City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, June 7, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 3, 2022

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 13:20 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-03-22 City Council Planning, Development & Page (0000) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. May 3, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Summary of Input: Title 18 Landscape & Open Space Review (Informational Only)

packet pp.7–8

Topics: Land UseParks

▶ Watch from 14:39 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Comprehensive list of items that will be addressed in the next draft of the Landscape and Open Space topics (Bucket #2). This list is based on input from the Planning Development and Environment Committee, Planning Policy Commission, Park Board, Environment Board, and other community members.

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18: Zoning & Uses ID 1139

90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.9–202

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 0:48 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The Title 18 Update has been divided into six “buckets” (topics) that include: Natural Environment; Landscape, Trees and Open Space; Zoning and Uses; Zoning and Development Standards; Building and Design; and Procedures and Administration.

Amendments to Title 16: Stormwater Manual & Floodplain Code ID 1144

60 min · Evan Brumfield, Environmental & Regulatory Program Administrator · packet pp.203–348

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 8:05 Open packet at p.203 ↗

Staff report:

E. Title 16.36 Areas of Special Flood Hazard Code Redline Updates F. Class 8 Freeboard FAQ

Announcements

▶ Watch from 12:56

4084 segments .txt ↗

0:10 ↗ all right

0:13 ↗ hello welcome everyone to the city

0:15 ↗ council planning development and

0:16 ↗ environment committee

0:18 ↗ my name is victoria hunt and i will be

0:21 ↗ chair of the committee this evening

0:24 ↗ we will have a remote meeting and this

0:27 ↗ meeting will be conducted in person and

0:29 ↗ virtually in compliance with the

0:30 ↗ governor's proclamation related to the

0:32 ↗ cobit 19 emergency and open public

0:34 ↗ meetings there will be multiple public

0:36 ↗ comment opportunities at tonight's

0:38 ↗ meeting there is a general public

0:39 ↗ comment opportunity at the beginning of

0:41 ↗ the meeting

0:42 ↗ or you can make comments after the

0:44 ↗ presentation and counsel question on

0:46 ↗ tonight's

0:48 ↗ agenda items

0:49 ↗ members of the public may address

0:51 ↗ council

0:52 ↗ well

0:53 ↗ i also wanted to

0:55 ↗ make sure to announce that council

0:57 ↗ member ray who is a regular member of

0:59 ↗ this committee has an excused absence

1:00 ↗ this evening so it will be myself

1:03 ↗ and council president walsh this evening

1:06 ↗ the first item on our agenda

1:10 ↗ is

1:11 ↗ public

1:13 ↗ comment

1:15 ↗ and members the public may address

1:17 ↗ counsel at this time in person or

1:18 ↗ virtually those who are signed up in

1:20 ↗ advance to make comments will be called

1:21 ↗ on first if you are joining us virtually

1:23 ↗ and would like to make comments please

1:25 ↗ raise your virtual hand if you are on

1:26 ↗ the phone

1:27 ↗ press star 3 or if you joined by

1:29 ↗ computer or smartphone look for the hand

1:31 ↗ icon this varies by device one option

1:34 ↗ may be to go to the participant panel

1:36 ↗ and choose the raise hand icon in the

1:38 ↗ lower

1:39 ↗ right hand corner

1:42 ↗ and if you were in the room and did not

1:43 ↗ sign up

1:44 ↗ i will ask for other speakers but i'm

1:45 ↗ not seeing anyone in the room at this

1:47 ↗ time so i will wait for a moment to see

1:49 ↗ if anybody is wishing to make comments

1:52 ↗ at this point

1:54 ↗ yes okay then i will give some

1:56 ↗ additional guidelines citizen comments

1:58 ↗ are an important part of the public

1:59 ↗ process we take them seriously and

2:01 ↗ factor them into the decisions we make

2:04 ↗ please direct comments to the whole

2:05 ↗ council and not individuals and while

2:07 ↗ this is not a question and answer

2:09 ↗ session we will follow

2:11 ↗ we will contact you to follow up if

2:12 ↗ needed when recognized please unmute

2:15 ↗ your microphone

2:16 ↗ or step up to the lectern if you were in

2:18 ↗ person state your name address and

2:20 ↗ relationship to the city please speak

2:22 ↗ clearly and pause frequently and please

2:24 ↗ limit your comments to five minutes if

2:27 ↗ you are attending virtually and do not

2:28 ↗ respond after your name or phone number

2:30 ↗ is called the meeting will need to

2:32 ↗ proceed and you are encouraged to rejoin

2:34 ↗ if able

2:36 ↗ uh

2:37 ↗ city clerk can you please identify the

2:39 ↗ first person who has signed up to speak

2:41 ↗ yes the first person uh who's indicated

2:43 ↗ a desire to speak is ann fletcher and

2:45 ↗ i'll make you a panelist now you should

2:47 ↗ then have the option to unmute and can

2:50 ↗ choose to turn your video on

3:09 ↗ and you have the floor

3:23 ↗ and in case you're having trouble

3:24 ↗ unmuting i'm going to go ahead and

3:26 ↗ unmute you now so your mic is live

3:33 ↗ okay can you hear me

3:35 ↗ yes

3:36 ↗ oh great it would not unmute for some

3:39 ↗ reason

3:41 ↗ um okay and um i'm not able to start my

3:44 ↗ video either it doesn't seem to

3:47 ↗ start so i'll just go ahead and talk

3:49 ↗ then

3:52 ↗ all right my name is ann fletcher and

3:55 ↗ i'm a resident of issaquah

3:58 ↗ and i'm also a member of

4:01 ↗ people for climate action

4:03 ↗ uh

4:04 ↗ and

4:05 ↗ um

4:06 ↗ i just want to say good evening to

4:09 ↗ council members hunt and walsh

4:12 ↗ and

4:13 ↗ earlier this evening i sent

4:17 ↗ you and the entire council

4:19 ↗ a letter of concern it's signed by

4:23 ↗ 36 community members

4:26 ↗ who have some concerns about the scope

4:28 ↗ and priorities

4:30 ↗ of the current title 18 revision process

4:35 ↗ given the urgency of climate action

4:39 ↗ and the related issues

4:41 ↗ the community would like to have a clear

4:44 ↗ timeline of when more substantive work

4:47 ↗ on title 18 code is planned

4:50 ↗ work that will more fully support the

4:52 ↗ implementation of the approved city

4:55 ↗ plans

4:57 ↗ to address climate and other areas of

4:59 ↗ concern

5:01 ↗ this came to our attention

5:04 ↗ most recently with the draft code of

5:06 ↗ title 18 being presented to boards and

5:09 ↗ commissions

5:11 ↗ it

5:12 ↗ appears that important work to meet

5:15 ↗ goals

5:16 ↗ in our comprehensive

5:18 ↗ climate action and mobility plans

5:21 ↗ is being postponed

5:24 ↗ until further work can be done

5:28 ↗ to prepare for the title 18 code

5:33 ↗ and we would request

5:35 ↗ that you

5:36 ↗ reflect on your support for community

5:39 ↗ priorities

5:41 ↗ and cons and consider further

5:43 ↗ communication to the community

5:46 ↗ about how and when title 18 code

5:51 ↗ will be prioritized and developed

5:54 ↗ to move these approved plans forward

5:57 ↗ in a timely way

6:01 ↗ we started circulating this petition

6:03 ↗ yesterday

6:05 ↗ and we will continue

6:06 ↗ to do so

6:08 ↗ uh please review the attached letter

6:10 ↗ that um that i sent in

6:13 ↗ and it includes samples from our current

6:15 ↗ comprehensive plan and the issaquah

6:18 ↗ climate action plan and we believe

6:20 ↗ there's already support there to

6:22 ↗ um

6:24 ↗ to make do additional title 18 code

6:27 ↗ revision um at the very least planning

6:30 ↗ ahead about when it is going to be done

6:33 ↗ so that we can meet our climate goals

6:35 ↗ and we would like

6:36 ↗ some kind of response as soon as

6:38 ↗ possible

6:40 ↗ well thank you for

6:42 ↗ the chance to speak and on behalf of

6:45 ↗ israel people for climate action and the

6:48 ↗ other community members that sign the

6:50 ↗ petition

6:52 ↗ thank you

6:55 ↗ thank you ann

6:56 ↗ um clerk do we have anyone else signed

6:58 ↗ up to speak

7:00 ↗ yes i see that connie marsh uh would

7:02 ↗ like to speak and just a reminder for

7:04 ↗ those um the rest of the public on the

7:07 ↗ uh virtual meeting if you'd like to make

7:08 ↗ comments please raise your virtual hand

7:10 ↗ or send me the host a chat message

7:13 ↗ connie i'll make you a panelist now

7:23 ↗ hi i'm connie martian i live up on

7:25 ↗ squawk so i want to bounce off of anne's

7:28 ↗ comments a little bit

7:31 ↗ i just came out of an interesting public

7:34 ↗ meeting on the next segment of code

7:37 ↗ where

7:39 ↗ this is an example i was told that

7:43 ↗ because the language says

7:47 ↗ that we are supposed to make

7:50 ↗ pedestrians safe in parking lots

7:53 ↗ that

7:54 ↗ we didn't have support to put in

7:57 ↗ implementation language to actually make

8:00 ↗ pedestrians safe

8:02 ↗ in parking lots and that we would need a

8:04 ↗ policy change

8:06 ↗ and so this left me

8:09 ↗ entirely confused not an unusual state

8:13 ↗ as to what we are considering policy

8:16 ↗ support because i see many things that

8:20 ↗ are not being acted upon that i perceive

8:22 ↗ to have policy supports

8:26 ↗ and i guess

8:27 ↗ i guess the community listening to ann

8:31 ↗ we are confused

8:33 ↗ with the pick and choose method of what

8:36 ↗ needs more policy language and what does

8:40 ↗ not

8:41 ↗ because if something says that we are

8:44 ↗ supposed to make pedestrians safe that

8:46 ↗ seems to me like that is the policy that

8:48 ↗ then would allow you to create

8:50 ↗ implementation language

8:52 ↗ and so

8:54 ↗ um if council could request

8:58 ↗ clarification so that we might better

9:00 ↗ understand why things are being

9:03 ↗ considered not supported by policy

9:05 ↗ that would be great because i'm

9:08 ↗ flummoxed thanks

9:14 ↗ thank you connie it's clerk geezer do we

9:17 ↗ have anyone else signed up to speak

9:22 ↗ steve bulliger would like to make

9:24 ↗ comments

9:26 ↗ steve

9:28 ↗ i've made you a panelist you should now

9:30 ↗ have the option to unmute and can choose

9:32 ↗ to turn your video on

9:39 ↗ hey it worked can you hear me

9:42 ↗ yes we can

9:44 ↗ um i'm steve bolliger i live at 18724

9:48 ↗ southeast 65th place issaquah

9:53 ↗ i appreciate the opportunity to talk i

9:55 ↗ did send in written comments yesterday

9:57 ↗ hopefully those have been received by

9:59 ↗ the committee

10:01 ↗ i influmixed about where we are in this

10:04 ↗ process and how we got here um and i

10:08 ↗ think

10:08 ↗ um a lot of people are

10:10 ↗ i

10:11 ↗ was hoping that after we passed the icap

10:14 ↗ and got some additional language in the

10:16 ↗ comp plan in december

10:19 ↗ that

10:20 ↗ the whole land-use revision process

10:23 ↗ would recognize the importance of some

10:25 ↗ of those that language and documents and

10:28 ↗ would do a pivot and i was very

10:30 ↗ surprised and only learned through the

10:32 ↗ process of

10:33 ↗ making comments and getting staff

10:35 ↗ responses of the limitation in the scope

10:38 ↗ of this land use title 18 revision

10:41 ↗ process

10:43 ↗ i think it's unfair to call it a land

10:44 ↗ use revision process when it's really a

10:47 ↗ consolidation and clarification process

10:49 ↗ as best i can tell

10:51 ↗ and i think we're losing a great

10:53 ↗ opportunity here a really important

10:55 ↗ opportunity that we can't miss we can't

10:58 ↗ keep kicking the can down the road

11:00 ↗ there are some really crucial nuggets

11:03 ↗ even if we stay within the existing

11:05 ↗ framework of the code we have which at

11:07 ↗ this point i'm taking as a given we're

11:10 ↗ not going to be pivoting to any form

11:12 ↗ based code or anything different

11:14 ↗ but there are

11:15 ↗ sections of that that really can make a

11:17 ↗ dramatic difference in protecting our

11:19 ↗ environment and lowering our emissions

11:22 ↗ and the land use code is such a valuable

11:24 ↗ tool for the city to use to get us to

11:26 ↗ some of our targets i just really hate

11:29 ↗ to see us miss that opportunity

11:32 ↗ and and we can zero in on those nuggets

11:34 ↗ we don't have to do a whole redo of

11:36 ↗ everything but look and ask yourselves

11:39 ↗ what are those areas in the land use

11:41 ↗ code that exists now

11:43 ↗ that we could change that will have the

11:45 ↗ greatest impact to help us lower our

11:47 ↗ carbon emissions

11:49 ↗ and we know it's in the building

11:50 ↗ industry and in transportation

11:53 ↗ and we know that those two

11:54 ↗ nexus come together when we deal with

11:57 ↗ parking and we we've got to lower our

11:59 ↗ vehicle miles traveled our vmts and yet

12:02 ↗ we keep having a code that has way too

12:04 ↗ much parking in it for all kinds of uses

12:08 ↗ so anyway i'm very frustrated at the

12:11 ↗ guard rails that have been placed on

12:13 ↗ this process and i

12:15 ↗ you know really disappointed that that

12:17 ↗ we are where we are i still think we can

12:20 ↗ add to this very robust uh outreach

12:23 ↗ process and start tackling some

12:26 ↗ fundamental changes in the code

12:28 ↗ without just putting it on a whiteboard

12:30 ↗ for future discussion which is what's

12:31 ↗ happening now and and it's possibly for

12:34 ↗ everyone including

12:36 ↗ our environment so thank you

12:40 ↗ thank you for the comments steve

12:42 ↗ city clerk do we have additional people

12:45 ↗ signed up to speak

12:47 ↗ chair i don't see anyone else indicating

12:50 ↗ a desire to speak and i would ask if ann

12:52 ↗ fletcher and connie marsh could lower

12:54 ↗ their hand so that i can determine who'd

12:56 ↗ like to speak at the next comment

12:58 ↗ opportunity

13:05 ↗ okay thank you very much and we do not

13:07 ↗ have anyone in um person in the council

13:10 ↗ chambers wishing to address this at this

13:12 ↗ time

13:13 ↗ and thank you again to all of the

13:15 ↗ community members who made comments this

13:17 ↗ evening

13:18 ↗ the first item on our agenda will be

13:20 ↗ approval of minutes and this will be the

13:23 ↗ minutes of our may 3rd 2022 meeting and

13:27 ↗ summary of input title 18 landscape and

13:29 ↗ open space review these are

13:31 ↗ informational items

13:33 ↗ and i do not believe that there will be

13:35 ↗ a presentation on these or any comments

13:38 ↗ but

13:39 ↗ we do have a request for a few changes

13:41 ↗ which i would like to

13:44 ↗ state at this time unless director

13:47 ↗ dollywood if you'd like to

13:50 ↗ make any say anything before i go ahead

13:52 ↗ and do that

13:54 ↗ no i don't have anything new to add

14:02 ↗ okay well um i will just go ahead and

14:04 ↗ say thank you very much for putting this

14:06 ↗ with our materials

14:08 ↗ i

14:08 ↗ appreciate that we are tracking these

14:11 ↗ conversations especially for title 18 in

14:13 ↗ this way because there's a lot of

14:15 ↗ material that is going to come before

14:17 ↗ this committee and there will be changes

14:19 ↗ made after our committee

14:22 ↗ sees and has our sees the materials and

14:25 ↗ has the discussion and so having this

14:27 ↗ having this touch where we look at the

14:30 ↗ minutes that were from the last meeting

14:32 ↗ and have an opportunity to make any

14:34 ↗ additions or corrections is really

14:35 ↗ appreciated and i i thought the minutes

14:37 ↗ were very thorough and reflected our

14:39 ↗ conversation very well so again really

14:41 ↗ appreciative i did have two

14:44 ↗ requests for changes which have been

14:46 ↗ already conveyed to director dollywall

14:48 ↗ and those were

14:50 ↗ two things that i wanted to have

14:52 ↗ captured in the minutes one is that

14:53 ↗ there was a request from the committee

14:55 ↗ to consider an approach based on

14:56 ↗ ecological score like the neighboring

14:59 ↗ city of redmond and this is again under

15:01 ↗ title 18 landscape and open space review

15:03 ↗ from our last conversation on this and

15:05 ↗ then there was also a request from the

15:06 ↗ committee to consider directly allowing

15:08 ↗ for fire breaks around the home in the

15:11 ↗ canopy cover requirements rather than

15:12 ↗ trying to design a canopy percentage

15:15 ↗ that would accommodate a fire break

15:17 ↗ so those were the two things that i

15:19 ↗ wanted to

15:21 ↗ ensure were captured in those minutes

15:23 ↗ and i'll check in with council president

15:26 ↗ walsh if you had any additional comments

15:28 ↗ on this item nope i think those are good

15:29 ↗ additions

15:32 ↗ all right

15:34 ↗ and

15:35 ↗ city clerk do i need to make any sort of

15:36 ↗ formal motion with that

15:38 ↗ you could just say there being no

15:40 ↗ objection the minutes are approved with

15:41 ↗ the corrections

15:43 ↗ great there being no objection the

15:44 ↗ minutes are approved with the

15:45 ↗ corrections and

15:47 ↗ we will then move on to

15:49 ↗ id

15:50 ↗ 1139 title 18 zoning and uses

15:56 ↗ i just want to make sure yeah we don't

15:58 ↗ have public comments under the minute so

16:00 ↗ we will move to id 1139 title 18 zoning

16:03 ↗ and uses and there will be a

16:04 ↗ presentation now by director dollywall

16:08 ↗ good evening

16:10 ↗ council members and members of the

16:11 ↗ community that are watching

16:14 ↗ i'm gonna share my screen here

16:18 ↗ um

16:24 ↗ um

16:25 ↗ so tonight uh we're talking zoning and

16:27 ↗ uses this is the third bucket so to

16:30 ↗ speak of the six major big tropic

16:32 ↗ groupings

16:34 ↗ um and we're seeking input from um the

16:37 ↗ committee

16:38 ↗ on

16:38 ↗ uh these regulations whether there are

16:40 ↗ any additional considerations that ppc

16:43 ↗ should study before they finalize their

16:45 ↗ recommendation to city council um

16:48 ↗ so in other words uh do the proposed

16:50 ↗ changes meet the golden outcomes uh for

16:53 ↗ this topic or are there any additional

16:56 ↗ topics that we need to

16:58 ↗ um take into consideration when we're

17:00 ↗ doing the final edits

17:01 ↗ um

17:03 ↗ there are five total subgroups zoning

17:06 ↗ permitted uses specified uses foreman

17:09 ↗ intensity and subdivisions under this

17:11 ↗ bigger

17:13 ↗ zoning and uses category

17:16 ↗ and there are two goals um

17:19 ↗ that apply to these um changes that

17:22 ↗ we're propos we're presenting tonight um

17:25 ↗ goal eight which is the neighborhoods

17:27 ↗ retain their um distinctive character

17:30 ↗ and then modernize and streamline the

17:32 ↗ code

17:33 ↗ uh there is an additional goal number uh

17:36 ↗ six i believe uh which talks about

17:38 ↗ increasing housing diversity and so

17:41 ↗ we're studying that with the um

17:44 ↗ the grant that we have from department

17:45 ↗ of commerce um to look at how to

17:48 ↗ improve housing diversity um and that

17:51 ↗ that's not included in this

17:53 ↗ topic that we're presenting tonight

17:56 ↗ um

17:56 ↗ in terms of process

17:58 ↗ we did the gaps analysis

18:00 ↗ planning and policy commission and

18:01 ↗ development commission had joint

18:03 ↗ discussions

18:04 ↗ based on their feedback and members of

18:06 ↗ the community that provided input during

18:09 ↗ that process

18:10 ↗ we released the draft code we held an

18:12 ↗ open house had a public hearing and then

18:16 ↗ ppc has deliberated and

18:19 ↗ and there

18:20 ↗ all that summary is included in your

18:21 ↗ packet tonight

18:23 ↗ and we're here today

18:24 ↗ with the planning development and

18:26 ↗ environment committee discussion um

18:28 ↗ based on all of the feedback we'll come

18:30 ↗ back

18:31 ↗ to uh we'll go back to the planning and

18:34 ↗ policy commission with the hearing in

18:35 ↗ october

18:36 ↗ and final council action in november

18:39 ↗ december

18:41 ↗ um what's in your packet as as in the

18:43 ↗ previous um

18:45 ↗ topic we have summary of proposed

18:48 ↗ changes

18:50 ↗ links to the planning and policy

18:52 ↗ commission the meeting minutes public

18:54 ↗ feedback loop and also the draft code

18:58 ↗ um

18:59 ↗ so zoning um what are the per you know

19:02 ↗ under the zones chapter we talk about

19:04 ↗ what's the purpose of each zone

19:06 ↗ the entire city has designated zones we

19:08 ↗ haven't changed any of them except for

19:10 ↗ removed ones that no longer exist but

19:13 ↗ were

19:14 ↗ did exist at some point and not

19:16 ↗ redundant and

19:18 ↗ left over

19:20 ↗ based on that

19:21 ↗ for each zone there's a permitted uses

19:24 ↗ section

19:25 ↗ basically saying what uses are allowed

19:27 ↗ in what zones

19:29 ↗ the foreman intensity section really

19:31 ↗ talks about how tall the building can be

19:33 ↗ how close it can be to the street

19:35 ↗ and how dense

19:38 ↗ and then we have the section called

19:39 ↗ specified use standards that's really

19:42 ↗ specific uses that are called out

19:44 ↗ through the legislative process in the

19:46 ↗ city over the number of years where it

19:48 ↗ was an issue

19:49 ↗ for instance the um

19:52 ↗ storage facilities had special design

19:55 ↗ considerations that were incorporated so

19:57 ↗ if there is a specific use that was of a

20:00 ↗ concern in the past we've carried that

20:01 ↗ forward in this new section

20:05 ↗ and in essence that's uh you know five

20:08 ↗ different locations right now uh the

20:10 ↗ zoning districts the standards

20:12 ↗ are split um and it becomes difficult to

20:15 ↗ administer difficult for applicants to

20:17 ↗ figure out for the community members to

20:19 ↗ know where to go so this will

20:21 ↗ consolidate all of this into one chapter

20:25 ↗ and you know this is more uh an

20:27 ↗ explanation of how these tables are set

20:30 ↗ up

20:31 ↗ so you have your zones on the on the top

20:33 ↗ and they're broken down into categories

20:36 ↗ you know residential commercial mixed

20:38 ↗ use and so on and so forth

20:40 ↗ and you have your uses on the left hand

20:42 ↗ side so if you know your zone

20:44 ↗ and you want to go and look at what is

20:46 ↗ permitted in my on my property you can

20:48 ↗ look at your zone and then carry that to

20:51 ↗ the permitted uses section on your left

20:54 ↗ or if you're trying to build an adult

20:57 ↗ family home for instance in the city and

20:59 ↗ you want to know which zones allow it

21:02 ↗ you find your use that you're interested

21:04 ↗ in in

21:05 ↗ bringing to issaquah and then you look

21:07 ↗ at the different zones that it's

21:09 ↗ permitted in

21:10 ↗ um so that's how the tables are set up

21:12 ↗ uh some of the examples of specified

21:14 ↗ uses that you know that are called out

21:18 ↗ our senior housing shopping center bed

21:20 ↗ and breakfast self storage

21:22 ↗ uh cannabis and outdoor recreation so

21:25 ↗ there are some specific things for these

21:26 ↗ uh that are included in this chapter

21:30 ↗ i talked about this example

21:33 ↗ where self storage we talk about

21:35 ↗ location access colors building design

21:37 ↗ roof line

21:39 ↗ we've carried that forward in in this

21:41 ↗ draft

21:43 ↗ foreman intensity is really about

21:46 ↗ setbacks and bulk and impervious surface

21:48 ↗ and height

21:50 ↗ density and floor area ratio

21:53 ↗ minimum lot sizes if they apply and lot

21:55 ↗ widths so that's all consolidated in

21:58 ↗ this one chapter for all the different

21:59 ↗ zones

22:00 ↗ um

22:02 ↗ example of in a single family small lot

22:06 ↗ your density is 7.26 dwelling units per

22:09 ↗ acre you have a minimum lot size of 6

22:11 ↗ thousand

22:12 ↗ there is no built two line

22:14 ↗ there's a ten foot setback side setback

22:17 ↗ rear setback fifty percent impervious

22:19 ↗ surface

22:21 ↗ building height thirty feet

22:24 ↗ and uh so on and so forth

22:27 ↗ in a commercial um mixed use central

22:30 ↗ issaquah kind of the same format

22:32 ↗ um

22:33 ↗ but there is no minimum lot size there

22:36 ↗ is no minim you know front setback

22:38 ↗ there's more of a build to line so you

22:40 ↗ can locate your building from 0 to 10

22:42 ↗ feet

22:43 ↗ there is a maximum impervious surface

22:46 ↗ there's also a base height and a maximum

22:48 ↗ building height so if you have some

22:50 ↗ incentives like affordable housing or

22:52 ↗ and others you can go you can build an

22:55 ↗ 85 foot tall building so all of those

22:58 ↗ are now put together in one

23:01 ↗ you know none of these have changed

23:03 ↗ other than

23:04 ↗ um and for instance and you villa you

23:07 ↗ know in the urban villages there was

23:10 ↗ no built to setback line so we chose us

23:13 ↗ less

23:14 ↗ um

23:15 ↗ stringent uh regulation to make it

23:18 ↗ consistent but but those are minor edits

23:21 ↗ and for consistency purposes but nothing

23:23 ↗ substantive in terms of form and

23:25 ↗ intensity has changed

23:27 ↗ um

23:29 ↗ some highlights uh for zoning chapter uh

23:31 ↗ note you know we've um didn't change the

23:34 ↗ descriptions but when the replacement

23:36 ↗ regulations were done for urban villages

23:38 ↗ there wasn't a description for the zone

23:40 ↗ so we've added those

23:42 ↗ and we have added

23:44 ↗ oops

23:45 ↗ [Music]

