river channel – the
stream channel in kind of what I’d call the midsection of
downtown Ellicott City. It daylighted streams that had
been either constrained or placed underground, and it
provided an opportunity to facilitate the flow of water
through this portion of downtown. At that point, we
also identified buildings that needed to be demolished in
order to accommodate this open stream channel. It involved a
relocation of the Brewery Annex, partial removal of the
La Palapa. And with that, the Open Stream Channel would
create a great public space. With that, I’m going to turn
it over to Mark, who will talk a little bit about the H&H
model.>>:So by the show of hands
earlier about people who’ve already been to previous
meetings and have heard about the H&H study, we have – we
already have – I believe that we have a basis that we can
all work from. So I think the definition of an H&H study was
very good, but to move forward, just to kind of
review of what the H&H study was – it was – Let me see if I
can advance the slide. Well, the H&H study was – first –
well, it was done after the 2016 storm. We had done a
previous study in 2011, after that storm. However, we had
constrained that study. But the basic idea of the study
was, let’s look at the 100-year storm. And could we
store or improve conveyance to a point where the stream
channels and most of the stream system or network would
really only experience a 10-year storm. We believe that
the conveyance systems at a 10-year storm level would
reduce flooding significantly. So we started from that design
assumption and gave that to McCormick Taylor, but in 2011
– and they developed the model. But in 2011, we said,
just look at facilities that you could place, like
retention facilities or underground facilities, things
like that. But only look at public property. See what you
can do on public property. And it wasn’t very much because we
don’t really own a lot of property in the watershed. It
is a developed watershed, especially on the Hudson
Branch, and so there weren’t a lot of opportunities. In 2011,
we did come up with some recommendations that we
started to move forward with. But in 2016, we – after that
rain event, we said, you know, just look at the entire
watershed and tell us what opportunities we have for
retention, for underground storage, for conveyance
improvements. We just want to know what it is. And no matter
what it was, you know, let’s just take a look at it. So
things – So it was more of an unconstrained model for us. We
didn’t consider the constructability of projects.
We didn’t want to limit that. So it’s like, well, let’s not
worry about constructability. What would work? We weren’t
necessarily worried about cost, but we do know that they
came up with 18 projects – recommended 18 projects for
about 85 million. And then there were the tunnel bores,
which were approximately about 60 million. But we weren’t
worried about that. Just show it in the report. And the
complexity of planning and permitting, we weren’t worried
about that either. All we were worried about was, give us
what’s possible, and then we can winnow it down based on
what our limitations are going to be. So the model – without
getting into the details of the model because we have
talked about the 18 projects before – the model was an
important baseline for the master plan. So we had these
18 projects, and then we started our master planning.
And so then whatever the master planning team was
coming up with, we had a model that existed, and we tested
those ideas through the hydraulic model that McCormick
Taylor had developed. And that was – One of the projects was,
something Val just mentioned, was the Hudson Bend project.
So we tested that. And there were many, many other
iterations of other improvements that the master
planning team looked at, that we passed through the model.
So the model and the original projects were never meant to
be a substitute for the Ellicott City master plan. It
was all supposed to run through the Ellicott City
master planning team and be tested out through the model.
So one of the questions that is – So we had these 18
projects for 85 million, but we had set aside the tunnel
projects and we felt, at the time, for good reason, the
cost of the projects, the single, they were so limited
in nature of where they actually did function – if we
had done 18 projects, lots of areas within the Tiber-Hudson
watershed would see significant reductions in
water levels. But the lower end of Main Street, not so
much. The tunnels were important for that, but we
were trying to figure out other ways because the tunnels
were, you know, individual, discrete projects of 30 to 40
to $50 million each. And they weren’t going to be something
that was accomplished in a short five-year period.
Certainly not in the immediacy of, how much could we do in
one year. But we had – we explored two tunnels, a south
tunnel and a north tunnel. And I’ll talk about the south
tunnel first. And so what you see up on the screen right now
is the south tunnel. And I know that pointer does not
work. But what you’ll see in the dark gray area, probably
to the left of the – to the left – the leftmost portion of
this tunnel is – that’s the confluence of the New Cut and
the Tiber branches. And the tunnel goes underground from
that point, all the way underneath the railroad
tracks, and then out to the Patapsco River. So this is it
in plan view. This is a 20-foot diameter tunnel. It’s
a huge tunnel. We looked at other tunnel sizes, and we
settled on a 20-inch tunnel – a 20-foot tunnel because it
was the only thing that really moved the needle. Here it is
in profile. And you can see it, the leftmost. This is the
confluence of the Tiber and the Hudson. And then, of
course, as you move to the right, you see the 20-foot
proposed borehole. So I have a pointer, and there it is. All
right, so this is the Tiber. Let me just go back to the
plan view. It might be a little – This is the New Cut
coming in, and this is the Tiber. The confluence is right
here. This is the beginning of the tunnel, and it extends
underground, under St. Paul, under the church, and then
exits under the railroad tracks here at the Patapsco
River. Here it is in profile. Here’s your Tiber-Hudson.
Here’s your borehole, which would be a 20-foot tunnel,
again. And here’s a weir structure because – And this
is the profile of the ground. And here’s St. Paul’s Church,
and then here is Mulligan’s Hill. Here’s a railroad track.
And then, of course, the river. And this is the water
elevation. It’s being shown here. The crest elevation here
at this weir is about 125 feet above sea level, and it’s
showing that the Hudson right here – the Tiber-Hudson is
slightly above it. The water would fall down this flume
into this 20-foot tunnel. Of course, this gets much, much
higher, it would fall down into it. One of the issues
that we had, that is a tailwater, is up around 126,
and this elevation was 125. And so when the tailwater from
a storm – this is the elevation of the Patapsco.
This actually is moving up the pipe, and that’s not what we
want. We don’t want it to move up. And the way that it could
overcome that is if the water builds up high enough on this
side, it’ll push that water through. But if we allow that
water to build up to the necessary elevation, it’s
flooding – it’s flooding Main Street. So we weren’t too
impressed with this. And then the other issue here is that
at the railroad track – this is a scale drawing. Yeah, this
is a scale drawing, and here’s the railroad tracks, and it’s
about eight feet below the track. So we don’t know what
this soil looks like, if it’s solid granite, like a lot of
this is. But it might not be here, closer to the river.
But, you know, if it wasn’t solid granite, it’d be a big
problem in constructing this piece underneath the railroad.
And if it was granite, we still would have some issues
with vibration, with cracking, with just constructability
issues and dealing with CSX, who would rightly be concerned
that this tunnel might ruin their train and their moving
freight. So the south tunnel initially was – And then we
figured it would be – And I know there’s been other
estimates that have been thrown out there, but we still
kind of stand by our original estimate for construction
design and a lot of the other items necessary in
construction, that this tunnel would cost about – and it’s
only 600 to 700 feet long – but it would cost about 31 to
$32,000 linear foot. And I know that in some of the
council meetings or in some of the other hearings that we’ve
had, people have brought other prices up, but we’ve kind of
confirmed it. That was from one consultant. We do have
another consultant that we are using for other parts of the
design effort, and they looked at it independently. They
found very similar results. They are around 30 to 35,000
per linear foot. So we’re comfortable with that number
that this would cost. So this is about a 30 to $40 million
project. Based on those and some of the construct ability
issues, I mean, these are – I’m not going into a lot, I
don’t want to get really down in the weeds to the
constructability but, you know, these are the major
concerns. And so we thought, well, let’s put that project
aside. So then we looked at a north tunnel bore and this one
needs a little bit of explaining, so I don’t have a
planned view of this but this is the start of it right here.
And this would start somewhere in lot F, we never thought of
exactly where, we just said start, you know, we’d start
there. This is a – it would need to be – well, it would
either need to be a big like periscope thing that would
catch water or a hole in the ground. And so this diameter
might be somewhere around 30 feet or greater, it could be a
30-foot hole or greater. Great, that’s in lot F. And we
couldn’t figure out well, from a constructability point of
view, I mean, where do you put that? And then, you know, can
you put anything on top of it? No. You know, do you create a
vortex that sweeps everything down through it when it rains
really hard? Probably. So this would be an issue. This
tunnel, this scale is – this drawing is to scale but the
horizontal is truncated slightly. So this is a 34-foot
diameter pipe shoot that goes down into the ground, it goes
down into the ground 39 feet. So it’s about four stories
below the ground, it’s about 35-feet wide, I’ll use round
numbers. And then it goes down into a 12-foot tunnel that
would be bored at a 17-foot diameter to allow – a concrete
pipe to be cast at 12 feet. This would run approximately
1,600 feet and empty into the Patapsco River. This elevation
we never got as far as putting tailwater on it. We just
assumed a low tailwater, that’s not a storm. And then
this is the profile of the ground, it doesn’t have
landmarks on it but, of course, this actually goes
under Court Avenue – not court – Court. Yeah. Church, maybe
parts of Emory and then comes out somewhere through
underneath the railroad tracks again and into the Patapsco
River. So this one turned out to be at about
$30-some-thousand. This turned out to be about 30 to $50
million to construct and we felt that it would only go
north from there. This elevation from about here to
here is almost 100 feet – so it’s very deep in the ground.
Of course, you know, Church Street is a hill and
everything – the elevations really shoot up, but we’re
very low below the ground. But just from the fact that we’d
be going under a lot of historic structures,
residential structures and there would be a lot of
vibration, there were a lot of constructability issues in
terms of vibration, safety, things like that and cost for
one project, which was at least half to maybe two-thirds
of all the other projects. We said, well, let’s set that
aside. None of the tunnel projects were ever forgotten,
except I truly believe we will not go for a south tunnel, I
don’t think that that’s feasible. But anyway, so we
just set it aside and certainly with the mandate to
say, you know, try to do as much as you can in the one
year timeframe and how much more can you do in the
five-year time frame that this project was not considered to
be a five-year – to be a project that could be in the
five-year period. And I don’t know exactly how long it would
take us to go through planning, design, permitting
and construction, but it’s not in the five year period. The
other thing it hasn’t really been tested through – it
hasn’t been tested through the model accurately enough to
know how much it actually contributes. But the feeling
is a 12-foot tunnel, one of them was 20 feet, this one’s
12, that this would be a supplement but it isn’t the
silver bullet that anyone could hope for, OK. So the
tunnels themselves aren’t the silver bullet and that’s the
reason why they were set off to the side. The next slide I
want to show you is from Washington, D.C., this is
their – D.C. Water has got a project where it’s called the
Clean Rivers Project. And regardless of the reason why
they’re building it, they’re building 23-foot diameter
tunnels in the city. And you can see – the reason why I
think these pictures are so great because this is a, you
know, this is for the 23-foot tunnel. I mean, our south
tunnel is 23 feet, our north tunnel is 17, so it’s
basically the same scale. And it just shows you – now, this
is – granted, this is 100 feet in the ground. And I’m really
estimating that, I’m figuring that each one of these is
about 10 feet in the scaffolding is one story. And
so this is about 100 feet in the ground. We would be – our
tunnel at the deepest would be 100 feet but we would probably
start – well, we’re starting at 39 feet below the ground,
probably a little bit more, probably 50 feet. And it’s a
huge concrete structure that needs to be built just to
lower in the bore machinery. And you can’t really see it
here but this is a crane, the type of crane that’s used to
lower this kind of equipment down into the hole. And so
from a constructability, feasibility, we need to be
able to find all the room to put that equipment. And it’s
not that it can’t be done, OK, but it’s just that we have to
– it just doesn’t fit neatly into a very tight, five-year
period where we get things done. Now, this is the shoring
that’s holding up this historic block in D.C., that
had to be constructed before they could take all this out
and then start to dig the chute. So these two I thought
were great to include because it gives you a sense of scale
of what we’re talking about, it’s just not a thin hole that
goes in the ground and a 30-foot diameter opening, you
know, and then you have to put a grade on that, OK, to stop
things that cars, things like that, from going – people from
going down in it. And so then, you know, that can get blocked
just like you’re, you know, just like my cellar way, the
drain in my cellar way gets blocked with leaves and floods
my basement. Similarly, this is going to get blocked with
huge trees, cars, anything else that can float. And so it
really becomes another headache that we have to deal
with trying to keep it clear. So they weren’t – that all
sums up to why it’s not the silver bullet. And I just
wanted to show that – and I know that I’m sure a lot of
you still have questions about it, we’ll talk about it during
the Q and A part. But I just wanted to bring these up and I
think I’ll bring Val back up.>>:OK. Thank you. So post-2018
May, the master plan objectives are the same ones
but you’ll notice we have one at the top, the life
preserver. Life safety was added as one of the major
considerations. While it was reflected in the previous four
pillars, you know, who would have thought that as we were
developing the approach back with the community advisory
group, developing the pillars, that we would be confronted
with yet another flood. And so we identified that as one of
the primary drivers, so in effect, we’ve got a fifth
pillar here. And as Mark explained, there is a
timeframe that is important here. Water’s not waiting,
storms like this are more frequent, more common and time
is of the essence. And in particular, Ellicott City,
according to the National Weather Service, of their 44
county forecast region, Ellicott City is the most
vulnerable location in their entire area. So we expect that
the storm that we saw just this past year can be repeated
again and again and again, which is why the importance of
this near term strategy. And we’re not alone, 2018 has not
been a great year in terms of flooding. Numerous
communities, the Midwest, the East Coast have all been
confronting this. And flash floods in an area like
Ellicott City, with shallow rock, steep grades, creates
additional problems. You know, I was in Colorado when the
1982 flood hit the Big Thompson. And people were
swept away in tents, in sleeping bags. It happened in
1976 and again, it happened in September of 2013 when they’ve
got a similar deluge compared to the one that we got in
Ellicott City just this past summer or past spring. Vermont
has also experienced these kinds of issues. Our project
team has been involved with some of the post-planning, you
know, in the Northeast, as a result of the flooding. We’ve
even look to other countries and you’ll see some examples
that our consultants will talk about in Calderdale in the UK.
