what the issue is tonight that we're approving. Good evening. And welcome
to the July 9th meeting of the Planning Policy Commission. Tonight we are going to
have a public meeting, yeah, public hearing on the request from Lakeside
Industries for rezone and code amendment changes. Before we have
the open, the public hearing, I don't know why I can't do this, public hearing,
Dave Favre is going to explain what is being requested. So Dave, please take it
away. Thank you. Thank you. I'll do some explaining and then
if the applicant would like to explain as well. But I'll get started. Ready? Here
we go. So this is a request by Lakeside Industries for a rezone and a
code amendment. And I've got ten or so slides to describe the project for you.
So... Here we go. So here's the site.
Lakeside, you all know where the gravel pit is. I call it the gravel pit
at the base of the Issaquah Highlands area. The portion we're looking at is kind
of the lower portion of that lakeside industry. So this mouse will work here. The
upper portion is covered under a previous development agreement that was approved by
council a couple years ago. Here's the site.
Louder. Louder? Okay, Louder, thank you. That's in your packet. The
background, as I already said, is Lakeside's been operating for several decades, the mining
and asphalt concrete processing on this property. A development agreement was adopted by Council
January of 2013 to envision the redevelopment of the upper portion of
this Lakeside property. to urban uses, and we can talk
about that more if there are questions on that. In that development agreement on
page five with the text up on the screen, the council and Lakeside agreed that
a second step, which is what we're going through today, is to work on a
rezone of the lower portion of the location to
rezone and do a code amendment to envision that change to IC,
intensive commercial zoning, and to continue the processing uses and the mining uses that
are already occurring there. So that was in 2013, and then the last
bullet there says that June 24th, two weeks ago, the Development Commission heard this
proposal as is required by our land use code, and held a community
conference, which is kind of similar to our conference tonight.
There are two parts of this request. One is to rezone it from mineral resources,
or M, to IC, and the second is a code amendment in the IC zone
to allow two uses that are in the table today. It's mineral extraction and processing
of asphalt and concrete. So I'll start with the rezone request.
The purpose of these zones out of our code gives us some direction. The M
Zone is clearly, I'd say, for extraction, for mining. It's kind of a pretty narrow
focus. The IC Zone allows greater uses of office, retail, and intensive
commercial, which you can make an argument, the mining operation falls in that subset of
intensive commercial uses. So it kind of makes sense to go to that zone.
Here is the zoning map that, thank you very much, Lakeside provided Kind of showing
how it all works out here. So I'll just run the mouse around.
Most of this here is the lakeside properties. The urban village
envisions the redevelopment over many decades going up the hills, so that's the development agreement.
And then over many decades down in the valley floor, lakeside envisions it
going more to the intensive commercial uses. And that is the IC zone that's in
this crosshatch pattern that surrounds the south and the west side
of the properties. So take the IC and kind of
spread it out towards those three properties here, those three parts of lakeside.
So that's the zoning request. The code amendment proposal I've mentioned is to allow
the mining property operations to continue in this zone and also the processing of asphalt
concrete to continue. And in case people are concerned, oh, we're gonna allow mining and
these uses to go through all the IC zone properties, the answer would be no.
This is a footnote in the table to say it's only to continue the uses
that have existed prior to August 2 of 1999, which is Lakeside. So that
kind of narrows that scope. Here is what the actual
amendment looks like on the table of permitted uses. Isn't that lovely?
The red right here, and down in the footnote here
are the two text changes. And I've got two items to highlight for you. This
is a little different than what's in your packet. So it's a correction and a
clarification. The correction is that in your packet, The number two was
placed in, I think, this box over here by mistake, a big mistake by me.
So we don't want that in the open space zone. It should appropriately
be in the IC zone. So it would say mineral extracting and asphalt concrete mixing
are both permitted uses in the IC zone, you know, IC up here.
And then this footnote is the actual text to say Yes, these two uses
may continue as outright uses in the IC zone only for
those uses that existed prior to August 2 of 1999 and subject to the
mining regulations that are on our codebook already. There's a long list
of development standards that these operations need to adhere to, and so those
would continue in place. So that's the intent of this table here.
There are criteria for rezones in the code, and I'll just say we, for the
Development Commission meeting, we wrote a staff report that's in your packet and spells out
those specific criteria with the discussion at the end of how we feel it meets
those criteria. I picked out some highlights of those criteria here. We feel it meets
that there are changed circumstances as Lakeside envisions redevelopment over many decades.
I think you'll hear that they're not planning to stop anytime soon, but over time.
We have done public notice and we have not received any comments about
detrimental effects to adjacent properties. We've done our evaluation and
agree with that. We feel it's consistent with the state GMA, Growth Management Act, County-wide
policies all the way down to the zoning standards. There are public facilities
and services to serve the development adequately and environmental review is occurring
on this and we feel that they're adequately mitigated. So we feel it meets the
criteria for the proposal. And then finally, what are the next steps?