23:49 ↗ some clarity on allowed uses in each

23:51 ↗ zone uh there was a retail zone that

23:54 ↗ existed only in paper but there was no

23:56 ↗ mapped zone so that's been removed so

23:58 ↗ think you know really housekeeping kind

24:00 ↗ of clean up things there there was a

24:02 ↗ laundry list of footnotes for permitted

24:04 ↗ uses and and such

24:06 ↗ those are now gone found a home where

24:09 ↗ there aren't just um all a mishmash of

24:11 ↗ different uses

24:13 ↗ animal regulations we've referenced the

24:15 ↗ king county and state regulations

24:17 ↗ because they are more robust and they

24:18 ↗ were consistent

24:20 ↗ with our regulations but they provide

24:22 ↗ more guidance

24:24 ↗ okay

24:27 ↗ permitted uses

24:30 ↗ there were four different use tables

24:31 ↗ they're now in one location uh they also

24:34 ↗ had a level of review

24:36 ↗ so um in one so

24:39 ↗ issaquah municipal code had level of

24:41 ↗ review but not the central issaquah um

24:44 ↗ and which really was i'll give you an

24:46 ↗ example so if it's a daycare that's a

24:48 ↗ permitted use

24:50 ↗ you would go to this table and it would

24:51 ↗ have a level of review of two or three

24:53 ↗ or whatever the level of review was but

24:55 ↗ it didn't take into consideration the

24:57 ↗ size and scale of that use so a small

25:01 ↗ you know thousand square foot building

25:03 ↗ would be the same review stat

25:04 ↗ requirements for as you would get a 10

25:07 ↗ 000 square foot so we'll be talking

25:09 ↗ about the thresholds and reviews in a

25:11 ↗ separate section but for now this table

25:14 ↗ is a very clear whether the use is

25:17 ↗ permitted or not permitted

25:20 ↗ and

25:21 ↗ we haven't removed any uses

25:24 ↗ but we except for our bike stations and

25:26 ↗ emission testing and because those no

25:27 ↗ longer are relevant anymore

25:31 ↗ and there used to be a lot a long list

25:34 ↗ of different types of retail uses called

25:36 ↗ out separately that are organically

25:37 ↗ grown over the years

25:39 ↗ those are captured under a broader

25:41 ↗ category of retail rather than listing

25:43 ↗ each individual

25:45 ↗ category

25:46 ↗ again moving the footnotes to

25:48 ↗ appropriate places

25:50 ↗ uh specified uses uh have been

25:52 ↗ categorized into four you know

25:54 ↗ residential commercial mixed industrial

25:57 ↗ and um

25:58 ↗ uh institution and open spaces uh again

26:01 ↗ the focus is you know not being

26:03 ↗ redundant removing duplica duplicate uh

26:07 ↗ stuff and and really getting rid of

26:09 ↗ vague and arbitrary language and and

26:11 ↗ trying to be more specific we're not

26:13 ↗ done there uh this was our first attempt

26:16 ↗ we're going to continue to edit the

26:17 ↗ language to make it more clear

26:19 ↗ we've also moved some of the temporary

26:21 ↗ and accessory uses like food trucks and

26:23 ↗ those kind of things into a separate

26:25 ↗ section that we

26:26 ↗ will release

26:28 ↗ uh later so

26:30 ↗ um that's those are some of the

26:32 ↗ highlights there uh foramen intensity we

26:35 ↗ talked about

26:36 ↗ we've added you know one thing that we

26:38 ↗ should probably mention here is a

26:40 ↗ significant amount of time was spent on

26:42 ↗ which is the setback and where are my

26:44 ↗ setbacks is this the front this is the

26:46 ↗ right and a lot of inquiries on that

26:48 ↗ topic so we've added graphics

26:51 ↗ to kind of address that issue

26:54 ↗ we've removed the administrative

26:56 ↗ adjustment of standards

26:58 ↗ criteria that was really vague and we

27:01 ↗ could never give any predictable answers

27:03 ↗ to people which was your setback and and

27:06 ↗ your people had to go through a process

27:08 ↗ the neighbors were notified and if

27:10 ↗ anyone complained

27:11 ↗ then we couldn't really issue a decision

27:14 ↗ so all of that has been removed and

27:16 ↗ clarified here

27:19 ↗ uh again the summary uh of comments that

27:22 ↗ we received on zoning uses

27:25 ↗ were um you know uh and this is from the

27:28 ↗ commissions and community members

27:30 ↗ combined uh the details of all the

27:32 ↗ comments were in your minutes in um

27:35 ↗ and the matrices that we've included in

27:38 ↗ the agenda packets with the ppc

27:41 ↗ but in essence um you know commissioners

27:43 ↗ felt that the permitted use table was

27:45 ↗ effective in organizing and

27:47 ↗ communicating

27:49 ↗ they had some suggestions to adding a

27:50 ↗ key to the zones and adding some cross

27:52 ↗ references and hyperlinks so we'll

27:54 ↗ incorporate those

27:57 ↗ uv commercial retail we received some

27:59 ↗ public comments on that

28:01 ↗ asking to allow multi-family in that

28:03 ↗ zone

28:04 ↗ and ensuring that we were carrying

28:06 ↗ forward some of the uses that were

28:08 ↗ previously allowed such as daycare dry

28:10 ↗ cleaners park and ride

28:12 ↗ and a lot and then asking that we do

28:15 ↗ allow outdoor recreation uses that are

28:17 ↗ not currently allowed in that zone

28:20 ↗ lakeside industries has been engaged

28:23 ↗ with this process as well

28:26 ↗ and based on

28:27 ↗ their information we realized that the

28:31 ↗ the maps that we have need some

28:33 ↗ fixing there was some legislative work

28:36 ↗ done in 2015 that hadn't carried forward

28:39 ↗ into some of the the maps that we had

28:41 ↗ online

28:42 ↗ basically uh the zones uh that was zoned

28:45 ↗ mineral were not uh were changed to

28:48 ↗ intensive commercial so we're going to

28:50 ↗ fix the map and

28:52 ↗ maintain the existing permitted uses um

28:55 ↗ the

28:56 ↗ comments from planning and policy

28:57 ↗ commissioners and development commission

29:00 ↗ were

29:00 ↗ to limit the um

29:03 ↗ mining uses so we'll look at how how to

29:07 ↗ keep the lakeside not from becoming

29:09 ↗ non-conforming but not allowing any new

29:11 ↗ ones so we'll fix the language

29:13 ↗ on that

29:14 ↗ there was also some language in the code

29:17 ↗ related to automobile service stations

29:20 ↗ and intensive convenience stores should

29:22 ↗ not be located within 300 feet of

29:25 ↗ daycare in schools but it was only in

29:28 ↗ one of the the documents so we've

29:30 ↗ carried this forward and made it

29:31 ↗ citywide

29:33 ↗ but one of the comments from the

29:34 ↗ commissioners was we should probably

29:36 ↗ look at other uses that either the state

29:39 ↗ law prohibits around daycares and

29:41 ↗ schools and may you know make it more

29:43 ↗ uh comprehensive so we'll we'll look at

29:45 ↗ that

29:46 ↗ uh there were comments related to

29:48 ↗ non-conforming uses uh that will be

29:51 ↗ addressed in a separate chapter

29:54 ↗ and evidently private facilities and

29:57 ↗ public parks is an issue that

29:59 ↗ has come in front of cities in the past

30:02 ↗ and there it was not fixed in this

30:05 ↗ code update so we'll look at how we can

30:09 ↗ provide some clarity on

30:11 ↗ yes they're allowed and if they're

30:13 ↗ allowed what standards apply to them

30:16 ↗ so we'll work with the parks department

30:18 ↗ and

30:19 ↗ and others to to incorporate some of the

30:21 ↗ changes related to that

30:22 ↗ uh like i mentioned some of the

30:24 ↗ temporary uses taco trucks and stuff

30:26 ↗ will be addressed in a separate chapter

30:28 ↗ um there were comments about

30:30 ↗ self-storage facilities that we really

30:31 ↗ need to limit uh them where they're

30:34 ↗ allowed so they they are allowed in a

30:36 ↗ number of zones they were limited in

30:38 ↗ some zones during the centralist

30:41 ↗ update but they continue to be allowed

30:43 ↗ in on a number of other zones there are

30:46 ↗ existing facilities in those zones so if

30:48 ↗ we take them out they will become

30:50 ↗ non-conforming

30:52 ↗ so we do want to have some kind of an

30:54 ↗ outreach if that's needed

30:56 ↗ um

30:57 ↗ but there was a comment about

30:59 ↗ if that's not necessary perhaps a

31:00 ↗ standard or can be done with this update

31:03 ↗ perhaps a standard added to require

31:05 ↗ ground floor retail to activate the

31:08 ↗ front uh the ground floor for self

31:10 ↗ storage facilities

31:12 ↗ then there was a comment about allowing

31:13 ↗ cafes and other

31:16 ↗ similar kind of uses in residential

31:18 ↗ areas um in the spirit of making

31:20 ↗ walkable neighborhoods

31:22 ↗ um

31:25 ↗ so that's the summary

31:27 ↗ on that on zoning and uses uh so summary

31:29 ↗ of comments on form and intensity were

31:32 ↗ to clarify the definition of floor area

31:35 ↗ ratio and how it's calculated we'll be

31:37 ↗ looking at that in the second draft

31:40 ↗ there were some comments related to the

31:41 ↗ size of accessory dwelling in it

31:44 ↗ some desire to allow tiny houses as adu

31:47 ↗ um you know since the city did the work

31:49 ↗ uh on updating the adu regulations not

31:52 ↗ too long ago uh we did not make any

31:54 ↗ changes to the minimum size or the

31:56 ↗ maximum size

31:58 ↗ of adus um

32:01 ↗ and uh there is one community member um

32:04 ↗ who is very engaged and uh wants to

32:06 ↗ address how setbacks are calculated when

32:09 ↗ you have a private dead end road and you

32:11 ↗ have a property that faces the lake uh

32:14 ↗ there's a unique situation of how the

32:16 ↗ the setbacks are

32:18 ↗ determined in that situation so we'll

32:19 ↗ look at um if the proposed changes

32:22 ↗ address this issue or if what new

32:24 ↗ additional changes are needed

32:26 ↗ um

32:28 ↗ so some general comments that you've

32:30 ↗ heard tonight and that were also

32:32 ↗ submitted were a climate action plan

32:35 ↗ should guide the land use code update uh

32:38 ↗ it absolutely is guiding the land use

32:40 ↗ code update you know there was a lot of

32:42 ↗ focus on the critical area code update

32:44 ↗ and the tree canopy coverage uh that's

32:46 ↗ already incorporated in the code uh the

32:50 ↗ the city's land use code currently has

32:52 ↗ um

32:53 ↗ uh you know some premises for

32:56 ↗ uh targeting growth in central issaquah

32:59 ↗ and all those kind of things

33:01 ↗ and making it a more walkable uh

33:03 ↗ sustainable community

33:05 ↗ we and in this uh

33:07 ↗ upcoming building design we have

33:10 ↗ incorporated some built design and lead

33:11 ↗ certification kind of things but not in

33:13 ↗ the zoning and uses section

33:15 ↗ um

33:16 ↗ and

33:18 ↗ because um

33:20 ↗ the the

33:22 ↗ the changing the entitlements and the

33:24 ↗ zoning uh and what the uses are allowed

33:27 ↗ are were not within the scope of this

33:29 ↗ title 18 update

33:30 ↗ uh however we will present what is being

33:34 ↗ captured

33:35 ↗ under the climate action plan and

33:37 ↗ capture it in a document and put it for

33:39 ↗ the planning and policy commission to

33:41 ↗ look at review and

33:43 ↗ for public to comment on so we're

33:45 ↗ clearly uh want to be open and

33:47 ↗ transparent of what we've done

33:49 ↗ related to that and what

33:53 ↗ additional information we can provide uh

33:56 ↗ to provide that

33:57 ↗ information

33:58 ↗ uh i think there were also comments that

34:01 ↗ you that we should not make no any

34:03 ↗ larger policy changes as part of this

34:06 ↗ update to the zoning and user section

34:09 ↗ there were some comments about improving

34:11 ↗ readability and remove redundant

34:13 ↗ language which we absolutely plan to do

34:15 ↗ and also test the code

34:18 ↗ which we are planning to do uh again

34:20 ↗ this is in your slide packet but uh to

34:23 ↗ address all of these comments director

34:25 ↗ director can i can i i think that last

34:27 ↗ slide is a good place to pause and i

34:29 ↗ wonder if you could

34:31 ↗ um just to take a step back because we

34:33 ↗ did receive comments about the scope of

34:36 ↗ the

34:37 ↗ update earlier this evening we also

34:39 ↗ received a number of email comments on

34:41 ↗ the scope and um here

34:44 ↗ and in our emails we do have

34:46 ↗ both the opinion you know to to have no

34:49 ↗ larger policy changes as well as to

34:51 ↗ um go further and have

34:53 ↗ uh additional changes than what's

34:55 ↗ represented so i wondered if you could

34:57 ↗ from from your perspective give

35:00 ↗ a like take a step back and give an um

35:05 ↗ an overview of what is in scope and what

35:07 ↗ the goals are for this update so um for

35:12 ↗ those watching we can uh kind of get on

35:15 ↗ the same page about that sure sure

35:17 ↗ so for this particular um zoning and

35:20 ↗ uses section so you know the six bigger

35:23 ↗ issues that we are going further in a

35:25 ↗ lot of places uh to address climate

35:28 ↗ action plan to address comp plan but for

35:30 ↗ the zoning and uses section

35:33 ↗ you know a lot of work was done with the

35:34 ↗ um

35:35 ↗ with the public outreach and central

35:37 ↗ assembly plan and so we can't take all

35:40 ↗ of that and um

35:42 ↗ and change that up with this larger

35:45 ↗ scale of an update um

35:47 ↗ one

35:48 ↗ because these regulations are split in

35:50 ↗ five different documents if we start

35:53 ↗ not only doing the consolidation but

35:54 ↗ also changing the legislative record

35:57 ↗ becomes extremely

35:59 ↗ complicated to kind of figure out what

36:01 ↗ happened and where it happened so this

36:02 ↗ sets the framework for future

36:04 ↗ conversations about what

36:07 ↗ should occur or shouldn't occur

36:09 ↗ as far as

36:11 ↗ zoning and uses go

36:13 ↗ if there are things in uses that

36:17 ↗ need cleanup

36:19 ↗ absolutely if there are uses that don't

36:22 ↗ comply with a comprehensive plan

36:24 ↗ adopted policies we can look at those

36:27 ↗ but

36:28 ↗ but we can take um you know

36:31 ↗ a major change and

36:34 ↗ take all that work that was done over

36:36 ↗ the number of years and incorporate it

36:39 ↗ with this code update related to zoning

36:41 ↗ and uses

36:42 ↗ so what has guided this uh section of

36:45 ↗ the update is the more of a

36:48 ↗ cleanup housekeeping consolidation there

36:50 ↗ is one section which we'll get to the

36:52 ↗ subdivision which had a more of a policy

36:53 ↗ discussion about it

36:55 ↗ um

36:57 ↗ so that that's where

36:59 ↗ uh the focus on this particular bucket

37:01 ↗ but but we shouldn't forget that there

37:02 ↗ are six other topics that we've made

37:04 ↗ significant improvements and changes

37:06 ↗ related to climate action plan

37:08 ↗ um but for this particular these four

37:11 ↗ chapters

37:12 ↗ uh the focus has not been to allow

37:15 ↗ taller buildings and residential i mean

37:17 ↗ it won't fit in with the comprehensive

37:18 ↗ plan too so for instance if we took a

37:20 ↗ 60-foot tall building and put it in a

37:22 ↗ residential that won't be supported by

37:24 ↗ existing policies and that would be

37:27 ↗ uh you know not allowed under the state

37:28 ↗ law our our regulations have to be

37:30 ↗ consistent with the policies that's an

37:32 ↗ extreme example that's not what we're

37:34 ↗ looking for so

37:36 ↗ okay um

37:38 ↗ thank you and would you like to follow

37:40 ↗ up

37:41 ↗ yeah so

37:44 ↗ i appreciate what you're saying about

37:46 ↗ no larger policy changes as related to

37:49 ↗ these four

37:51 ↗ chapters

37:53 ↗ um

37:54 ↗ i think there's still this larger

37:57 ↗ question out there in regards to all of

38:00 ↗ title 18 of how did these guard rails

38:04 ↗ come into place

38:06 ↗ where

38:07 ↗ who set them

38:09 ↗ um

38:11 ↗ and

38:14 ↗ you know

38:16 ↗ whether there is the ability to change

38:18 ↗ that i i appreciate the concept of

38:20 ↗ wanting a legislative record of how the

38:24 ↗ changes were made i wonder whether

38:28 ↗ having a draft version

38:32 ↗ and then making changes from there which

38:35 ↗ shows then

38:36 ↗ this is where it was in the previous

38:37 ↗ code here's how we consolidated and

38:39 ↗ here's how we moved it forward according

38:41 ↗ to community values

38:43 ↗ um

38:44 ↗ how why is that not an option

38:50 ↗ um

38:50 ↗ i guess we should figure out what is it

38:52 ↗ that's not in here that's not aligned

38:54 ↗ with the community's values right so

38:57 ↗ what is it that that we need to

38:59 ↗ incorporate that is missing from zoning

39:02 ↗ and uses perspective

39:04 ↗ and um that isn't supported by the

39:07 ↗ policies that information hasn't come

39:10 ↗ forth at this point um i think you know

39:14 ↗ there there's a lot in in this section

39:16 ↗ that is supported that by the policies

39:19 ↗ that com that meets some of those

39:21 ↗ sustainability goals and you know tar

39:24 ↗ having taller larger buildings closer to

39:26 ↗ transit in in the urban center and so

39:28 ↗ there is a lot

39:30 ↗ of that information that's already um

39:33 ↗ pushing the city towards those goals so

39:36 ↗ it's not

39:37 ↗ you know to to answer if you know it's

39:39 ↗ not just the legislative record but it's

39:41 ↗ also what is it that's

39:43 ↗ not there that

39:45 ↗ that's missing

39:46 ↗ um

39:48 ↗ other than you know we've had

39:49 ↗ discussions about process that

39:52 ↗ and and a perception that it's missing

39:55 ↗ but i'm not sure

39:56 ↗ i fully understand what is missing

39:59 ↗ um from the zoning and uses that is not

40:01 ↗ aligned with the community's values

40:04 ↗ i mean i guess i would say looking

40:06 ↗ you've done a fantastic job creating

40:09 ↗ this goals and outcomes and feedback

40:12 ↗ loop document but what i'm seeing here

40:15 ↗ over and over again is

40:18 ↗ that's not within the scope that goes on

40:19 ↗ the whiteboard

40:21 ↗ things like that

40:23 ↗ i don't know how that decision was made

40:27 ↗ and

40:30 ↗ why we're at a point of

40:33 ↗ telling the community

40:35 ↗ over and over again

40:38 ↗ that's not going to be handled now

40:40 ↗ without a clear understanding of what

40:43 ↗ that process is going to be and

40:46 ↗ why

40:47 ↗ sure that was

40:48 ↗ that went on to the white board where as

40:52 ↗ the

40:54 ↗ subdivision didn't

40:57 ↗ yeah so the subdivision was listed under

40:59 ↗ the golden outcomes chart that you know

41:02 ↗ the community worked on the council

41:03 ↗ worked on and you know back in 2020 that

41:06 ↗ that sort of has guided the the

41:09 ↗ the update the other thing i think all

41:11 ↗ in the beginning we kind of set the

41:12 ↗ framework of what is what is the

41:14 ↗ framework of these poli these changes so

41:17 ↗ it was whether it's in compliance with

41:19 ↗ the state law whether it's compliance

41:20 ↗ with the adopted policies climate action

41:22 ↗ plan being one of them

41:24 ↗ and

41:25 ↗ and the goals and outcomes charts so

41:26 ↗ there are multiple things that have

41:27 ↗ guided this

41:28 ↗ this work

41:30 ↗ in terms of um

41:33 ↗ the zoning and uses section

41:36 ↗ you know some of the things we heard

41:38 ↗ that we

41:39 ↗ have put on the white board are you want

41:42 ↗ commercial uses in your residential

41:44 ↗ zones in order to do that in a single

41:47 ↗ family neighborhood if you want to allow

41:48 ↗ it needs to be a thoughtfully careful

41:51 ↗ you know community outreach you want to

41:52 ↗ probably have a conversation with the

41:55 ↗ with the uh the people in that community

41:57 ↗ whether they want it whether they don't

41:58 ↗ want it

41:59 ↗ where do they want it what are some

42:01 ↗ bookends so all of that i think

42:03 ↗ is is going to be needed for something

42:06 ↗ like

42:07 ↗ a retail store in the middle of a

42:08 ↗ residential neighborhood if if that's

42:11 ↗ what

42:12 ↗ is needed it will but

42:15 ↗ but we also need to understand if the

42:16 ↗ market will support it or not so those

42:18 ↗ conversations at the neighborhood level

42:20 ↗ will need to occur for those kind of

42:23 ↗ changes to to happen with title 18.