The common element here is they’re doing something about
it. Boulder’s restoring greenways, they’re acquiring
property, they’re removing high hazard structures.
Vermont river towns are removing buildings to restore
a floodplain and to create parks. And in Calderdale,
they’re removing buildings that overhang the river,
they’re being demolished as part of flood mitigation. So
time is of the essence are our goal here is that the
five-year plan identify and begin implementing projects
before the next thunderstorm or hurricane season. In a way,
that would reduce flood depths and velocities, water
velocity, to that level that can be addressed by flood
proofing the buildings in lower downtown. So that was
the result. The result of that goal was the near term or the
five-year plan. And it’s the most effective way to approach
these issues because it addresses protecting lives.
It’s urgent. It addresses urgency because most of the
projects can be addressed in a shorter period of time. Their
feasibility and constructability has been
looked at as part of engineering analyses. And we
found that these projects are the most cost-effective from a
perspective of for every dollar spent, the benefit
gained. And again, this allows projects to move forward
within the first year. The master plan interfaces with
this near term or five-year plan. Typically, in a master
plan, you identify implementation strategies that
are identified as near, mid and long-term. Following the
2018 flood, the focus was on what can we do in the near
term. So that became the focus of the approach that Mark had
talked about here. So the five-year plan is the
near-year term – the near-term plan. It accelerates
construction, includes the Hudson Bend. It includes the
concept of a widened stream channel from Ellicott Mills
Drive to Maryland Avenue. And it also includes projects that
were selected through the first phase of the H and H
project. Again, it focuses on retaining water and conveying
water projects that have been tested through the H and H
analysis. And the short-term plan is going to be nested
into the master plan for Ellicott City as the initial
phase. And through public input like this, we hope to
get guidance this evening on the design of the expanded
stream channel that involves taking buildings out. We hope
that it does, in fact, become a major amenity and focal
point. And you’ll see why we think that this is entirely
possible. And as part of that process, the longer term and
mid-term projects we’re going to be looking at – what other
types of projects should we be evaluating for the Ellicott
City watershed? So the council voted on October 1 of this
year to fund Phase 1 of the five-year plan. The counties
recently submitted a permit application to widen the
stream channel in lower downtown to the MDE and the
Army Corps of Engineers. That does involve removing
buildings. The application triggers of what’s called a
1-0 – Section 106 analysis which looks at the historic
structures and properties that are impacted. And the county’s
hired consultants who help us with that process. And in
addition, as we look to remove structures within the Ellicott
City watershed, there’s been a historic structures review
committee establish that will help advise the county on
preserving key historic elements and buildings that
somehow can be reused later on. Council Bill 1556 2018,
which establishes a moratorium for development in the
delicate city watershed, basically requires the
Department of Planning and Zoning and the Department of
Public Works to study flood mitigation both for the Tiber
Hudson watershed as well as the Plumtree watershed and
Valley Mead. We’ve begun that process. We had a meeting with
the Department of Planning and Zoning to look at a process
that we’d be going through to to look at how can the upper
reaches of the watershed be addressed. Right now, the
focus has been primarily on Ellicott City. We are also
going to be looking at the upper reaches of that
watershed. One of the things that you’ll see this evening
is reuse of the courthouse property. The courthouse is
scheduled to move to Bendix Road by 2021. And the county’s
goal right now is to look at a developer solicitation for the
reuse of the old Ellicott City courthouse. And what we hope
is that that reuse plan can begin or be initiated as the
courthouse moves out. So with that, I’m going to be turning
it over to our consultant team. But we’ve got some
additional steps. We just want to identify here. So early
next week, we’ll have that online survey available for
the public. It will be available until mid-November.
November through January, The Department of Planning and
Zoning and all of the other departments are going to be
working with a consultant team to prepare a draft plan to be
coming back out to the community in February of 2019
with that draft plan in an open house for additional
input. Following that, the plan, will then begin its
formal process of being adopted. As you recall, the
plan for Ellicott City is part of the general – will become
part of the general plan for Howard County. So that
amendment process involves going to the Planning Board as
well as to the county council. And then, one of the key steps
in that process is going to be a plan to monitor progress.
And that needs to be continuous. So with that, I
believe I turn it over to to our consultants.>>:Thank you, Val. Good
evening, everyone. So I’m Tom McGilloway from Mahan-Rykiel,
leading, the consultant team. I have with me Jeff Duby,
Megan Oliver, from our office, Ward Hobliser from land
studies, Sanaa Thominson, and Jim Burnett from RK&K, and I
think I see Lisa Wingate from preservation consulting. So
where we were, as Val said – we were about – we had our
last public workshop back in March of 2018. We were
preparing to submit the draft in June 2018 when the flood
hit, where we are now. So over the summer, the counties
explored the additional modeling that Mark and Val had
reviewed with Carmack Taylor, developed the five-year
strategy. And then the master-plan team was reengaged
to incorporate that five-year strategy into the master plan.
As Val indicated the boundaries of the master plan
or the watershed, the area highlighted in blue the
county, the office buildings highlighted where we are right
now. It is a long-range plan – 30 years. There are short, mid
and long-term strategies and recommendations. We’ll be
outlining that in the draft that comes out. And in that
short term is included this five-year strategy and action
plan. And priorities will be determined by a number of
factors that we’ve kind of already gone through this
evening. And one of the things that’s really unique about
this master plan is so many things are interconnected that
you can’t touch one thing without impacting so many
others. So it’s really – creates a real challenge here.
But that’s what also makes allocute city so unique is all
these interrelated components. So I’m going to hit – since
it’s been since March, since we really hit on a lot of this
– a very high-level summary of the master plan
recommendations. One of the things we’ve heard is, you
know, all the focus is on lower main. What about the
other recommendations? I’m not going to get into great detail
but just show you what what’s included in the master plan.
Then our focus discussion will be lower main and the river
front and then some of these newer concepts that are
grounded in the additional modeling and five-year
strategy. I want to emphasize you’ve seen some of the images
online already showing a design intent. There’s still a
lot of work. This is not final design. There’s a lot of back
and forth and additional modeling that has to be done.
And then we also have to recognize the Section 106
process that will be underway as well. So one of the things
that makes the challenge – the watershed so challenging is
the steep topography, the granite, the multiple
tributaries leading into the Patapsco. And for obvious
reasons, the mill – the town was settled right on top of
the tributaries for the mill energy and harnessing that
energy for mills. The bottom map – the map is a good
illustration of especially in lower main where some of these
buildings are built right over the stream and the tributary
channel obviously for harnessing that power in the
early days. That then creates – well, creates all the
wonderful intricacies and character of the community. It
also creates in compounds a lot of the challenges as we
expand out into the watershed these tributaries offer
wonderful green connections and fingers out into the
watershed. And we’ll be – as I saw, a lot of the
recommendations in the master plan are to enhance these
green fingers and – both for physical connectivity but
environmental connectivity. The implementation of the
master plan – it’s partnerships, deliver
partnerships between the public and private sector. And
all of the recommendations are interrelated. We can’t touch
one flood strategy without impacting parking, historic
preservation, economic development and so forth. And
it’s not going to be the county doing all of this.
There’s going to be individuals organizations,
businesses nonprofits, and different agencies within the
county. Val already hit the vision statement. So I’m going
to go over that. And we also hit the core goals of the
master plan including the life safety that was added since
the last flood. These core goals inform or apply to the
five strategies that we’ve developed. We presented these
back in March. I’m going to just, at a very high level,
hit each of these – managing and protecting the water. This
has – you know, our work and our study has address the
reducing flood impacts is through a combination of
conveyance and retention. But while balancing life safety,
water quality, cost benefits, constructability and policies
for growth and revitalization – some of the things that Mark
had already hit on. The five broad recommendations in this
category – each which includes numerous recommendations – are
the flood management strategies, including the
five-year plan. But that also longer term looking at what
other recommendations of the H and H study are applicable and
worth exploring beyond the five years in the long term.
It includes a number of recommendations on emergency
management, non-structural flood-proofing. And we talked
in March about the Tiber Hudson. And watershed special
protection district or special enhancement district that will
start to examine stormwater regulations criteria for
development and redevelopment and a number of other aspects
and then also water quality improvements. One of the
things that – we’ve met with emergency – the Office of
Emergency Management, and the county’s going to be sitting
down with them in more detail because their component and
their work really needs to be a strong component of this
master plan. So looking at elements of risk awareness,
we’ll be looking at how sensors and cameras can be
incorporated into streetscape improvements in the downtown
environment, how alert warning systems can be integrated. And
then looking at access control and evacuation routes. And
then, also, how does that messaging get incorporated
into the public realm? These are some examples of some of
the Howard – Ready Howard County business preparedness
plans, but they’ll also be incorporated in the
environment high ground mounts – high ground maps, monitoring
– warning systems and so forth. The second overall
strategy was planning for economic success. We need this
to be a successful community. Within that, we had a number
of recommendations – a historic preservation program
enhancements, including looking at strategies for
dealing with neglected and vacant properties, market
attraction. A market study was done looking at businesses
that are most likely attracted to Ellicott City, and so what
are some opportunities for them to occur, whether it’s in
new construction or relocating some of the existing
businesses displaced by floods. And them business
support strategies for cooperative marketing and
business development plans, not only for new businesses,
but all for – also for existing businesses. A third
overarching strategy was enhancing the experience.
These are all the recommendations that deal with
transportation, parking, streetscape, open space,
public art, lighting, programming events –
recommendations that really – the experience – when someone
gets out of their car and comes to Ellicott City, how
are they experiencing the community? And again, each one
of these is nested with a number of very specific
recommendations. You might remember this diagram from
last March just in terms of the pedestrian’s experience.