So the administration recommends approval and tonight we're having a hearing PPC then would have
discussion. We hope that you have a recommendation tonight. You don't
have to. And then council review is anticipated likely in September, October.
And that is the description of the project at this time. Any
questions? What's the
long range if we change it to IC, So it's gonna be MNIC and then
20 years from now with the stipulation of only activities prior to 99.
So at some point if it stops mineral extraction,
can it just go right into any other type of intensive commercial use? Because it
has that. And then it's kinda got a date on there of activities that were
prior to 99, which wouldn't be development and it's another type of intensive commercial. I
would say so, say it stops or they want to add another use, you know,
a retail, an office, some other intensive, that would be subject to the normal permit
process of whatever development is proposed, like any development on
any property in the city. So you couldn't just go over and say we're going
to go do this use tomorrow. Because it's been classified as intensive commercial, but it's
limited to the operations as they are now. or in 99. So the mining
operations are occurring now, can continue as they always have, but if another use, if
you want to desire another use to come and add on, then they would have
to submit for permits and go through and show how compliance with our codes,
like... That's what I'm saying, intensive commercial includes a lot of different other uses. So
that's the question, is what they'd still have to... It's limited to the type of
intensive commercial use it has as of 99. No, it's limited to the intensive
commercial uses that are in the zoning permitted land use table today. There's a whole
host of uses. It feels like there's a conflict with me with that 99 date
because it says only those activities that were there. But the code allows a whole
lot of other activities. See what I'm saying? If you want to explain, maybe I'm
not. Maybe I can explain. Maybe I can explain. Identify
yourself. Okay. My name is Timothy Lee, and I'm the CEO at Lakeside. And I'm
a member of the family that bought this gravel pit in the early 50s.
And we operated under King County's mining zone until 1999,
when Issaquah annexed us as a part of the Grand Ridge annexation.
At that time, Issaquah did not have a mining zone. And so Issaquah had to
create a mining zone in order to accommodate our use. In that
Issaquah mining zone, they only allow mining in the city of Issaquah
in those places where there was mining before 1999. That's how the 1999 date
got into the mix. So I think the 1999 date only only
refers to those uses that are allowed under the mining zone. Not the intensive commercial.
Correct. Thank you. And so the intensive commercial part is open to
other intensive commercial development at a later time when you know, and out the.
That's correct. Yes. The mine. Yes. I guess to say it another way is if
some other property and intensive commercial wanted to start mining. They couldn't start
mining because they hadn't been mining as of August of 1999. Yeah, I'm not worried
about new mining coming in. I'm trying to figure out what's going to happen when,
you know, if 20 years from now you mined out, then what intensive commercial
allows you to go into other development. Right. I think we've got that straightened out.
Hello, I'm John Hempelman. I'm the counsel for Lakeside Industries, and great
to be here. We were here in front of you two years ago when we
spent... almost a year and a half with the city doing the development agreement for
the hillside, the Lakeside Urban Village. We were mostly in front of the Development Commission,
but we came in front of this body as well. So it's good to be
back. And we're doing what the City Council and Lakeside agreed to do. And
why are we doing this? It's a little bit technical, but it's not that difficult
to explain. Everything that you could see that's Lakeside ownership, the entire gravel
mine from up at Highland Drive, 9th Avenue, all the way down to the floor
of the valley, was in the mineral zone. So as Tim said, the city
created a mineral zone, and there was only one place for the mineral zone, which
was Lakeside. And the mineral zone only allowed mining that had been in effect prior
to 1999. They didn't want another gravel pit in the city, but they also wanted
Lakeside to stay. We heard that even two weeks ago from the members of the
Development Commission. They were delighted that we're doing this because they want those jobs to
stay there and to provide the product, the concrete and the asphalt that's used to
build our region and trucked from a very near area as opposed to way far
away. So when we, under the development agreement, the hillside where
the mine is was changed from the M Zone to urban
village. It permitted continued mining, but it was no longer the M Zone.
The processing down at the floor of the valley where the concrete and asphalt is
and the crushers and the mixers and the other things that Tim will
explain, that was an accessory use. And as you know, in the land use scheme,
Accessory uses have to be accessory to a primary zone. So when we
eliminate the mineral zone, which will, that's what will happen when the Lakeside Village occurs,
there will no longer be a permitted accessory use. And so the city and the
city council said, well then let's go ahead now and go ahead and change the
use under the zoning code for the processing area. but allow the
processing to continue, because we want you to continue, and that could go on for
10, 20, or more years. So we looked around, and the immediate
adjacent zone was the intensive commercial. So everything to the south of Lakeside, all the
way to I-90, is that IC zone. And some of the property up
adjacent is also IC. It was obvious that's what we should use. Some of the
existing lakeside property is already zoned IC. But
IC did not have a mining use in it because there was a mineral zone.