42:26 ↗ um

42:29 ↗ madam chair yes

42:32 ↗ just to amplify a little bit of director

42:34 ↗ dollywall's comments uh we came to the

42:37 ↗ council last summer uh with i think an

42:39 ↗ approach that

42:41 ↗ we can call guardrails we can call

42:43 ↗ whatever you like but

42:45 ↗ the approach in which we're currently

42:47 ↗ underway

42:49 ↗ we believe the administration believes

42:51 ↗ the code is in such

42:53 ↗ a significant need of revision that our

42:55 ↗ recommendation at the time last summer

42:57 ↗ and as we've continued forward is to

42:59 ↗ stay that course as director dollywall

43:01 ↗ has said there have been some issues

43:04 ↗ with the climate action plan which was

43:05 ↗ adopted last fall that we've been able

43:08 ↗ to take into account

43:10 ↗ we will take more into account uh but we

43:12 ↗ came to you last summer i think with the

43:15 ↗ simple

43:15 ↗ idea that we need to get this code uh in

43:19 ↗ a place that we're comfortable with as

43:21 ↗ soon as possible uh it's not there today

43:24 ↗ and so if someone were to come to the

43:26 ↗ planning counter with an application

43:29 ↗ none of this would apply only what is

43:31 ↗ currently on the books would apply so

43:33 ↗ we're committed to see this process

43:35 ↗ through at the end of the year likely

43:37 ↗ into the first quarter of next year

43:40 ↗ and as we begin the budget discussions

43:42 ↗ for 2324 i think it's very appropriate

43:45 ↗ for the council to say how much

43:46 ↗ additional planning dollars do you want

43:48 ↗ to spend i mean we are hundreds and

43:50 ↗ hundreds of thousands of dollars into

43:52 ↗ this revision

43:54 ↗ which is perfectly fine and we will we

43:56 ↗ will happy to do that uh the next set of

43:59 ↗ revisions will be see

44:00 ↗ the same amount of dollars we'll have to

44:02 ↗ continue to look at existing city staff

44:05 ↗ to support this as well

44:07 ↗ all things that we're happy to do but we

44:10 ↗ do firmly believe that the path we're

44:12 ↗ down which the council reviewed and

44:13 ↗ approved last summer is the path we need

44:16 ↗ to continue on

44:19 ↗ thank you and i i will clarify that one

44:21 ↗ of the reasons why i thought asking

44:23 ↗ these questions on this slide in

44:24 ↗ particular is because we are getting

44:27 ↗ questions from community members that

44:28 ↗ are

44:29 ↗ broader than the chapters that we're

44:30 ↗ reviewing and so i wanted to give

44:33 ↗ uh director dallywall and city

44:34 ↗ administrator

44:36 ↗ opportunity to provide from their

44:38 ↗ perspective why

44:40 ↗ the process is going the way it is um

44:42 ↗ but yes i think for both of us on the

44:44 ↗ council we're familiar with those those

44:46 ↗ documents so i wanted to also just take

44:48 ↗ a step back and provide that information

44:50 ↗ for for those who are following this

44:52 ↗ process um

44:54 ↗ and so i think we can move on at this

44:56 ↗ time and we probably have some

44:58 ↗ discussion but we can save that for the

45:00 ↗ discussion time on this topic so please

45:03 ↗ proceed thank you

45:04 ↗ sure um

45:06 ↗ so i think we uh we talked about what

45:10 ↗ i kind of captured that so the last

45:11 ↗ topic was subdivision

45:13 ↗ um i included some slides i'm not gonna

45:16 ↗ spend too much time over this um but

45:18 ↗ basically just for

45:20 ↗ um

45:21 ↗ clarity and what is the subdivision and

45:22 ↗ you know when we went to planning and

45:23 ↗ policy commission way back when when we

45:25 ↗ first started that we there were

45:26 ↗ questions about what is this and how

45:28 ↗ does this work and all that and we gave

45:30 ↗ some examples of you know what it means

45:32 ↗ on the ground in in issaquah so

45:34 ↗ um

45:35 ↗ it's basically lay off your land this is

45:38 ↗ what shapes the city for hundreds of

45:40 ↗ years because those lot lines stay and

45:42 ↗ your pattern and development

45:45 ↗ is is what shapes the city for a long

45:47 ↗ period of time

45:49 ↗ and

45:50 ↗ so i'll skip over this um

45:53 ↗ right now our process is more than four

45:55 ↗ new lots uh is considered a subdivision

45:58 ↗ we posed the question

46:00 ↗ the state law was changed number of

46:02 ↗ years ago a lot of our peer cities have

46:04 ↗ a nine lot short flat threshold whether

46:06 ↗ we should consider

46:08 ↗ that and we got

46:10 ↗ approval from ppc and and development

46:14 ↗ commission that yes they concurred uh

46:16 ↗ with um increasing that threshold um

46:19 ↗ the preliminary plat is the one that you

46:22 ↗ know more than four lots and in in this

46:24 ↗ case would be more than nine lots is

46:26 ↗ really when you're looking at are there

46:27 ↗ adequate provisions for open space

46:29 ↗ drainage uh you know parks sidewalks uh

46:33 ↗ and the public interest is served so a

46:35 ↗ lot of work happens at the preliminary

46:37 ↗ plat stage it's a public hearing process

46:41 ↗ and then

46:42 ↗ they go in and and do uh get a

46:45 ↗ construction permit build all their

46:46 ↗ infrastructure road utilities

46:49 ↗ and then they come back with for a final

46:50 ↗ flat approval and at that time

46:53 ↗ um you know it's a final check to make

46:56 ↗ sure every condition was met and every

46:58 ↗ it passed all the inspections

47:01 ↗ and at that point it becomes separate

47:02 ↗ lots and they can get building permits

47:04 ↗ for individual uh homes to be built

47:07 ↗ uh the short flat the same kind of

47:09 ↗ process but it's all administrative uh

47:11 ↗ there can be public notice

47:13 ↗ part of the short flats um here's

47:16 ↗ another example of short flat uh in the

47:18 ↗ city uh which was a four large short

47:21 ↗ plaid so generally for these you'll see

47:23 ↗ sort of what's called like a hammerhead

47:25 ↗ type of a road and that's basically to

47:28 ↗ accommodate fire truck turnarounds

47:30 ↗ um

47:32 ↗ here's another the the same one a little

47:34 ↗ blown up uh version

47:36 ↗ so it sets up as a private tract road

47:39 ↗ that serves four homes uh in that

47:41 ↗ neighborhood

47:42 ↗ um some examples i included in your

47:45 ↗ slides of actual uh subdivisions that

47:48 ↗ are under construction

47:50 ↗ on talus mallard point um

47:53 ↗ and westridge

47:55 ↗ um so i won't go over these kelkari

47:57 ↗ phase two has been built number three uh

48:00 ↗ phase three is under review

48:02 ↗ um so

48:03 ↗ the reason why this one had a little bit

48:05 ↗ more of a different take than those

48:07 ↗ other four chapters was because as gold

48:09 ↗ 13

48:10 ↗ listed issues as

48:13 ↗ that the subdivision standards hadn't

48:15 ↗ been updated since 20 years they were

48:16 ↗ more auto centric

48:19 ↗ and we needed to incorporate

48:22 ↗ some basic design features that were

48:24 ↗ important to the city so we attempted to

48:27 ↗ have a subdivision design chapter or

48:29 ↗ we're soliciting comments on that that

48:32 ↗ is no way set in stone we got some good

48:34 ↗ comments from community members on it

48:38 ↗ in terms of um you know what's desired

48:41 ↗ uh as for street connections and having

48:43 ↗ a 250 foot

48:45 ↗ maximum block length probably doesn't

48:47 ↗ make a whole lot of sense everywhere

48:50 ↗ city wide

48:51 ↗ so we've ratcheted that down

48:54 ↗ we've added some

48:56 ↗ zero lot line where you can shift your

48:59 ↗ house on one side so you get instead of

49:01 ↗ two five foot small

49:04 ↗ setbacks you get an actually usable 10

49:06 ↗ foot 10 foot setback

49:10 ↗ so it's more efficient use of land uh

49:12 ↗ also encouraging shared access and alley

49:15 ↗ access so we've included some sections

49:16 ↗ in there

49:17 ↗ there are some that are more

49:19 ↗ um

49:20 ↗ should and may kind of uh you know

49:23 ↗ encourage and discourage type of

49:25 ↗ language so for those we'll move that

49:28 ↗ into an intent section and and create

49:31 ↗ some more regulatory language but if you

49:33 ↗ have feedback on what a good

49:35 ↗ well-designed subdivision in essequa

49:37 ↗ looks like

49:38 ↗ feels like we'll make sure that we that

49:40 ↗ regulatory language

49:42 ↗ is incorporated um

49:45 ↗ i think um the key changes

49:48 ↗ um

49:49 ↗ like i said we added a design standard

49:52 ↗ uh unit lot subdivision didn't exist in

49:54 ↗ the in the city and

49:56 ↗ uh and master builders association asked

49:58 ↗ for it and it's a process used in a

50:00 ↗ handful of other cities and and really

50:03 ↗ fosters more uh fee ownership uh type of

50:06 ↗ lots so as a town home people can

50:09 ↗ actually own a fee ownership as opposed

50:12 ↗ to a condo ownership so

50:14 ↗ we've incorporated that

50:16 ↗ we've really been very clear with the

50:18 ↗ criteria for approval it wasn't very

50:21 ↗ clear for different types so we've added

50:24 ↗ that

50:24 ↗ there wasn't a process for lot

50:26 ↗ consolidations we did hear a lot of

50:28 ↗ comments on this topic which

50:31 ↗ were more related to

50:33 ↗ unintended consequences of lot

50:35 ↗ consolidations that people could

50:37 ↗ consolidate and build a mcmansion and

50:39 ↗ that would ruin the the character of the

50:41 ↗ neighborhood so we'll look at

50:44 ↗ what bookends we can put in terms of

50:47 ↗ criteria for lot consolidation

50:49 ↗ related to addressing that concern

50:52 ↗ we also didn't have an expiration um you

50:55 ↗ know it was an unlimited approvals could

50:57 ↗ be granted forever

50:58 ↗ uh on one year increments so we've um

51:02 ↗ you know added a maximum of three

51:03 ↗ extensions uh with the idea that you

51:06 ↗ know you get your

51:08 ↗ preliminary plan approval the state law

51:11 ↗ gives you five years to build your

51:12 ↗ infrastructure and then you have to get

51:13 ↗ your final approval but we can extend it

51:16 ↗ three years for legitimate reasons

51:18 ↗ um but no more than eight years you have

51:20 ↗ to finish up otherwise you need to meet

51:22 ↗ comply with the new rules which is new

51:24 ↗ critical areas new storm water and all

51:26 ↗ that so so there is some accountability

51:29 ↗ for

51:30 ↗ development is being built up to current

51:32 ↗ codes and standards that are in place

51:35 ↗ we really um made it clear that the

51:37 ↗ deferred improvements and bonding

51:40 ↗ is only for final overlay of the road

51:44 ↗ but you but not that you go through a

51:46 ↗ preliminary plant you bond everything

51:48 ↗ and you can start building your homes

51:50 ↗ that all that infrastructure needs to be

51:52 ↗ built in place before you can get your

51:54 ↗ final plan

51:56 ↗ there wasn't a modification process

51:58 ↗ so we've added that and added specific

52:01 ↗ criteria for it we'll go back and look

52:03 ↗ at it to make sure it complies with the

52:05 ↗ state law and all that

52:07 ↗ there wasn't a provision for phasing

52:09 ↗ because sometimes these

52:11 ↗ you know subdivisions occur in phases so

52:14 ↗ we want to make sure that

52:16 ↗ we have uh a process and and criteria

52:19 ↗ for that

52:20 ↗ and finally uh the state law was changed

52:23 ↗ where the final plats can be an

52:25 ↗ administrative decision so we've um you

52:27 ↗ know we'll be making that change in the

52:29 ↗ procedures section

52:30 ↗ um so that uh pretty much is a highlight

52:34 ↗ of the key changes

52:36 ↗ uh can i ask one question on that last

52:38 ↗ one on

52:39 ↗ um from the minutes i was not clear on

52:43 ↗ lot i i thought that we had lot

52:45 ↗ consolidation

52:47 ↗ as an option currently

52:49 ↗ okay so you but it's listed here as key

52:52 ↗ changes yeah we did not it didn't you

52:54 ↗ know the code doesn't talk about law

52:56 ↗ consolidations but it's just state law

52:58 ↗ if someone has but it's allowed right

53:00 ↗ yeah we have to approve it it just we've

53:03 ↗ approved them in the past there wasn't

53:05 ↗ listed in our imc

53:08 ↗ so we've yeah so that but the

53:11 ↗ but the there's not a change in practice

53:15 ↗ from correct prior thanks yep

53:18 ↗ yep

53:20 ↗ um so we asked some uh policy questions

53:23 ↗ on this topic uh from ppc basically on

53:26 ↗ the design standards you know do we do

53:28 ↗ you think the block um

53:31 ↗ length makes sense um city-wide um

53:35 ↗ what are some well-designed subdivisions

53:38 ↗ and

53:39 ↗ anything they wanted changed on zero lot

53:41 ↗ lines ali access so shared access

53:44 ↗ open space and recreation standards

53:47 ↗ what should they be the same for

53:49 ↗ multi-family single family so this is

53:51 ↗ one area where we think we need to bring

53:53 ↗ back some more research and back for

53:56 ↗ planning and policy commission because

53:57 ↗ right now

53:58 ↗ there is no open space standard for um

54:02 ↗ planning

54:04 ↗ there is one for multi-family

54:06 ↗ we'll come back with some policy options

54:08 ↗ and pros and cons but we do believe

54:11 ↗ there should be

54:12 ↗ uh standards for multi-family separate

54:14 ↗ from subdivision and there should be a

54:16 ↗ minimum threshold based on how many lots

54:18 ↗ your bill

54:19 ↗ you're building um and then we asked

54:21 ↗ them about the four versus nine lot

54:23 ↗ short plant

54:25 ↗ [Music]