The red line represents the sidewalk system along Main
Street from Lower Main, off to the right, on up to the west
end, on up to courthouse hill and through lot D. The green
line represents this opportunity with the stream
conveyance improvements of creating a network of
sidewalks and trails that follow these conveyance
methods from the river, from Oella across the river, now,
in through lower Main, up through Hudson Bend, on up to
courthouse hill, the Bernard Fort house, and on into the
west end. Again, this is a network that would be
implemented over the very-long term in bits and pieces, but
it creates a great opportunity for how one experiences
Ellicott City. With this recommendation, we also have a
lot of parking recommendations that we’re dealing with. And
if you recall from March, where – you know, the main
locations where we could offset parking loss from some
of these flood improvements are decks in a lot A and lot
D, and possibly lot F. They’re the logical locations for a
deck structure. And then also coupling that with temporary
shuttle systems during construction. The fourth
category’s protecting and enhancing the environment –
not only looking at the historic district, but the
areas surrounding the historic district – looking at new
development. How do we enhance some of the development
criteria so that buildings are designed and development is
designed to fit the land, not the land designed to fit the
structures. Also, looking at the community brand – or
character – I’m sorry, character overlay district, as
one approaches the historic district, and what are some
guidelines for implementation and how do we enhance that
character with character-based codes, and that would be
included in the zoning ordinance. Also, looking at
the community brand that’s been established for old
Ellicott City, and then how do we extend that into a
marketing campaign. And whether its construction size
to help communicate the message that construction is
happening to improve the community, banners, and then
marketing signs. How do we embrace some of the challenges
– our steep slopes? And if we ask people to park at
courthouse hill, how do we kind of have – poke a little
bit of fun at ourselves that, you know, it’s – it is a hike
up to courthouse hill, but it is doable. And then the last
strategy – a very important one – organizing for success
is, how do we implement all of this? And you’ll – you may
recall – we talked a lot about the – very important that
there is an organizational entity whose sole focus is
Ellicott City. Ellicott City is a small component of,
overall, Howard County. It’s a very unique community – has
very unique qualities and characteristics and it has to
be – there needs to be an entity that thinks only about
Ellicott City. We’ve recommendations exploring
sustainable funding for this entity, and then also looking
at forums – whether it’s just an Ellicott City forum that
happens annually to discuss the progress of the master
plan and other issues, and then also bi-county summit
with Baltimore County. This organizational entity – again,
as I said, the sole focus would be Ellicott City. The
function will be to manage Ellicott City and oversee
deliberate partnerships to implement the master plan and
manage the Ellicott City district. And it really needs
to – the organization entity needs to have an understanding
of urban mixed-use revitalization and seeking
innovative solutions, not – you know, Ellicott City’s very
different from the other 90 percent of the county, and so
this really needs to be focused on unique and
innovative situations for Ellicott City, and then
understanding of Ellicott City’s unique character and
distinct form – that a development project that works
somewhere else in the county may not be appropriate for
Ellicott City. So that’s a very – and I know, a very
quick, high-level look at some of the broad categories, but
we wanted to kind of give a context of now where some of
these new and refined concepts fit in to the overall master
plan. So where we want to focus tonight is lower Main
and the riverfront – Hudson Bend and some of the upper
Main areas, west end Main, courthouse hill, and then the
broader watershed, particularly as it relates to
debris management. So this is the overall illustrative plan
for the core and west end Main that we’ve been developing
prior to the last flood, and we’ve been updating. Some of
the – the disclaimer at the bottom – some of the sections
around lot F and in the west end – we still are in the
process of updating as some of the conveyance solutions in
west end are being developed and refined, and also as
parking lot F and some of the Ellicott Mills conveyance is
being developed for lot F. So this strong is still a work in
progress. As we look at lower Main and the riverfront – or
this first area – many of you have seen this diagram online
– this image. And so, as we look at the channel
expansions, we were charged with looking at, OK, if we
widen this channel in lower Main, how can it become an
amenity for – in an integral part to Ellicott City. We’re –
we see several opportunities. And first of all, I want to
say any of the illustrations you’re seeing are representing
design intent. There’s still a lot of back and forth with
detailed modeling to see what works, what doesn’t work, how
do we shift steps or terraces – one way to get the water to
flow? So this is representing design intent, not a final
design. So there’s an opportunity to create this.
This could be an amenity, both visual and physical. There’s
opportunities for historic interpretation and flood
mitigation interpretation. New commercial viability along
Tiber Alley and lower St. Paul Street. And then also
opportunities to expand some of the sidewalks along lower
Main Street. And it’s – we’re doing this with an
understanding that this will not replace the buildings that
are going to be removed. We can’t replace that character.
This will be a different character. And our job is to
look at, how can this really be an integral and vibrant
part of the community? We also have some design realities
that we’re facing with this. This cannot be a naturalized
stream channel through here. It’s going to be primarily
hard surface. We may have some limitations on using some of
the existing bedrock for the surface of the channel. We’re
running into that. Matt is working on the Ellicott Mills
area and we’re running into some of those issues up there.
There is, on a regular – a daily basis, a limited base
flow. It’s not going to be big – a wide, vibrant river. It’s
going to be three to six feet, maybe, on a daily basis until,
obviously, when there’s high water. And then maintaining
the hydraulic capacity while functioning as an amenity
space is something that we need to consider. So the – you
know, the function has to really ride – be considered,
not only the form. And then some of the culvert openings
that we’re dealing with. Some of the other realities is
balancing historic interpretation with hydraulic
function. We have the constriction at Maryland
Avenue – the existing construction is a real
constraint, so we have to deal with that. And the new – the
double pipe – or double culverts that are being
planned will help deal with that. There’s the potential –
always the potential for debris. The modeling results
that we have seen in the modeling are only as good as
we can keep those channels functioning the way they’re
supposed to. If they’re clogged with debris – if the
culvert openings are clogged with debris, they’re not going
to function the way the model depicts, so we’ve got to be
aware of that. And then maintaining the appropriate
scale. There’s a very unique human scale to that part –
lower Main – right now. It’s obviously going to change with
the removal of those buildings, but how do we
maintain some of those elements? Or how do we
incorporate some of those elements of human scale? And
then also making it accessible. If it’s an
amenity, it has to be accessible. There’s some key
considerations for design. You know, Ellicott City really
matters. The historic value is very important. There’s
important stories to tell. So we want to make sure we convey
that the best way possible, and would love to hear more
input on opportunities for that. It’s appropriate that
historic – it’s important that a historic interpretation
happens appropriately – that it’s not kind of a cheap
imitation – that it’s done thoughtfully. There needs to
be a sensitivity to the context of how the reuse of
building materials and reconstruction of buildings
are done, and we need to really consider that context.
The building-by-building structural evaluation will
determine what materials are salvageable and reusable, but
we don’t want to preclude the use of things. We don’t want
to preclude the potential use of facades. We know there’s
concern for the structural stability of those, but are
there portions that could be maintained? We just – we want
to make sure we keep options open and we want to look at
that human scale. And then also for providing shade for
the usability of this space. Other considerations – life
safety and flood hazard messaging – how that’s
incorporated for identifying pedestrian evacuation routes
and high ground accessibility. The channel flow to Maryland
Avenue – and then creating multiple opportunities for
interpretation and design. So I want to flash through some
images. Before we get into the details of the
plan, I want to just flash through some imagery of some
of the things – no – not one of these really captures
exactly what be the situation in Ellicott City, but it’s
going to be a combination. This is in England – of
terraces and steps down to the river. China and North Korea –
and South Korea where a channel has become a
pedestrian – an amenity space as well as as a conveyance
system. More local examples in Yonkers and Berkeley Springs
and Slovenia – not real local, but just different examples of
the walls, the materials, incorporation of, you know,
planters and pots. You know, we’d love to get as much
vegetation in here as possible, but we have to
realize it’s not going to be a green, naturalized channel.
Stone terraces – stone is such an inherent element here. How
could we utilize that? And that brings us back to
Ellicott City. What are some of the influences here that
are important to capture? The bedrock. The stone wall. The
terraces. The planting hanging over terraced walls. The
fencing. The steps. Architecture opportunities –
incorporate remnants of some of those buildings and scale.
And we see examples here of the typical fencing. There’s
already precedent of some remnants at the Patapsco
Female Institute. The bedrock along Main Street. The steps
and walls at courthouse steps. These are all things that we
could play off. There’s also interpretive opportunities.
There’s obviously the signage that can be done, which is
very important. But there’s many more, whether it’s
pavement markings or frame outlines of buildings. Shade –
use of shade structures and flood awareness. These are
some examples of, you know, remnant walls that might be
incorporated, whether it’s foundation walls across the
stream channel where buildings once stood or pieces along
Main Street that be incorporated into the
streetscape. Again, this all has to be evaluated – or if
existing foundation walls aren’t possible to use, there
might be new ways to interpret where building lines once were
with different paving. Important facades and remnants
of facades and buildings to keep and how can they be
represented, possibly, with the frame outlines. This is
the Ben Franklin house in Philadelphia, and a more
recent example is in Joplin, Mo., where there was buildings
impacted by tornadoes, and this is a memorial park. So
they’re – and we’re not saying, at this point, any one
of these is the right solution. It’s just a palette
of options that we don’t want to preclude the flexibility
for doing some of these. Or it might be interpreted in a more
artistic and contemporary way with building framing, or
possibly even fiber optic lights to – maybe it’s an art
– temporary art installation where light’s used to create
outlines of buildings that were once there – put there.
Again, these all have to be detailed out and studied in
detail. Or – shade is going to be important, so there might
be shade structures that replicate some of the former
rooflines that were there or some of the building forms
that were present. And then even interpretative –
interpretation of some of the flood levels. That this is a
very active – this is a community developed in a
floodplain, and how do you create the awareness other
than just signage. Boulder, Colo., had this connect the
dots art program where, throughout the town, these
blue dots represented high water lines – just to keep
that awareness to the public that we are in an active
floodplain. And then it’s going to be important to
incorporate sight elements. We heard a lot of fear that this
will look like the L.A. River – a big concrete channel.
That’s what we want to avoid. So what sight elements? We
want to try to incorporate trees as much as possible, but
recognizing they could be a debris hazard. So we’ve got to
be very careful about that. But there may be opportunities
for planters and pots and getting color. The fencing –
whether it’s the Ellicott City standard fence, or are these
opportunities to use more creative fencing – more
contemporary or ways to incorporate and interpret –
use the fencing for some interpretation and public art?
Shade structures will be very important, whether they span
large sections of the channel or certain areas. Some of the
columns supporting these might also be columns that help keep
debris from washing into the channel or cars or larger
elements like that. And then surfaces are very important.
What’s the surface? This has to be a hard surface channel –
concrete. But can we embed rock and boulder and stone
into that concrete base to get patterns and something that’s
more visually appealing? And there’s a lot of different
ways to do that and different stone patterns to achieve.
There may be opportunities to preserve some of the bedrock
as the channels widen or to recreate that with concrete.
And then messaging – whether it’s interpretive signage,
messages for high watermarks – again, to keep that visual
awareness of where the flood levels would be. And then the
messaging of preparedness. We talked a little bit about this
earlier, how do we incorporate this into the overall design?
So as we get into the channel design in a little more
detail, we want to look at – the first scenario is looking
at a terraced channel. And I’m going to hit with – OK. So
this channel here – this is Main Street. This is where
Caplan’s was. This is where Tiber Alley is right now.
We’re proposing that that might be a location for a
pedestrian bridge. This – Tiber Alley would still be
intact right in here – Maryland Avenue. And then this
is St. Paul Street here. So what – an opportunity we see
is to create – maybe there’s a broader plaza area at Main
Street street level, where Caplan’s was – more of a
gathering area at the Main Street level incorporating
some of the elements – the – these planters represent the
window bays of Caplan coming in. We want to have this
accessible. This is a 5 percent ramp and stair system
coming down here. With 5 percent, we can minimize the
railings that we’d need to have here. These are broader
terraces that come down. This is the location of Tea on the
Tiber, possibly integrating some of those walls or
elements of the wall – that that becomes a gathering space
in the area. And then this might be another ramp system
that comes down. And it – where we’re showing the paving
– the rock embedded into the paving – the concrete that I
showed some examples – they might be – use a subtle color
differences that represent some of the building locations
that were once there. And then also trying to incorporate
green – some smaller trees along Main Street, some
planter beds within the channel. This allows us – with
widening this, this would allow us to create a wider
area along Lower Main Street on the north side for
sidewalk. We’re proposing that the parking be removed along
Lower Main and that there’s drop off and pickup and
delivery zones, but the parking along here is removed
because of the hazard of the cars in the way. It’s very
important that, whatever the design of this incurs, we keep
the ability for water to flow into the existing Maryland
Avenue culvert as well as the new proposed culvert. So
that’s going to determine where we could have steps and
terracing and the degree to which they can be. And again,
there’s a lot of back and forth design in the modeling.