They didn't have to have mineral use in the IC zone. So if we're going
to change the zoning from M to IC, we need to amend the
code, that chart that Dave showed you, that says that
in the IC zone you can have this processing of mineral and
asphalt and concrete production and recycling. But we also didn't want, the city didn't want
the rest of the IC zone to be open for new mineral processing.
And so the way it works and what got your attention was mineral processing would
be allowed in the IC zone but only as a continuation. of
processing that had been in effect prior to 1999. And so that
means you won't have any other concrete asphalt or mining in the IC zone. So
this was the perfect solution. We
also have to have the development standards that apply to mining
to apply to the continuation of the processing that Lakeside is doing.
And so, for example, that site today is almost 100% impervious
surface. If you're in the IC zone, the maximum you can have is 65%
impervious surface. We didn't want to make the existing operation a non-conforming
use. So the way this is written, the development standards of the
mineral zone will apply to the processing area that is a continuation. of
what was there since 1999. As Tim said, it's not several decades, it's back in
the 50s when it started. So, Bill, to answer your
question, yes, in the future, when the mine is played out and when
it's no longer, for whatever reason, effective to process minerals there, and they do today
bring in minerals from other parts of the region they bring stuff down from north
band and they ship stuff up to north band there will be other uses and
just like the other i see that is north and south of the lakeside property
it'll be all those intensive commercial uses that would be available for this site uh...
and so that's really the the part of the city where you can have this
in intensive commercial use and you know our children or grandchildren may see
different uses there sometime this century or certainly next century. So
that's what we're doing. It turned out to work pretty easily
to do what the council on Lakeside agreed in the development agreement that they would
do, which is why we're back here. I thought it'd be useful to have Tim.
Tim is third generation of the Lee family, his son. fourth generation is working in
the company. I mean, it's really kind of that dream scenario of a family company
that is, you know, one of the institutions here in Issaquah. Tim is, can tell
you what's actually going on there. I don't know if any of you have been
out there. It's kind of behind the trees, you know. It's kind of, it's cool.
So Tim, you want to just explain what's going on and what your thoughts are
on the future? Tim Lee So again, my name is Tim Lee and
Maybe it would be helpful to go back a little while. Five years ago,
the city came to us and said, what are you guys going to do with
that gravel pit when you're done mining? And we said, well, we're not done mining.
We're still mining. Well, how long do you think you're going to mine? I said,
I don't know. I think maybe there's 20 or 30 more years of gravel there.
they said well would you enter into discussions with the city about what you think
the future uses might look like you know we talked about as a
board and and we thought that collaborating with the city was probably pretty good idea
and uh... maybe there were some benefits for the city to understand
the future that large piece of property might look like and there were probably might
be some advantages for us to have some certainty into what the future might look
like. So as we progressed down that road,
we ended up with our development agreement on
kind of the area that is left to mine. And John explained to you
how that's working, but we ended up with our processing area where we,
take the gravel that out of the mine, we then screen it,
the larger rocks go to what's called a crusher to make smaller rocks, and those
rocks are typically used in asphalt mixture. The smaller rocks and sand
go to a wash plant where we wash the fine grains of
sand out of them and then are segregated into stockpiles so that they can make
concrete out of those. And we have also at that site, we have a
shop that we share with Cadman Gravel. We have an agreement with them to share
our shop services. We have some truck storage.
And then when you think about 20 or 30 years down the road, what are
we going to do there? Well, we certainly won't be mining when the hillside is
done mining. So maybe the processing of the gravel, the crushing and the washing and
all those kinds of uses will go away.
And so then what are we gonna do with the property? What do we do
with it? What kind of uses are appropriate? And in discussions with the city,
the solution was to come up with intensive commercial because number one, all our property
is surrounded by intensive commercial and then it is the zone most
likely to take in the uses that we're
that we're doing today with a with some slight modifications I
know it's difficult to believe that an asphalt plant and a concrete plant
can live in downtown Issaquah next to intensive commercial uses. It may be hard for
you to imagine that. However, in some jurisdictions that we operate in, we
have an asphalt plant that's the same size as this one that my son
runs in Monroe, he runs our Monroe operation, and that asphalt plant
is immediately adjacent to Seven Plex Theater and Fred Meyers
across the street. And we can live,
right, we can be a great neighbor to lots of different uses is my point.
So I don't know what we'll do, what my kids might want to
do. I'm certainly not going to be here when they decide that. But I think
it's good policy for the city to plan for the future. policy for
Lakeside to plan for the future and to get some certainty on what they can
expect from us and what we can expect from them. So I think that's how
this all came about. So I like the idea of planning.