54:28 ↗ and the summary of comments that we

54:30 ↗ heard uh were the block length of 250

54:33 ↗ feet alley access and zero lot line

54:35 ↗ should not be applied citywide

54:38 ↗ and a planning policy commission and

54:40 ↗ development commission agreed with the

54:41 ↗ public comments on this topic and we

54:44 ↗ concur that

54:46 ↗ perhaps that's not the the right uh one

54:48 ↗ size fits all

54:50 ↗ and lot consolidations um like i said

54:54 ↗ there were comments about being

54:55 ↗ detrimental

54:57 ↗ unintended consequences

54:59 ↗ um there were some who advocated for

55:02 ↗ more public notice uh and and process

55:04 ↗ for short flats uh

55:07 ↗ open space standards um should be based

55:09 ↗ on lot sizes and number of residences

55:13 ↗ and

55:14 ↗ um like i said we'll do more research

55:19 ↗ on open space standards

55:21 ↗ and come back and we'll change the block

55:23 ↗ length um and such

55:26 ↗ and to central center essequa highlands

55:29 ↗ and talus only and not city wide

55:32 ↗ that pretty much concludes um

55:35 ↗ so the next steps um you know we've

55:37 ↗ heard loud and clear that we need to

55:39 ↗ spend more time testing the code um so

55:42 ↗ we intend to do that

55:44 ↗ in

55:45 ↗ september um

55:47 ↗ july august you know we're figuring out

55:49 ↗ the dates for those

55:50 ↗ but we'll have a public hearing uh under

55:52 ↗ a current schedule in october with

55:54 ↗ planning and policy commission on a

55:55 ↗ consolidated draft and we'll come back

55:58 ↗ to the committee in november uh december

56:01 ↗ for your uh consideration

56:03 ↗ and next july we'll be back with the

56:05 ↗ building and design topic

56:08 ↗ to to you guys

56:10 ↗ so again direction needed

56:13 ↗ do these meet the entire goal you know

56:16 ↗ the goals for this update

56:18 ↗ are there anything else we need to

56:19 ↗ consider before making final edits

56:22 ↗ and that concludes my presentation

56:26 ↗ great thank you um one one more

56:29 ↗ hopefully quick question on the last

56:31 ↗ part with the 250 foot blocks and the

56:34 ↗ zero lot line the 250 foot blocks you

56:38 ↗ could

56:39 ↗ build that it's but your but the

56:41 ↗ recommendation was to not require it but

56:44 ↗ it could still be built anywhere in the

56:45 ↗ city right it could be yeah it could be

56:47 ↗ encouraged but it couldn't it won't be a

56:50 ↗ requirement

56:51 ↗ yeah and then the and then

56:53 ↗ the zero lot line is different because

56:56 ↗ you can't under the proposed changes you

57:00 ↗ couldn't build the zero lot line form

57:04 ↗ in certain neighborhoods under the

57:06 ↗ proposed changes proposed code under the

57:09 ↗ yeah we didn't change where those we

57:11 ↗ were saying those are encouraged

57:12 ↗ everywhere

57:13 ↗ in the proposed draft oh so they could

57:16 ↗ be built anywhere in the city in the

57:18 ↗ proposed draft but we that can change um

57:20 ↗ you know based on

57:22 ↗ i think we'll go back and look at i

57:24 ↗ think zero lot lines are referenced we

57:26 ↗ want to make sure the definition is

57:28 ↗ correct

57:29 ↗ um but there are sections of zero lot

57:32 ↗ line not necessarily in the subdivision

57:34 ↗ chapter but sort of sprinkled

57:37 ↗ when you do a word search it does pop up

57:39 ↗ once in a while um in different places

57:41 ↗ so we want to make sure that

57:42 ↗ if there was any legislative intent in

57:44 ↗ the past of of only allowing zero

57:47 ↗ wrought lines somewhere we will carry

57:49 ↗ that forward

57:51 ↗ but based on the public comments uh on

57:53 ↗ the proposed draft are

57:55 ↗ um where we are at today and and so

57:58 ↗ getting feedback from you all is should

58:01 ↗ the zero lot lines be also similar to

58:03 ↗ the 250 block only only allowed in the

58:06 ↗ three neighborhoods and not anywhere

58:08 ↗ else

58:09 ↗ or should it be allowed every everywhere

58:11 ↗ citywide i think we heard that there was

58:14 ↗ some concern with

58:15 ↗ allowing these more you know these are

58:17 ↗ typically things that happen where the

58:19 ↗ lot sizes are small

58:21 ↗ the land is more you know the the

58:23 ↗ there's more denser type of

58:25 ↗ single-family development um

58:27 ↗ so

58:29 ↗ from a builder's standpoint that's

58:30 ↗ probably where they'll want to put them

58:32 ↗ generally you know if you have a

58:35 ↗ 7 000 square foot lot most builders are

58:38 ↗ not going to want to do a zero lot line

58:39 ↗ they'll just put it a regular single

58:41 ↗ family home so mostly market will

58:44 ↗ dictate these also on smaller lots where

58:47 ↗ the zoning allows smaller lots that's

58:49 ↗ encouraged but we'll take a look at

58:52 ↗ if the existing code references zero lot

58:55 ↗ lines if so which zones

58:59 ↗ but based on the feedback on the

59:00 ↗ proposed draft

59:02 ↗ where we're at today is that we would do

59:05 ↗ it similar to those three neighborhoods

59:07 ↗ would allow zero lot lines

59:12 ↗ or we can allow them everywhere but not

59:13 ↗ require them everywhere

59:15 ↗ right it's all of those options that i

59:18 ↗ was curious about because we don't have

59:20 ↗ the final version of the code that

59:22 ↗ incorporates those changes so i wasn't

59:24 ↗ totally clear on

59:26 ↗ what the proposed code

59:28 ↗ you know whether it's required in those

59:30 ↗ neighborhoods and then allowed elsewhere

59:32 ↗ or encouraged elsewhere or um

59:36 ↗ required everywhere i mean there's all

59:38 ↗ those permutations so that was that was

59:41 ↗ the question um

59:43 ↗ but i think i think i got it enough to

59:45 ↗ comment on it anyway so thank you

59:47 ↗ um

59:48 ↗ do you have any questions at this point

59:52 ↗ are we at the end for kind of all of our

59:54 ↗ questions i believe we are yes okay

59:58 ↗ um so

1:00:01 ↗ i had a question regarding

1:00:04 ↗ hotel zoning and emergency shelters i

1:00:06 ↗ know that was something that we had to

1:00:08 ↗ do

1:00:09 ↗ earlier on was either allow or not allow

1:00:13 ↗ where does that stand in this code

1:00:16 ↗ yeah so that came from house bill 1220

1:00:19 ↗ and part of the house bill 1220 there

1:00:21 ↗ were other things um that we have to do

1:00:23 ↗ with the comprehensive plan update so

1:00:26 ↗ you know that was one of the components

1:00:28 ↗ that we had kind of at one point thought

1:00:30 ↗ that we would put that under this code

1:00:32 ↗ update

1:00:33 ↗ however as we got into it i think um we

1:00:36 ↗ pulled it off this update because we

1:00:38 ↗ wouldn't want to have a more robust

1:00:40 ↗ outreach to the hotel owners and others

1:00:43 ↗ and have a more targeted discussion more

1:00:45 ↗ globally in the house bill 1220 and

1:00:47 ↗ that'll happen

1:00:49 ↗ as part of the compliant update and then

1:00:50 ↗ the regulations will inform in the

1:00:52 ↗ interim

1:00:53 ↗ if

1:00:55 ↗ emergency shelters need to go

1:00:57 ↗ they would be allowed anywhere in the

1:00:58 ↗ zoo i mean that's just state law we

1:01:00 ↗ would have to allow them anywhere the

1:01:02 ↗ the hotels are allowed yeah

1:01:04 ↗ okay that was what i was looking for

1:01:06 ↗ um

1:01:08 ↗ okay when i was looking over the zoning

1:01:11 ↗ charts um

1:01:13 ↗ i got kind of confused with the urban

1:01:15 ↗ village single family

1:01:18 ↗ the description of it early on before

1:01:21 ↗ the area of the charts

1:01:23 ↗ says that it allows attached townhouses

1:01:29 ↗ but i didn't see anything for attached

1:01:31 ↗ townhouses down in the chart is that

1:01:34 ↗ what's considered attached single family

1:01:37 ↗ homes or duplexes

1:01:42 ↗ you know i'm going to call

1:01:43 ↗ a phone a friend valerie says yes

1:01:48 ↗ so attached townhouses is

1:01:52 ↗ attached single-family

1:01:55 ↗ houses

1:01:56 ↗ and that is shown in the chart if i

1:01:58 ↗ remember correctly

1:02:00 ↗ so

1:02:01 ↗ with that idea

1:02:03 ↗ can you explain to me the difference

1:02:05 ↗ between a an attached townhouse or

1:02:07 ↗ attached single family home and a duplex

1:02:17 ↗ good question

1:02:18 ↗ attached a single family home

1:02:22 ↗ could be a duplex

1:02:25 ↗ if it is only two units

1:02:28 ↗ attached town home could be six town

1:02:30 ↗ homes in a row

1:02:32 ↗ um

1:02:34 ↗ so

1:02:35 ↗ the duplex is really it's too

1:02:38 ↗ in in one building form

1:02:41 ↗ so what i'm trying to get down to

1:02:43 ↗ understanding is

1:02:45 ↗ in the

1:02:46 ↗ urban village single family if it allows

1:02:49 ↗ town homes

1:02:51 ↗ why does it disallow duplex triplex and

1:02:55 ↗ quad plex

1:02:57 ↗ is there a substantial difference

1:02:59 ↗ between those does it have to do with

1:03:01 ↗ how many homes are on a

1:03:03 ↗ particular parcel and the parcel is

1:03:05 ↗ segmented out for one of them and not

1:03:08 ↗ the other

1:03:09 ↗ help me good question you know i i don't

1:03:12 ↗ know the answer to that valerie do you

1:03:14 ↗ do you have an answer or can you explain

1:03:18 ↗ uh no i think that's something that

1:03:19 ↗ we're going to need to look into i think

1:03:21 ↗ um previously we've been really relying

1:03:23 ↗ on definitions and so i think we just

1:03:25 ↗ need to make sure that everything

1:03:27 ↗ corresponds and

1:03:28 ↗ that it makes sense yeah i i hear you

1:03:31 ↗ though i mean if you allow town homes

1:03:33 ↗ why do you disallow duplex doesn't seem

1:03:35 ↗ right so we'll take a look at that yeah

1:03:38 ↗ from my perspective looking at it as an

1:03:40 ↗ urban village single family we've got a

1:03:43 ↗ lot of areas in the esco highlands that

1:03:46 ↗ have single family homes right next to

1:03:50 ↗ what in my mind looks like a duplex

1:03:54 ↗ and then we have other areas that are

1:03:56 ↗ more like

1:03:57 ↗ row houses

1:03:59 ↗ that are

1:04:00 ↗ townhouses that are again

1:04:02 ↗ right next to or across the street from

1:04:05 ↗ single family or duplexes

1:04:08 ↗ so it seems in my mind that any of those

1:04:11 ↗ things should be allowed in the urban

1:04:13 ↗ family single

1:04:14 ↗ urban village single family because

1:04:17 ↗ that's what's already there sure but i'm

1:04:20 ↗ trying to get an understanding of that

1:04:21 ↗ yeah we'll take a look and and i agree

1:04:23 ↗ with you that if

1:04:26 ↗ they're already there for one

1:04:28 ↗ and two there isn't much difference in

1:04:30 ↗ terms of an impact why are we trying to

1:04:32 ↗ you know uh separate those out so yeah

1:04:35 ↗ okay and then along those same lines

1:04:37 ↗ with the multi-family medium i believe

1:04:40 ↗ that was the one that allows duplex

1:04:43 ↗ triplex quad plex

1:04:45 ↗ but doesn't allow

1:04:47 ↗ what is in the chart as

1:04:50 ↗ single family attached and so again just

1:04:52 ↗ trying to understand the difference

1:04:54 ↗ between those

1:04:55 ↗ and what the intention is

1:04:58 ↗ for each of those zones as far as

1:05:01 ↗ what's

1:05:02 ↗ what if it looks the same

1:05:05 ↗ should be allowed or not allowed yeah

1:05:07 ↗ yeah no i hear you

1:05:08 ↗ okay so those were my two main questions

1:05:11 ↗ i have a ton of comments but that's

1:05:13 ↗ later

1:05:17 ↗ okay um i think at this time

1:05:20 ↗ i too have comments but no further

1:05:22 ↗ questions at this point so at this time

1:05:24 ↗ we will go to public comment um and

1:05:28 ↗ this will be an opportunity to comment

1:05:30 ↗ specifically on this item

1:05:32 ↗ clark geezer is there anyone wishing to

1:05:34 ↗ make public comment on this item

1:05:37 ↗ uh chair

1:05:39 ↗ let's i i'm seeing at least one hand pop

1:05:41 ↗ up so just a reminder for virtual

1:05:43 ↗ attendees to raise your virtual hand if

1:05:45 ↗ you'd like to comment or send me the

1:05:47 ↗ host a chat

1:05:49 ↗ so far i see that connie marsh would

1:05:50 ↗ like to make comments

1:05:52 ↗ let me

1:05:54 ↗ connie you are now a panelist

1:06:03 ↗ okay hi connie marsh um

1:06:06 ↗ and i think minnie did a very good job

1:06:09 ↗ of

1:06:10 ↗ transferring most of the

1:06:13 ↗ the public

1:06:14 ↗ comment and indicating that most of it

1:06:17 ↗ would be addressed so i am going to try

1:06:20 ↗ to fill in the gaps

1:06:23 ↗ of the comments that i made that i

1:06:25 ↗ didn't think

1:06:26 ↗ were addressed

1:06:27 ↗ and so

1:06:29 ↗ one of my comments was i found this uh

1:06:34 ↗ the way it's formatted right now i was

1:06:36 ↗ unable to understand

1:06:39 ↗ um

1:06:41 ↗ why there were standards

1:06:46 ↗ in this area when i just reviewed a

1:06:48 ↗ whole nother chapter

1:06:50 ↗ with standards it seems

1:06:53 ↗ unwieldy to have standards in two

1:06:56 ↗ different areas

1:06:57 ↗ and maybe doesn't make sense so

1:07:01 ↗ i have difficulty with the hierarchy of

1:07:03 ↗ language because to me zoning is super

1:07:06 ↗ large and should be overarching

1:07:09 ↗ and i i sort of resist putting

1:07:14 ↗ small details in zoning and land use

1:07:17 ↗ language

1:07:19 ↗ so it didn't make sense to me now they

1:07:22 ↗ say that they're going to provide links

1:07:25 ↗ to provide pathways for people to be

1:07:28 ↗ able to bounce from place to place so i

1:07:31 ↗ would ask for those links to be

1:07:33 ↗ populated in the final draft because

1:07:36 ↗ maybe i can be persuaded that this is a

1:07:39 ↗ reasonable format but i just can't see

1:07:42 ↗ it because i can't connect the dots

1:07:46 ↗ so there is

1:07:47 ↗ there is one

1:07:48 ↗ two

1:07:49 ↗ is i looked at three only three

1:07:52 ↗ different pathways in this land use code

1:07:55 ↗ and

1:07:56 ↗ all three

1:07:57 ↗ did not work and one was

1:08:01 ↗ a taco cart the other one was the

1:08:06 ↗ public

1:08:09 ↗ use of i mean private use of a public

1:08:12 ↗ park and i was using the tennis

1:08:15 ↗ court the tennis club example that we

1:08:17 ↗ tried to do in the past you guys

1:08:19 ↗ probably weren't not here and then the

1:08:22 ↗ last one was a doggy daycare which i

1:08:24 ↗ have next door to me so i wanted to

1:08:26 ↗ understand

1:08:28 ↗ what that would be because that is

1:08:29 ↗ obviously a currently conforming use

1:08:33 ↗ but it looks like that is going to turn

1:08:35 ↗ into a non-conforming use

1:08:38 ↗ and

1:08:40 ↗ when i talked to my next door neighbor

1:08:41 ↗ said she said

1:08:43 ↗ well shouldn't be somebody be telling me

1:08:46 ↗ it's becoming non-conforming instead of

1:08:48 ↗ me the loudmouth and so i am wondering

1:08:52 ↗ if there is a public process for telling

1:08:54 ↗ people

1:08:55 ↗ if there's

1:08:58 ↗ formerly conforming zoning

1:09:00 ↗ is going to become non-conforming so

1:09:03 ↗ that they can understand that that is

1:09:05 ↗ happening and they can understand what

1:09:06 ↗ that means and they can make uh

1:09:09 ↗ appropriate comment lakeside did it but

1:09:11 ↗ they have their own attorney there are

1:09:13 ↗ probably other places

1:09:15 ↗ where people just have no idea and

1:09:16 ↗ they're going to be surprised which i

1:09:18 ↗ don't think is appropriate

1:09:20 ↗ and minnie did say that we're going to

1:09:22 ↗ talk to the parks department about that

1:09:24 ↗ use and then we're going to do another

1:09:27 ↗ section on taco carts but those are my

1:09:29 ↗ only three

1:09:30 ↗ so that gives me concerns because i

1:09:33 ↗ chose those at random

1:09:35 ↗ that

1:09:36 ↗ this is not tested well enough to see

1:09:39 ↗ what uses actually need more action

1:09:43 ↗ and i don't know what kind of rigorous

1:09:45 ↗ testing this is going to

1:09:47 ↗ need

1:09:48 ↗ to have in order to make it function

1:09:52 ↗ better

1:09:53 ↗ so i would i guess i would ask that

1:09:55 ↗ question

1:09:56 ↗ and and see if you find a satisfactory

1:10:00 ↗ answer

1:10:02 ↗ in that so those were sort of my general

1:10:05 ↗ topics without getting in the weeds

1:10:07 ↗ thank you

1:10:09 ↗ thank you connie clerk geezer is there

1:10:11 ↗ anyone else addition um additional that

1:10:13 ↗ would like to speak

1:10:19 ↗ chair i don't see that anyone else is

1:10:21 ↗ wishing to comment at this time

1:10:23 ↗ okay and um i will also note that there

1:10:26 ↗ is still no one in council chambers

1:10:28 ↗ and so we will at this point move into

1:10:32 ↗ our

1:10:33 ↗ council

1:10:34 ↗ or committee deliberation rather and

1:10:37 ↗ potentially a committee recommendation

1:10:39 ↗ on this item and similar to last time

1:10:42 ↗ with title 18 items we

1:10:44 ↗ can make a list of things that we

1:10:47 ↗ feel need to be revisited by ppc for

1:10:50 ↗ example as well as a list of things that

1:10:51 ↗ we would like to flag for council and

1:10:54 ↗ things that we would like revised from

1:10:56 ↗ the current direction that this

1:10:59 ↗ section of the code is headed

1:11:04 ↗ so

1:11:05 ↗ council president walsh would you like

1:11:06 ↗ to start us off please go ahead sure

1:11:08 ↗ sure

1:11:09 ↗ so

1:11:11 ↗ i always like to start with the things i

1:11:14 ↗ like

1:11:15 ↗ and

1:11:17 ↗ in particular you know that i've been

1:11:19 ↗ very focused on

1:11:21 ↗ is this usable is this readable to the

1:11:24 ↗ average person and so i particularly

1:11:27 ↗ liked how you showed

1:11:29 ↗ those charts

1:11:31 ↗ were

1:11:32 ↗ much more readable than i think our

1:11:34 ↗ current scenario i really like

1:11:37 ↗ the way that the zones and the charts

1:11:39 ↗ have been categorized into residential

1:11:41 ↗ and commercial and the different

1:11:42 ↗ sections because

1:11:44 ↗ if i'm building a house i don't want to

1:11:46 ↗ have to look through all of the other 32

1:11:51 ↗ potential uses in order to understand

1:11:54 ↗ that so i really liked that

1:11:56 ↗ i also really like the idea of a

1:11:59 ↗ subdivision design chapter

1:12:01 ↗ i think

1:12:02 ↗ that when we

1:12:04 ↗ look around the city one of the things

1:12:07 ↗ that is really nice about having some of

1:12:09 ↗ the larger development agreements that

1:12:11 ↗ we've had in developing the highlands

1:12:14 ↗ and talus is that

1:12:16 ↗ everything works together you get a

1:12:19 ↗ street grid you understand what the

1:12:21 ↗ block sizes are in an area and so i

1:12:25 ↗ think it's important that we maintain

1:12:27 ↗ that street connectivity and the

1:12:29 ↗ understanding that a subdivision

1:12:32 ↗ while

1:12:33 ↗ it can absolutely work within a

1:12:36 ↗ neighborhood to take something and short

1:12:38 ↗ plan it or do a subdivision

1:12:41 ↗ it needs to also work for the larger

1:12:43 ↗ city so i'm really glad that we are

1:12:46 ↗ approaching those things

1:12:48 ↗ um let's see looking through my notes so

1:12:55 ↗ i guess

1:12:56 ↗ my

1:12:56 ↗ largest

1:12:58 ↗ comment on this is

1:13:00 ↗ i'm actually mostly pleased with the

1:13:03 ↗ direction that we've gone with these

1:13:05 ↗ zoning and uses chapters

1:13:08 ↗ if i had my druthers

1:13:11 ↗ as someone who lives in the highlands i

1:13:14 ↗ absolutely love the idea of small-scale

1:13:17 ↗ retail and cafes in

1:13:20 ↗ residential areas

1:13:22 ↗ but i can understand wanting a

1:13:25 ↗ conversation about that so

1:13:28 ↗ i'm

1:13:29 ↗ i understand that part but

1:13:33 ↗ if i'm going to look back at the goals

1:13:35 ↗ and outcomes chart the one

1:13:38 ↗ that i

1:13:39 ↗ thought i would see in this section is

1:13:42 ↗ goal six increase the housing diversity

1:13:46 ↗ so

1:13:47 ↗ i think that goal was pretty clear on

1:13:51 ↗ the concept of

1:13:52 ↗ hey

1:13:53 ↗ if a developer wants to come in and

1:13:56 ↗ build something that is

1:13:58 ↗ smaller

1:13:59 ↗ scale housing right now we're not

1:14:02 ↗ letting that happen

1:14:03 ↗ and i think one of the ways we're not

1:14:06 ↗ letting that happen is

1:14:09 ↗ through this idea of single family only

1:14:12 ↗ single family

1:14:14 ↗ so i think there are

1:14:16 ↗ opportunities

1:14:17 ↗ to look at

1:14:20 ↗ different ways that we can use that

1:14:22 ↗ because that was one of our 13 goals and

1:14:25 ↗ if we're not going to address that

1:14:26 ↗ through zoning

1:14:29 ↗ i would be really curious

1:14:31 ↗ how we plan to address that so i think

1:14:34 ↗ of anything that would be what i would

1:14:37 ↗ be interested in potentially

1:14:39 ↗ taking that back to ppc because i think

1:14:42 ↗ that's a pretty big gaping hole in

1:14:46 ↗ the conversation on zoning

1:14:48 ↗ that being said i like a lot of what i

1:14:51 ↗ see here i love that things are

1:14:53 ↗ consolidated simplified easier to read

1:14:57 ↗ and understand

1:14:59 ↗ i've got a few other comments that are

1:15:02 ↗ more on

1:15:03 ↗ timeline and kind of how we're

1:15:05 ↗ approaching the whole thing so i think

1:15:06 ↗ i'll wait on those and let you

1:15:09 ↗ go on these

1:15:11 ↗ okay

1:15:12 ↗ great thank you i am

1:15:15 ↗ very much aligned with council president

1:15:17 ↗ walsh it took me a lot of questions and

1:15:19 ↗ back and forth so thank you for

1:15:21 ↗ answering my roughly 20 questions on

1:15:23 ↗ this topic

1:15:25 ↗ and then ultimately i landed on the

1:15:28 ↗ biggest issue and at that 30 000 foot

1:15:32 ↗ level the biggest thing that i think we

1:15:34 ↗ need to have our planning policy

1:15:36 ↗ commission look at again is

1:15:38 ↗ why

1:15:39 ↗ title why

1:15:41 ↗ goal six which is the one about the

1:15:44 ↗ diversity of housing types

1:15:46 ↗ it wasn't

1:15:48 ↗ included and to look at this through

1:15:50 ↗ that lens because even if we do have

1:15:53 ↗ this

1:15:54 ↗ additional grant to look at this

1:15:57 ↗ separately which is great

1:15:59 ↗ the changes we're making here affect

1:16:02 ↗ what we can

1:16:03 ↗ what we can

1:16:05 ↗ expect to see be built in the city so

1:16:08 ↗ it makes a lot more sense

1:16:10 ↗ to me to look at it through that lens

1:16:12 ↗ and in fact in our goals and outcomes

1:16:13 ↗ chart it refers to

1:16:16 ↗ one of the

1:16:17 ↗ parts of the code that would need to be

1:16:19 ↗ changed to address that goal and that's

1:16:22 ↗ one of the chapters or one of the sub

1:16:24 ↗ chapters that is consolidated through

1:16:26 ↗ this effort

1:16:28 ↗ so i i think there's a strong

1:16:30 ↗ basis

1:16:32 ↗ in

1:16:33 ↗ in our previous deliberations for

1:16:37 ↗ considering that goal with these

1:16:39 ↗ chapters um

1:16:41 ↗ and i would i would like to

1:16:43 ↗ have it re looked at through that

1:16:46 ↗ lens so that's my my biggest comment and

1:16:49 ↗ that's the biggest one that i think we

1:16:51 ↗ need to have

1:16:52 ↗ the planning policy commission take

1:16:54 ↗ another look

1:16:55 ↗ i have some

1:16:56 ↗ other

1:16:58 ↗ clarifications or um

1:17:00 ↗ recommendations one of the questions

1:17:02 ↗ that i had was around a conversation

1:17:05 ↗ that was had i believe it was a planning

1:17:07 ↗ policy commission about the um zoning

1:17:11 ↗ and uses for the mineral extraction

1:17:14 ↗ and

1:17:15 ↗ i i would recommend that we eliminate

1:17:18 ↗ mineral resource

1:17:20 ↗ the mineral resource zone there are no

1:17:21 ↗ parcels that are zoned mineral resource

1:17:24 ↗ so that should be i think

1:17:25 ↗ non-controversial um but also i think it

1:17:29 ↗ that this

1:17:30 ↗ mineral

1:17:31 ↗ mineral reefs

1:17:33 ↗ the uses of that the mineral resource

1:17:35 ↗ zone and the

1:17:37 ↗ extract mineral extraction and asphalt

1:17:39 ↗ operation rather that those should

1:17:42 ↗ not be allowed except for where they are

1:17:45 ↗ currently um allowed which is this one

1:17:48 ↗ parcel that is um

1:17:51 ↗ the

1:17:52 ↗ the lakeside industries operations so um

1:17:55 ↗ i believe that that is an option for us

1:17:57 ↗ to consider

1:17:58 ↗ with this update and to be

1:18:01 ↗ aligned with

1:18:02 ↗ what is currently the uses and i think

1:18:04 ↗ that would i think that would be a good

1:18:06 ↗ change to make

1:18:10 ↗ then on the subdivision i generally

1:18:12 ↗ agree that i think having standards with

1:18:15 ↗ the intent is good there's currently

1:18:18 ↗ encouraged and discouraged and

1:18:20 ↗ um if that's the intent then i think

1:18:22 ↗ putting it in the intent rather than

1:18:24 ↗ have code language that has encouraged

1:18:26 ↗ and discouraged would be the way to go

1:18:29 ↗ as far as the zero lot lines

1:18:33 ↗ i think one of the reasons why it would

1:18:35 ↗ be good to have planning policy look at

1:18:36 ↗ this through that goal six lens is

1:18:38 ↗ because this would potentially allow us

1:18:41 ↗ to have smaller

1:18:42 ↗ house

1:18:43 ↗ smaller

1:18:45 ↗ lots be buildable

1:18:48 ↗ i think that is worth considering i

1:18:50 ↗ think there are parts of

1:18:52 ↗ well we know for a fact that

1:18:55 ↗ from surveys that the community does

1:18:58 ↗ want to have the option for smaller

1:19:01 ↗ housing units than what is currently

1:19:03 ↗ available

1:19:05 ↗ in the city and so to align with that

1:19:07 ↗ it's also aligned with our stated goals

1:19:09 ↗ i also found that this was in the

1:19:11 ↗ climate action plan

1:19:12 ↗ so this is a long-standing issue and i

1:19:14 ↗ think allowing more diversity of housing

1:19:17 ↗ types would be

1:19:19 ↗ something that would be made possible by

1:19:21 ↗ allowing that

1:19:22 ↗ so again i think looking at it through

1:19:24 ↗ that lens would be helpful

1:19:27 ↗ um

1:19:31 ↗ a few other

1:19:33 ↗ little things that i think can be

1:19:34 ↗ addressed there are some um

1:19:36 ↗ some things that i think just basically

1:19:38 ↗ need to be cleaned up one other thing i

1:19:40 ↗ wanted to just

1:19:43 ↗ address maybe at a higher level is there

1:19:45 ↗ are some i think standards such as if

1:19:48 ↗ you have a zero lot line you can't have

1:19:49 ↗ windows on one side of the house i don't

1:19:52 ↗ know

1:19:53 ↗ that first of all a developer would look

1:19:55 ↗ to the subdivision section of code to

1:19:58 ↗ know whether they could put windows on

1:20:00 ↗ the side of the house but additionally i

1:20:02 ↗ think that's kind of getting into a

1:20:04 ↗ i i don't think that's

1:20:07 ↗ i think that's going too far with the

1:20:09 ↗ code if somebody wants to have the cross

1:20:11 ↗ ventilation with the windows on the side

1:20:12 ↗ of the house i don't see why um that

1:20:15 ↗ couldn't be market determined so

1:20:18 ↗ some things like that i think could be

1:20:20 ↗ cleaned up i don't think they address

1:20:22 ↗ the goals that we have for this code

1:20:23 ↗ update and

1:20:24 ↗ um i think they could be left to the

1:20:28 ↗ left to the market

1:20:30 ↗ um let me see if i had anything else

1:20:39 ↗ yeah

1:20:40 ↗ actually i'm gonna ask a question on

1:20:42 ↗ that as someone who has a zero lot line

1:20:45 ↗ house um

1:20:47 ↗ is there then something in the code that

1:20:49 ↗ says no windows on

1:20:52 ↗ areas or is it just no windows that open

1:21:00 ↗ in the draft

1:21:03 ↗ it it goes into a quite a bit of

1:21:06 ↗ detail it says you can have those like

1:21:08 ↗ opaque type windows and it's it's

1:21:12 ↗ um it's for privacy

1:21:14 ↗ apparently

1:21:18 ↗ yeah because what

1:21:19 ↗ one of the things that i absolutely love

1:21:22 ↗ about the

1:21:23 ↗ zero lot line houses in the highlands is

1:21:27 ↗ how

1:21:28 ↗ great of a job

1:21:30 ↗ most of the developers did in making

1:21:32 ↗ sure that the windows of houses that are

1:21:35 ↗ within 10 feet of each other don't line

1:21:38 ↗ up

1:21:38 ↗ but everybody still has windows that

1:21:41 ↗ allow for light to come into the home so

1:21:45 ↗ i would definitely not want to

1:21:49 ↗ eliminate windows or have to have them

1:21:51 ↗ be opaque if there's another way to

1:21:53 ↗ handle it

1:22:01 ↗ sorry thank you

1:22:03 ↗ so the current draft says in order to

1:22:05 ↗ maintain privacy no windows doors air

1:22:07 ↗ conditioning or any type of openings in

1:22:09 ↗ the wall along a zero launch line

1:22:11 ↗ structure allowed

1:22:13 ↗ and then it says

1:22:17 ↗ except for

1:22:18 ↗ windows that do not allow for visibility

1:22:20 ↗ into the interior side setback of the

1:22:23 ↗ adjacent lot

1:22:24 ↗ examples include

1:22:27 ↗ you know

1:22:28 ↗ higher windows and obscured windows and

1:22:31 ↗ and i think valerie has some things that

1:22:34 ↗ she might be able to

1:22:35 ↗ add on what

1:22:37 ↗ she you know what we hear from doing

1:22:39 ↗ permit reviews so go at it

1:22:42 ↗ so these um this code section is carried

1:22:46 ↗ over from the i believe the issaquah

1:22:48 ↗ highlands development agreement um this

1:22:51 ↗ is for you know very specific

1:22:53 ↗ circumstances and i think the diagram um

1:22:57 ↗ below

1:22:58 ↗ illustrates that um

1:23:00 ↗ that's an

1:23:01 ↗ as much information i can give to you

1:23:03 ↗ right now but it will definitely be

1:23:04 ↗ looked at in the next draft

1:23:11 ↗ yeah so my my comment on that is

1:23:14 ↗ i think um zero lot line especially

1:23:17 ↗ through the lens of allowing houses to

1:23:19 ↗ be or allowing allowing housing units to

1:23:22 ↗ be built on smaller lots is potentially

1:23:24 ↗ something that will help us meet this

1:23:26 ↗ diversity of housing goal that we have

1:23:30 ↗ and i would like to

1:23:32 ↗ facilitate

1:23:33 ↗ those so not put um

1:23:36 ↗ not put too much restrictions on them

1:23:38 ↗ and and yeah yeah i think the building

1:23:40 ↗ code requires that when if you have a

1:23:42 ↗ sleeping if you have a bedroom you have

1:23:43 ↗ to have an openable window because of

1:23:45 ↗ fire concerns and things like that so

1:23:47 ↗ you couldn't put your bedroom there so i

1:23:49 ↗ think what i hear you is let's not put

1:23:51 ↗ more restrictions and let the market

1:23:53 ↗ decide what that design looks like so

1:23:56 ↗ fair enough we can easy easy to change

1:23:59 ↗ yep

1:24:03 ↗ okay great um so those were my those

1:24:06 ↗ were my main

1:24:08 ↗ uh comments that

1:24:10 ↗ on on the substance and then i i also

1:24:12 ↗ had a few policy or uh process rather

1:24:15 ↗ notes

1:24:17 ↗ we we are increasingly getting comments

1:24:20 ↗ um

1:24:21 ↗ such as the ones we heard today in

1:24:23 ↗ public comments and

1:24:25 ↗ emails and i've had a number of people

1:24:26 ↗ reach out to me

1:24:28 ↗ call me on the phone had phone

1:24:29 ↗ conversations with a number of people

1:24:31 ↗ all

1:24:32 ↗ echoing the same sort of um concern and

1:24:35 ↗ confusion about the scope of this and so

1:24:39 ↗ uh i think having a document that

1:24:43 ↗ so the the goal and outcome or the goal

1:24:46 ↗ feedback loop

1:24:47 ↗ um

1:24:48 ↗ document that we have right now i think

1:24:50 ↗ is great i think having some that are

1:24:52 ↗ specific to for example the issaquah

1:24:55 ↗ climate action plan where it says this

1:24:57 ↗ was a goal in the issaquah climate

1:24:58 ↗ action plan this is the part of title 18

1:25:01 ↗ that um

1:25:03 ↗ that is going to be affected by

1:25:06 ↗ this

1:25:07 ↗ uh

1:25:08 ↗ this part of the climate action plan

1:25:10 ↗ just connecting those dots i think would

1:25:13 ↗ be really helpful i also think

1:25:16 ↗ raising

1:25:18 ↗ the visibility on the whiteboard and

1:25:21 ↗ potentially

1:25:22 ↗ having that

1:25:24 ↗ in one place and

1:25:26 ↗ as we go through this process maybe also

1:25:29 ↗ putting some

1:25:31 ↗ approximate

1:25:32 ↗ goals for a timeline on there with

1:25:34 ↗ council's help could also be useful

1:25:37 ↗ not something that needs to be done or

1:25:39 ↗ not something really that can be done

1:25:40 ↗ right away but over time that might also

1:25:42 ↗ help because i think a lot of the

1:25:44 ↗ concern is that these

1:25:46 ↗ these

1:25:48 ↗ plans are not being turned into

1:25:52 ↗ plans and goals and aspirations are not

1:25:54 ↗ being turned into code

1:25:56 ↗ uh with this update and going on a

1:25:58 ↗ whiteboard and that that that you know

1:26:00 ↗ the concern is about the follow-through

1:26:02 ↗ on that whiteboard so i think adding

1:26:04 ↗ some more visibility to the whiteboard

1:26:06 ↗ and the process

1:26:08 ↗ on the whiteboard would also potentially

1:26:10 ↗ be help be helpful and then lastly i

1:26:12 ↗ have heard from a number of community

1:26:13 ↗ members about the importance of testing

1:26:15 ↗ the code you said that as well but

1:26:16 ↗ having a few test code

1:26:19 ↗ days or workshops that would be helpful

1:26:22 ↗ and i think having those examples worked

1:26:24 ↗ through for council at the end of this

1:26:26 ↗ process would also be very helpful

1:26:29 ↗ so those are a few a few recommendations

1:26:31 ↗ on the

1:26:32 ↗ process side of things

1:26:36 ↗ i will echo a few of those which were on

1:26:38 ↗ my list um

1:26:39 ↗ so with testing the code against sample

1:26:41 ↗ projects i absolutely love that at the

1:26:44 ↗ end but i want to start seeing that

1:26:46 ↗ coming through with each of these

1:26:48 ↗ sections either coming through to ppc or

1:26:51 ↗ coming through to this committee

1:26:54 ↗ i think it's

1:26:55 ↗ very difficult to

1:26:58 ↗ feel like we can be certain we're making

1:27:00 ↗ progress and say yes we're moving in the

1:27:02 ↗ right direction if we're not able to see

1:27:04 ↗ what the results are

1:27:06 ↗ of that

1:27:07 ↗ and so i would like

1:27:09 ↗ the administration to at least respond

1:27:11 ↗ and let us know when

1:27:13 ↗ that is planned and my preference would

1:27:15 ↗ be either at ppc or

1:27:18 ↗ at the committee

1:27:20 ↗ as we're going through these different

1:27:22 ↗ sections so that we can test different

1:27:24 ↗ elements and not just the project as a

1:27:26 ↗ whole

1:27:28 ↗ i also wanted to comment on the

1:27:31 ↗ whiteboard idea you know i've asked can

1:27:34 ↗ we get a

1:27:36 ↗ version of that

1:27:38 ↗ and how that stands now i remember there

1:27:40 ↗ was an earlier conversation and there

1:27:43 ↗ was some sort of

1:27:47 ↗ agreement or thumbs up or something from

1:27:50 ↗ council

1:27:52 ↗ that said hey

1:27:54 ↗ this is within the scope of the project

1:27:56 ↗ and this is not so i'd also like to see

1:27:59 ↗ that earlier

1:28:00 ↗ [Music]