This is the cross-section that was included in the McCormick
Taylor model. On their modeling, it was a series of
about three-foot high terraces that step down to the channel.
This is in the vicinity of Tea on the Tiber and Shoemaker
Country. And then we’re looking at – we looked at –
these are some crude model views. There’s different ways
we could look at this, whether it’s the three-foot terraces
or a series of smaller terraces that allow you to get
down into the space easier. It may be a series of steps or,
in the bottom right, if the hydraulics indicate that we
need to have a wider channel, it may be a broader channel at
the bottom like we saw in some of those examples from Korea
and China, with most of the wall and grade change
happening at Main Street and getting a wider sidewalk area
there. So in cross-section, this is just showing – you
know, ideally, we’d love to have more terraces and steps
that allow people to get down to the channel at different
areas, and that’s what’s represented in this plan here
that we just walked through. We had – and during our MPAD
advisory meeting, the question asked, well, what’s the sizes?
What’s the scale? It is a large, open space. So we have
put that in comparison. So if you were to drop lot F on top
of the lower main channel, that’s the size of it. So just
for a scale comparison of that area. We’ve done a series of
prospective views because I think it’s difficult to see it
in plan view. This is standing over – if you’re over St.
Paul’s Church up on St. Paul’s Lane, looking to the north
east on Main Street. So this is looking at how that open
channel would be. You could start to see, with the
opportunity with the pavement color or subtle changes in the
pavement to indicate where buildings were, you know,
incorporating some foundation walls that might extend across
a stream channel or lines that represent that. Again, there’s
a number of ways to represent that. An important feature,
too, is in terms of life safety, we’re showing a bridge
in this location. The most useful bridge benefit would be
in the Caplan’s area, but that comes into a high hillside.
We’re showing the potential ramping and steps up to St.
Paul Street. The bridge here may have to be at a high
enough elevation to allow the floodwaters underneath, so it
may require some ramping and stairs in this area, or even
an elevator. And so if there’s a structure there that might
support some other structures that could represent the
facade of the building that was there. And so this is
showing – just dropped in very – like, the – this could be –
we saw some of those metal out – those outlines of buildings.
There might be an opportunity for the Caplan’s with the
Caplan’s sign where it once stood, the T and the Tiber,
and this is the Bean Hollow – the art deco facade of the
lower level. So again, that’s just showing how some of those
elements could be incorporated in, not determining which ones
they are at this point. This is another view, looking from
– looking in the other direction toward St. Paul
Street. Again, getting a sense of the ramp up to St. Paul
Street from the Caplan’s area. And then some of the broad –
the channel. We’re – as you could see, we’re – in the
lower section of this, we’re minimizing the number of
terraces and steps and obstructions. This is where
water flow would need to get under the new culverts, and
then also into the existing culvert. But as the detailed
design occurs and the detailed modeling occurs, being able to
look at and experiment with how much, you know, changes we
can actually incorporate in there. We can’t determine that
right now. And then this is just a crude model view of
looking south toward – or east toward the B&O, the Caplan’s –
of how the Caplan’s sign could be relocated here as part of
the facade outline, and then some of the other facade
outlines along the streetscape as well. And then this is the
view that, I think, many of you have seen. Again, this is
a design intent, not a final design, but getting an idea
that the surfaces – the textures and surfaces – trying
to minimize railings within this zone as much as we can,
minimizing obstruction. So the hydraulic modeling will really
determine exactly what we can do in terms of steps and
terraces and walls. That’s just fading into it. The
bridge – like to have a bridge at the location where the
Tiber alley currently crosses over. And then we need to
recognize that it’s not always going to be filled with a
concert and a festival and a lot of people. So – and that’s
why it’s important that this look good when it’s not
velvet. The textures and surfaces and the design has a
visual and aesthetic appeal as well as a functional one. And
then this is just showing, again, how some of those
structures might be replicated with the frame outlines or
there might be awnings or shade structures incorporated
them as well to mimic some former rooflines. The second
scenario we’re showing is really looking at, well, what
if we for the purpose of hydraulics – that has to be a
much wider channel. And we can’t have all the terracing.
So we’re still – you know, would still like to try to get
a gathering area near the Caplan’s. But a ramp that – 5
percent that follows the edge of Main Street, maybe some
stairs here but really minimizing a lot of the
terracing and the steps to really maximize that channel.
Again, this would be determined in the detailed
design view, the same views looking at that approach. So
what this would show – would be – show a much wider area at
the main street level. So we’d have more gathering in
pedestrian area of main street level than probably a six-foot
wall down into this space. Still, opportunities to access
it but not as many as we are showing in the earlier sketch.
And again the important the texture, the scale, the design
of this becomes very important. Also, looking at
the streetscape, there’s an opportunity for sidewalk
expansion on the north side of Main Street. As we said, we’d
look at that is really primarily parking, drop off
and delivery. The modeling shows and the sheer stress
that brick paving is not good. So we need to do concrete
paving, would want to integrate flood warning
systems into the streetscape wayfinding and placemaking. So
on the north side, this is an example where we could have
the drop off pickup zones, some expanded sidewalk areas
that could support some of the restaurants and cafes over
there. We’re looking at that drop off, pickup zone being
raised the sidewalk level with a mountable curb. So it could
be expanded for more sidewalk area during festivals and
events, we talked about this last year at the movable
bollard that most of the time it functions as a drop-off
area but then that bollard – we could use a potted plant or
something else to move it out. And that becomes extended
sidewalk area during events. And then in those areas where
you have the permanent bump-outs, we have wider
sidewalk and could accommodate outdoor dining that you see
here. Further up on Main Street, we could have the
ability to have some possibly on street parking as well as
delivery and drop-off and incorporating some of those
bump-out for around utility poles. The paving would be –
and that’s further up in – this lower Main down here and
further up here where at least – would recommend that if in
the interim that you do allow for parking to occur here or
if parking is not permitted in the interim until some of the
other fled mitigation occurs, allow the flexibility that can
be added after some of that mitigation is put in – and,
again, showing the condition where we have the width do the
mountable curb and flexible parking zone. And then in
other areas, it would be just the traditional parking zone.
Paving scored concrete – that’s something – here’s some
examples of where it’s done well in historic – other
historic districts. And then as we look at Maryland Avenue,
we shared some of these concepts earlier in March
where looking at Maryland Avenue treated as, again, a
flexible use space that most of the time it functions with
parking. But raise that parking level up the sidewalk
area so that you could also have those as flexible spaces
for food trucks and other events and expanded sidewalk
area. And there are some examples in other communities
where that parking or drop-off zone is raised up to sidewalk
level, and it becomes a little more flexible for when you
have larger events and festivals. An important part
of the streetscape will be wayfinding signage – again,
using the Ellicott City brand to incorporate into the
wayfinding signage. Also, another recommendation is
looking at with the exposure of those facades – the rear
facades in St. Paul’s street – improve potential a rear
facade grant to make those now very visible facades more
attractive, more usable and viable for some commercial
uses, especially those businesses on Tiber alley and
the lower end of St. Paul Street to help activate the
widened channel. And that may include the top left images on
St. Paul Street looking down in the vicinity of Caplan’s.
But there may be some opportunities for terraces and
overlooks if some of those buildings are repurposed for
active uses. I’m now going to move into some of the concepts
we talked about earlier in March. The Patapsco River
Front is really a great opportunity. And we’re showing
– zoom in. We talked earlier about parking lot A as an
opportunity for a structured parking. We will have a lot of
demand still in lower Main. And this is the best
opportunity to create that. There’s been a lot of
conversation. We know plans in the works for establishing the
trolley number 9 pedestrian bridge across the river. That
could be a real asset. And with the creation of a parking
resource – expanded parking resource on lot A that might
be allow a long-term portion of lot B to be converted into
a riverfront park. This is the only area really accessible to
the Patapsco River in Ellicott City. Again, we see this as a
long-term recommendation once other parking resources are
developed. We also see the opportunity for this
pedestrian bridge across the Patapsco where the trolley
bridge once occurred. It really should be a signature
design bridge. Other communities – Greenville, S.C.
– the bridge is an attraction in and of itself. And
especially, you know, people parking in lot A and coming
over to lower Main – you know, if it’s an attractive,
enjoyable experience, they could really engage with the
river in that environment. And that distance won’t be so
critical. It could also be a venue for public art, as I
said, an attraction in and of itself. And this is a sketch
view showing lower Main and how that bridge and parking
deck on a lot A might all work together in a future park and
lot B along the riverfront. All these pieces start to come
together to create a vibrant, lower Main street. As we move
up the hill to upper Main and Hudson Bend, this was a
concept we talked a lot about last year – really hasn’t
changed a whole lot. Just a reminder, this is a lot D. Lot
E is right here. This is be relocating the brewery annex
building, removing the lot portion of the building here
so that this stream channel can be widened. And it becomes
a terrorist amenity space in lot D and then a parking
structure wrapped with development that could have
active uses that accommodates some of the relocated
businesses as well as new businesses and start to
activate that open space. This is the existing view. We’re
kind of on Merriman’s Lane looking back into lot D and
then the proposal of how that could look that – it would be
very important that a parking structure currently of be
wrapped with development that there is some revenue
generated but more importantly that there’s active uses
activating this open space. And here’s some examples of
kind of the scale of buildings many of these are buildings
that are actually wrapping a parking deck. The bottom
center building is a bank facade that was relocated and
applied to a deck in Grand Rapids, Mich.. And we’ve heard
conversation about potentially locating some of the former
facades to this parking deck. If that’s done, that has to be
done very carefully. Not all the facades would be
appropriate for that. And if it is, it really can’t just be
a – kind of a two dimensional applicate to the parking
garage. It really has to be integrated with the design. So
it may or may not be appropriate. This is a view
looking at lot D, again, from the air and then how that
Hudson Bend and the integrated development might incorporate
in there. Again, it’s very important this be an
innovative design really done well with an eye towards
developing in an urban district, not a more typically
suburban area like the rest of the county. So phasing
strategy – the parking phasing will be very instrumental in
this. We talked earlier about we’ll be working between lots
A, D and F and a potential temporary shuttle, looking at
how we can phase all of that. I’m not going to get into the
great details. But there are some exciting opportunities
with shuttles. The top is a 10-man shuttle, a privately
operated one in Greenville, S.C.. We’re showing down in
the bottom of the branding could be applied to wine here
in Ellicott City. It should really be a brand. It’s
something that’s fun to use, something small. And Jim
Burnett from our team has done some research. Now there’s
low-speed, autonomous vehicles that are being used as a
10-man shuttle. Some are in Detroit. Las Vegas has
experimented with these. And so there’s opportunities to
look towards something like this in Ellicott City. We also
see – we’ve been working with rec and parks. The Heritage
Program Center will be moving to the Bernard Ford House. And
this will really manage EC as a heritage district. So we’re
looking at how this can be incorporated into the overall
planning. There will be gallery spaces, program
offices, some parking. And then a pathway connections to
other parts of Ellicott City. This is lot F. This is the
current – the footprint before the May flood of lot F. We
have always been recommending that it be consolidated and
pushed a little further to the north to open up room in this
area. Now, it’s very important for the channel expansion. But
we’re also relocating the log cabin. We identified a couple
locations where that might locate. We think this location
might be the most suitable. It puts it along the pathway
network and also in the vicinity and part of this
campus for the Bernard Ford house. We also see
opportunities at long term. This is showing a parking lot
F as a surface lot with the widened channel through – just
underneath Ellicott Mills. We see a long-term potential that
that might be a three-level deck accessible from three
different levels at grade. So it’s really not extending
maybe only 4 feet above Ellicott Mills drive. And then
the upper – the second floor can be wrapped with potential
studio space and artist or cowork space that we’ve seen
in other communities. There could be green walls
incorporated. This could be a very innovative, signature
deck – highly visible. And this is an example of some
parking structure in Greenville that’s wrapped with
studio space developed along there. And this is a current
plan that Matt’s working on with the county on the widened
channel from Ellicott Mills Drive on behind the Wine Bin
down to Hudson Bend. As we move to west end, there are
several projects underway. That culvert enlargement in
the vicinity of West End Auto, dealing with some of the
constriction points here. We’ll be updating this graphic
to include the details of that project as that’s developed
further. And then, also, further to the east on Main,
within the west end, looking at areas where we have
constrictions and how we can get water from Main Street
back into the channel. So these areas are being studied
right now by the county. We’re also looking at street
improvements for Main Street – crosswalks, a traffic circle
at Rogers Avenue. We talked about this back in March –
bump-outs. And the crosswalks would be raised for traffic
calming purposes. And then identifying where parking
areas occur along west end. We have a lot of issues with
speed along west end Main, so we want to – traffic calming.