It makes it a reasonable option for the city. And I know it
could be anything in the future. But right now, your operation right now,
is that going to expand at any rate? No. Our operation will stay the same
for my tenure. Okay. Okay, so is my tenure 10 years?
Is my tenure 20 years? My younger brother now runs the company. He's 10 years
younger than I am. I could say for his tenure. So we don't have any
plans to do anything different in the lower processing area now.
But as John explained, in order to get a new zone on it,
in order for us not to be a non-conforming use, and in order to
satisfy all those kind of land use challenges,
this is the solution that we all came up with. I've always wondered. Well, would
you like a tour? I would. Well, I'd love to give you one. We'll take
you all out there. It's really pretty interesting. I live right above you. OK. And
so when you talk about the hillside and taking it out, I'm thinking, oh. It's
pretty steep. So explain to me exactly what it is you're
doing, how it backs into the hillside. OK. So first, what I'd tell you
is, do we have a pointer? We do. You do? The mouse.
Oh, okay. So up here... Do you want an aerial? No, this is fine. So
up here, we envision, and this all has
not been mined yet, we envision this to be the most
intense or maybe the most dense development of our
urban village. The mine right now... goes up
to about here, like this.
And we envision a little more mining up here, and then we'll start
filling back in the hillside. And we envision building on that hillside.
And we'll engineer the fill as it's done all over the world, and we'll have
it done correctly. But we have I think we're permitted for 1,200
residential units of which so much has to be commercial and there's a conversion rate
for all that kind of stuff that I don't really understand. But anyway, and
we have lots of land. The 1,200 units over that much land
is not very dense at all. So we're permitted just a small amount of development
for a lot of land. If push came to shove and we only wanted to
develop up against Ninth Avenue, we could do that too and put all 1,200
units right up above. And so I think there's some opportunities.
Really what this is about is the city getting an
answer of what's it going to look like. What do you guys, we don't want
it to look like what it looked like when Reed left, which is a slope.
with sprayed on hydro seeding and then it's done. That's
not what the city wanted. So we collaborated and tried to figure out what an
appropriate solution would be. So did that
answer your question? Yeah. Okay. I'm smelling concrete right now. I can't.
Well, I'd rather smell asphalt myself. Because that's the business we're in. So technically
the mountain is not going to fall down in that fall. No, the mountain is
not going to fall down. We live underneath it. The mountain is not going to
fall down. I've gotten that question a lot. I'm sure you have. Well, especially
after Oso. And I think another point I'll make is that most
mines, when they're reclaimed under the state regulations, end up as a two to one
slope. So two to one is 45 degrees. This is going to be at the
top up by... Could you move over to the microphone? Yeah. They're going to fill
this. As Tim said, they're going to engineer and fill it. So at the top,
it's a five degree slope. And then it's going to go into a ten degree
slope almost all the way down to where the heavy black line is. They're going
to backfill that hillside so it's going to be much, much more developable.
And you know, you can see various roads coming down. They call it, we call
it the Italian Hillside Village. So if you see an Italian village, all of the
stuff usually is up at the top, the city is up at the top, and
then the residential units float down the hillside. That's what is actually
envisioned for the hillside. And it is to be
integrated in with what's in the Highlands now. So as Tim said, the
commercial right at the top would be adjacent to the Regency, all that commercial
Regency has recently developed. And then the residential will go down the hillside.
It's a bit off topic for tonight because we spent, as I said, a year
and a half doing that, and that's all been approved and signed and sealed and
literally ready to be delivered. But that led us to where we had to address
this. This was an orphan parcel. When that becomes something other than mining,
this had to be something other than mining at the bottom of the hill.
I didn't want to pay John to write a new land
use code. Anybody else have any questions? I do. I'm going to jump in and
I'm going to thank the applicant and his counsel for humoring me with a few
of my questions. On page 12, part C, it says that we need a SEPA
review, but I don't see anything mentioning that in this review. And while the previous
SEPA review that was done for the development agreement is able to be used as
a reference, I'm not seeing any new study and I'm not seeing any kind of
supplement to the original. Was there any analysis done that hasn't been addressed at all
so far? Yes, we have filed an environmental checklist and also
have incorporated the environmental review that was done for the earlier development agreement,
which is the appropriate way under the city and state SEPA regulations to proceed. So
the city has not yet made a threshold determination as to whether or not
any further environmental review is necessary. I will tell you that I expect the city
to issue a determination of non-significance because while the zoning is
changing, the operation will not change at all. There is no change.