1:28:01 ↗ document or whatever that decision

1:28:03 ↗ was

1:28:05 ↗ because i think the

1:28:09 ↗ what's on the whiteboard list now i want

1:28:12 ↗ to be able to compare to that and i

1:28:13 ↗ wanted to be able to see how that has

1:28:15 ↗ grown um

1:28:16 ↗ because i think there's certainly a

1:28:18 ↗ sense

1:28:19 ↗ which document are you referring to

1:28:21 ↗ i

1:28:23 ↗ think i know so um we had a the meeting

1:28:26 ↗ in which we approved as a council the um

1:28:30 ↗ the goals and outcomes chart there was

1:28:32 ↗ also a discussion for example i remember

1:28:34 ↗ we talked about affordable housing and

1:28:36 ↗ and what we would need to have more

1:28:37 ↗ affordable housing and that was

1:28:38 ↗ something that we considered to be on

1:28:41 ↗ the on the whiteboard um so they're

1:28:44 ↗ in that meeting which i can find the

1:28:45 ↗ date because i was looking at it earlier

1:28:47 ↗ um we had council began to put stuff on

1:28:50 ↗ the whiteboard basically and so since

1:28:52 ↗ then commissions and the public and

1:28:54 ↗ everybody else that has been following

1:28:56 ↗ along this process has also made

1:28:58 ↗ suggestions that have made it to the

1:28:59 ↗ whiteboard so we could compare against

1:29:01 ↗ that as the starting point and

1:29:03 ↗ what's happened over time yeah yeah i

1:29:05 ↗ could not find it myself and i don't

1:29:07 ↗ know if a name was given to it i know

1:29:09 ↗ when we were initially

1:29:11 ↗ talking about it it was

1:29:13 ↗ something about workshop

1:29:15 ↗ um

1:29:16 ↗ section and so i don't know it was

1:29:19 ↗ probably before my time but if it's part

1:29:21 ↗ of the agenda packet then

1:29:23 ↗ no yeah

1:29:25 ↗ yeah it was at the end of kind of the ad

1:29:28 ↗ hoc's time as we were bringing things

1:29:30 ↗ back to council and we did the goals and

1:29:31 ↗ outcome chart um to agree upon hey this

1:29:35 ↗ is the scope this is what we're going

1:29:37 ↗ forward

1:29:38 ↗ so i would like to see both of those and

1:29:41 ↗ i'd like to find a way that we can also

1:29:43 ↗ make that

1:29:44 ↗ that and the goals and outcomes chart

1:29:47 ↗ accessible to the community because i

1:29:50 ↗ have to say the number of times i've had

1:29:51 ↗ to search through my emails or through

1:29:54 ↗ previous meetings to find the goals and

1:29:56 ↗ outcomes chart um

1:29:58 ↗ has been so many

1:30:00 ↗ sure yeah no we'll put it on the on the

1:30:02 ↗ web page if it isn't already or up today

1:30:05 ↗ um and and then

1:30:08 ↗ this uh this white board thing is going

1:30:10 ↗ to evolve right we're not done with all

1:30:12 ↗ the all the

1:30:14 ↗ all the topics yet

1:30:15 ↗ um so we we had planned on

1:30:19 ↗ having a consolidated list

1:30:22 ↗ and having that discussion with planning

1:30:23 ↗ and policy commission getting the public

1:30:26 ↗ to comment on it during that and then

1:30:28 ↗ bring it to council and have a

1:30:30 ↗ prioritization you know here's the

1:30:32 ↗ things are we missing anything because

1:30:34 ↗ we don't want to lose a few things that

1:30:36 ↗ come up during these conversations some

1:30:37 ↗ are really great ideas

1:30:39 ↗ that'll help the community in the long

1:30:41 ↗ run so we're capturing those but then

1:30:43 ↗ we're also capturing these required code

1:30:45 ↗ changes and then council can tell us yes

1:30:49 ↗ prioritize these five in the next year

1:30:51 ↗ and you know however you all tell us to

1:30:53 ↗ prioritize them so we were planning to

1:30:55 ↗ do that

1:30:56 ↗ if we start having discussion about the

1:30:58 ↗ white board at every meeting

1:31:00 ↗ we're not going to get you know we also

1:31:02 ↗ want to make sure we we are focused on

1:31:04 ↗ the topics that are we we want to

1:31:06 ↗ discuss so that's just my only hesitance

1:31:09 ↗ of having a discussion about whiteboard

1:31:11 ↗ at every meeting maybe a little too much

1:31:14 ↗ and

1:31:15 ↗ committee members i i didn't hear that

1:31:16 ↗ you're looking to discuss it every

1:31:18 ↗ meeting i think you just want it as a

1:31:19 ↗ reference

1:31:20 ↗ so we can

1:31:21 ↗ take it have it we can put a date as of

1:31:24 ↗ whatever particular date and so it will

1:31:26 ↗ serve as a reference document

1:31:28 ↗ yeah i think we've done a fantastic job

1:31:31 ↗ on transparency and tracking of comments

1:31:35 ↗ this has just become the one area that

1:31:37 ↗ feels like it's a little bit of a black

1:31:40 ↗ hole and so making sure that surfaced to

1:31:43 ↗ the community so that they see not only

1:31:45 ↗ did we note down on the feedback section

1:31:47 ↗ that that's going to go on the

1:31:48 ↗ whiteboard but that we can see

1:31:51 ↗ the whiteboard and understand how it's

1:31:53 ↗ progressing

1:31:54 ↗ um

1:31:56 ↗ so that and then

1:31:58 ↗ i talked about the testing the code

1:32:01 ↗ um

1:32:02 ↗ we had some questions come up about

1:32:05 ↗ how much has moved into this concept of

1:32:08 ↗ that's going to be included in the

1:32:09 ↗ second draft that's going to be included

1:32:11 ↗ in the final draft

1:32:12 ↗ and well i appreciate seeing the notes

1:32:15 ↗ of all of that that does make me start

1:32:17 ↗ thinking about what the review is going

1:32:20 ↗ to be like and whether there's going to

1:32:21 ↗ be substantial time so i'd like to

1:32:25 ↗ release

1:32:27 ↗ or you know talk about when that

1:32:30 ↗ final draft is going to come through and

1:32:33 ↗ what

1:32:34 ↗ the feedback loop and timeline is going

1:32:37 ↗ to be for

1:32:38 ↗ community commission committee and

1:32:41 ↗ council review at that point can you

1:32:44 ↗ go over that yeah um so right now um we

1:32:47 ↗ have the the sixth topic going to

1:32:50 ↗ planning and policy commission in august

1:32:52 ↗ so we would actually get the

1:32:54 ↗ first you know public hearing on the

1:32:56 ↗ first round completed by august

1:32:59 ↗ then we have um you know because we have

1:33:01 ↗ a comprehensive plan amendment the the

1:33:04 ↗ annual amendments that need to be done

1:33:05 ↗ by the end of the year

1:33:07 ↗ we're considering

1:33:09 ↗ you know having ppc focus on those in

1:33:12 ↗ september so you you have time october

1:33:14 ↗ november december to act on those

1:33:15 ↗ because there are two big ones um

1:33:18 ↗ so with that in order to accommodate

1:33:21 ↗ that we're thinking we will have the

1:33:23 ↗ hearing

1:33:24 ↗ for title 18 in front of ppc on the

1:33:27 ↗ consolidated draft in october

1:33:30 ↗ so um

1:33:32 ↗ and then we would bring it back to you

1:33:34 ↗ in november now we can always

1:33:36 ↗ accommodate more time if that's needed

1:33:39 ↗ um

1:33:40 ↗ what what would you what are your

1:33:41 ↗ thoughts and um

1:33:43 ↗ spending more time with bpc with the

1:33:45 ↗ final draft in the community before

1:33:47 ↗ coming to council or

1:33:49 ↗ start the process with you and then have

1:33:51 ↗ some additional time

1:33:55 ↗ i don't know if i have a strong opinion

1:33:57 ↗ more just that i want enough time

1:34:01 ↗ on that do you have a sense

1:34:07 ↗ i agree i mean we need enough time but i

1:34:10 ↗ think the other

1:34:12 ↗ hopefully helpful

1:34:14 ↗ aspect of this could be the

1:34:16 ↗ the check-ins when we hear back about

1:34:19 ↗ changes that have been made in these

1:34:21 ↗ meetings as the changes go through that

1:34:24 ↗ process um so that that was part of

1:34:27 ↗ the reason

1:34:28 ↗ why um

1:34:30 ↗ in planning for this meeting which is

1:34:32 ↗ our first

1:34:33 ↗ follow-up meeting to a prior uh title 18

1:34:37 ↗ committee agenda item um that we we have

1:34:40 ↗ that touch so i think i think that

1:34:43 ↗ should help that was my hope anyway

1:34:49 ↗ so i think i had one more kind of item

1:34:52 ↗ on my list which is

1:34:56 ↗ i'm

1:34:57 ↗ starting to feel a little bit

1:35:00 ↗ uncomfortable with the use of the goals

1:35:03 ↗ and outcomes chart as

1:35:06 ↗ a way to put up guard rails

1:35:09 ↗ on what can and can't be done now

1:35:13 ↗ that being said i've already expressed

1:35:15 ↗ my interest in seeing what the

1:35:18 ↗ whiteboard list is now and what it was

1:35:21 ↗ originally and so i'm willing to

1:35:25 ↗ take a look at that and understand what

1:35:28 ↗ we had

1:35:30 ↗ i think really truly put in policy of

1:35:33 ↗ that's going to wait um but it's

1:35:36 ↗ starting to feel like a very repetitious

1:35:39 ↗ thing to say to the community nope

1:35:41 ↗ that's not okay that's not okay

1:35:44 ↗ um

1:35:46 ↗ and so

1:35:48 ↗ maybe the transparency of seeing that it

1:35:51 ↗ will be addressed at a future time and

1:35:52 ↗ that we have a timeline

1:35:55 ↗ will help with that feeling but it

1:35:58 ↗ really

1:36:00 ↗ my thought process when ad hoc was

1:36:02 ↗ creating the goals and outcomes chart

1:36:05 ↗ was to suggest some things that we could

1:36:08 ↗ do

1:36:09 ↗ as actions and outcomes that we desired

1:36:14 ↗ as a way to evaluate the code at the end

1:36:19 ↗ not as a way to put up guard rails on

1:36:22 ↗ what we shouldn't do

1:36:25 ↗ and so i guess i'm just expressing that

1:36:27 ↗ i'm feeling a little bit of

1:36:30 ↗ hesitation in how that is being used um

1:36:34 ↗ to kind of stunt some conversations but

1:36:38 ↗ i also see interest in talking about the

1:36:41 ↗ whiteboard and maybe that will clarify

1:36:43 ↗ things for me

1:36:45 ↗ sure yeah i i think there's a fair let

1:36:47 ↗ me let me take a a a

1:36:50 ↗ crack at this um

1:36:52 ↗ and i think we need to take a step back

1:36:55 ↗ this is a huge project

1:36:57 ↗ this is almost the entire growth of this

1:37:00 ↗ city over the last 25 plus years we're

1:37:03 ↗ having to say time out

1:37:05 ↗ we're going to put it all together so it

1:37:07 ↗ makes sense as we move forward

1:37:09 ↗ it's a huge huge project it's been years

1:37:12 ↗ in the making

1:37:14 ↗ you know i think the idea of guard rails

1:37:17 ↗ is to help keep a focus on that this is

1:37:20 ↗ a huge project does that mean that

1:37:22 ↗ there's nothing else that that that can

1:37:25 ↗ be put into it at any point no it is

1:37:28 ↗ meant to be guard rails it is not cement

1:37:31 ↗ uh concrete uh bricks walls around it it

1:37:35 ↗ is guardrails at your last committee

1:37:37 ↗ meeting uh i know the the the council

1:37:41 ↗ chair uh hunt you know raised some

1:37:44 ↗ issues regarding um

1:37:46 ↗ and help me many the uh um

1:37:49 ↗ the uh the natural uh the boundary

1:37:52 ↗ of what's the terminal i'm looking for

1:37:53 ↗ the buffer the buffer zones and uh you

1:37:56 ↗ know i think the message we got from

1:37:59 ↗ chair hunt was the buffer zone may be

1:38:01 ↗ something that's outside the guardrail

1:38:03 ↗ but

1:38:04 ↗ i want to see what it's going to cost

1:38:06 ↗ for us to deal with it so i think we're

1:38:08 ↗ going to have those projects those

1:38:10 ↗ initiatives that this committee the

1:38:12 ↗ council is going to say yes it may be

1:38:15 ↗ outside of the guardrails but it's still

1:38:16 ↗ really important and we want to deal

1:38:18 ↗ with that now functionally is that

1:38:20 ↗ looking at the whiteboard list and

1:38:22 ↗ having a subset or having a highlighter

1:38:25 ↗ highlight through that i mean we could

1:38:26 ↗ spend the rest of the evening sorting

1:38:28 ↗ through the detail of that but as the

1:38:30 ↗ city council

1:38:31 ↗ starts

1:38:33 ↗ i can't believe it next month looking at

1:38:35 ↗ the 23 24 budget

1:38:37 ↗ i think it's appropriate to have that

1:38:39 ↗ whiteboard list handy because you've

1:38:41 ↗ already identified one project there's

1:38:43 ↗ probably other projects and we will then

1:38:45 ↗ call that list something else

1:38:48 ↗ but you know

1:38:50 ↗ from the administration's perspective

1:38:52 ↗ i think it's important for the council

1:38:54 ↗ this committee and the larger community

1:38:56 ↗ to stop every once in a while and say

1:38:58 ↗ this is an enormous enormous project

1:39:01 ↗ it's impossible for us to do it all

1:39:03 ↗ right in one step it is absolutely

1:39:06 ↗ impossible and so what we have to do

1:39:08 ↗ instead is have some policies and

1:39:09 ↗ procedures that allow us to get

1:39:11 ↗ something done and i think that's been

1:39:13 ↗ mayor paulie's frustration i think it's

1:39:15 ↗ been members of this committee and the

1:39:16 ↗ city council's frustration is not let's

1:39:18 ↗ not get overwhelmed by just the sheer

1:39:21 ↗ magnitude of what we have but let's put

1:39:23 ↗ things in place let's have these goals

1:39:25 ↗ let's have guard rails in order to help

1:39:28 ↗ focus on it and i think it's a false

1:39:30 ↗ narrative for members of the community

1:39:31 ↗ to come and say well you're missing this

1:39:33 ↗ you're missing this and missing this

1:39:34 ↗ well of course

1:39:35 ↗ it's a huge code but we have policies in

1:39:38 ↗ place and procedures in place i mean

1:39:40 ↗ this committee stewardship has been

1:39:41 ↗ excellent again as we look at the budget

1:39:44 ↗ for 2324 there'll be additional projects

1:39:46 ↗ put in so that the day this is all

1:39:48 ↗ finished will be the first day to start

1:39:51 ↗ working on some of these other projects

1:39:56 ↗ thank you for for the additional

1:39:58 ↗ comments on that and i

1:39:59 ↗ i have a different perspective on this i

1:40:02 ↗ think i was 100 with with you council

1:40:05 ↗ president until

1:40:06 ↗ this topic on this one i think that

1:40:10 ↗ we i recall we considered different ways

1:40:14 ↗ to do this code update and there was a

1:40:17 ↗ sort of code update light that was

1:40:19 ↗ considered at some point where it really

1:40:21 ↗ would be limited to consolidation

1:40:24 ↗ and to

1:40:25 ↗ technical

1:40:26 ↗ updates things that needed to be done to

1:40:28 ↗ comply with various law

1:40:32 ↗ and then we

1:40:33 ↗ have i think now

1:40:35 ↗ struck a balance intentionally on

1:40:39 ↗ substantive issues that are

1:40:41 ↗ long-standing issues that we do want to

1:40:43 ↗ address that require some policy

1:40:44 ↗ decisions

1:40:46 ↗ addressing them in this code update and

1:40:48 ↗ as well as the consolidation that needed

1:40:50 ↗ to happen to make the code much more

1:40:52 ↗ usable and and useful for the community

1:40:56 ↗ and for developers as well as for the

1:40:58 ↗ staff so i think i think we

1:40:59 ↗ intentionally struck that balance it's

1:41:02 ↗ not only consolidation it's also not

1:41:05 ↗ everything that we know we will ever

1:41:08 ↗ need to do code is also a living

1:41:09 ↗ document we will continue to adopt

1:41:11 ↗ ordinances and that will require updates

1:41:14 ↗ um

1:41:15 ↗ and that's part of the ongoing work that

1:41:18 ↗ we do

1:41:20 ↗ so i

1:41:22 ↗ i

1:41:22 ↗ i see it as a

1:41:25 ↗ useful document and the other thing just

1:41:28 ↗ in revisiting the goals and outcomes

1:41:29 ↗ chart

1:41:30 ↗ if we achieved everything

1:41:33 ↗ in that goals and outcomes chart i think

1:41:35 ↗ we would

1:41:36 ↗ really

1:41:37 ↗ be

1:41:38 ↗ in a much better state

1:41:41 ↗ as far as being able to use the code and

1:41:44 ↗ have it meet the aspirations of the

1:41:45 ↗ community

1:41:46 ↗ but you know i think we would be really

1:41:48 ↗ have something to be proud of and i

1:41:49 ↗ think it would meet a lot of the

1:41:51 ↗ expectations of the community so there

1:41:53 ↗ is a lot of room to do

1:41:56 ↗ policy updates that do align with the

1:41:59 ↗ community's um concerns on a number of

1:42:02 ↗ really important issues and that is all

1:42:04 ↗ doable within the

1:42:06 ↗ uh goals and outcome charts so i and i

1:42:09 ↗ and actually i think in our earlier

1:42:11 ↗ comment from

1:42:12 ↗ um from steve who has been following

1:42:16 ↗ this process closely he he

1:42:18 ↗ uh made a similar comment about there

1:42:20 ↗ there is a lot of

1:42:21 ↗ um

1:42:23 ↗ there is a lot in that goal in our

1:42:25 ↗ outcome chart even if we stick to that

1:42:27 ↗ and don't go outside of that i think we

1:42:30 ↗ we

1:42:31 ↗ will be well served so um that's my

1:42:35 ↗ thoughts on locals and outcomes right

1:42:41 ↗ uh do you have what you need from this

1:42:44 ↗ committee i think we we basically in

1:42:46 ↗ summary we we would like planning policy

1:42:48 ↗ to look at this through the goal six

1:42:50 ↗ lens and um that probably affects the

1:42:53 ↗ subdivision as well as the duplex

1:42:57 ↗ etc housing types conversation i think

1:42:59 ↗ it could potentially

1:43:01 ↗ um

1:43:02 ↗ the subdivision design including the

1:43:05 ↗ zero lot line

1:43:06 ↗ components those those are all important

1:43:08 ↗ and potentially staff may also consider

1:43:10 ↗ other things that might we might want to

1:43:12 ↗ revisit through that lens sure

1:43:14 ↗ now uh that's that's helpful i think um

1:43:17 ↗ ev everything's great um in terms of

1:43:19 ↗ your feedback so we'll we'll go back um

1:43:22 ↗ on the housing types um you know we'll

1:43:24 ↗ brief um you on the hundred thousand

1:43:27 ↗ dollars that we got from growth um from

1:43:29 ↗ department of commerce we have an a

1:43:32 ↗ consultant on board um and the three

1:43:34 ↗ priority um you know things that they're

1:43:36 ↗ going to look at are condos what are the

1:43:39 ↗ impediments to condos so that's

1:43:40 ↗ improving housing diversity you know if

1:43:42 ↗ you really care about home ownership why

1:43:44 ↗ you know what's

1:43:45 ↗ making us not build those

1:43:47 ↗ uh or get those in our community and

1:43:49 ↗ then housing diversity is one of the

1:43:51 ↗ housing strategies so a lot of work will

1:43:54 ↗ occur with that grant because we really

1:43:56 ↗ need to understand the underlying

1:43:59 ↗ you know it's not only just a code issue

1:44:01 ↗ it's also what are the economics to make

1:44:04 ↗ that really happen

1:44:05 ↗ so that's where we want to you know

1:44:07 ↗ spend the time understanding the the

1:44:09 ↗ economics of of improving housing

1:44:11 ↗ diversity what will work and what won't

1:44:13 ↗ work and how to do it effectively in

1:44:15 ↗ code so there's a little bit of chicken

1:44:17 ↗ in the egg thing going on with those

1:44:19 ↗ things but the timeline for the grant is

1:44:22 ↗ uh june of next year so

1:44:24 ↗ it isn't you know we'll do this in two

1:44:26 ↗ years kind of thing so it's going to