And I did start 15 minutes later, Chris. Eleven minutes
later? OK. Did that take it? Did your one minute take that
into account? OK. So here we are in west Main. I’m almost
finished – a before and after view of how that traffic
calming, crosswalks and parking, and some bump-outs
could be incorporated there. And then we talked about this
the last time, too – a long-term opportunity for the
West End Auto should that property owner ever want to
resell his property or redevelop it, and we’re
calling this central west end. So West End Auto’s located
right here. Some of the plans right now, as part of the
flood mitigation, are to improve and open up this
channel that’s currently underground, but long-term
there’s an opportunity for more park space and then more
flood mitigation within this area – the lowest part of the
site. And then move up the hill, and there’s some
opportunity for some infill to make that economic – the sale
and reuse of this property economically viable. And then
also, incorporating any redevelopment of that site, is
important to look at the pedestrian network and how
that ties into connections to the Roger Carter site and on
into the Bernard Ford House, Hudson Bend, and other parts
of Ellicott City. There’s opportunities for some of the
buildings that might remain to use maker spaces. There’s a
burgeoning art community and makers community in the west
end. We see a real opportunity for that here and really
distinguishing this district from the core of Ellicott
City. We talked about courthouse hill the last time.
This is going to be – an RFP will be going out for the
redevelopment of the courthouse. This is the
existing courthouse – the courthouse parking lot. The
actual uses will be determined as part of that RFP process,
but it would include an adaptive reuse of the
courthouse building and then, you know, hopefully, some
active uses – wrapping any kind of parking structure.
On-site stormwater management and – that currently does not
exist right now. It would be very important – while we’re
not going to dictate the design in the master plan,
some things that are very important to identify – it
should be an innovative design. There – it really has
to be conscious of its interface and connectivity
with the Patapsco Female Institute, Mount Ida, the
connection to Main Street – have a clear sight
organization around the street network. So this is Court Street – the historic courthouse is right here. There should be a
real strong, organized street network, possibly permeable
paving or something – a surface parking area that
could also service as an open space and keep views open to
Mount Ida. If there’s a parking structure, that
there’s possibly even, at an upper level, pedestrian bridge
connection over into the hillside to the Patapsco
Female Institute. So again, the RFP will outline some very
specific criteria that needs to be considered. And as we
look at the broader watershed, some of the recommendations
that we’ve been talking about – pedestrian connectivity
along Frederick Road out to the library along Old Columbia
Pike – better pedestrian connectivity. Green
infrastructure as part of the Office of Emergency
Management’s Green Infrastructure plan that every
resident and property owner can get involved in and
participate. And then we talked earlier about the
Tiber-Hudson special protection district that will
start to look at stormwater requirements and how that’s
dealt with. And very importantly, debris management
and channel maintenance plans. Debris management – you know,
we have a lot of areas, especially along the new cut –
large trees right at the edge – that they’re being undercut.
Now, there’s a lot of perception that, oh, these
roots are good, they’re holding in the embankment.
This just creates hazard. As these are continuously
undercut, those trees end up in places like this. And so a
long-term strategy for some stream restoration – conscious
removal of trees. They might be a healthy tree, but they
could be in a very vulnerable location. So how do you
strategically remove trees so they don’t become debris, and
then how do you replant that area with herbaceous material
– smaller trees that still has a root mass, but more
appropriate for that floodplain in the valley.
Looking at creating log snares to help create debris from
washing down further up in the watershed. These might be tree
– old tree trunks or logs that are inserted vertically into
the ground to capture some of that debris. As you get closer
down into the core of town, it’s going to have to be
something much heavier duty that might be COR-TEN steel
beams. And none of these are – these examples are actually
debris catchment, but it’s just giving the idea of beams
that are inserted into the ground that could catch some
of the heavier duty – the boulders, cars, anything
that’s strong washing down. And this is just a crude
SketchUp model showing how these could be inserted into
the stream channel. This is looking down the new cut
towards old Ellicott City, vertically inserted in to
catch the debris. The debris washes to the side and the
water flows through. If it’s a particularly scenic area of
the tributary, you know, there might be opportunity to
incorporate overlooks or pedestrian bridges across the
stream with those structures. And they would really happen
throughout the watershed at various points along the new
cut and then the other channels to keep that debris
from coming down into the channel. As I said, the
channels are only as strong – as only effective as they can
be maintained to function as they should. So how’d I do,
Chris? Did I – all right. So we’re open, now, for
discussion. I’ll turn it over to Val.>>:Yeah. Yeah. That’d be
great. You know, I’m going to say something that, you know,
my high school speech teacher told me never to say, which is
apologize for the length of the presentation. Sorry that
it took so long, but, you notice – I got a telephone
call and somebody asked me, could you explain the Ellicott
City master plan in an email to me? You know, as you can
see, it is very complex. It’s involved. It’s very detailed.
So with that, we’re going to open it up to feedback from
you. Anybody who is – has a question or comment, please
come up to the microphone. You can line up. And we also have
staff who are going around the room. If you’d prefer not to
come up to the microphone, just write your question and
comment down, hand them into staff, and – so we’ll try to
get through as many questions and comments as possible. And
with that, I’ll turn it over. If you could just give your
name and where you live.>>:Bruce Taylor. I live in
Baltimore County, but I spend most of my time in Howard
County for the last 40-some years. So I want to thank the
county and all the people who participated, including many
of the residents and owners who have participated in the
project to get this very detailed presentation, which
is very impressive and very thorough. I want to share 13
additional ideas with you, some of which some of you have
heard before, that I think could be additional food for
thought in this process. We’ve talked about widening the
Tiber, which is necessary in the floodplain area, but –
excuse me – but we also need to deepen it. We need to
dredge it. Under the 8095 building, it used to be about
10 foot from the bottom of the building until you got to the
river bed. It’s now probably closer to seven feet. You can
reach – you can stand there and reach up and touch the
building, which you could not do before. So I’m hoping that
that can be part of the application that’s made. In
the broader sense, in the wake of these tragic floods that
we’ve had and the loss of life, I understand the desire
to blame flooding on development and encourage
people to think again and look back at the data in the H and
H study of McCormick Taylor. And when you look at the
severe rainfalls that we’ve had, some of the numbers there
indicate that development caused perhaps as little as 20
percent of the flooding and perhaps as much as 50 percent,
depending on how much rain you got. Either way, the
development we’re talking about that caused that is
primarily development, to remind people, that was prior
to 1984, whenever modern quality and quantity standards
came in. And so I want to remind people that, at least
in my mind, as an owner of property both on Main Street
and above Main Street, where I’m kind of uniquely situated,
to think about both ends of the problem – that modern
development, where we’re being asked to control quantity and
quality, with 8 1/2 inches of water being retained over 24
hours on property, is part of the solution to flooding of
Ellicott city not part of the problem, and that development
shouldn’t be delayed. It should be fast tracked so that
we can have these projects retain more water on-site to
keep it out of the city altogether. In terms of
thinking about redevelopment of the courthouse, for a
developer like myself to think about what might I do or offer
in an RFP, I need to have plans of the courthouse and
there needs to be some way, perhaps, to do that that’s
sensitive to the security needs of the existing court
system. But to be able to do something meaningful, people
need to know areas, square footages, where the structures
are, where the structural supports are that you can’t
pull out if you want to do something with the building.
So just a thought about that. Some of you have seen, before,
a plan that I wrote about in The Daily Record, the
Alexander concept plan that Don Reuwer and myself put
together with Charles Alexander, a local architect.
And I’m delighted that pieces of that plan are kind of
coming together and in their own way, through the county’s
plan. Of course, the plan that we came up with is not the
county plan, just to remind people. Charles Alexander came
up with what I thought was an excellent idea that I think
can really lend itself well to the riverbed concept and the
problems that you’re experiencing with the south
tunnel and giving up on the south tunnel. And this idea
stemmed initially from an idea, which was that we would
like to create – and when I say we, I should say,
residents who live in Taylor Village in the community that
helped create on College Avenue, which is now about a
thousand strong, have expressed a desire to be able
to walk to Ellicott City. And we felt that that was not
going to be too feasible on College Avenue, but it is
feasible along New Cut Road. And we’ve come up with some
ideas about how to create a walking path from Taylor
Village to Ellicott City and we were looking at crossing
from New Cut Road at St. Paul Street, over to old Columbia
Pike and having a walking bridge. So Charles Alexander
took that idea and expanded it said no, let’s take down
Lynwood, which I own a part of, where the store is now,
let’s take down on a couple of the houses on St. Paul Street,
which I also owned, and let’s make that a road. And now, we
have a giant traffic circle for Ellicott City where we can
make it one way from Maryland Avenue to Columbia Pike and
one way from Old Columbia Pike over this new road that I’m
going to call Alexander Drive, in honor of Charles, on the
St. Paul Street and down to Maryland Avenue. That would
allow us to eliminate the traffic lights at Maryland
Avenue and Main Street and the traffic light at Old Columbia
Pike. And in conjunction with doing that, this bridge that
we’re talking about to join from New Cut Road to Old
Columbia Pike with a road on it, could be part of a
diversion structure that would be your south pipeline, that
would then go under St. Paul Street. And we’re talking
about elevation now that’s about 164 feet, I think,
coming down so you could go lower under the railroad
tracks and avoid that tail-end problem that you talked about.
So that could be something that could be maybe in two
phases.>>:Say, Bruce, I know that it
sounds like you’re going to go through the entire list of all
13 items.>>:I’ll summarize real quick.>>:That would be great. I
mean, you can hand them in. We’ve seen the Alexander plan
and are well aware of it, so…>>:Some people here may not
have heard about these ideas, which is partly why I wanted
to spend a little bit more time on it.>>:(Unintelligible).>>:OK, thank you. I’ll stop
there, and I’ll just turn the rest in. Thank you so much.>>:Sure. Thank you. OK. So –
yes, sir.>>:I have – yeah, I have a
short question. In terms of erosion mitigation on the
south upper end, behind west end, there are some open space
behind the houses and so forth and we’ve been talking about
doing some erosion mitigation of the river bed there for the
Tiber. Is there any consideration of that in this
plan?>>:I get a sense that a lot of
the technical questions will be directed towards you.>>:So, the short answer is
yes. So there is concept plans out there that we would
enhance the channel that behind the properties on the
west and north side of the west end and try and – instead
of, you know, a lot of times the Hudson Branch is going
into a pipe. It’s in a channel, it does OK, then it
has to go through a pipe, it doesn’t do well, it pops out,
hits the road. And so that’s part of the conveyance, we’d
like to see the majority of the Tiber Branch – not Tiber
but the Hudson Branch, we would like to see that
day-lighted and limit the amount of pipes and we’re well
aware that there is a lot of channel work that needs to be
done on the north side at the west end.>>:Then you wouldn’t get a lot
of comments and questions, so go right ahead, though.>>:So a lot of this seems to
be from the top down flooding issue. Has there been any
thought about – I know there’s a current hold on development
around Ellicott City, but what about a hold or a ban on
development to the tributaries that go into Patapsco further
down south? Because that would bring in flooding from the
bottom up. So right now in Elkridge, there’s a lot of
building and then there’s deep run that going to back up and
cause all sorts of flooding there. So is there anything
that’s in the works about being – there stopping the
development down south?>>:There’s nothing in the
works, no moratorium that’s been considered further
downstream. From an engineering perspective, Mark,
I don’t know if the Department of Public Works has looked at
that stretch or not.>>:Not in the detail that we
have for the Ellicott portion, but we’re we are aware of
issues – we are aware of issues in Elkridge and the
frequently flooded roads that we have in the Elkridge area.