In the future, 20 or 30 years from now, when we get to the point
where Bill was talking about, If a different use was proposed, that
would then be subject to the permit process and the SEPA at the time in
the future. Is there anything that's going to be happening on site without this new
mineral designation or with the rezone, are you completely covered for all the activity that
you're doing now? Yeah, so right now we're looking at this duality of both
the zone change as well as changing the municipality code. So is there anything right
now that's currently being done in business that would not be covered? Right now under
the M designation? No, there's nothing new that we're adding. And what are the environmental
consequences of proposing this? You don't foresee there being any change in the way that
your business interacts in the environment? Absolutely no change. So with this new increase
in availability to you from changing the designation from the mineral zone, You
don't foresee their ramping up any kind of change in your business. You don't see
any increased production in any way. You don't plan on taking advantage of this
IC within this next several decades that we're talking about? The IC would give us
different uses. Those uses, most of them would interfere
with the existing operation. As Tim said, there is 20, maybe 30 years of mining
and filling that's still appropriate there. They are in the business of asphalt
production, and then they sell this other material to Cadman that does the concrete production.
They're both in recycling. They recycle asphalt, and they recycle concrete. So no, there aren't
going to be any other uses. As Tim will tell you, it depends on the
cycle of construction in the region. but the amount of production they do there
fluctuates with the demand and in the case of asphalt with the weather. Since most
of a lot of their asphalt is for paving roads, which is hard to do
in cold weather. But to answer your question, no change probably
in our lifetimes. So is the city currently the nominal lead agency for the
SEPA review? Yes. Yes. They're not nominal. They are actually the lead agency. And they
don't have a response at this time regarding this matter, since the city is still
waiting? I'm not sure why this is before us when we don't know when the
city hasn't actually given an official response to the SEPA review. Well, we have received
the SEPA checklist. We've received the environmental documents from the previous DA.
Our staff are evaluating it. We've done 95% of the evaluation. In fact,
I'd say about all of it, and we are basically prepared to issue a DNS,
the determination of non-significance. Good, that was my next question, was about the threshold determination.
We haven't quite got to that yet. We would prefer to have it done tonight,
but due to workloads and other things, it hasn't happened. Sure, but you are planning
to have it be a DNS. Absolutely, yes. Okay. So...
I guess my next question goes into, is this a phased review of the development
agreement? No, the development agreement is finished,
and the environmental review for that is done, and the environmental review for the
change to the IC zone and the code amendment will be done now, so there
is no phasing. When looking at the development agreement, it specifically mentions you guys as
being designated zone M for 30 years. It actually specifically says 30, not 20 years.
So I'm not sure where that number keeps getting thrown out. But for that 30
years, still being classified as an M, so there won't be any amendment to the
development agreement with this new rezone? No, because this area is not
inside the boundary of the development agreement. This doesn't have any effect on the development
agreement except to follow through on the provisions in
the development agreement that said the lakeside and the city would change the zoning of
this lower processing area. Okay, with the changing of this rezoning, is there anything that's
going to be done to monitor any possible increased development within the area since you
now have the availability to do that? Are there any ways that the city is
checking to see of you guys being able to use this new zoning
for your business? none of the uses can change even though the zoning has changed
if you approve this recommended to the council and the council change it you can't
change any of the uses there without applying for a permit for the new use
and have that subject to the code the isquah municipal code for a
review of whether or not that use is appropriate whether it's allowed under the zone
and what the environmental consequences of that use are The short answer is that's the
technical answer. The real answer is the same uses that are there today are what
are going to be there tomorrow, next year, and five and ten years from now.
So who monitors to see that basically, in theory, if you were
able to, and hypothetically, if you were able to increase production, you would be needing
to bring in more machinery, you would be needing to then also have a different
amount of runoff that you're using. Again, I'm speaking in terms of an environmental impact.
So who monitors that within this change of rezoning that the business is actually still
adhering to those same? So all, you want to go back? I'll answer it, and
Dave, and you can answer it as well. Let's not confuse changing uses with
intensifying uses. So we have a permitted use there, which is asphalt and
concrete production, mineral processing, asphalt and concrete recycling. That's the
use. It does change from time to time, as I mentioned earlier, depending on
the demand and on the weather. Well, I think what my question is, is that
right now you guys are zoned for it in a much smaller space. By having
a larger piece of land that is now, instead of being as an M, is
now an IC, you're operating currently under an IC in the areas where you're
currently doing work. all of your business operations. So wouldn't it stand for reason that
you're able to then ramp up your business in this larger, in your larger, you
have a larger space to operate now. Tim, as a practical matter, I don't think
it's, you wouldn't add any equipment. You could produce more with what you've got.
So I think maybe there's a little bit of confusion. At least maybe I'm confused,
but In that area that's outlined that says Lakeside Processing Rezone Area,
that's where we crush and wash, make asphalt and make concrete.
And we have a repair facility there for trucks and heavy equipment.