1:44:28 ↗ happen we have the money from the

1:44:30 ↗ department of commerce uh they'll be

1:44:31 ↗ working on it they'll be robust outreach

1:44:34 ↗ with the you know the development

1:44:35 ↗ community with

1:44:37 ↗ the community members and ppc so

1:44:40 ↗ we'll we'll come up with a work plan

1:44:42 ↗ associated with that grant and then

1:44:44 ↗ share it with you all in terms of the

1:44:46 ↗ timing

1:44:47 ↗ and see if that helps answer some of

1:44:49 ↗ your concerns about how we're going to

1:44:51 ↗ fold it or

1:44:52 ↗ with this title 18 update

1:44:54 ↗ um as our first step

1:44:56 ↗ um because i think that work will

1:44:58 ↗ definitely inform the code writing

1:45:02 ↗ aspects for housing diversity

1:45:04 ↗ but if you want an interim

1:45:07 ↗ and then work on that we can certainly

1:45:09 ↗ do that but

1:45:10 ↗ whatever that small fix needs to be now

1:45:13 ↗ and then we can come back and after we

1:45:15 ↗ learn more

1:45:16 ↗ through that work

1:45:18 ↗ retouch the code again perhaps

1:45:21 ↗ so from my perspective and the way the

1:45:24 ↗ materials were framed for example to

1:45:27 ↗ planning policy the goals that were

1:45:29 ↗ being considered were the two goals one

1:45:31 ↗ was the um

1:45:33 ↗ one was the goal about

1:45:36 ↗ best practices and code update and then

1:45:38 ↗ also the

1:45:39 ↗ neighborhood character goal

1:45:41 ↗ and so my ask is that they be looked at

1:45:45 ↗ with this other goal which which does

1:45:47 ↗ refer to this chapter because i do think

1:45:49 ↗ separate from the very important work

1:45:51 ↗ having to do with condo liability and

1:45:53 ↗ condo law and a number of other things

1:45:55 ↗ that are also important to this which

1:45:56 ↗ would be addressed separately by that

1:45:58 ↗ grant

1:45:59 ↗ just looking at it through that lens is

1:46:02 ↗ important because

1:46:04 ↗ as

1:46:05 ↗ as i mentioned earlier this does

1:46:07 ↗ determine where you can

1:46:09 ↗ build certain kinds of housing and so i

1:46:11 ↗ think

1:46:13 ↗ considering it that considering that

1:46:14 ↗ with that goal in mind you might come to

1:46:16 ↗ a different

1:46:17 ↗ uh outcome for example on the um zero

1:46:20 ↗ lot lines and then you know like when i

1:46:23 ↗ asked this question about the zero lot

1:46:25 ↗ line and the getting the pros and cons

1:46:27 ↗ for me that was very helpful if you look

1:46:29 ↗ at that pros and cons for the zero lot

1:46:32 ↗ line and the 250 foot

1:46:34 ↗ block size

1:46:35 ↗ and then you look at that list of pros

1:46:37 ↗ and cons with this additional goal of

1:46:39 ↗ increa increasing housing diversity you

1:46:42 ↗ might come to something different than

1:46:43 ↗ only through the goal

1:46:45 ↗ of the neighborhood

1:46:47 ↗ character and i certainly came to that

1:46:49 ↗ conclusion um so i i think it would be

1:46:53 ↗ useful to have that goal uh as a lens

1:46:56 ↗ and and have it re-looked at absolutely

1:47:00 ↗ i mean we can certainly put that lens in

1:47:02 ↗ our next touch point with ppc on on

1:47:05 ↗ having that part of that their framework

1:47:08 ↗ to analyze whether it meets or not um

1:47:11 ↗ and having a discussion about housing

1:47:13 ↗ um diversity but

1:47:15 ↗ with the grant uh there's three

1:47:16 ↗ different strategies and one of them

1:47:18 ↗ strategy eight that council had adopted

1:47:20 ↗ as part of the housing

1:47:22 ↗ action plan is the incorporate code

1:47:24 ↗ provisions to increase the potential

1:47:26 ↗ diversity of housing types built in the

1:47:28 ↗ city so it clearly is exactly what

1:47:32 ↗ this goal and outcomes chart is talking

1:47:34 ↗ about is the adoptive policy and so

1:47:36 ↗ um anyway but but i i hear you in terms

1:47:39 ↗ of having that lens to evaluate you can

1:47:42 ↗ come to a different conclusion that

1:47:43 ↗ makes perfect sense

1:47:45 ↗ and and i think and i having read the um

1:47:48 ↗ the materials that you sense about that

1:47:50 ↗ grant they there could be

1:47:52 ↗ other parts of this code not in the

1:47:55 ↗ zoning and uses but somewhere else in

1:47:57 ↗ the code very likely that are affected

1:48:00 ↗ and and so that just there's there is a

1:48:02 ↗ venn diagram where there's an overlap

1:48:04 ↗ but um

1:48:05 ↗ i think for me i just want that goal

1:48:08 ↗ that my ask is that the lens be applied

1:48:11 ↗ to this um by our volunteer commissions

1:48:14 ↗ because i think

1:48:15 ↗ it

1:48:16 ↗ uh in my mind it's it's a

1:48:19 ↗ goal that was already set by council and

1:48:21 ↗ and one of our important

1:48:23 ↗ commun important to the community it's

1:48:25 ↗ in the squad climate action plan as well

1:48:27 ↗ to have diversity of housing types um so

1:48:31 ↗ it's it's got policy backing and should

1:48:34 ↗ be considered with the other goals sure

1:48:38 ↗ great

1:48:39 ↗ um and then we have a number of other

1:48:41 ↗ things we can bring back to council but

1:48:43 ↗ i think that was the main one for the

1:48:44 ↗ planning policy commission

1:48:46 ↗ okay

1:48:47 ↗ um do you need anything else from this

1:48:50 ↗ committee this evening as far as

1:48:52 ↗ feedback you got it okay great well

1:48:55 ↗ thank you again um

1:48:57 ↗ and i think

1:48:58 ↗ we are concluded with that item so we

1:49:00 ↗ will move to our second item second item

1:49:02 ↗ of the evening

1:49:05 ↗ and that will be

1:49:07 ↗ id1144 amendments to title 16 stormwater

1:49:10 ↗ manual and floodplain

1:49:12 ↗ code and this will be presented by evan

1:49:15 ↗ brumfield environmental and regulatory

1:49:17 ↗ program administrator so evan

1:49:21 ↗ take it away

1:49:57 ↗ i don't think he said he can't hear

1:49:59 ↗ oh

1:50:01 ↗ can you

1:50:02 ↗ okay we have technical difficulties i

1:50:05 ↗ think

1:50:10 ↗ here we go

1:50:11 ↗ can you hear me now we can hear you can

1:50:13 ↗ you hear us

1:50:15 ↗ yes i can all right figured it out

1:50:20 ↗ uh all right uh you can see my slideshow

1:50:23 ↗ yes

1:50:24 ↗ okay great uh so good evening and then

1:50:26 ↗ uh thanks for having me back to talk

1:50:28 ↗ about our floodplain code and stormwater

1:50:30 ↗ code update uh my name is evan brumfield

1:50:33 ↗ i'm an environmental and regulatory

1:50:34 ↗ program administrator here for the city

1:50:37 ↗ um i'm coming back here

1:50:39 ↗ to council tonight to present on the

1:50:40 ↗ proposed draft codes meet our mandatory

1:50:43 ↗ requirements

1:50:45 ↗ and to go over areas that we've

1:50:46 ↗ identified

1:50:48 ↗ go above and beyond these mandatory

1:50:49 ↗ requirements to accommodate for climate

1:50:51 ↗ change

1:50:55 ↗ sorry excuse me

1:50:58 ↗ so these code updates are to maintain

1:51:00 ↗ compliance with our crs and mts permit

1:51:03 ↗ so

1:51:04 ↗ any rating systems or crs is a voluntary

1:51:07 ↗ incentive program that recognizes and

1:51:09 ↗ encourages community floodplain

1:51:10 ↗ management and practices that exceed the

1:51:12 ↗ minimum requirements of the national

1:51:14 ↗ flood insurance program or the nfip

1:51:18 ↗ the city currently holds a class 5

1:51:20 ↗ rating out of 10 amongst the highest in

1:51:22 ↗ king county

1:51:23 ↗ and uh

1:51:25 ↗ in the crs program which gives our

1:51:27 ↗ businesses and residents 25

1:51:29 ↗ blood insurance rate discount

1:51:33 ↗ the mpds or the national pollution

1:51:35 ↗ discharge elimination system is a

1:51:37 ↗ federal requirement under the clean

1:51:39 ↗ water act that regulates and reduces

1:51:41 ↗ stormwater and wastewater discharges

1:51:43 ↗ from the city's stormwater system for

1:51:45 ↗ the maximum extent practicable protect

1:51:47 ↗ water quality in waters of the state

1:51:51 ↗ updates uh that we'll be going through

1:51:53 ↗ we'll uh we'll be updating imc 1636 for

1:51:57 ↗ the areas of special flood hazard and

1:51:59 ↗ that's for our crs program compliance as

1:52:02 ↗ well as imc 16 and 13 for our storm

1:52:04 ↗ water sections

1:52:05 ↗ and the figure for that is is the mpds

1:52:08 ↗ permit

1:52:09 ↗ so this the mpds permit requires isquad

1:52:13 ↗ to update our stormwater design manual

1:52:15 ↗ and in its car stormwater design manual

1:52:17 ↗ is made up of two separate documents one

1:52:20 ↗ being ecology stormwater management

1:52:22 ↗ manual of western washington which we

1:52:24 ↗ also refer to as the ecology manual

1:52:27 ↗ and the second being our stormwater

1:52:29 ↗ design manual addendum so what this

1:52:31 ↗ addendum does is it allows

1:52:34 ↗ us issaquah to be more locally

1:52:36 ↗ prescriptive

1:52:37 ↗ in the ecology manual to

1:52:39 ↗ fit our community better

1:52:41 ↗ but we've also identified areas where we

1:52:43 ↗ can go above and beyond these uh

1:52:45 ↗ mandatory uh updates

1:52:49 ↗ so the direction that we're looking for

1:52:51 ↗ tonight here is

1:52:53 ↗ should the administration remove the

1:52:55 ↗ exemption from the stormwater design

1:52:57 ↗ manual not requiring enhanced treatment

1:53:00 ↗ of employee only parking lots at

1:53:02 ↗ commercial and industrial project sites

1:53:05 ↗ and two should the proposed code

1:53:07 ↗ amendments be forwarded for adoption by

1:53:09 ↗ council

1:53:13 ↗ but just to give a background of kind of

1:53:14 ↗ how we got here

1:53:17 ↗ we had our kickoff meeting in october

1:53:19 ↗ where staff met with consultants to

1:53:21 ↗ identify areas mandatory updates as well

1:53:24 ↗ as what areas that we can go above and

1:53:25 ↗ beyond these mandatory updates to

1:53:27 ↗ accommodate for climate change

1:53:30 ↗ we then came to a joint uh environmental

1:53:33 ↗ board plan and policy committee meeting

1:53:35 ↗ on march 9th to present on these areas

1:53:37 ↗ that we could go above and beyond

1:53:40 ↗ to accommodate for climate change

1:53:41 ↗ including future floodplain uh future

1:53:43 ↗ floodplain protections

1:53:45 ↗ and critical drainage review

1:53:48 ↗ we then presented these options based on

1:53:50 ↗ feedback we received from the joint

1:53:52 ↗ meeting to a council study session on

1:53:55 ↗ april 12th

1:53:57 ↗ after that study session we sent out a

1:53:59 ↗ draft

1:54:00 ↗ draft codes for internal review based on

1:54:03 ↗ recommendations received from council

1:54:05 ↗ and the joint meeting with the

1:54:06 ↗ environmental board and ppc

1:54:09 ↗ on may 12th we presented to the

1:54:11 ↗ environmental board about the stormwater

1:54:13 ↗ design manual updates

1:54:16 ↗ and based on all that feedback we

1:54:18 ↗ received tonight we're here presenting

1:54:19 ↗ the final proposed draft code with the

1:54:22 ↗ stormwater design manual updates after

1:54:24 ↗ tonight we're hoping for a determinant

1:54:26 ↗ of a determination of non-significance

1:54:28 ↗ or dns on our cpa and we'll have a

1:54:31 ↗ 30-day

1:54:32 ↗ public window open for public comment

1:54:35 ↗ with hopeful counsel adoption by august

1:54:37 ↗ 1st

1:54:40 ↗ so uh first up the flip plane code

1:54:43 ↗ updates so updates to title 1636

1:54:46 ↗ areas of special flood hazard are

1:54:49 ↗ we're going to be

1:54:50 ↗ doing two different areas one for the

1:54:53 ↗ crs class eight free board requirement

1:54:55 ↗ and two for the future flood plate

1:54:57 ↗ protections and so in the following

1:54:58 ↗ slides we'll go over each of these

1:55:01 ↗ updates

1:55:02 ↗ first i want to talk about just in

1:55:04 ↗ general flood plains and issaquah so

1:55:07 ↗ this car is unique to our neighbors

1:55:10 ↗ in that we have an active flood plain

1:55:11 ↗ that is dissecting our city not only is

1:55:14 ↗ this uh active floodplain dissecting

1:55:16 ↗ isqua

1:55:18 ↗ we also have urban core and residential

1:55:20 ↗ within our floodplain as well

1:55:23 ↗ every year county flood control district

1:55:26 ↗ mails out a b flood ready flood

1:55:27 ↗ preparedness brochure helping residents

1:55:29 ↗ prepare for floods the flood control

1:55:32 ↗ district highlights seven rivers and

1:55:33 ↗ creeks where flooding is expected

1:55:35 ↗ frequently

1:55:36 ↗ seven water bodies are

1:55:38 ↗ skycomis river the tolt river

1:55:41 ↗ snoqualmie river

1:55:43 ↗ feeder river

1:55:44 ↗ green river white river nesquak creek

1:55:48 ↗ so isqua more so than our neighbors

1:55:50 ↗ given our floodplains location has to be

1:55:52 ↗ thoughtful in our planning for future

1:55:54 ↗ flooding to mitigate for future impacts

1:55:57 ↗ and as you can see in this map here

1:56:00 ↗ have these kind of light blue green

1:56:02 ↗ areas are our areas of floodplain so

1:56:05 ↗ 500 is or sorry the green is more of our

1:56:08 ↗ 500 year

1:56:09 ↗ uh and the light blue is our 100 year

1:56:11 ↗ floodplain so the 100 year plain is

1:56:13 ↗ where all our

1:56:16 ↗ floodplain requirements are

1:56:18 ↗ required

1:56:23 ↗ the sea race the crs class 8 pre-board

1:56:26 ↗ this requirement states that the

1:56:28 ↗ community must adopt and enforce at

1:56:31 ↗ least a one foot free board requirement

1:56:33 ↗ including machinery and equipment

1:56:36 ↗ for all residential buildings triggered

1:56:37 ↗ by our flood ordinance where base flood

1:56:40 ↗ elevations have been determined by fema

1:56:43 ↗ so the city has updated our code to meet

1:56:45 ↗ the standard by

1:56:46 ↗ one adding in a definition for equipment

1:56:50 ↗ and two updating imc

1:56:52 ↗ 1636-130 specific standards to include

1:56:55 ↗ appropriate clarifying language

1:56:58 ↗ so

1:56:59 ↗ this picture right here as you can see

1:57:03 ↗ this is

1:57:05 ↗ talking about freeboard sorry as you can

1:57:06 ↗ see in the picture on the slide the

1:57:08 ↗ freeboard or which is the height above

1:57:10 ↗ the floodplain or the split elevation

1:57:12 ↗ which is bfb right here um would be the

1:57:14 ↗ area between the bfe and the top of the

1:57:16 ↗ foundation so when we talk about

1:57:18 ↗ freeboard we're talking about the base

1:57:20 ↗ flood elevation

1:57:21 ↗ level and then the area to the top of

1:57:24 ↗ the foundation

1:57:28 ↗ so this is something that isco has

1:57:30 ↗ already been requiring however our code

1:57:31 ↗ did not clearly state that that we were

1:57:34 ↗ implementing this requirement

1:57:35 ↗ so

1:57:37 ↗ with these two options we will now

1:57:38 ↗ clearly state this requirement and get

1:57:40 ↗ back in compliance with our our crs

1:57:43 ↗ in fema

1:57:46 ↗ if failure to update this code would

1:57:48 ↗ cause this claw to immediately

1:57:49 ↗ fall back to a crs class nine which

1:57:52 ↗ would

1:57:53 ↗ drop all our residents and businesses

1:57:55 ↗ down to only a five percent flood

1:57:56 ↗ insurance rate discount

1:58:01 ↗ so future flip crane uh flood plain

1:58:03 ↗ protection

1:58:05 ↗ blood plain action has been implemented

1:58:07 ↗ by the city and directed by fema through

1:58:09 ↗ ecology to establish minimum standards

1:58:12 ↗ within the hundred year flood plan for

1:58:14 ↗ the community particip to participate in

1:58:16 ↗ the flood insurance program

1:58:18 ↗ these minimum standards

1:58:20 ↗ have shortcomings that are worth

1:58:21 ↗ considering when applied in iskwa

1:58:23 ↗ specifically when accommodating for

1:58:25 ↗ climate change the future peak flows in

1:58:27 ↗ his claws creeks and streams

1:58:29 ↗ analysis done by uw and fish and

1:58:31 ↗ wildlife has found a general

1:58:33 ↗ relationship between future peak flows

1:58:35 ↗ and this quad stream systems the

1:58:37 ↗ difference between 100 and 500 year

1:58:39 ↗ flood stage

1:58:41 ↗ increasing the flood protection standard

1:58:43 ↗ to the 500 year flood stage or bfe or

1:58:46 ↗ base flood elevation plus two will

1:58:48 ↗ address the projected future 100 year

1:58:50 ↗ flows within the existing 100 year flood

1:58:53 ↗ plain but

1:58:55 ↗ this graphic is what the administration

1:58:57 ↗ is proposing for certain facilities

1:58:59 ↗ within the 500

1:59:00 ↗ flood level

1:59:02 ↗ sorry when the 500 year flood level is

1:59:04 ↗ known by fema

1:59:06 ↗ so each of these icons represents a

1:59:08 ↗ development type like we can see here

1:59:10 ↗ residential

1:59:11 ↗ roads travel commercial

1:59:14 ↗ and right now the gray bar in the middle

1:59:16 ↗ represents our current

1:59:18 ↗ blood protection level of fe plus one

1:59:23 ↗ what we are proposing is for the

1:59:24 ↗ facilities and activities that are

1:59:26 ↗ listed in the top blue bar

1:59:28 ↗ to be elevated to the bfe s2 level

1:59:31 ↗ reduce potential impacts from the future

1:59:33 ↗ high flows

1:59:35 ↗ two feet can be broken down into

1:59:38 ↗ one foot for climate change and the

1:59:40 ↗ other foot for the the free board

1:59:42 ↗ requirement by crs and nfip

1:59:45 ↗ green bar

1:59:47 ↗ down below at the bottom are areas that

1:59:49 ↗ tend to be more resilient flooding

1:59:52 ↗ but also are not

1:59:53 ↗ areas that necessarily trigger our flood

1:59:55 ↗ ordinance as well

2:00:01 ↗ this graphic is what the administration

2:00:02 ↗ is proposing for facilities when the 500

2:00:05 ↗ flood level is not known by fema

2:00:07 ↗ so what does this mean when uh when a

2:00:09 ↗ flood level is not known it just means

2:00:11 ↗ that there is there's less certainty

2:00:13 ↗ about what that base flood elevation is

2:00:15 ↗ and maybe a little more protection or

2:00:17 ↗ uncertainty should be considered

2:00:19 ↗ so again each of these icons represents

2:00:21 ↗ a development type

2:00:23 ↗ and the middle bar represents what our

2:00:25 ↗ current flood protection standards are

2:00:27 ↗ at base flood elevation plus one

2:00:30 ↗ the top bar

2:00:32 ↗ is what we are recommending increasing

2:00:33 ↗ our flood standard the base flood

2:00:35 ↗ elevation plus two for the same

2:00:37 ↗ rationale as the previous slide

2:00:40 ↗ autobar again is the areas that are

2:00:42 ↗ determined to be more resilient and are

2:00:44 ↗ not called out in our flood ordinance

2:00:47 ↗ for section levels

2:00:49 ↗ another thing to note is these green

2:00:50 ↗ icons in the areas

2:00:53 ↗ these kind of facilities right here

2:00:55 ↗ um

2:00:56 ↗ in zone ao

2:00:58 ↗ these represent um

2:01:00 ↗ flood depths so these are areas where we

2:01:02 ↗ don't know the base flood elevation

2:01:04 ↗ they're more they're in areas where we

2:01:06 ↗ know the flood depth so an example for

2:01:08 ↗ this would be

2:01:09 ↗ uh back

2:01:11 ↗ the atlas condos back when that used to