And so – but to date, nothing as extensive as what we’ve
done for Ellicott City. We haven’t done anything as
extensive yet.>>:So I don’t know how many
additional people want to stand up at the mic, but
anybody who has questions, comments, if you could just
line up that way I get a sense of, you know, how many of
these cards we’ll be able to get to. So be my guest.>>:Thank you so much. Good
evening, everyone. My name is Melissa Holtz, and I’m a
resident of Ellicott City since 2000. I just want to say
that I really have just recently engaged in this
process but I’ve certainly been aware of the city for a
long time. And I just want to think that this plan is really
– a very good plan and it has echoes of Frederick, which is
a lovely town, not so far away and has managed the water that
runs through the town very well, very attractive. It has
a lot of beautiful features and it is a great draw for the
local community. I particularly like the new plan
that was in the newspaper, which you showed tonight, and
would look to see as much greenery added to it as
possible. The clock, I’d love to see the clock come back and
have a very nice river front walk area. I highly support
the core goal, the number one core goal of safety of people.
People’s lives are more important than buildings. I
think we should all view this as an opportunity. We all know
that the rivers will rise again and it is important that
the Ellicott City residents and visitors continue to stay
alive as well.>>:Thank you. Next.>>:Evening. My name’s Bert
Wilson. Like Mr. Taylor, I’m uniquely situated too. I have
a building on Lower Main Street and I live up on the
watershed on Old Columbia Pike. And we watched
development, new development, be done with no stormwater
mitigation right across the street from us. I think what
needs to happen, be addressed in the plan, is a peak rain
mitigation for new development and not eight and a half
inches in 24 hours, that’s nonsense. And I think
something other than the 100-year flood needs to be
addressed. And otherwise, I like the plan. I think it’s
very well-thought-out. What are you going to do for other
than 100-year flood measurement?>>:So I can address it
briefly, Mark can go into the details. So, you know, we’re
well aware that that is part of the exercise that we need
to go through. So it’s one of the obligations that the
Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and
Zoning develop a strategy for the broader watershed that
looks exactly at the kinds of things that you’re touching on
here. And we actually have a deadline, May 2019 is when
we’re supposed to come out, you know, with a formal
recommendation that will most likely result in changes
either to engineering manual requirements. It could affect,
you know, subdivision and zoning regulations as well.
But Mark, I don’t know if there’s…>>:So Bert, you and I have
talked about this several times. And I think Val points
out well that, you know, we are looking at that right now
and what are we going to do differently in the watershed.
We have to balance it because some ideas make a lot of sense
geographically, might make a lot of sense in the lower area
or we’re in Ellicott City – historic district. But it’s –
if we want to be regulation-based, is it going
to be the entire watershed – and so – or is it just going
to be spots and you know – so we want it to be as uniform as
possible throughout the watershed. So it’s going to
take – so we have started already sitting down trying to
analyze how we’re going to approach this. So I would just
say, you know, I think the concept of looking at it
differently is the one that I really take away from what
you’re saying and we will do that.>>:Good. OK. (Unintelligible).>>:Thank you. Don’t be shy
about lining up, so…>>:Having a hard time hearing,
so if you can reiterate, that’s be great.>>:Yeah. Unfortunately, with
that mic, you have to pretend you’re a lounge singer and
really get in close like that.>>:Oh, I can do that. Hi, I’m
Ron Deibert. I really love a lot of the aspects of the
plan, the Lower Main Street and the Trolley Bridge and the
park down there. I live on Old Columbia Pike, maybe a few
hundred feet from lot D, where that big parking garage is
proposed. So I’m not extremely keen about the idea of a
parking garage there but I understand the need for it. If
it has to happen, I would just hope that the facades are
historic looking. Can they be stone facades and made to be
in context with the rest of town?>>:Good. Thank you. Think
you’re going to have to adjust down just a bit.>>:I’m Eli Woodruff. I live on
8611 Main Street in the West End. And I would like to know
how the master plan affects traffic on all of Main Street,
and what is being done to address the speeding problem?>>:So that was a good question
– the traffic on Main Street and the speeding problem. So
they went through it pretty quickly in the presentation,
but on West End of Main where we heard – we didn’t hear as
many, in all our meetings, a lot of speeding in the core of
Ellicott City. But on West Main – that’s where we heard a
lot of the speeding. So we’re looking at curb extensions –
raised crosswalks, multiple crosswalks located throughout
the length of the street. And they would actually be raised
up to sidewalk level, so cars have to slow down to get
through them. A traffic circle at Rogers Avenue also will –
as people come into the district, it’s really at a
point where the speed limit changes. So it’s visual cue
that you’re coming into a new district in a different
district, and that will help slow down traffic as well.
Jim, do you have any other thoughts? That would be pretty
much it.>>:Yes, sir?>>:Oh, no, I’m not here to
talk about the…>>:You can speak right in
here.>>:I don’t need that mic.>>:All right.
>>:I think everybody can hear
me…>>:Yeah.>>:It’s the TV viewers.
>>:…Because I’ll tell you
who I am. First of all, I’m an ambassador of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and I know how to speak. I just want to ask this
people and all these people in here – are you familiar that
the Ellicott City historical district – the most people
that lived there were the black community? And from Omar
Jones up until the county executive now, outside of
Charlie Miller, he put a development up there on Mount
Ida. And he had a piece of paper that after five years
they could buy. But then they changed it and made it out of
a Section 8 and deprived those people of becoming homeowners.
I lived there. I was born down there on that street, Fells
Lane, in the ’30s, you understand? And if you are
familiar with that commercial, you know – I know a thing or
two because I’ve seen a thing or two. I know about racism,
you understand? I know about racial injustice, and that
what was done to the people on Mount Ida. It was racial
injustice. And you want to know why? And they told the
people that if they would move that community up there – that
black community – they could make the business thrive down
in the historical district. So what they did? They moved out
those people – people where I was born and raised at, you
understand? They moved them out. You go down there now,
and you could count on your hands the black people that
live down there now. And I could give you many that lived
there before. See, you talking about making a parking lot
bigger for the tourists and everything. But then you going
to deprive people of becoming homeowners. These people would
have been homeowners. They would have been able to send
their children to college and things. But yet, you deprived
them with this racial injustice. See, you don’t have
to tell a thief when he’s stealing ’cause they know it,
you understand? And a lie will never be the truth, and the
truth will never be the lie. So the truth of this – this
county need to see that these people get their part of their
community back. That’s what you need. I’m here because my
mother raised us. We had 12 children. She didn’t allow us
to speak of racism, you understand? It was 12 of us.
The first three oldest died in their 90s. And the rest of us
is in our 70s and 80s, you understand? So I know, but I
know we were told back to the old (unintelligible), you
understand? The Lord will take care of it, you understand?
Keep (unintelligible) in mind. That water didn’t come down
Frederick Road and Main Street until 2011. It came up. And it
went up far as (unintelligible). But you
people don’t know what (unintelligible) is, you
understand? But I tell you what you better do because I’m
a believer, you understand? And I know God will prevail.
And I don’t care what structure you men build.
You’ll never stop the power of God, you understand? And that
water came down, and they said they gonna stop those people.
They want to get that black community out of there where
the business can thrive. So you got the black community
out of there, but you didn’t stop the water from coming
down. See, we need to judge our hearts, and you got to
learn how to love people, you understand? I don’t want to
confuse you, none of you – you know? – because I’ve been black
all my life, you understand? And I know what is black. I
went into service right after the Korean War, stationed down
in (unintelligible). The flag represented me when I was on
the base, but when I got off the base, the flag didn’t
represent me. And it’s still the same now. So you may not
believe, but I know prayer go a long way.>>:Thank you.>>:And I wanted to just – I
just wanted to make my statement.>>:I appreciate that.>>:And I tell you, and if you
come down on Frederick Road – we’ve been living in that
house for 60 years – you’re going to see signs up. They’ve
been up there since 2025 – about injustice because I put
one up there that said that Mount Ida was the last
plantation because the white man moved it – because he had
control over it. And he moved those people and stopped those
people. Those people used to live – and they had outhouses,
you understand? The first time they ever had inside
facilities – my house – my father – he put a bathroom in
there, and he took a woodshed and made a kitchen out of it,
you understand? Outside and in the barn – we’re the only one.
We even had whites that had outdoor houses.>>:Sir, I…>>:You gotta look at one
another.>>:Sir, I really…>>:You gotta care for one
another.>>:I appreciate that…>>:I know. Don’t worry because
if y’all give me this whole – this whole hall – you
understand? – I’ll preach you a sermon.>>:I believe that. I believe
that. Thank you.>>:It’s a little hard to
speak. My name is Connie Segel. I’m from Ellicott City.
I just wondered if there had been any option thought of, of
having – instead of removing all the buildings at the end
of Main Street and allowing the water to flow down a
terrace idea as you’ve shown, to have a lower structure or
an open area under possibly the existing buildings raised
up or their facades reconstructed – and allow
that, like a viaduct type of system – if that’s any – if
there’s an option for that at all?>>:I don’t know if you guys
would like to talk about the options. There was an option
that looked at it flowing through buildings, so I’m not
sure who is the best to answer that.>>:We could talk about it
briefly. I mean, it was an idea. So we had several
iterations of how to configure Main Street. And what we were
really trying to do – with the overall goal of lowering the
floodwater elevations and also diminishing the velocity – the
water velocity – during the flood. And so through the
model, there was at least 17 different iterations or
configurations that we evaluated. Some of those
iterations also had a A-B through A-B-C-D component. So
there were more than 17 iterations. But what we
started – and one of the iterations was, well – and if
I understand the question – well, why don’t we just let
water pass through the first floors? And so we would
elevate the structures, and so they would have second floors.
But they wouldn’t be first floors, and floodwaters could
go through there. So we did look at that option, and we
simulated – we simulated, and we showed this, actually, at
the council hearing. But we showed where the piers would
be to support the buildings, and then put the July 30 storm
through it to see how it would react. And so it was one of
the iterations, but we found that the – we found that we
could get the lowest amount of water and the lowest velocity
of water with what we now know is 16-C inside this county –
but which is really the five-year plan. So like I
said, we went all the way through 17 iterations –
probably really about 20 to 23 iterations. So that was one of
them, and I want people to know that. And I have also
seen where others have said well, you know, why haven’t you considered that, and we did consider that. It’s in the report. It was in the presentations we made to the county, it wsa in the presentation that the executive and Councilman Wienstein gave to the council. So it was in all the graphics
and so it’s in there. We still found – like I said – the
conclusion was that we could get better, we could achieve
the goal with the five-year plan with the options that we
put together for that five-year plan.>>:Is that working? I’m Joel
Horowitz. I live in Columbia. Continuing the previous
question, I’ve written on my local Common Sense blog if
anybody wants to read about the wall, which talking to
McCormick and Taylor, I’m not sure how many very durations
Mr. Deluca dealt with the wall. Because I got one of the
public information answers that the existing channel was
30 feet by eight feet, which is about 240 cubic feet per
foot. And when you putting all these tiers and steps, you’re
sucking up all the real estate and I find it truly
disappointing in the presentation that you made
admissions that the – hadn’t done the math to find out
what’s going to work or not. So I find adding a couple a
hundred or so cubic feet with a widen channel is not
materially going to prove anything, especially with the
water coming from the New Cut, I don’t know how the plan is
to keep the water just slushing out onto Main Street,
especially with the admission that six feet of water could
be on Main Street. The plan doesn’t seem to deal with the
debris from the cars flowing into the park. You’ve
mentioned bollards for, I guess for events but it seemed
to me you need a 10 to 12-foot bollard in a flood event to
keep the cars out. Also very disappointing is that these
plans show the CSX culverts in any view of any consequence.
In fact, anybody who’s not familiar with that plan would
even know much what you’re talking about with the CSX
culverts, which I support. But look at the elevations,
they’re basically going to suck up all the real estate at
Maryland Avenue. You have these two 10-foot blowing
culverts, which how are you going to deal with one, if you
put a great then you’re going to block the debris, if you
don’t put a great, the kids are going to run into it.