We don't have room to do anything else. And so we're talking about rezoning that
area. We're not going to gain any land. I'm not sure I
understand the question of how we could intensify the use or make it different than
what it is today. And if we were going to modify the
asphalt plant, for example, to make it be able to double its production, we'd have
to get a building permit for that. And we'd have to go through a SEPA
review, isn't that correct? And we'd have to do all the things that if Mr.
Rowley wants to build another building, in his area, he'd have to go through the
permitting process and go through all the vetting that is associated with that permitting process
before he was able to build another building, even though he has the zoning to
build the building today. Can I add to this? I think you're also getting at
how do you monitor the activities of the existing operation, and there are state agencies
that look at your sand and gravel permit? We have federal agencies, we have state
agencies, we have the EPA, we have SWIM, we have probably a list of 25
different agencies that monitor what we do. And you have the local government agency that
does. And then we have the city of Issaquah that does. A periodic review requirement
that we periodically review the operation and look at, have the uses intensified and
that's when CEPA review, if needed, you know looks at new impacts that's totally
separate from this. So that actually leads me to my next question which is about
what your council had mentioned in the development commission meeting and it was specifically your
staff had commented out the permit that is still waiting to be issued you get
up every five years you have a permit issued. That's the periodic review and I'm
curious why we're not waiting for that review that periodic review. We just finished it
yeah we just finished that. So just finished it less than a year ago or
maybe it was six months ago. So your staff mentioned that you guys are actually
pending for that. In the Development Commission meeting, staff mentioned your staff that was on
site. I don't remember. There was two individuals that were representing you and mentioned that
that is still. I'm sorry. I wasn't at that meeting, so I don't know what
they said. Well, it could be state or federal. There's other permits that govern. Well,
I know. It was Karen. What was Karen talking about? Karen was talking about the
Department of Ecology. The reclam. The permit, which is currently up for renew. There's no
debate that you'll probably be getting it, but I'm curious why the Department of Ecology
isn't a part of this discussion for, or at least waiting until they've made their
most recent determination of issuing your permit. I think what Karen was talking about was
the updating the reclamation plan that goes through the Department of
Natural Resources, not Department of Ecology. Okay. But as Tim said, all of the
agencies, all the state agencies have a role. So Ecology is
looking at issues within its jurisdiction, but there's nothing pending that I know of with
Ecology. No, I don't think we're waiting for anything from Ecology. And we
routinely have to update the Reclamation Plan, and as part of the
agreement with the city on the periodic review, we were updating the reclamation
plan consistent with the decisions made in the development agreement and the five-year periodic
review. So, you know, tying it all back together with the other agency.
I did have one more question for Dave, actually, and this is specifically regarding the
things about public comment. It was said that notice was given on June 29th.
Was any consideration given to the fact that most people are often on vacation here
in this area around that time? Which my follow-up to that before you answer that
is that to me it seems that the majority of people who would be contacted
are residents who don't yet exist. In 30 years or so once the urban village
is built would actually be the people who would be would be contacted I was
curious who was actually given notice since this is a pretty wide open area as
who was act so notice is required to and was provided to property owners within
300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the lake of the lakeside properties you see
up there and it was published in the squat press those are the two notice
requirements and on the city website And is that a pretty general? That's a requirement.
No, but of that time period, it's been about a week and a half, is
that a pretty general thing for the city of that time period that it's been
about a week and a half, is that a pretty normal time period for the
city to give notice? Yes.
Any other questions? Just out of curiosity,
those notices of properties within 300 feet. I mean, you know, not many.
There aren't many but there are there are single-family homes to the well you see
the plat to the south yeah right there. It's a little feet disappears really quick
that's not very far. Yeah, well that's why we publish in the paper and in
the press and website and people can talk to their neighbors and so forth
yeah. When we were doing this there was some
interest from the people up here. There was here up
up up up the apartments. Yeah, there were there were a couple folks up here.
And then there were folks up here up in the Highlands because you see the
urban village goes across the couplet there. It on
Lakeside has been a very good neighbor. It really is extraordinary that all the years
that they've been operating that they haven't had much haven't been
complaints and they haven't had much comment. We had again a year and a half
of process and probably five or six sessions with the Development Commission
and six or seven or eight with the City Council and they're never there really
isn't much there hasn't been much public concern about this. There's been a lot of
compliments about this that that is going to be so much better than what most
minds look like when when it's over and done with. I was curious why this
is being addressed right now rather than in 2012 when the development agreement was made
you had mentioned Council in the development Commission meeting that it had been discussed and
everyone was on board with it But it had been delayed whether it be for
city resources and then again was not addressed in January of 2013 when in the
development agreement was finished and yet this looks like this build-out is a good 30
years and I'm curious why the city now would like to address this.