2:01:13 ↗ turn into a bathtub that was a flood

2:01:14 ↗ depth kind of thing so we knew

2:01:16 ↗ you know one to three feet that that

2:01:18 ↗ would flood every year and so our flood

2:01:20 ↗ protection standard would be based on

2:01:21 ↗ that depth not the flood elevation

2:01:25 ↗ and so what the facilities here need to

2:01:28 ↗ elevate to feet above that flood depth

2:01:31 ↗ or three feet above the highest ground

2:01:33 ↗ surface whichever is greater

2:01:39 ↗ one comment that has come in with

2:01:41 ↗ regards to the increased flood standard

2:01:43 ↗ to accommodate for climate change is how

2:01:45 ↗ ada might be impacted specifically in

2:01:47 ↗ commercial since single-family

2:01:49 ↗ residential typically doesn't require

2:01:51 ↗ ada

2:01:53 ↗ one solution to ada implementation in

2:01:55 ↗ commercial is in our current code and

2:01:58 ↗ our proposed code

2:01:59 ↗ commercial is not required to elevate

2:02:01 ↗ their building in order to come in

2:02:02 ↗ compliance with the flood ordinance

2:02:04 ↗ non-residential projects have the option

2:02:06 ↗ to dry flood proof their project

2:02:08 ↗ alleviating any potential ada

2:02:10 ↗ implementation

2:02:12 ↗ dry flood roofing allows the building to

2:02:14 ↗ be built or stay at ground level while

2:02:16 ↗ flood proofing the foundation and

2:02:18 ↗ exterior exterior of the building up to

2:02:20 ↗ the flood standard

2:02:23 ↗ another thing to note uh is the

2:02:25 ↗ administration reached out to king

2:02:27 ↗ county flood plain permitting staff and

2:02:29 ↗ the state

2:02:30 ↗ flood plain coordinator at the

2:02:31 ↗ department of ecology to see if ada

2:02:34 ↗ implementation specifically with a base

2:02:36 ↗ flood elevation plus two flood

2:02:38 ↗ protection standard

2:02:39 ↗ uh has been an issue for implementation

2:02:43 ↗ both stated that they have not heard of

2:02:45 ↗ or had any difficulties implementing ada

2:02:47 ↗ within the floodplain

2:02:51 ↗ lastly our current code and proposed

2:02:53 ↗ revised code also requires new critical

2:02:56 ↗ facilities to be elevated base flood

2:02:59 ↗ elevation plus three

2:03:01 ↗ critical facilities inside

2:03:03 ↗ uh sorry include but are not limited to

2:03:05 ↗ schools nursing homes hospitals police

2:03:08 ↗ fire and emergency response

2:03:10 ↗ installations this is a basic mandatory

2:03:12 ↗ nfip requirement

2:03:14 ↗ all participating jurisdictions

2:03:16 ↗ implement participation in the nfip

2:03:18 ↗ ensures our residents and businesses be

2:03:20 ↗ eligible for federal flood insurance and

2:03:23 ↗ flood mitigation grants

2:03:26 ↗ and lastly increasing our flood

2:03:27 ↗ protection standard would also reduce

2:03:29 ↗ the risk of someone with a physical

2:03:31 ↗ disability needing to evacuate their

2:03:33 ↗ home during a major flood

2:03:39 ↗ uh onto stormwater

2:03:41 ↗ so updates to

2:03:44 ↗ l1626 and 1328 include four different

2:03:47 ↗ items one being

2:03:49 ↗ the adoption of the 2019 department of

2:03:52 ↗ ecology stormwater management manual of

2:03:54 ↗ western washington also called the

2:03:56 ↗ ecology manual

2:03:59 ↗ number two the 2022 stormwater design

2:04:02 ↗ manual addendum adoption

2:04:04 ↗ uh and those are that is to include the

2:04:06 ↗ off-site analysis which we formally

2:04:08 ↗ refer to that as the critical drainage

2:04:10 ↗ review

2:04:12 ↗ and number four a brand new program of

2:04:14 ↗ the south

2:04:15 ↗ source control program for existing

2:04:16 ↗ development

2:04:17 ↗ so the following slides will go over

2:04:19 ↗ each of these kind of areas

2:04:24 ↗ the city will update from the 2014

2:04:27 ↗ ecology manual to the most current 2019

2:04:29 ↗ ecology manual

2:04:31 ↗ ecology manual provides guidance on the

2:04:33 ↗ measures necessary to control the

2:04:34 ↗ quantity and quality of stormwater

2:04:38 ↗ isoqual uses this manual to set

2:04:39 ↗ stormwater requirements for new

2:04:41 ↗ development and redevelopment projects

2:04:44 ↗ land developers and development

2:04:46 ↗ engineers use this manual to design

2:04:49 ↗ permanent stormwater control plans

2:04:51 ↗ create construction stormwater pollution

2:04:53 ↗ prevention plans

2:04:54 ↗ and determine stormwater infrastructure

2:04:57 ↗ businesses use this manual to help

2:04:59 ↗ design their stormwater pollution

2:05:00 ↗ prevention plans

2:05:04 ↗ this manual update will continue to help

2:05:06 ↗ us qual comply with our permits and the

2:05:09 ↗ 2019 ecology manual changes include

2:05:11 ↗ increased alignment with permitting and

2:05:13 ↗ performance standards

2:05:15 ↗ clarifications and inclusion of

2:05:17 ↗ additional source control bmps or best

2:05:19 ↗ management practices

2:05:21 ↗ additional modeling requirements and

2:05:23 ↗ other considerations

2:05:28 ↗ the 2022 addendum so as i stated before

2:05:32 ↗ this addendum allows us to be more

2:05:34 ↗ locally prescriptive of the 2019 ecology

2:05:37 ↗ manual to fit his squad better

2:05:40 ↗ while most of ecology's 2019 manual is

2:05:42 ↗ applicable to the city of isqua several

2:05:45 ↗ significant differences are contained in

2:05:47 ↗ the 2022 stormwater design manual

2:05:49 ↗ addendum

2:05:50 ↗ through other city requirements for

2:05:51 ↗ development permitting

2:05:53 ↗ including number one the centralized

2:05:55 ↗ squad area alternative flow control

2:05:57 ↗ standard

2:05:58 ↗ so this flow control standard modifies

2:06:00 ↗ the flow control standard in the valley

2:06:02 ↗ floor

2:06:03 ↗ area of downtown issaquah

2:06:05 ↗ in these sub-basins the pre-development

2:06:07 ↗ condition can be assumed to be the

2:06:08 ↗ existing site conditions instead of

2:06:11 ↗ forested

2:06:14 ↗ number two the central isquad area

2:06:16 ↗ seasonably saturated soil assumption

2:06:19 ↗ city in 2011 conducted a technical

2:06:21 ↗ analysis in coordination with the

2:06:23 ↗ department of ecology

2:06:25 ↗ into the pre-development hydrology of

2:06:26 ↗ this area and specifically where

2:06:28 ↗ seasonably saturated soil conditions can

2:06:30 ↗ be documented near the surface

2:06:34 ↗ and number three the turbidity standard

2:06:37 ↗ for

2:06:37 ↗ it squash 100 ntus

2:06:41 ↗ and this is the discharge notification

2:06:43 ↗ level for all projects in the city at

2:06:45 ↗ all times up to the 10-year storm

2:06:48 ↗ larger projects that require their own

2:06:50 ↗ construction stormwater permit through

2:06:52 ↗ ecology have a discharge notification

2:06:54 ↗ level of 250 ntus

2:06:57 ↗ and and to use is is a measurement of

2:07:00 ↗ how cloudy uh a water yeah is so like a

2:07:04 ↗ zero ntu water would look you know it's

2:07:07 ↗ not even drinking water drinking water

2:07:08 ↗ is a higher ntu uh than than zero so um

2:07:13 ↗ just

2:07:14 ↗ uh explain what ntus are

2:07:16 ↗ uh

2:07:17 ↗ has decided as in previous updates be

2:07:20 ↗ more proactive and restrictive on

2:07:22 ↗ stormwater discharging from a

2:07:23 ↗ construction site these larger projects

2:07:26 ↗ are required to meet our more

2:07:27 ↗ restrictive

2:07:29 ↗ discharge standard

2:07:31 ↗ number four our community planning

2:07:33 ↗ development conducts our stormwater

2:07:34 ↗ review

2:07:36 ↗ number five

2:07:38 ↗ we have the inclusion of the optional

2:07:40 ↗ off-site uh analysis which we again

2:07:43 ↗ formally uh presented to you as a

2:07:45 ↗ critical drainage review

2:07:47 ↗ this will be an assessment of the

2:07:49 ↗ consequences and risks of the stormwater

2:07:51 ↗ system failure on a project site

2:07:54 ↗ and and adoption of uh 2021 in county

2:07:59 ↗ service water design manual sections

2:08:01 ↗ specifically chapter four

2:08:04 ↗ which is conveyance system uh analysis

2:08:06 ↗ and design

2:08:08 ↗ and uh chapter in chapter 3.2 figures

2:08:13 ↗ 3.2.1 a through d which are the

2:08:15 ↗ isopluvial maps and what what those

2:08:17 ↗ isopluvial maps do is they give us our

2:08:20 ↗ precipitation levels for 24-hour um

2:08:24 ↗ storm so that that can guide us and let

2:08:26 ↗ us know our what what a two-year storm

2:08:29 ↗ is what a 10-year storm is what a 24 uh

2:08:32 ↗ 25-year storm is what 100-year storm is

2:08:35 ↗ those kind of things

2:08:40 ↗ so in this addendum

2:08:42 ↗ uh we're also

2:08:43 ↗ want to bring to your uh

2:08:45 ↗ to you for direction

2:08:47 ↗ is needed for runoff treatment

2:08:50 ↗ so enhanced treatment is not required

2:08:52 ↗ with parking lots dedicated solely to

2:08:54 ↗ parking lots of employees private

2:08:56 ↗ vehicles at commercial and industrial

2:08:58 ↗ sites again this is in our addendum and

2:09:01 ↗ the ecology manual

2:09:04 ↗ so let's talk about treatment

2:09:06 ↗ specifically enhanced treatment versus

2:09:08 ↗ basic treatment these are these are the

2:09:10 ↗ two type of treatments in the in

2:09:11 ↗ stormwater world

2:09:12 ↗ so as of right now

2:09:14 ↗ these employee only parking lots only

2:09:16 ↗ need to implement basic treatment

2:09:18 ↗ in general basic treatment treats for

2:09:21 ↗ total suspended solids or

2:09:23 ↗ basically

2:09:24 ↗ large bulky items that are found in

2:09:26 ↗ stormwater this could be large sediment

2:09:29 ↗ litter

2:09:30 ↗ uh large leaves different stuff like

2:09:33 ↗ that that's what the basic treatment is

2:09:35 ↗ treating for

2:09:36 ↗ so enhanced treatment is basic treatment

2:09:39 ↗ so it takes a k into account all those

2:09:41 ↗ total suspended solids plus it treats

2:09:43 ↗ for dissolved metal metals specifically

2:09:46 ↗ copper and zinc

2:09:49 ↗ which

2:09:50 ↗ we know that copper

2:09:52 ↗ negatively impacts juvenile salmon

2:09:55 ↗ so

2:09:56 ↗ proper sources include vehicle breaks

2:09:58 ↗ and zinc sources include tire dust and

2:10:00 ↗ motor oils

2:10:02 ↗ we brought this issue to the the may

2:10:03 ↗ 11th environmental board meeting and the

2:10:05 ↗ board approved of the city treating all

2:10:08 ↗ parking lots the same and removing this

2:10:10 ↗ exemption from our

2:10:11 ↗ our addendum

2:10:13 ↗ and

2:10:14 ↗ manual

2:10:16 ↗ something to note as well is that king

2:10:18 ↗ county manual

2:10:20 ↗ does not allow for this exemption either

2:10:28 ↗ another new area of the addendum is our

2:10:30 ↗ offsite analysis uh like i stated before

2:10:33 ↗ this was formerly our critical drainage

2:10:34 ↗ review that we presented to you and the

2:10:36 ↗ critical drainage reviews purpose was to

2:10:38 ↗ evaluate the potential negative

2:10:40 ↗ consequences of a drainage system

2:10:42 ↗ failure

2:10:43 ↗ from any cause

2:10:45 ↗ and what we realized through this

2:10:46 ↗ stormwater design manual update process

2:10:49 ↗ was even though there was a need for for

2:10:51 ↗ critical drainage review the process

2:10:53 ↗ there wasn't a need for another term for

2:10:56 ↗ us all to get to know so we dug into the

2:10:59 ↗ ecology manual and we found the optional

2:11:02 ↗ off-site analysis to meet our needs

2:11:06 ↗ soft side analysis will require all

2:11:08 ↗ development and redevelopment projects

2:11:10 ↗ requiring review under the ecology

2:11:12 ↗ manual or addendum to prepare an

2:11:14 ↗ off-site analysis report generally

2:11:16 ↗ following the guidance

2:11:18 ↗ in isquash stormwater design manual

2:11:21 ↗ which our manual

2:11:23 ↗ is two different documents like we

2:11:24 ↗ talked about it's our ecology manual and

2:11:26 ↗ our addendum

2:11:28 ↗ so the off-site analysis will be a

2:11:30 ↗ review an assessment of current

2:11:33 ↗ and future conveyance capacity

2:11:35 ↗ upland erosion impacts stream channel

2:11:39 ↗ erosion at the outfall location

2:11:41 ↗ localized site flooding potential

2:11:44 ↗ known violations uh or stan of standards

2:11:47 ↗ of surface water quality groundwater

2:11:49 ↗ wellhead protection areas

2:11:51 ↗ and the potential impacts to a project

2:11:53 ↗ of a drainage system failure

2:12:00 ↗ so a new requirement in esqua via the

2:12:02 ↗ mpds permit is our source control

2:12:04 ↗ program but good news is that isco has a

2:12:07 ↗ long history of successful source

2:12:08 ↗ control programs aimed at reducing and

2:12:11 ↗ eliminating non-stormwater discharges

2:12:13 ↗ into our city-owned stormwater system

2:12:16 ↗ and watches of the state

2:12:18 ↗ the existing source control program the

2:12:20 ↗ city currently implements has been above

2:12:22 ↗ and beyond the ipds permit requirements

2:12:26 ↗ all jurisdictions

2:12:27 ↗ covered by the mpds permit will now be

2:12:30 ↗ required to create and implement a

2:12:32 ↗ source control program

2:12:34 ↗ the city will be shifting our existing

2:12:37 ↗ source control program into a new source

2:12:39 ↗ control mpds program

2:12:41 ↗ the source control inspections will be

2:12:43 ↗ inspecting existing business sites for

2:12:45 ↗ pollution and potential pollution

2:12:46 ↗ sources the city will then work with

2:12:49 ↗ these businesses to eliminate the

2:12:51 ↗ pollution source through operational

2:12:54 ↗ best management practices

2:12:56 ↗ and if necessary structural and

2:12:58 ↗ treatment best management practices

2:13:01 ↗ if necessary

2:13:02 ↗ so an example of an operational best

2:13:04 ↗ management practice would be a vectoring

2:13:06 ↗ of a catch basin if the sediment is too

2:13:09 ↗ high or there's a contaminant in there

2:13:11 ↗ or something along those lines

2:13:13 ↗ it could also be a parking lot um

2:13:16 ↗ sweeping sweeping of a parking lot

2:13:19 ↗ so one of one this picture here on the

2:13:21 ↗ left is an example of of something that

2:13:23 ↗ we would be looking for um this is in a

2:13:25 ↗ dumpster enclosure obviously not up to

2:13:28 ↗ to isquad standards or uh mpds standards

2:13:31 ↗ and so we would work with this business

2:13:33 ↗ to

2:13:34 ↗ number one eliminate and clean up

2:13:36 ↗ uh

2:13:37 ↗ the the contaminants but then also work

2:13:40 ↗ with them on solutions to

2:13:43 ↗ make sure that this doesn't keep

2:13:44 ↗ happening

2:13:49 ↗ so

2:13:51 ↗ in review our proposal here tonight is

2:13:54 ↗ to recommend the adoption of these

2:13:57 ↗ uh items here so our our crs class a

2:13:59 ↗ freeboard requirements um which is our

2:14:02 ↗ mandated by our crs program

2:14:04 ↗ which is to make sure that we have uh

2:14:08 ↗ freeboard requirements for our equipment

2:14:09 ↗ in our floodplain

2:14:12 ↗ we also have our future floodplain

2:14:14 ↗ protections which include our base flood

2:14:16 ↗ elevation

2:14:18 ↗ increase from bfe plus one to bfe plus

2:14:21 ↗ two and that's only for those certain

2:14:23 ↗ areas that we identified on that top

2:14:25 ↗ blue bar

2:14:26 ↗ another thing to note too is that

2:14:29 ↗ these elevation requirements you know

2:14:31 ↗ they're not something that

2:14:33 ↗ would immediately

2:14:35 ↗ require everyone to elevate in the flood

2:14:36 ↗ plain this is something that

2:14:39 ↗ would be brought up through our normal

2:14:41 ↗ permitting process

2:14:44 ↗ also adoption of the 2019 department of

2:14:46 ↗ ecology stormwater management manual

2:14:50 ↗ in addition to the 2022 stormwater

2:14:53 ↗ design manual addendum which includes

2:14:55 ↗ our offsite analysis

2:14:57 ↗ and the source control program for

2:14:59 ↗ existing development

2:15:02 ↗ the options

2:15:04 ↗ that we've

2:15:05 ↗ that administration has um brought to

2:15:08 ↗ you

2:15:09 ↗ are

2:15:10 ↗ kind of two little

2:15:11 ↗ chunks of options

2:15:13 ↗ one being uh in the enhanced treatment

2:15:15 ↗ exemption so

2:15:17 ↗ number one

2:15:19 ↗ should we keep the exemption from the

2:15:20 ↗ stormwater design manual not requiring

2:15:22 ↗ enhanced treatment of employee only

2:15:24 ↗ parking lots at commercial and

2:15:26 ↗ industrial project sites

2:15:28 ↗ and at these sites

2:15:30 ↗ as as it is now

2:15:32 ↗ only basic treatment will continue to

2:15:33 ↗ occur at these sites

2:15:35 ↗ or number two should we remove this

2:15:37 ↗ exemption from the stormwater design

2:15:39 ↗ manual not requiring enhanced treatment

2:15:42 ↗ of employee only parking lots at

2:15:43 ↗ commercial industrial sites and so what

2:15:45 ↗ this would do is require enhanced

2:15:47 ↗ treatment at to occur at these project

2:15:49 ↗ sites again

2:15:51 ↗ this would be if triggered

2:15:54 ↗ so the other chunk is our our overall

2:15:57 ↗ options

2:15:58 ↗ so one

2:15:59 ↗ uh do not recommend city council

2:16:01 ↗ adoption of these proposed code

2:16:02 ↗ amendments

2:16:04 ↗ two

2:16:05 ↗ recommend adoption of the proposed code

2:16:07 ↗ amendments by city council

2:16:09 ↗ or three propose amendments to the code

2:16:11 ↗ and bring back to the committee

2:16:13 ↗ note that this delay would cause the

2:16:15 ↗ city to maintain a non-compliance with

2:16:17 ↗ our regulatory agencies

2:16:22 ↗ so administration recommends

2:16:25 ↗ the removal of the exemption for the

2:16:27 ↗ stormwater design manual not requiring

2:16:28 ↗ enhanced treatment of employee-only

2:16:30 ↗ parking lots at commercial and

2:16:32 ↗ industrial sites

2:16:33 ↗ and recommends adoption of the proposed

2:16:35 ↗ code amendments by the city council

2:16:40 ↗ so

2:16:41 ↗ to get back to this slide you know

2:16:43 ↗ timing and next steps so after this like

2:16:45 ↗ we talked about

2:16:46 ↗ after this june 7th meeting

2:16:50 ↗ we are awaiting our determination of

2:16:52 ↗ non-significance for cipa uh which will

2:16:54 ↗ then

2:16:55 ↗ uh

2:16:56 ↗ be opened up to a 30-day public window

2:16:58 ↗ for comment and hopeful council adoption

2:17:02 ↗ by august 1st

2:17:05 ↗ and that's it

2:17:08 ↗ great thank you evan

2:17:10 ↗ we can now

2:17:12 ↗ have council or committee comment uh

2:17:14 ↗ questions do you have any questions on

2:17:15 ↗ this one

2:17:16 ↗ okay go ahead

2:17:18 ↗ okay

2:17:20 ↗ well

2:17:20 ↗ thank you i'll go into all of my praise

2:17:22 ↗ in the comments section and everything

2:17:24 ↗ but um just questions the it said

2:17:27 ↗ arteria

2:17:29 ↗ roads would be proposed at bfe plus two

2:17:34 ↗ is that correct

2:17:38 ↗ uh let's see so that would be

2:17:42 ↗ way back up when we were in yeah sorry

2:17:45 ↗ yeah okay

2:17:47 ↗ that would be major arterials so not not

2:17:50 ↗ minor arterial so the the purpose of

2:17:52 ↗ that would be for

2:17:54 ↗ um um

2:17:54 ↗ [Music]

2:17:56 ↗ like evacuation

2:17:58 ↗ like if we need to

2:18:00 ↗ evacuate in a flood we want to be able

2:18:02 ↗ to

2:18:02 ↗ have a road to drive out on so

2:18:05 ↗ okay well then let me

2:18:07 ↗ connect all of these dots so

2:18:09 ↗ of the things on this list that would be

2:18:12 ↗ something that the city would be

2:18:14 ↗ responsible for upgrading can

2:18:17 ↗ you or

2:18:19 ↗ city administrator bob quits or someone

2:18:21 ↗ speak to

2:18:23 ↗ major arterial roads or fire stations

2:18:25 ↗ police stations and emergency management

2:18:28 ↗ facilities

2:18:29 ↗ whether they

2:18:30 ↗ are in flood plains and if so if they're

2:18:33 ↗ already at bfe plus two or if this would

2:18:38 ↗ require us to

2:18:40 ↗ make updates should we be at that point

2:18:42 ↗ of going through a permit process

2:18:46 ↗ sure

2:18:48 ↗ i can start out by saying that we don't

2:18:50 ↗ have any hospitals fire police

2:18:52 ↗ or you know

2:18:54 ↗ anything like that in in the floodplain

2:18:56 ↗ the um

2:18:58 ↗ the the arterials would be it would be a

2:19:00 ↗ different option or a different

2:19:04 ↗ thing to consider we have not looked at

2:19:07 ↗ uh what major arterials these these

2:19:09 ↗ would be

2:19:10 ↗ um and we have not really defined that

2:19:12 ↗ yet in this process

2:19:16 ↗ so it would be more on that would be

2:19:19 ↗ something that we would have a work item

2:19:20 ↗ on

2:19:21 ↗ to determine what these major arterials

2:19:23 ↗ are that we determine most likely with

2:19:26 ↗ our emergency management

2:19:28 ↗ our emergency manager and then have

2:19:30 ↗ those identified for

2:19:33 ↗ our permitting staff

2:19:35 ↗ so they know when when a project comes

2:19:36 ↗ in

2:19:39 ↗ would it be possible to have that

2:19:41 ↗ information before

2:19:43 ↗ this comes back to council just

2:19:46 ↗ understanding what those

2:19:48 ↗ major arterials are that would be

2:19:51 ↗ implicated

2:19:52 ↗ certainly okay

2:19:54 ↗ fantastic um and then my other question

2:19:57 ↗ the

2:19:58 ↗ last time the committee approached this

2:20:01 ↗ idea of

2:20:04 ↗ floodplains and protection we had some

2:20:06 ↗ questions regarding septic tanks

2:20:10 ↗ and so i know we received an email about

2:20:13 ↗ that could you talk to what the city's

2:20:17 ↗ planned approach is to septic tanks so

2:20:20 ↗ that anybody who didn't receive those

2:20:21 ↗ emails could hear that

2:20:24 ↗ yes and i see gary turns camera on so uh

2:20:28 ↗ gary take it away yes

2:20:30 ↗ um let me just fix my video here one

2:20:33 ↗ second

2:20:37 ↗ thank you sorry about that

2:20:39 ↗ uh thank you for the question yes um we

2:20:41 ↗ we uh we worked internally

2:20:45 ↗ after our last meeting on um

2:20:48 ↗ septics and

2:20:51 ↗ realized the best

2:20:52 ↗ place to address that was our sewer

2:20:54 ↗ master plan which you've seen

2:20:56 ↗ some previous discussion on uh but we'll

2:20:58 ↗ be coming back in full force and third

2:21:00 ↗ quarter

2:21:01 ↗ um so what we what we're committed to

2:21:04 ↗ bringing back to you with the sewer

2:21:05 ↗ master plan are a few things with septic

2:21:08 ↗ so first is what was asked for was

2:21:10 ↗ identification of all the existing

2:21:13 ↗ uh locations of septic systems in

2:21:15 ↗ floodplains

2:21:16 ↗ so we're gonna we're gonna identify that

2:21:18 ↗ and we're also gonna show

2:21:20 ↗ and present uh what it would take at a

2:21:23 ↗ high level uh to sewer those areas uh

2:21:26 ↗ the first one off the block we're

2:21:28 ↗ already working on is the sycamore

2:21:30 ↗ neighborhood just to have high level

2:21:32 ↗ costs so everybody can see

2:21:34 ↗ clearly where they are and and what

2:21:35 ↗ those would be

2:21:37 ↗ uh what we're also working on this is

2:21:39 ↗ one of evan's pieces

2:21:40 ↗ is uh inspection programs and

2:21:42 ↗ requirements um for going forward for

2:21:46 ↗ areas

2:21:47 ↗ for anywhere outside of the flip plane

2:21:49 ↗ what those should be how it should be

2:21:50 ↗ monitored how it should be inspected and

2:21:52 ↗ how it should be reported on

2:21:54 ↗ and then the final thing we're looking

2:21:57 ↗ at is again going forward is

2:22:00 ↗ uh if there are areas that um

2:22:04 ↗ that we still would like to have

2:22:06 ↗ the ability to uh to have septic systems

2:22:10 ↗ in what what are those areas and what

2:22:12 ↗ would be the criteria uh for examples

2:22:14 ↗ areas that are uh greater than 200 feet

2:22:17 ↗ from an existing system but outside the

2:22:20 ↗ floodplain or critical areas

2:22:22 ↗ so those are the flavor of what we're

2:22:24 ↗ going to be coming back to you matt

2:22:26 ↗ alice as you as you know

2:22:28 ↗ is leading that effort and to be honest

2:22:30 ↗ this is going to be one of the central

2:22:32 ↗ central tenets of that sewer master plan

2:22:34 ↗ in terms of policy um

2:22:37 ↗ so again uh that's that's uh that's

2:22:39 ↗ probably the best place to have it and

2:22:41 ↗ there'll be some other topics related to

2:22:42 ↗ septics in the sewer master plan so

2:22:44 ↗ we're hoping to package that all

2:22:46 ↗ together and then any any changes uh to

2:22:49 ↗ these code sections that will be

2:22:51 ↗ required we'll come back and and do that

2:22:53 ↗ of course uh through that master

2:22:55 ↗ planning process

2:22:57 ↗ thank you

2:22:59 ↗ fantastic that that feels like an answer

2:23:02 ↗ it feels like we're we're going

2:23:04 ↗ somewhere with that and i appreciate

2:23:05 ↗ that we've been heard and all of that so

2:23:07 ↗ thank you gary that was the end of my

2:23:10 ↗ set of questions

2:23:12 ↗ great thank you i had one hopefully

2:23:14 ↗ really quick question i don't think

2:23:16 ↗ there's any way i was going to ask about

2:23:19 ↗ the non-compliance in the timeline but i

2:23:21 ↗ don't think there's any way we can uh

2:23:24 ↗ not be

2:23:26 ↗ um

2:23:27 ↗ i don't think there's any way we can be

2:23:28 ↗ compliant with the timeline because of

2:23:30 ↗ that 30 days sepa comment period is that

2:23:33 ↗ right

2:23:34 ↗ that's correct okay that was my only

2:23:36 ↗ question um and at this time we will

2:23:40 ↗ call for public comments on this item so

2:23:42 ↗ i'll check in with clerk geezer if

2:23:44 ↗ there's anyone on the line that has

2:23:46 ↗ indicated

2:23:47 ↗ a desire to speak on this item

2:23:51 ↗ so far i see one hand raised that's

2:23:53 ↗ connie marsh connie i will make you a

2:23:55 ↗ panelist now

2:24:05 ↗ all right connie marsh again because i

2:24:07 ↗ love me some storm water

2:24:09 ↗ um

2:24:11 ↗ my understanding is the storm water code

2:24:15 ↗ is not something that you vest to

2:24:18 ↗ yet in the prior conversation i heard

2:24:21 ↗ people talking about vesting two storm

2:24:23 ↗ water codes

2:24:25 ↗ so

2:24:26 ↗ that would be good to be clear

2:24:28 ↗ atlas

2:24:29 ↗ did not require

2:24:33 ↗ pedestrians to be able to have egress

2:24:37 ↗ in a flood situation

2:24:39 ↗ so i want to understand if we are

2:24:42 ↗ changing code somewhere that will

2:24:44 ↗ require the ability for people to get

2:24:46 ↗ out of their homes in a flood

2:24:49 ↗ situation because it didn't happen last

2:24:51 ↗ time i would like to see that

2:24:52 ↗ improvement it may not be the stormwater

2:24:55 ↗ code but seeing how you brought up ada

2:24:58 ↗ it's sort of the same situation so i

2:25:00 ↗ didn't know the answer

2:25:03 ↗ as a segway gilman in this general area

2:25:07 ↗ has flooded in the past and closed down

2:25:10 ↗ traffic and i believe is a major

2:25:12 ↗ arterial

2:25:13 ↗ however there are alternative pathways

2:25:17 ↗ if it does flood it seems to me that if

2:25:20 ↗ you have a reasonably easy way to divert

2:25:25 ↗ traffic out of the flooding that you do

2:25:29 ↗ not necessarily have to raise the

2:25:31 ↗ roadway i don't know the language well

2:25:33 ↗ enough to understand whether what you

2:25:35 ↗ have written

2:25:36 ↗ allows for that flexibility in the you

2:25:40 ↗ know once every few years where a road

2:25:43 ↗ might flood for

2:25:45 ↗ a half a day

2:25:46 ↗ it doesn't seem like you should have to

2:25:48 ↗ go to the expense of raising that

2:25:50 ↗ roadway two feet if you have an elegant

2:25:53 ↗ alternative

2:25:55 ↗ um

2:25:56 ↗ i heard you use the term water sealing

2:26:00 ↗ and so

2:26:01 ↗ i'm imagining yet again atlas that has

2:26:04 ↗ said we have created a bathtub that will

2:26:06 ↗ not leak

2:26:08 ↗ in the last flood that bathtub leaked

2:26:12 ↗ into their garage so people who live and

2:26:16 ↗ get in atlas tell me so i want to

2:26:19 ↗ understand what this water sealing proof

2:26:23 ↗ is

2:26:24 ↗ initially and over time because if it

2:26:27 ↗ starts to flood and it was built as

2:26:30 ↗ waterproof it that does not seem like a

2:26:33 ↗ good solution

2:26:35 ↗ now in the

2:26:36 ↗ current addendum

2:26:38 ↗ i was a little interested to hear the

2:26:41 ↗ term central area be used that

2:26:43 ↗ referenced our current addendum my

2:26:45 ↗ understanding in rereading the addendum

2:26:48 ↗ is that it is not what we consider to be

2:26:50 ↗ our central issaquah plan it is mainly

2:26:53 ↗ the areas north of the freeway that are

2:26:56 ↗ sort of like from 56th

2:26:58 ↗ and heading toward the lake and these

2:27:00 ↗ are areas that tend to be see

2:27:03 ↗ naturally inundated all year long and it

2:27:07 ↗ does not include the areas south of the

2:27:10 ↗ freeway which are not sort of naturally

2:27:13 ↗ inundated during the winter as often and

2:27:16 ↗ so i i think that's true but what would

2:27:19 ↗ be nice would be to have a map included

2:27:22 ↗ so that with one look you can understand

2:27:25 ↗ exactly where that addendum is and then

2:27:28 ↗ put it on the gis layer so that city

2:27:31 ↗ planners can also easily see where this

2:27:33 ↗ stormwater addendum is in place

2:27:37 ↗ um now we're looking at the off-site

2:27:39 ↗ analysis

2:27:41 ↗ and

2:27:43 ↗ uh the language is a little bit

2:27:45 ↗ different and this has been a main

2:27:46 ↗ concern of mine because we have

2:27:48 ↗ situations where existing systems

2:27:51 ↗ overflow and then we are told that you

2:27:54 ↗ know what it's over x year storm so

2:27:56 ↗ there's nothing we can do about it so i

2:27:59 ↗ want to be absolutely sure

2:28:02 ↗ that these existing systems

2:28:05 ↗ that flood will then have someone

2:28:09 ↗ looking

2:28:10 ↗ at them to see if we can address those

2:28:12 ↗ flooding concerns because often those

2:28:14 ↗ ntus are well over a hundred yet there

2:28:17 ↗ is not a system in place that reports

2:28:20 ↗ them to the department of fish and

2:28:21 ↗ wildlife and then they end up in our

2:28:24 ↗ streams and they wash out our eggs and

2:28:27 ↗ they um harm our salmon habitat and i

2:28:31 ↗ want that problem solved and i was

2:28:33 ↗ hopeful that this was going to be it now

2:28:35 ↗ we have slightly different language so i

2:28:37 ↗ don't know if it means the same thing

2:28:40 ↗ and i don't know if your best management

2:28:42 ↗ practices have now automatically

2:28:44 ↗ included that fish and wildlife be

2:28:46 ↗ notified when you have these higher ntu

2:28:50 ↗ floods that are going into our streams

2:28:53 ↗ i would like a yearly dashboard report

2:28:55 ↗ to see how well we are doing in all of

2:28:57 ↗ this because while you say we're doing

2:28:59 ↗ something it would be nice to understand

2:29:01 ↗ what is changing what's being helped

2:29:04 ↗ um and so we we would basically be being

2:29:08 ↗ kept up to date and then this discussion

2:29:10 ↗ of tire chemicals as we talk about

2:29:13 ↗ enhanced treatment i still don't

2:29:15 ↗ understand whether this enhanced

2:29:17 ↗ treatment does accommodate those you

2:29:20 ↗ know new wear tire things that kill the

2:29:22 ↗ fish

2:29:23 ↗ and um

2:29:26 ↗ so then the last and best is we had

2:29:29 ↗ recent flooding

2:29:31 ↗ on the east fork of issaquah creek that

2:29:33 ↗ was a combination of fish and wildlife

2:29:36 ↗ people not removing their logs creating

2:29:38 ↗ habitat trees creating a dam which

2:29:41 ↗ caused flooding and

2:29:43 ↗ i want to understand how that problem is

2:29:46 ↗ going to be solved i don't know that

2:29:48 ↗ that is a stormwater manual problem but

2:29:51 ↗ it does seem

2:29:53 ↗ like it's

2:29:55 ↗ it needs to be better than it was and i

2:29:58 ↗ haven't seen y'all come up with a

2:29:59 ↗ solution so i shoved it in wherever i

2:30:02 ↗ could and that is the end

2:30:04 ↗ thank you

2:30:05 ↗ poor guy i'm sorry can't help but i love

2:30:08 ↗ storm water

2:30:09 ↗ thank you connie

2:30:12 ↗ uh claire keiser do we have anyone else

2:30:14 ↗ indicating they would like to speak on

2:30:16 ↗ this no okay and again nobody in the

2:30:19 ↗ council chambers so

2:30:21 ↗ um with that we can move into council

2:30:24 ↗ committee deliberation

2:30:27 ↗ would you like to start off with some

2:30:29 ↗ comments

2:30:30 ↗ i guess most of my comments are just my

2:30:33 ↗ goodness evan how you made what could be

2:30:36 ↗ a very complex

2:30:39 ↗ set of topics not just even an

2:30:41 ↗ individual topic but a set of topics um

2:30:45 ↗ understandable and so i really want to

2:30:48 ↗ compliment you on the presentation and

2:30:52 ↗ the memo and everything that came with

2:30:54 ↗ that in order to understand that

2:30:57 ↗ i have felt very supported through

2:31:00 ↗ unders learning about this process and

2:31:03 ↗ having questions and getting those

2:31:05 ↗ questions answered i feel like this is

2:31:09 ↗ ready to move forward for adoption i

2:31:12 ↗ think the

2:31:13 ↗ one main question was should all of the

2:31:16 ↗ parking lots be treated the same

2:31:18 ↗ gosh darn yes they should

2:31:20 ↗ um so i'm all in favor of the enhanced

2:31:24 ↗ treatment requirement for the employee

2:31:26 ↗ lots

2:31:28 ↗ and just in general i think this is

2:31:31 ↗ so many things right in moving us

2:31:34 ↗ forward as a city who has

2:31:37 ↗ some

2:31:38 ↗ very unique challenges as you put it

2:31:40 ↗ looking at the map

2:31:42 ↗ as to

2:31:43 ↗ we have development in these areas that

2:31:46 ↗ are going to flood we have storm water

2:31:49 ↗ challenges that we have to address and i

2:31:53 ↗ love seeing that happen here and the

2:31:56 ↗ very specific nature of the

2:31:58 ↗ recommendations

2:32:00 ↗ that will help us so

2:32:01 ↗ i'm

2:32:05 ↗ thank you council president i too am in

2:32:07 ↗ favor i am in favor of requiring the

2:32:11 ↗ um the enhanced treatment for the

2:32:13 ↗ parking lots which was the one policy

2:32:15 ↗ question that was additional

2:32:17 ↗ for this committee to consider this

2:32:19 ↗ evening

2:32:20 ↗ and

2:32:21 ↗ agree with with all of your comments on

2:32:24 ↗ the presentation of this information

2:32:26 ↗ um also the ada

2:32:29 ↗ was was raised by a concerned community

2:32:32 ↗ member and so you know i think you've

2:32:34 ↗ done a great job of explaining of taking

2:32:37 ↗ that into consideration getting the

2:32:39 ↗ information to

2:32:40 ↗ address that question and bringing that

2:32:43 ↗ back to us um so i really appreciate it

2:32:45 ↗ and agree i think it's um it's very

2:32:48 ↗ clear i wanted to follow up on a few of

2:32:51 ↗ the

2:32:52 ↗ issues that were raised in

2:32:54 ↗ connie's last comments it seemed to me

2:32:57 ↗ from listening that a number of those

2:33:00 ↗ were

2:33:01 ↗ around

2:33:01 ↗ code compliance as far as

2:33:05 ↗ some of the issues that were raised and

2:33:06 ↗ so i wondered if um either gary or evan

2:33:09 ↗ if you had a perspective on on some of

2:33:11 ↗ those issues that were raised as far as

2:33:14 ↗ the water um dry proofing i think it was

2:33:16 ↗ referred to

2:33:17 ↗ not

2:33:19 ↗ actually being

2:33:20 ↗ um

2:33:21 ↗ waterproof and things like that

2:33:28 ↗ are you wanting me to comment on that

2:33:30 ↗ right now

2:33:31 ↗ um if you could i think that was a new

2:33:34 ↗ a new issue and i would i like i said so

2:33:37 ↗ i guess the i'll brave it as a question

2:33:39 ↗ would that fall under code compliance

2:33:42 ↗ and not under the stormwater manual the

2:33:44 ↗ the issue for example of um

2:33:46 ↗ a dry proof or a waterproof area not

2:33:50 ↗ being actually waterproof

2:33:54 ↗ uh yeah so i am unfamiliar with what

2:33:57 ↗ atlas did if they elevated or flood

2:33:59 ↗ proofed so um

2:34:01 ↗ we would have to look back into those

2:34:03 ↗ plans to see what happened but if the

2:34:05 ↗ if they did flood proof and the flood

2:34:07 ↗ proofing has failed

2:34:09 ↗ uh

2:34:10 ↗ that i don't think that is a

2:34:13 ↗ um that is not a flood plain code

2:34:15 ↗ section that is probably more getting in

2:34:18 ↗ to with our building inspectors and code

2:34:20 ↗ enforcement um to ensure that the safety

2:34:23 ↗ is still there but we can um that would

2:34:26 ↗ be something that we can definitely look

2:34:27 ↗ into to see what sort of repercussions

2:34:30 ↗ we would have with that

2:34:32 ↗ okay i think that's i think that's great

2:34:34 ↗ and um i

2:34:36 ↗ think code enforcement makes sense for

2:34:38 ↗ that to be where that is addressed but

2:34:39 ↗ if that information could be brought

2:34:41 ↗ forward with the

2:34:42 ↗ additional information which i think

2:34:44 ↗ would be very helpful on the arterial

2:34:45 ↗ roads

2:34:47 ↗ that would be excellent information for

2:34:49 ↗ for the council to consider when we

2:34:52 ↗ consider this for adoption

2:34:58 ↗ okay great

2:34:59 ↗ great

2:35:00 ↗ um

2:35:02 ↗ so i

2:35:04 ↗ we can make a formal motion to require

2:35:06 ↗ the enhanced treatment for

2:35:09 ↗ all parking lots as well as to recommend

2:35:12 ↗ the

2:35:13 ↗ um

2:35:14 ↗ the

2:35:16 ↗ changes as

2:35:17 ↗ proposed to the full council so i will

2:35:20 ↗ go ahead and

2:35:21 ↗ make that motion and

2:35:24 ↗ call for a vote all those in favor say

2:35:26 ↗ aye

2:35:26 ↗ aye aye

2:35:28 ↗ all right we are unanimous and we will

2:35:30 ↗ bring that information back to council

2:35:32 ↗ do you have what you need from this

2:35:34 ↗ committee at this time

2:35:36 ↗ i do yeah thank you

2:35:38 ↗ okay

2:35:41 ↗ um we

2:35:42 ↗ can at this point call for any

2:35:44 ↗ announcements that you might have that

2:35:46 ↗ you would

2:35:48 ↗ let's make okay

2:35:50 ↗ then there being no further business

2:35:52 ↗ i will adjourn the meeting at 906. thank

2:35:56 ↗ you all good night

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (13)

Voiss

Commissioners Bader

Kim

Lewis

Milligan

Monahan Absence: None Development Commission Members Present: Chair Brennan

Price

Commissioners Dillon

Gilbert

Ikeda

Morgan

Sanford

Silverman Absence: Commissioner Shore (Excused)

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CP&D Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager, CP&D Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager 2. Approval of Minutes VICE CHAIR VOISS asked if there were any corrections to the Planning Policy Commission April 28, 2022 Minutes. COMMISSIONER MILLIGAN stated having an Page 19 of 348 AGENDA ITEMS a) 05-12-22 Special Joint Meeting Planning Policy Commission & Development Commission Meeting Minutes excused absence, rather than unexcused as listed. Chair VOISS stated that the corrected Minutes were approved