Homeless people likely living in Las Vegas are going to be a
problem. So I don’t understand how you’re dealing with these
issues, you dealt with constructability issues, but
you seem more interested in having a pretty park than
actually working as you – Mr. Deluca admitted in some of the
previous that you’ve designed for optimal but then the storm
doesn’t do optimal. I like that the Alexander plan
preserved the historic part of the T and the Tiber and if
you’re going to put tiers, I don’t know why we can’t keep
the historic part of the building there. And the same
thing goes for the Phoenix. You’re putting a plaza there,
I don’t know why you can’t put the building – top of it, put
the culverts underneath it. So until I see workable
engineering for how the Lower Main is going to work, any
flood event with the culverts and even some views showing
the culvert of how the people are going to be functioning in
this park standing next to this giant hole. At the same
time you’re actually – somebody’s concept plan is
you’re going to watch a band while you’re standing in a
stream, I can’t believe that that’s serious consideration.
When we have a drought, there’s not much water at all.
People like – Frederick, I guess they have water
apparently. But you need to plan for the flood end. A
couple summers ago, we had no water so it’s going to be a
dry mucky thing with debris blowing into it. So, as I
said, I really been looking for weeks for answers of how
the culverts were going to be designed, how to preserve
Maryland Avenue, even in the construction process from a
blow out and to the B&O. So…>>:Appreciate your comments,
thank you.>>:My name is Craig Stewart. I
live in the historic district in Old Columbia Pike. I’ve
lived in Howard County for 48 years and when I first
discovered Ellicott City, frankly, and that was in the
’60s, Ellicott City if you might – many know was really a
backwater. It was not developed at all and actually
it was because of that fact that the historic preservation
has been so successful because it was not developed. If I had
walked in – and I apologize, this is the first planning
meeting I’ve been to and maybe everyone in this room was
familiar with the concepts that you presented tonight. I
came here because I’m so concerned about the – down to
the bottom of Main Street, in terms of the development near
the B&O station, which you address. And then for the
first time, I have seen these concepts and the renderings
and so forth of the rest of Ellicott City. And maybe
everyone else in this room is familiar with it, I am not. I
saw it tonight and frankly, my first impression is I walked
into the wrong meeting. This must be a discussion about
Columbia, Md. It can’t possibly be Historic Ellicott
City. We’re now proposing not one, but three parking
structures – one off of Old Columbia Pike, one up around
the courthouse, and then a third over by the Fells Lane
with a commercial wrapper. Why are we considering commercial
development in a Historic District that’s 247 years old?
Why aren’t we focusing on you – on preserving and protecting
the unique character of historic Ellicott City? If you
want to do more intense commercial development,
rightly so, it should be in Columbia or other areas. But I
fail to understand the validity of the concept of
imposing all of this commercial development in a
historic district. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)>>:Good evening. My name is
Mike Sullivan. I have a question about the master
plan, and it has to do with – many of us had high hopes for
the north and south tunnels that were first identified in
the H and H study – that they would eliminate the threat
over time. Well, now it seems like we are scaling back a
little on that or at least losing faith in those two
tunnels as a long-term solution, even, to eliminate
the threat. The five-year plan’s going to mitigate the
threat. It will not eliminate it, as we all know. So if it’s
not the five-year plan to mitigate the threat and it’s
not the two – the north and south tunnels any longer
because it sounds like we’ve lost interest in those, what
is the best hope to eliminate the 100-year flood threat in
the lower end? It appears the back-flooding is – we’ll have
the back-flooding problem with the five-year mitigation plan,
as well, just like we will with the south tunnel. So can
somebody speak to the – why the north and south tunnels
have lost their flair?>>:Well, I would say that –
what I said earlier about the south tunnel is that it
doesn’t appear to – the feasibility of the south
tunnel is in question. The north tunnel has issues about
how it can be designed to function. And if we start –
and when we impose these limitations on that north
tunnel, how effective will it really be at eliminating
floodwaters? That still needs to be addressed. But more so I
think that, in the context of what we’re really trying to
accomplish in a five-year period, with the majority –
the most acute issues being addressed within the first
year, the tunnel option is not something that we can
accomplish. We can certainly analyze it further, and we’re
not saying that we – we’re not going to do that, but what
we’re saying is that, with this five-year plan, we’re
addressing those acute issues as quickly as possible. It
will take time. It will take time for that north tunnel to
shake out – to see exactly how it can be designed to be
effective. And for – so it’s just outside of the five-year
period. But there are many problems that, right now, seem
to be real, real challenges. And the first one is just the
entrance to that tunnel because, right now,
conceptually – and it’s worth noting, again – and I know it
was said before, but modeling is just, well, let’s draw a
line on a piece of paper and then let’s just shove it
through the model and see what it can do. But it doesn’t
really address the reality of when you really try to put
that creation in place. So, for example, we had a model
that showed that, well, if you put a 30-foot diameter opening
in the ground and you dropped it 39 feet down and then did a
tunnel starting at 39 feet below grade and running it all
the way down to the river, it’s going to carry some
water. Yeah. But I think that that concept really needs to
be fine-tuned. And what I would caution is that we look
at a single solution and put all our eggs in one basket
like that, spend five to six years trying to go through its
feasibility. And then, at the end of that five to six years,
realize we can’t build it or it’s not going to really do
what we thought it was going to do because we had to
constrain so many things from the original idea. This
five-year plan, like I said – and I use the word acute.
There are acute problems. And I think the five-year plan,
within the first year, starts to really get at a solution
for those problems. And then, in years two, three, four and
five, there’ll be a roll out of other projects that will
really be – will really be effective. So a north tunnel,
I would say, we hasn’t completely lost its luster.
But I think that it can’t be accomplished in the time frame
we would like this immediacy. We want this immediacy. And
so, I mean, I could go on and on about the north tunnel. I
just want to say that we’re not – you know, like, at the
end of five years, that’s not it. That’s the important point
that you should take away also. At the end of five
years, we’re not done. We pack it up, we leave and say we
just fixed Ellicott City. And that’s not what we’re going to
do, but the five ear plan does address those very immediate
problems that need immediate solutions.>>:Hi, my name is Nayna, and
I’m actually not from Ellicott City. I’m from Virginia. I
drove about, like, two hours. But I was curious about your
numbers a little bit – your cost benefit analysis. And I
was surprised to hear that you consider removing buildings,
putting them somewhere else. And what your – how you
determine your historic value of a building. Not just
materials, but beyond that. And when it comes to – I think
there was a comment earlier about removing the potential
for more businesses to open with this Riverwalk, do you
have any plans for, like, non-permanent businesses like
food trucks or whatever – something that can come in,
like vendors? And I don’t know what your – if that was your
idea for that Riverwalk area.>>:Well, again, I think the
consultant team showed a number of images, you know,
specifically the area on Maryland Avenue that could
accommodate food trucks. The notion of the expanded
sidewalk, those could be wide enough to accommodate outdoor
dining. They could, you know, also accommodate, you know,
food carts, that sort of thing. So I think all of those
ideas of, you know, a non-traditional, you know,
food delivery system – a restaurant, whatever you want
to call it, I think those are part of the idea. To address,
though, the question of, you know, how the near erm plan
addresses the removal of historic structures. You know,
we do have this group that’s set up that is going to advise
the county on the demolition and removal of historic
structures – evaluating what their potential is for either
relocation or reuse. So that’s being considered. It’s not
something that has been included as part of a cost
benefit analysis. Our goals are clear, that we need to
address the situation in the near term. And as Mark
described, there’s a five year window here that we’re trying
to, you know, get into. And we understand that the choices
are tough. But the overarching goal here is that of reducing
risk in the downtown. I don’t know, Mark, if there’s more
you could add.>>:Hello, my name is Kay
Robbins and my husband and I are architects on Main Street.
We have four buildings and we’ve been in business on Main
Street for almost 22 years. With the initial renovations
of our building and then the 2011, 2016 and now the ’18
flood, we have – probably, we could have purchased our
buildings three or four times over for what we’ve put into
them. So I feel like we’re very heavily invested in this
community. I love this community and I respect it.
And I think that what you guys have done is very imaginative.
I think the ideas show a lot of great ideas, and I am very
appreciative for all the work that you have put into it and
I really support it. One of my first jobs – actually, my
first job out of architecture school many years ago was
working for the construction company that built the subway
in Washington. And they – I was fortunate enough to work
on the tunnel boring that went under the Dupont Circle Metro,
which is one of the deepest ones in Washington. And I
don’t think people have any idea of how complicated it is
to drill through a virtually granite valley. So when we
talk about tunnels, you know, oh, let’s just build a tunnel
here or build a tunnel there. It’s a tremendous undertaking.
And I think that it’s probably, as these guys are
saying, something that might be down the line. But for
right now, I would like a solution. That means I don’t
have to rebuild these things every two years, and I
appreciate these things that are going to be implemented
right away. So thank you very much.>>:Thank you.>>:Hi, my name is Frank
Durante. I’ve been a resident here for 30 years. And I think
a couple people have brought this point tonight, but hasn’t
been to my satisfaction here. After – during these 30 years,
I’ve seen the creek – the Hudson Creek behind my house
rise faster year after year because of one thing,
development up the watershed. And I think you’ve heard a man
that had been here for 60 years, that he hadn’t seen
that before 2011. If we don’t stop development in this
watershed, these plans here will fail. This is, to me, the
most important thing to do. Development has caused these
floods more than climate change, and I’m a believer in
that. And I hope that your plan will totally include
changing – you know, stopping all of these developments in
this watershed – major developments. Is there any
plans for that?>>:Well, I guess the reality
is there currently is a moratorium in place, so
development has stopped in the watershed. And as we
described, the Department of Planning and Zoning, the
Department of Public Works – we’re going to be analyzing
what kinds of development regulations need to be
modified to address the issue of stormwater management.
We’re not at that point, so I can’t answer your question.
The other one – you know, the fact that you’re recommending
a permanent moratorium of no development in the watershed,
that’s not a question that the Department of Planning and
Zoning can answer. That comes through the County Council. So
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see on that.>>:Yeah. After 2016, I think
there was five developments that were allowed to go on.
So, I mean, I hope it stops because if it doesn’t, we’re
going to build all this for nothing. Thank you.>>:I’m Tanya Lopez and I’m
resident of Ellicott City. I’m also licensed PE and water
resource engineer. First of all, I truly want to thank you
for all the work you’re doing because I’m on another side of
the – what is happening, and I’m just observing. And as an
engineer, I know the extent of the work which we put in just
to come up with this. Because it looks like the public
doesn’t really understand, and thank you so much. I’m really
impressed with all of that. And my question is talking
about culverts. I was sitting in the office today and I was
checking the culverts – the feasibility and they came up
exactly with the same solution. You cannot change
this, even diameter of the tunnel for the rainfall event
because you may invest millions of dollars and then
in one here – a higher storm comes and we get flooded
again. So – but talking about culverts, I still see some
culverts in your design, and I wanted to ask what is the
worst case tail water what are you designing that for and is
there a way to run the model for the worst case scenario?
Maybe what we experienced in ’70s, which was flooding of
Patapsco River, and the lies the safety and threatening to
the public as far as this back tail water condition and also
just to check this culverts if they do not make the whole
system – if they don’t work backwards. So if they would
not make the flooding course.>>:So we haven’t looked at,
you know, a riverine flood. We haven’t looked at like an
Agnes storm like we had in ’72. So we didn’t look at that
because the immediate problem, which has always been
something that we’ve said, a lot of these – a lot of what
we’re addressing is the top down storm. So we are
sensitive to that. There isn’t too much we can do in the way
of conveyance or in the way of storage for a riverine flood
because we can’t control floodwaters on the Patapsco.>>:That’s correct.>>:So we know when they’re
going to happen, we have a better idea through our gauges
that we have and that type of flood is a lot more
predictable. So we know when it’s going to hit, how long it
should be before it leaves, things like that. But there is
– right now, there’s no solution for that and our
analysis doesn’t necessarily even – doesn’t take that into
consideration. Now the culverts, many of the culverts
are – we know since the 2011 storm when we analyzed them,
we know that they are – you know, from the top down, we
know that they’re undersized. But there have been so many
physical constraints that we haven’t been able to do very
much about the culverts. For example, we have properties
that are adjacent on the right and the left of a culvert and
there is no opportunity for us to expand that culvert at all.