The development agreement was signed in January of 2013. And we
met with city staff and proposed in 2013, early 2014, again, to
proceed with this. And the city was overwhelmed with other matters. And
the city said, we're willing to do this. Could you wait a year so we
can... get through some of these other critical matters that we are dealing with and
we said yes we can wait and so that's why it was like we're we
were ready to go but we were being sensitive to the city staff pressure
on on other matters and we appreciate that and they've been very patient and they've
been waiting more than a year approaching two years now so
even though the hillside what the company is capable of doing within
this rezone isn't known right now to the company or to the city. Why is
it not being waiting for this designation? Why is there an urgency to address it?
I understand that the applicant wanted to have this done with the development
of the January 2013 development agreement. I'm curious though if there's a move
for the city to have, why it's happening right now as far as the city
is concerned. Why isn't it not continuing to be pushed out until, let's say, 30
years from now when we have a better idea of how that land's actually going
to be used? We'd like to accommodate requests from the
public. Many of these rezones, many are processed by staff without,
just by us. Lakeside has said they're providing staff,
well, they've made an application paid their money and said, we'd like to process this
now. We said, if you're going to wait for us to get to it, it's
going to take a while, and it's taken a while. It's taken two years already.
But anyone has a right to say, we'd like to help you prioritize this, and
we'll help you by being an applicant like anyone else and pay a fee to
apply and move it up in the priority list. Isn't there also a time limit
when somebody presents a... request for permitting or change that you
have so many days so many months to act on it development permits once an
application is made yes yes we have 120 days to move through the process and
get to the applicant is happy with waiting but normally the time
frame is termed in basically in the city's rules
regulations whatever you want to call it so that's why And you know, to be
totally candid with you, the reason we're proceeding now is the development agreement is a
contract between the property owner and the city. City Council and Lakeside said,
do this. A lot of the same city council members that are going to look
at this rezone were the same city council members. I mean, Fred Butler was a
council member, now he's the mayor. They did all this development agreement. They wanted to
see this. This is kind of tying up one of the loose ends. And they
said, do it, we know what's going on, bring it back to us. And so
we were ready to go a year ago, and the staff was overwhelmed, and we
said, well, we could probably wait a year. But the City Council is looking for
this, so that's why we're doing it now.
Okay, so it sounds like staff is ready to say that, though we don't have
any kind of, any kind of secret review in front of us, required for this
the city is ready to say that that the first point for us to be
able to vote on it is that there's that there's no impact and right now
we don't have that information yes we're prepared to say that and it will be
completed before it gets to the City Council for their action
I wanted to be clear I want to make sure I understand what it is
we're voting on what the amendments would would change you from what I've
heard, and I haven't heard all of it because I do have trouble hearing, but
my understanding is you're not intending to make any changes in the way you operate
and what you're going to be doing probably for the next 30 years, but what
this amendment would do would be to permit you to do so if opportunities
were to arrive or arise or if changes were to occur.
It would permit you, for instance, to seek, and I'm emphasizing that term seek to
development residential commercial if you choose to do so. Is that correct? Residential
is not a permitted use in the IC zone. So it would be we could
seek permits to do other kinds of commercial uses in this
zone. Yes, we could do that. But we have no intent to change this because,
as I said, this is asphalt and concrete production. And then the question does arise,
as was raised earlier, why now? Why not 20, 30 years from now,
when you run out the mines and you might make a determination at that point
that it would be more advantageous to develop a property in
another way? We're doing it now because that was what we agreed with the City
Council to do, which was to come back right away with this The city council
then is the instigator of the, is proposing, is the instigator of the proposal to,
for the amendment. Is that what you're telling me? Put it this way, the city
council understood when they approved the development agreement that this was necessary and they
said, they wrote it into the development agreement, bring it forward. I'm a little slow,
I don't understand why. It's because. Why it has to be done. It's because.
as the hillside is changed in the future
to a residential use it's no longer being mined then the processing area
which is an accessory use to a mine will no longer be a permitted use
and the city council could see that and they said so fix it now rather
than leave it to our successors to deal with them again as Tim said
This whole process started with the city coming to Lakeside and saying,
we would like some certainty about everything that's going to happen here in the future.
And I think part of that was they were unhappy with some of the other
former mining properties in the city. They didn't like the way it ended up.
And so they came to Lakeside and Lakeside said, it's good for us to have
the same certainty. So that's where we are. We're trying to have a certainty
as to what is going to happen here in the future and to guarantee Lakeside
that they can continue for the foreseeable future with that asphalt and concrete production
down in the processing area. How does that dovetail with the, maybe they're totally unrelated,
I'm not clear, how does that dovetail with the urban
urban village agreement that occurred earlier?
I think on page five of the urban village agreement, it says
Lakeside will continue processing down in the lower part of the property, and that's going
to require a zone change, and the city and Lakeside agree that it should be
processed for a change in the zone. We are literally,
we are following through on a requirement in the development agreement. We're honoring the contract
requirement. Thank you very much. I'll begin to understand why we're here.
Any other questions? So thank you very much. And since tonight
is a public hearing, I will now open the public
hearing for comments. and I'll open it at 735. So if there's
anybody who would like to make public comment, please come up.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing at 736.
Anything else for the good of the order? Are you ready to vote on? I
have one more thing. this kind of to the city and it gets back to
a little bit with joy saying and I understand in this situation it's probably not
as critical but usually in my mind you you don't do these things till you
have the seat but decision and and that would not be a normal process and
so it feels a little odd to me that you know it says know to
learn some without us without a decision being there and I know you say it's
almost there but me almost means it's not there and so it's a it's a
procedural thing for me between the city I mean how often do you say let's
make a decision without having the information completed before you make that decision and that
and and I kind of know where we are but I mean if you brought
many things to me they're very more complicated I'd go what would like to read
it before yeah I would I would like that yeah is the city having made
that decision before this comes to this step it's just isn't that the normal
step it's the normal process we had discussion and staff should can we go forward
or not and the discussion was this we feel we have enough information to move
forward and it does have to be absolutely done before City Council takes action and
but it does not officially have to be done before PPC makes a recommendation. You're
not making a decision, you're making a recommendation to the council. So if you feel
you have sufficient information here to make your recommendation, you can do that.
Yes, normally a SEPA determination would be issued, but. I haven't seen something come before
us before without that. know but we feel comfortable I'm saying we we feel very
very comfortable that sufficient environmental reviews been done it's been done like a lot for
the DA for the development agreement prior and again knowing that the rezone is happening
not really changing and I guess it's just integrity it's an awkward step procedure later
from the state and I want to just I understand that all that out and
and I guess I wouldn't expect a lot of those things coming normally that way
because then it's going to be no we can't make a decision because the recommendation
because we don't have all the information right I don't think there's any issue whatsoever
and as a member of the community were big proponents of the work that you
guys are doing in the community I think that with intensive commercial designation there's a
greater leeway for the possibility of what can be done in this space with their
free zoning and I I just without having any kind of information of what that
cumulative impact would be it's hard to say for sure that there isn't
going to be an impact on the community. So right now we're kind of taking
it on the word of saying well it sounds like everything is going to stay
the same so no problem. I think the issue is in the designation
of adding that change that municipality code change to allow the continued
asphalt and concrete production. It's the possibilities of what changing this mineral designation to an
IC could possibly do in the future and right now. We're a good 30 years
away from being able to see how that lands even going to take shape and
how that's going to then possibly be used and without having any kind of SEPA
in front of us. It's hard to know if there was any kind of look
at those cumulative impacts of changing this designation. Well, to respond, I'd say
we have looked at cumulative impacts have been reviewed previously. just
haven't got to the point of writing it in paper saying yes and we conclude
so we've looked at it we feel confident that that there should be a
determination of non-significance through the super review process and it will be issued in the
next several weeks and like we said earlier if if and when
Lakeside chooses to do another development or new development that goes through its own separate
process on separate see per review impacts are evaluated. So the action that you
take tonight does not have does not less than any of the review that would
happen on that later. That's our that's our feeling.
I like the idea that this is being done now. It allows Lakeside to plan.
the future but it also like it enables the city to plan for what they
have to do in order for both of them to work together it would be
awful to wait 30 years and not have some kind of control and
under people looking at it and reviewing processes and then find in 30 years that
like some of the other mining in a sequa that it wasn't done right that
There's problems and you can't do houses and
development in it. So I like the idea that we are at this point in
time making some plans for the future. It's just like we did with a central
area plan. That's 40 years in the future. But we still, we don't have every
CEPA review, Base done based on what we thought it would be in the future
But when we make the changes we will have those people reviews, so I'm comfortable
with What the gentlemen have from Lakeside have? explained to us today
and that there isn't going to be any real difference in in What's going on
right now, and I honestly I don't I don't live right there, but I don't
see a major impact on the traffic or even that we know that it's back
there. So, are you
ready to vote on the proposal that this is just a
recommendation to the city that if there are problems that are encountered in the future,
the city council will have the opportunity to review them and before they actually make
a decision, they could change something and have it come back to us for review.
So do I have a motion to approve or disapprove the recommendation to
forward this to the city council? Motion to approve the recommendation to city council.
Seconded. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Approved. So with that, I want to thank you. I'd like to be recorded as
abstained. You want to be abstained?
that pass okay okay so with that I would like to
thank the Lakeside gentlemen again for their input tonight and I wish them well
and with that I'm going to close the meeting unless we have something else to
do at 7 42 thank you
thank you for your input thanks everyone