So – but generally speaking, you know, we’ve looked at the
entire drainage system – the storm drainage system to see
how well that functions. And that is part of the plan to
upgrade, because we’ve found deficiencies there. So we do
have projects that will be upgrading those storm drain
systems. And we’re trying wherever we can to reconnect
the streams with their 100-year flood plains. So, you
know, that means widening them out. And that’s a challenge,
but that’s something that the – what we’re doing in the five
year plan, what it tries to address. So it’s a multi
faceted approach for us. We’re looking at storm drainage
improvements in the existing communities that might be a
little bit uphill like on Rogers Avenue, places like
that – Court House Drive. And then we’re also looking at the
stream conveyances and trying to reconnect the floodplains –
the natural flood plains that have been – you know, that the
physical built environment has taken away from the streams.>>:OK. Excuse me for the pipes
or tunnels which will outflow directly into Patapsco River,
are you going to look at worst-case scenario at least
to check if they would not create the backup water? Like,
do you understand what I mean?>>:Right. Yes, so with all of
our modeling, we’re looking at the July 2016 storm and
testing everything we do when we model it. We look at the
July ’16 storm as well as other storms. But that is the
worst case that we’re using.>>:Thank you so much.>>:Thank you. Hi there.>>:Hello. I’m William Bishop,
and we have the five year plan, and we’re looking at
immediate solutions as soon as possible to alleviate for the
flooding. So I see this work being done now, which is
great, up above Court House – Ellicott Mills Drive so that
the future flooding will not wash away the roads. So now
the construction is to build underneath with a tunnel to
get the water through faster, correct? Not necessarily, but
is going to do it, OK? But now you’re funneling more water
down past there faster, and you’re getting down to Court
Avenue. Now the water’s going to funnel all down that one
little area – the little opening for the water to get
through. So what to do about that? I mean, I have a
building that’s right there. And let’s say it flood, the
water came up through the city even in a basement apartment.
That’s eight feet high. And it’s going to happen again
even faster. It’s going to get higher because now you’re
bringing water down faster to get there and it’s not going
to be able to get through. So you need to do something with
Court Avenue quickly to get that water through, not let it
back up and be worse. You’re creating a bigger problem for
me by doing what you’re doing up at Ellicott Mills Drive.>>:So I agree with your
concept. You know, it’s hard to start in the middle and…>>:So you’re doing it there –
now the next one’s going to be the culvert down the Court
Avenue, right? When would that be, approximately – one year,
two year, three year, four year?>>:Yeah, it’s within one to
two years in what we’ve scheduled. In fact, the
channel, you know, we’re making modifications to the
culvert at Ellicott Mills that will – and, you know, before
it was in a pipe, it was in a nine-foot diameter metal pipe
that you have behind there and then it would run into that
channel behind your property. And then the biggest
impediment was the Court Avenue culvert itself because
it was too small. And so…>>:Exactly>>:…and it all backs up. So,
I mean, we realized that. Ideally, we would start at the
end at the Patapsco and work our way up, and it’s still
what we want to do. So what we’re doing at Ellicott Mills
at that culvert – it has the potential to carry the
100-year storm through that culvert. But that would be way
too much to carry, and we understand that we would be
flooding out all those properties like, you know,
you’ve said. So what we’ve done is realizing that we’re
in the middle, what we’ve done is we’ve choked down – we’ve
allowed Ellicott Mills culvert to be choked down from a
100-year storm down to what it was, which was a 9-foot pipe,
until we can finish Court Avenue culvert. Well, that’s
all considered part of what’s known as the Hudson Bend, OK?>>:Yeah.>>:So we would finish that
project. We would work from the bottom of the Tiber
Hudson. At the Patapsco River, we would work up. And
hydraulically, when it makes sense, after we’ve finished
enough projects, then we would take the constriction off of
Ellicott Mills. And so then, it would pass its water, you
know, without any damage to the properties, without
causing any additional damage to the properties.>>:But you’re going to let
enough water – Pardon me. – go underneath of the Ellicott
Mills Drive to keep them from washing out the street again,
right? That’s what it’s all about.>>:In the final – yes, in the
final build out, OK? But we can’t – but what’s happening
now is we’re constricting it so that it’s only allowing
through what it allowed before so – until we can finish other
pieces of the downstream improvements. So hopefully,
what you’ll experience is nothing more than what you
would have experienced before, OK? And then when we do adjust
or modify the stream downstream, then we’ll take
the constrictions off of Ellicott Mills.>>:And you estimate that will
be about when we’ll get Court Avenue corrected – the –
underneath the Court Avenue – that culvert.>>:Yeah, I would say that it’s
within – with our planning today, it’s within the five
year plan.>>:Well, in others words, I’m
going to wait five years then, probably – could wait five
years for that to happen.>>:I would say realistically,
yes.>>:Very sad. Thank you.>>:Our goal was, you know, to
get out at maybe quarter after nine, something like that. We
can take a couple of additional questions. For
those of you who wrote on the index cards, thank you very
much. But I don’t think that we’re going to be able to get
to those questions. What we’re going to do is we’re going to
consolidate all of these things. We’ll post them on our
website, and we’ll provide answers. So I’m sorry, but I
counted. We’ve got like 25 questions just on cards alone.>>:Hi, my name is Nick
Drummond. I am a junior architect in Baltimore. I grew
up in Howard County. I just had a couple questions. One
was – so several challenges including hightail water in
the Patapsco and debris blockages were brought up as
reasons why a south tunnel board might not work. So my
question is how will those same issues affect the CSX
culverts? And just to clarify, what will flood levels on Main
Street be if the culverts are blocked or deemed infeasible
to construct?>>:So the tail water is an
issue, all right? I think that when we’re looking at the
tunnels and we’re expecting them to be the silver bullet
that’s just going to drain everything off of Main Street,
then we have to look at – then that’s where the scale of that
project – that tunnel project becomes so large that things
start to happen. So in any analysis, you know, if the
tail water comes up or if the top of that tunnel is blocked,
then – and if that’s the only thing that you’re using – OK?
– to mitigate flooding on Main Street, well, you’ve lost it
all.>>:Well, I don’t think tunnels
would be the only thing. I think they would just be part
of a much larger plan.>>:So I agree with you. I
think tunnels could be a part of a much larger plan. I think
that, however, my feelings from – and not only mine, but,
you know, we have two engineering consultants that
have independently looked at this, and the south tunnel
doesn’t look as promising as a solution. The north tunnel
could be. How much contribution will the north
tunnel be? I doubt – because we will need to scale it back,
I doubt that it will be the silver bullet. So I just want
to make sure that we just strike through that right
away. It will supplement with all these other projects. It
will supplement. Now the culverts at Maryland Avenue,
so the idea there is, you know, this channel only – now
I know why we’re running over. It’s because I’m talking too
much. So…>>:Running over.>>:Right. But I think that
what’s going on – the reality of the situation is that these
tributaries, these branches, the Tiber, the Hudson, the New
Cut, they’re all joining together and they only go
through one culvert at the end of Maryland Avenue. And I
can’t remember the dimensions off the top of my head, but
it’s not big. And then we have the constriction with the CSX
bridge, which – it has to fit through the arch. So, I mean,
and that’s part of the issue. So what does it do? If we
weren’t to – if we didn’t do anything, it would just go
down Main Street and hang a right off into the river and,
you know, probably still do that because – but when you
think of all that water has to fit through that tiny thing,
you need another way for the water to get out. So the idea
of these two, 10-foot pipes that would also – you know,
would also catch some of that water coming down those
tributaries and give it a second access point to get
out. Now of course, that whole system is idealized. It
doesn’t say that it’s going to get blocked. It doesn’t say
that. But we’re conservative with what we expect to get out
of it and it’s not always apparent to someone outside of
the design. So, you know, we might see a solution and say
that’s a 100 percent solution, but on paper. But it will
never be in reality.>>:But is the – just to
clarify, is the four to six feet number – is that with
those two twin and culverts operating in an ideal way? I
mean, if they get blocked by – with trees or…>>:So the four to – so what’s
important is when you look at the model – so we
overgeneralize and simplify what we’re saying. Like, well,
it’s four to six feet on Main Street. But when you look at
the model, what you’re really looking at is what’s the
linear extent down Main Street that’s actually four to six
feet? So – because in a lot of areas, it dropped to two feet
or maybe even less. So when you’re saying, well, it’s a
maximum four to six feet and that area might be – if you
really were to take a look at Main Street, that’s got a dip
in it. So, you know, that’s where it occurs. And when
we’re looking at the model when we run iteration 15, we
might see the four to size feet – so many feet. And then
when we run model 16, we see it shrink. But what we report
is it’s still four to six feet, but it might only be for
a smaller area. Same thing with velocity. The velocities
– if you were to look at per foot or however you want to
break the velocities down on Main Street, some of the
velocities of water are below one foot per second. Very,
very manageable. But at the worst case, it might be 4.6,
4.5. So as engineers, we don’t report, well, it’s going to be
0.7 feet. We can’t do that. What is it on average or what
is the maximum? That’s what we’re reporting out. So
sometimes, you know, you really have to get into the
data, look at the model and see what it’s really giving
you. So the answer to your question is, yes, there’s four
to six feet. But what I would maintain is that, you know, if
you were to compare all the model runs, maybe that four to
six feet and one of the model runs is 100 feet long. Maybe
in another model run, it’s only 50 feet long. So the one
we pick is the 50 foot one because that’s as far as we
could get it, right? So – but it’s not reported out.
Unfortunately, it’s not reported out that way to the
public because we just say, well, it’s four to six feet
because that’s the maximum.>>:I’m going to take the
prerogative to pull off the hook at this point.>>:Pull the plug?>>:And, you know, I think
we’re going to be here if you want to discuss it in greater
detail. It looks like you’ve got a whole laundry list in
there.>>:Just one more. Why less
than 5 percent of retention from the H&H study? Why is
that being done in terms of the square feet of retention?
If you compare – I mean, is it just a cost benefit? What what
was the reason more retention upstream is not being done?>>:Well, I don’t know if I
understand the question when you say 5 percent. But I think
all of the retention is trying to be done upstream. The
opportunities aren’t as great on some of the branches as
others. But I think that – and what we can accomplish in five
years, we certainly can’t accomplish all the retention
we need. So, you know, we need to retain 400 and – or 624
acre feet. And I think that what we’re trying to do is –
and so we have to find opportunities to retain that.
And I think that we’ve identified a lot of
opportunities. There are some that this a bigger bang for
the buck in the immediate – in the first five years. So
they’re the ones that are being pursued. I think that
there are many, many projects like underground storage –
there are many other projects that are being looked at. But
they’re a longer term. Whether it’s a mid-range or a long
term, it’s not the immediate plan because they just can’t
be accomplished in that timeframe.>>:OK, thank you. I appreciate
everybody’s patience this evening. The one thing that
I’ll say, this is why this project needed to be discussed
in a simple email. So with that, I’d like to turn it over
to the county executive for some closing thoughts.>>:Thank you, Val. I’ll be
very short because we’ve been here a long time. Thank you,
first of all, everybody for staying so long. And if you’re
at home watching or you came early and had to leave, I
appreciate that as well. I was going to say the same thing
you just said. It just shows you how complex this is and
how difficult it is and how I appreciate all of the
consultants – everyone’s hard work on that and DPZ and DPW.
Well, we continue want to work with the community. We
continue want to do what’s best for our community. We can
continue want to make sure nobody else dies. We want to
make sure that people are safe. We want make sure this
town’s around for 500 years. And that’s what the goal is
and we want to do it together. So thank you so much. And I
also want to make sure I thank my very good friend John
Weinstein. He has been a great partner on this. He has been a
visionary for this as well. So I want to thank him for doing
that, and so let’s have a good night, and let’s keep on moving
forward. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE)