City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Thursday, September 22, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 7, 2022

packet pp.5–7

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-07-22 City Council Planning, Development & Page 1 Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. September 7, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18: Administration & Procedures ID 1249

90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.9–275

Topics: Land Use

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; Building and Design; Zoning and Development Standards and Procedures and Administration.

2508 segments .txt ↗

0:20 ↗ foreign

0:23 ↗ councilmember hunt called the September

0:25 ↗ 22nd 2022 city council Planning

0:28 ↗ Development and environment committee

0:30 ↗ meeting to order I am councilmember hunt

0:33 ↗ and I'm joined today with council

0:34 ↗ president Walsh

0:36 ↗ we will start with public comments there

0:38 ↗ are multiple public comment

0:39 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:41 ↗ will be a general public comment

0:42 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:44 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:45 ↗ the presentation and counsel question

0:47 ↗ and answer period on tonight's agenda

0:49 ↗ item

0:52 ↗ members of the public May address

0:54 ↗ council at this time in person or

0:56 ↗ virtually those who are signed up in

0:57 ↗ advance to make comments will be called

0:59 ↗ on first if you are joining us virtually

1:01 ↗ and would like to make comments please

1:03 ↗ raise your virtual hands if you're on

1:06 ↗ the phone that will be to press star 3

1:08 ↗ and if you've joined by computer

1:12 ↗ you just

1:18 ↗ okay if you're joined by computer

1:21 ↗ smartphone look for a hand icon this

1:22 ↗ varies by device one option may be to go

1:24 ↗ to the participant panel and choose the

1:26 ↗ raise hand icon in the lower right hand

1:27 ↗ corner and if you are in the room and

1:29 ↗ did not sign up I will ask for other

1:31 ↗ speakers before closing the portion of

1:33 ↗ the meeting so I will wait for a moment

1:35 ↗ to see if there are individuals lined up

1:39 ↗ to speak this evening and if so I have

1:40 ↗ some additional information to read

1:42 ↗ yes okay

1:45 ↗ um citizen comments are an important

1:46 ↗ part of the public process we take them

1:47 ↗ seriously and Factor them into the

1:49 ↗ decisions we make please direct comments

1:51 ↗ to the whole committee and not

1:53 ↗ individuals and while this is not a

1:55 ↗ question and answer session we will

1:56 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed when

1:58 ↗ recognized please unmute your microphone

2:01 ↗ or step up to the lectern in person and

2:04 ↗ please state your name address and

2:06 ↗ relationships to the city please speak

2:08 ↗ clearly and pause frequently and please

2:10 ↗ limit comments to five minutes and if

2:12 ↗ you are attending virtually and do not

2:14 ↗ respond after your name or phone number

2:15 ↗ is called or if your connection is lost

2:17 ↗ unexpectedly the meeting will need to

2:19 ↗ proceed you are encouraged to rejoin the

2:21 ↗ meeting if able and

2:25 ↗ clerk can you please identify the first

2:27 ↗ person who has signed up to speak

2:29 ↗ yes we do not have any members of the

2:31 ↗ public attending virtually but we do

2:33 ↗ have two individuals in the room who've

2:35 ↗ signed up to make comments the first is

2:37 ↗ Sam Diaz

2:46 ↗ Sandra if you could press the button on

2:48 ↗ the microphone and it'll light up red

2:50 ↗ oh okay thank you so much okay thank you

2:53 ↗ my name is Sandra Diaz

2:55 ↗ and I owned a food trailer

2:59 ↗ the location is in Gilman Boulevard

3:03 ↗ 145 Northwest

3:06 ↗ since almost five years ago

3:10 ↗ and it's been really really nice

3:14 ↗ the community is

3:16 ↗ great with us we have a lot of comments

3:21 ↗ about the food about the location

3:23 ↗ and we have about 160

3:29 ↗ gel comments

3:31 ↗ five stars like 260 Google reviews five

3:37 ↗ stars

3:38 ↗ and people always

3:42 ↗ always say something like I'm so glad

3:45 ↗ you're here your food is wonderful thank

3:48 ↗ you to be here

3:50 ↗ we make us feel really really accepted

3:54 ↗ my daughter and I work together

3:57 ↗ we owned together the food trailer

4:00 ↗ and is the most important thing for us

4:08 ↗ um

4:09 ↗ I don't know what else can I say the

4:12 ↗ community is the most important thing

4:15 ↗ for us and I'm trying to help people who

4:18 ↗ ask me about how to do the business

4:22 ↗ because I think I I was the first one

4:27 ↗ since five years ago no food trucks

4:32 ↗ around my food trailer

4:34 ↗ it was a little slow at the beginning

4:37 ↗ and now we have around 90 people every

4:42 ↗ day at the lunch time so it's been

4:45 ↗ really busy really busy

4:48 ↗ and people want to come to Issaquah

4:52 ↗ and please don't forget to come to Sochi

4:56 ↗ to eat tacos and people are asking every

5:00 ↗ time are you gonna work for winter are

5:03 ↗ you going to be in next weekend so

5:06 ↗ people is really really interested

5:09 ↗ we have people from everywhere

5:12 ↗ we that's incredible because people from

5:16 ↗ everywhere around Seattle jakima

5:20 ↗ um I really don't remember where Monroe

5:24 ↗ people is coming to issaquajos for

5:27 ↗ etacos so I feel so proud of be part of

5:33 ↗ this community

5:36 ↗ I don't know what else can I say

5:48 ↗ their additional individuals signed up

5:50 ↗ to speak yes the next speaker is Sandra

5:52 ↗ favett

5:57 ↗ is it on okay hello my name is Sandra so

6:00 ↗ where I'm a resident of Issaquah my kids

6:02 ↗ my kids grew up here in Issaquah I own

6:05 ↗ La chingona Taqueria in Bellevue and I

6:07 ↗ I'm very blessed that City risaka

6:10 ↗ usually hires for events we've been

6:12 ↗ feeding you guys a couple times

6:14 ↗ uh we finally got approved for a

6:16 ↗ permanent location here in Issaquah

6:18 ↗ Lowe's after two years of trying so it

6:22 ↗ was a shocker when they trying to change

6:23 ↗ the rules which I I'm pretty sure it's

6:25 ↗ for the good of everybody and a friend

6:28 ↗ of mine Jimmy Mata the major of Buren I

6:31 ↗ don't know if you guys know about the

6:32 ↗ pilot that he did for the taco trucks

6:34 ↗ have you guys heard about that

6:36 ↗ he started with six now he has three and

6:38 ↗ it's I don't know if it worked it was

6:39 ↗ for a year a trial that he's been doing

6:41 ↗ so I was thinking like maybe you guys

6:42 ↗ want to do the same I don't know if

6:43 ↗ that's the route

6:44 ↗ uh

6:47 ↗ see uh Lowe's has been asking blueprints

6:50 ↗ uh uniforms cleanliness this and that

6:53 ↗ and we're we're so happy to do that

6:55 ↗ because we are not taco truck as

6:56 ↗ colorful as you can see me I'm colorful

6:58 ↗ and this is everyday this is how I walk

7:01 ↗ and I'm very proud

7:03 ↗ I want to bring color I want to bring

7:04 ↗ culture to the city always my city I

7:08 ↗ want to bring it to here

7:09 ↗ and I understand that there have to be

7:11 ↗ rules maybe too many trucks will be a

7:13 ↗ trouble I get it but maybe we can have

7:16 ↗ it work permits whatever you guys need

7:18 ↗ like Lowe's gave me a bunch of lists

7:20 ↗ it's been a household and I'm so happy

7:22 ↗ doing it it like two million dollar this

7:25 ↗ and this and that whatever you want I

7:27 ↗ will do it

7:29 ↗ really hard to work in a taco truck I

7:31 ↗ wish we could afford a restaurant taco

7:33 ↗ truck winter

7:35 ↗ it's so cold my chicks get burned I

7:38 ↗ swear to God

7:40 ↗ every day we have to get the delivery

7:42 ↗ the food when we don't we have to take

7:44 ↗ everything back to the kitchen every

7:46 ↗ single day even the water because even

7:48 ↗ the water is not allowed to be drained

7:51 ↗ on the city it's not allowed I don't

7:53 ↗ know if you guys know

7:54 ↗ so we take it in buckets every single

7:57 ↗ day we follow the rules same as

8:00 ↗ restaurant probably more winter very

8:03 ↗ cold summer oh my God it was 100 degrees

8:07 ↗ and we were working hard we were working

8:09 ↗ hard why because we're hard workers we

8:11 ↗ just want to work that's all we want

8:13 ↗ we're not asking for handouts you guys

8:15 ↗ want to follow the rules we'll follow

8:17 ↗ any rules but please please let me be

8:20 ↗ part of my community let me start my

8:21 ↗ community my boys are so excited that

8:24 ↗ we're gonna be here

8:25 ↗ you guys have support us a lot uh we get

8:29 ↗ I I do a lot of high school the high

8:31 ↗ school high school is my High School

8:33 ↗ lacrosse football I'm always there

8:35 ↗ supporting I'm always there doing

8:37 ↗ everything for the high school I haven't

8:39 ↗ done middle school because they haven't

8:41 ↗ asked maybe I should offer but I'm part

8:43 ↗ of the community you know what I mean I

8:44 ↗ want to be part of the community in

8:46 ↗ namna saying let's not do regulations do

8:48 ↗ whatever maybe a regulation like like

8:50 ↗ they did endurance it will work

8:52 ↗ but don't don't take us out completely

8:56 ↗ give us a chance to I don't know maybe

8:57 ↗ just work a plan to make it work for

8:59 ↗ everybody

9:01 ↗ what else I was gonna say oh my God and

9:02 ↗ everybody said don't go it doesn't

9:04 ↗ matter what you say they already have it

9:05 ↗ I'm like should I should I not should I

9:07 ↗ what should I do like okay what the heck

9:10 ↗ and I went and look for all of them like

9:11 ↗ let's go let's start let's see if it can

9:13 ↗ it can make it happen or not

9:15 ↗ thank you for your time thank you

9:18 ↗ thank you Sandra clear Geezer could you

9:21 ↗ call the next person to speak please no

9:23 ↗ one else has signed up

9:27 ↗ you are welcome to come up and speak

9:29 ↗ thank you thank you so much sorry I kind

9:31 ↗ of I think I came a little bit late but

9:33 ↗ I was just able to close the food truck

9:36 ↗ my name is Hugo Barraza and I am the

9:40 ↗ owner of nor Baja food truck and I just

9:43 ↗ recently opened two months ago

9:46 ↗ these warrants means a lot to me they're

9:49 ↗ an inspiration for myself I know both of

9:53 ↗ Sandra's uh one one more than the other

9:56 ↗ but hard work enormous as I ever seen

10:00 ↗ and I wish my wife was here as well but

10:03 ↗ she needs to be close in the the food

10:06 ↗ truck that we own right now so someone

10:08 ↗ needs to stay there to work in order for

10:10 ↗ me to be here

10:13 ↗ um

10:14 ↗ you know I was here the past uh

10:19 ↗ Council and um

10:22 ↗ I read everything that's been proposed

10:25 ↗ to the code

10:27 ↗ and it really you know it shocked me

10:30 ↗ when I first saw it and and I want to

10:32 ↗ say it again and I want everybody to

10:34 ↗ hear it because I put every single penny

10:37 ↗ I had

10:38 ↗ to be able to open two months ago

10:40 ↗ and I feel like you guys want to kick us

10:42 ↗ out

10:43 ↗ like that I felt it like that because

10:46 ↗ limiting the time of operational during

10:49 ↗ the year is the same thing

10:51 ↗ it's really hard to find locations to

10:55 ↗ operate I spend months to be able to

10:59 ↗ find the Grange who will open the doors

11:02 ↗ for me to be a stay there and they know

11:04 ↗ it

11:05 ↗ Sandra has been looking for it for

11:07 ↗ months

11:09 ↗ two years I'm sorry

11:11 ↗ and I was a little lucky I believe

11:14 ↗ really lucky and

11:17 ↗ I don't understand where that's coming

11:19 ↗ from because I understand regulations

11:21 ↗ you know permits

11:24 ↗ stuff like that but limiting a business

11:28 ↗ to operate in the city

11:30 ↗ it will just make me leave town and it

11:34 ↗ hurts because this is what I want to be

11:37 ↗ this is what I've been living the past

11:41 ↗ five years I believe this is where my my

11:44 ↗ kids go to school it's in uh

11:47 ↗ Valley dual language program

11:50 ↗ and

11:53 ↗ I think someone here needs to point out

11:57 ↗ all the regulations we already regulated

12:00 ↗ on because you know last Council Solon

12:04 ↗ said that

12:08 ↗ maybe add in

12:10 ↗ more regulations will be that the ideal

12:14 ↗ situation

12:16 ↗ to like another permit or something like

12:18 ↗ that

12:20 ↗ and I kind of want to say what we

12:21 ↗ already have so you guys will understand

12:23 ↗ a little better in case you guys not

12:25 ↗ aware of I'm not saying you are I just

12:27 ↗ want to say it perfectly and out loud

12:29 ↗ because we are very regulated

12:34 ↗ um starting from the commissionary

12:36 ↗ kitchen that every food truck has to

12:38 ↗ have

12:40 ↗ and we can say we can spend about 1500

12:44 ↗ or two thousand dollars per month one

12:47 ↗ thing then we have to pay rent right you

12:51 ↗ can go from a thousand to two thousand

12:53 ↗ dollars per month that's the other thing

12:56 ↗ you need to be insurance

12:58 ↗ you need to have this city

13:01 ↗ you name it two hundred dollars

13:04 ↗ Health Department permit to operate

13:06 ↗ another two thousand dollars per year

13:11 ↗ in

13:12 ↗ uh

13:14 ↗ Secretary of State

13:16 ↗ Labor and Industry to have employees

13:20 ↗ you have to pay IRS you have to pay a

13:23 ↗ ton of things

13:25 ↗ uh I was I had the pleasure to be

13:27 ↗ invited to it's not call me that was my

13:30 ↗ first event about two weeks ago

13:32 ↗ is gorgeous up there and I really like

13:34 ↗ it up there and I also had to pay a

13:38 ↗ permit because I don't have a business

13:40 ↗ license and it's not Columbus I have to

13:42 ↗ get a temporary department they made

13:44 ↗ they made it they made it on the snap

13:46 ↗ for me because they were in her last

13:50 ↗ food truck canceled on the last minute

13:51 ↗ so they needed anyone to be there I was

13:54 ↗ able to pull it through it went great

13:56 ↗ but

13:58 ↗ anyhow uh

14:01 ↗ I'm sure I'm missing a lot of stuff

14:03 ↗ already but just to put you guys in

14:05 ↗ context uh

14:07 ↗ there is a lot of things a food truck

14:10 ↗ needs in able to open every single day

14:13 ↗ and I'm not even going to start with

14:15 ↗ opening and closing

14:17 ↗ because that's really hard

14:20 ↗ but we're here in the city of isika this

14:23 ↗ is where we are you guys have the

14:25 ↗ decision more than we probably do but

14:27 ↗ we're joining together to try to be

14:30 ↗ heard and probably you guys will uh help

14:35 ↗ us out wish I wish we can all be on the

14:38 ↗ same part food of food full of food

14:41 ↗ trucks in this city of Issaquah so so we

14:44 ↗ all can be a happy family for sure

14:47 ↗ thank you guys for hearing me out

14:48 ↗ appreciate it thank you

14:51 ↗ thank you for your comments

14:53 ↗ clerk user has anyone else indicated a

14:56 ↗ desire to speak either virtually or

14:59 ↗ otherwise we have had one member of the

15:02 ↗ public join virtually and I do see that

15:04 ↗ he's raising his hand so Ashwin I'll go

15:07 ↗ ahead and make you a panelist now

15:09 ↗ you should see the option to unmute and

15:12 ↗ can choose to turn your video on

15:22 ↗ uh thank you very much uh city council

15:26 ↗ and the administrator for giving me an

15:29 ↗ opportunity to

15:31 ↗ talk about this issue

15:34 ↗ um in what I I do understand there's a

15:38 ↗ process in getting a food permit and all

15:41 ↗ that stuff it's well established so any

15:44 ↗ business that plans to go uh put up a

15:48 ↗ food food truck has to go through the

15:50 ↗ process and uh and they are doing

15:53 ↗ business right now in the City of

15:54 ↗ Issaquah there are several food trucks

15:57 ↗ who've been in business for quite a

16:00 ↗ while I'm talking about years together

16:04 ↗ um right by the chain Chamber of

16:06 ↗ Commerce uh the alley that's right by

16:09 ↗ the Chamber of Commerce there are three

16:10 ↗ two trucks if I'm correct

16:12 ↗ and by the way I am the owner of uh the

16:16 ↗ Chevron in Issaquah at the intersection

16:18 ↗ of Front Street and Gilman Boulevard and

16:21 ↗ I have an establishment uh who's leasing

16:25 ↗ my space the private property and

16:27 ↗ actually right now I have a ride of whey

16:30 ↗ as well on my property so the the truck

16:32 ↗ food truck is placed on the right of way

16:34 ↗ but they can actually move on to the

16:36 ↗ next parking spot and they will be in my

16:38 ↗ private property right and we have a

16:41 ↗ lease in place uh the food truck has

16:44 ↗ been in business for more than a year

16:46 ↗ now and they've kept the premises clean

16:49 ↗ they've uh they've been doing business

16:50 ↗ good and they've been serving the

16:53 ↗ customers locally

16:55 ↗ and uh

16:57 ↗ what my concern is is

17:00 ↗ um

17:00 ↗ what is the CD going to be dealing with

17:03 ↗ when there is a proper establishment for

17:05 ↗ that's following rules and going through

17:08 ↗ the process and doing a business legal

17:11 ↗ business on a private property uh what

17:15 ↗ is the purpose of this that the CD is

17:17 ↗ coming in in putting rules that restrict

17:21 ↗ that operation of that business I'm

17:23 ↗ trying to understand that I don't seem

17:25 ↗ to get that Clarity and I hope I get

17:28 ↗ visibility and so does a business that's

17:30 ↗ on my premise get that visibility as

17:32 ↗ well uh if there are any concerns with

17:35 ↗ the current operations on my property

17:38 ↗ which is a private property or uh on the

17:41 ↗ businesses that are on the lane on the

17:44 ↗ on the Alley by the Chamber of Commerce

17:47 ↗ I think the city should bring that up

17:49 ↗ with the businesses and have the

17:50 ↗ discussion uh but I don't believe there

17:53 ↗ was a discussion that took place

17:55 ↗ um involving those businesses so there

17:58 ↗ are businesses that get affected because

17:59 ↗ this changes and I I really hope that

18:02 ↗ the city takes in account our concerns

18:05 ↗ as well while making decisions

18:08 ↗ thank you

18:12 ↗ thank you for your comments

18:14 ↗ clear Keyser has anyone else joined the

18:16 ↗ meeting the desires week okay and I'll

18:19 ↗ just

18:21 ↗ um look out at the audience in case if

18:23 ↗ anyone else would like to make a public

18:25 ↗ comment at this time

18:29 ↗ great well thank you very much for

18:31 ↗ coming to our meeting and making

18:32 ↗ comments before we go to the business

18:35 ↗ items I did want to just make a note on

18:38 ↗ process so this committee has usually

18:41 ↗ three committee members council member

18:43 ↗ raise excused this evening and this

18:46 ↗ committee will make recommendations that

18:47 ↗ will go to the full Council so we do not

18:49 ↗ take final action on anything at this

18:51 ↗ meeting but we will be discussing later

18:54 ↗ this evening ID 1249 which is Title 18

18:57 ↗ Administration and procedures one part

18:59 ↗ of which is is the code regarding food

19:03 ↗ trucks which we heard several comments

19:05 ↗ on tonight

19:07 ↗ um so uh and then one additional comment

19:10 ↗ is we have a public comment to the

19:12 ↗ beginning of the meeting which we just

19:14 ↗ closed we will also have another public

19:15 ↗ comment opportunity later and after the

19:19 ↗ presentation and question and answer

19:20 ↗ period for our item

19:22 ↗ um and additionally at any time you can

19:25 ↗ submit comments to the full council at

19:27 ↗ city council at issaquah.gov and that's

19:29 ↗ a good way to provide comments as well

19:32 ↗ with that we'll move to approval of the

19:37 ↗ minutes the minutes are from our

19:39 ↗ September 7th meeting

19:42 ↗ is there any um Corrections or comments

19:45 ↗ on that okay then I moved to approve the

19:46 ↗ minutes from the September 7th meeting

19:48 ↗ as in our packet

19:53 ↗ and we will move to our first item of

19:55 ↗ the evening ID 1249 Title 18

19:58 ↗ Administration and procedures and this

19:59 ↗ will be presented by director daliwal

20:02 ↗ director of community planning and

20:03 ↗ development director

20:07 ↗ good evening members of the council and

20:09 ↗ community members in attendance both

20:11 ↗ virtually and in the room I'm going to

20:14 ↗ try and share my screen and bring up

20:18 ↗ um

20:19 ↗ and PowerPoint here real quick

20:30 ↗ can you all see my screen

20:33 ↗ right

20:35 ↗ um so tonight uh we're in front of the

20:37 ↗ Planning Development and environment

20:40 ↗ committee on our bucket six so this is

20:43 ↗ the last of the the topic areas for

20:46 ↗ Title 18 update which is the complete

20:48 ↗ overhaul of Title 18 and what we're

20:51 ↗ asking the committee is if there are any

20:53 ↗ additional considerations for planning

20:55 ↗ and policy commission to study before

20:57 ↗ they finalize the recommendation to city

20:59 ↗ council

21:00 ↗ so we're asking if the proposed changes

21:02 ↗ meet the golden outcomes or if they're

21:05 ↗ in additional topics we should consider

21:07 ↗ before making the final edits to the

21:11 ↗ Consolidated draft which will be a

21:14 ↗ public Hearing in front of the planning

21:16 ↗ and policy commission

21:17 ↗ for this particular topic there are five

21:21 ↗ pertinent goals

21:23 ↗ um goal one protect forested hillsides

21:27 ↗ increase public awareness goal five

21:29 ↗ effective management of travel goal 10

21:32 ↗ and modern the code and corporate best

21:35 ↗ practices goal 13. so these are goals

21:37 ↗ that the council at our committee had

21:39 ↗ created for this update

21:43 ↗ in your packet we have a laundry list of

21:46 ↗ topics that we will be covering however

21:49 ↗ based on the number of topics the last

21:54 ↗ topic process and procedures we'll be

21:56 ↗ covering that on October 6th so if

22:00 ↗ anyone in attendance is here for the

22:02 ↗ last topic that will be discussed on

22:04 ↗ October 6th

22:06 ↗ um

22:07 ↗ so we'll take the wireless communication

22:10 ↗ facilities first

22:12 ↗ really the change here is minimal there

22:16 ↗ are some changes but they're really

22:18 ↗ intended to align with procedural code

22:20 ↗ changes so Federal FAA has come up or

22:24 ↗ FCC has come up with strong mandates for

22:28 ↗ timelines and things like that that

22:30 ↗ we've Incorporated in this code

22:32 ↗ there's some guidance for permit review

22:34 ↗ and application process that's in here

22:38 ↗ and again the focus really has been

22:40 ↗ timelines and process changes and some

22:43 ↗ clarity in language

22:45 ↗ at one point we were talking about

22:48 ↗ making some substantive changes but

22:51 ↗ those were not part of this current code

22:54 ↗ update because the planning and policy

22:55 ↗ commission had just updated the wireless

22:57 ↗ chapter about less than two years ago

23:00 ↗ so that's Wireless

23:02 ↗ zipper rules

23:05 ↗ um again we tried to go through the

23:07 ↗ federal and state law requirements and

23:10 ↗ updated multiple sections for clarity uh

23:13 ↗ exemption levels I'll get into those a

23:15 ↗ little bit more in in detail those are

23:18 ↗ the main substantive changes here

23:21 ↗ um and public notice requirements under

23:24 ↗ the state law you know we're required

23:26 ↗ when we make a determination to

23:29 ↗ circulate that however we feel earlier

23:32 ↗ notice of application which isn't

23:35 ↗ technically required under the state law

23:37 ↗ is better use of everyone's time so

23:39 ↗ we're not people surprising people with

23:41 ↗ here's a determination so we've added

23:43 ↗ those kind of uh notice requirements and

23:46 ↗ broadened the notice requirements from

23:48 ↗ 300 feet to 500 feet notifying the

23:52 ↗ property owners and tenants 45 percent

23:55 ↗ of the population in Issaquah is renting

23:58 ↗ so we want to make sure all Community

24:00 ↗ member get that notice

24:03 ↗ and then we had a list of planning

24:06 ↗ documents that have long been you know

24:08 ↗ redone so we've referenced the latest

24:11 ↗ updates to that the appeal section has

24:15 ↗ been clarified so those are things we've

24:17 ↗ made so now let's get into the policy

24:19 ↗ discussion of this

24:21 ↗ minimum threshold so a little background

24:23 ↗ on these so Department of ecology comes

24:25 ↗ up with the maximum thresholds that the

24:28 ↗ cities can adopt through their

24:30 ↗ ordinances that they can exempt from

24:33 ↗ going through a CPA process

24:36 ↗ and so we looked at our peer cities and

24:40 ↗ the maximum thresholds established by a

24:43 ↗ state law so for single-family homes

24:45 ↗ under the state law up to 30 units don't

24:49 ↗ necessarily have to go through cipa

24:51 ↗ review process if the cities choose so

24:54 ↗ um

24:55 ↗ and for multi-family the maximum is 60

25:00 ↗ units

25:02 ↗ for agricultural structures it's 40

25:04 ↗ square 40 000 square feet for commercial

25:07 ↗ structures it's 30 000 square feet and

25:11 ↗ and then there's a separate threshold

25:13 ↗ for grade and fill amounts issaquah's

25:16 ↗ thresholds are the lowest of any of our

25:18 ↗ peer cities

25:20 ↗ um one of the reasons is because these

25:22 ↗ updates from the ecology have happened

25:25 ↗ over the last couple of decades and we

25:27 ↗ haven't touched our cipa chapter since

25:28 ↗ that time so we haven't really looked at

25:31 ↗ this

25:32 ↗ um for for some period of time

25:35 ↗ um the the issue with going through cipa

25:38 ↗ for Issaquah is

25:40 ↗ um you know what are the additional

25:42 ↗ mitigation measures that we can require

25:44 ↗ that are not covered up by our code and

25:47 ↗ and cumulatively if there's an impact we

25:50 ↗ can use cipa as a mitigation tool the

25:53 ↗ second part is we have established

25:55 ↗ mitigation fees which are different from

25:57 ↗ Impact fees but they apply for like

26:00 ↗ police mitigation fees and government

26:02 ↗ services building fees which are nominal

26:06 ↗ they're not significant if you look at

26:08 ↗ annual money that the city collect from

26:10 ↗ them isn't significant at all but those

26:13 ↗ come into play when projects go through

26:15 ↗ super

26:17 ↗ um so we had this discussion multiple

26:19 ↗ times uh with the planning policy

26:21 ↗ commission and development Commission on

26:24 ↗ what is the appropriate threshold to

26:27 ↗ establish for projects to go through

26:28 ↗ cepa

26:29 ↗ one of the idea that the planning and

26:32 ↗ policy commission had was what is it in

26:35 ↗ for the city can we tie it as an

26:37 ↗ incentive to to give them a uh you know

26:40 ↗ to increase that thresholds but we get

26:42 ↗ something in return such as more

26:45 ↗ sustainable buildings so we developed

26:48 ↗ that idea and separate from the sipa

26:51 ↗ discussion we've had this discussion

26:53 ↗ with

26:54 ↗ planning and policy commission and

26:56 ↗ development commission about the icap

26:58 ↗ table and and the implementation of the

27:00 ↗ icap table what are we going to require

27:01 ↗ in terms of sustainable buildings so two

27:04 ↗ separate conversations but then they

27:06 ↗ merged so which added to this confusion

27:08 ↗ about where have we landed

27:10 ↗ um and we're looking for this committee

27:12 ↗ to weigh in on what threshold makes

27:15 ↗ sense

27:16 ↗ um so I'll walk you through the

27:18 ↗ questions we asked planning and policy

27:21 ↗ commission you know one option is we

27:23 ↗ don't increase the existing threshold

27:24 ↗ anything more than four units was

27:27 ↗ required to go single family units will

27:29 ↗ require cipa and so on option two is to

27:33 ↗ have a moderate increase which in our

27:35 ↗ column we presented the last column I'll

27:37 ↗ get to that in a little bit

27:39 ↗ or we can go to the highest level

27:41 ↗ required under the state law

27:44 ↗ uh the general direction we got from PPC

27:47 ↗ was really you know they were in they

27:49 ↗ were okay with a moderate increase but

27:52 ↗ coupled with the city get something in

27:54 ↗ return as an incentive for um more

27:58 ↗ sustainable development

28:00 ↗ when we had the discussion where on the

28:03 ↗ icap table and really at that time the

28:06 ↗ focus was

28:08 ↗ um that what's with the as a stop Gap

28:10 ↗ measure until we really have a

28:12 ↗ thoughtful discussion on sustainable

28:14 ↗ buildings was that any larger building

28:17 ↗ that gets built in Issaquah should meet

28:20 ↗ some of these sustainable goals that the

28:22 ↗ city has established at that time we

28:25 ↗ laid out these three options you know

28:27 ↗ larger than ten thousand square feet

28:28 ↗ which equates roughly to 10 to 15

28:31 ↗ residential units and

28:35 ↗ at that time we were having this

28:37 ↗ discussion about the state energy code

28:39 ↗ that's coming away

28:41 ↗ and that's going to be in effect in July

28:43 ↗ of next year

28:45 ↗ um so therefore we weren't as saying

28:48 ↗ every building has to be sustainable

28:50 ↗ because some of those requirements would

28:52 ↗ come into play because of the state

28:53 ↗ energy code requirements the second

28:56 ↗ option was 20 000 square feet or more of

28:59 ↗ commercial building which equates to 20

29:01 ↗ to 30 residential units uh the um this

29:05 ↗ is where we landed with them uh when we

29:07 ↗ laid these options in relationship to

29:09 ↗ the icap table

29:11 ↗ um and the per and the reason for number

29:13 ↗ two was it doesn't impact the smaller

29:17 ↗ residential buildings

29:20 ↗ um so you know the missing middle and

29:23 ↗ and such so 10 to 15 units wouldn't have

29:25 ↗ to meet some of those sustainable goals

29:27 ↗ uh or the largest threshold allowed

29:30 ↗ which was 30 000 square feet so somewhat

29:32 ↗ similar but in these three categories

29:36 ↗ so here we are

29:38 ↗ um the last column here was

29:41 ↗ um you know 10 units and 20 000 square

29:44 ↗ feet

29:45 ↗ but there really isn't any

29:48 ↗ um you know the city can adopt anything

29:49 ↗ allowed under the state law so the one

29:52 ↗ version isn't any better the draft that

29:55 ↗ you have in front of you

29:58 ↗ includes the maximum threshold allowed

30:01 ↗ and under the sepa so for single family

30:04 ↗ 30 units 60 units and 30 000 square feet

30:07 ↗ for commercial buildings

30:09 ↗ but the options to choose from are 4 10

30:13 ↗ 20 or 30. or 20 000 or 10 000.

30:18 ↗ um

30:19 ↗ at this time I think the last touch with

30:22 ↗ the planning and policy commission uh

30:25 ↗ while there wasn't a consensus on it but

30:27 ↗ some of the vocal uh opinions we got on

30:30 ↗ this topic was

30:32 ↗ you know General reluctance to raise the

30:35 ↗ threshold to the highest threshold so I

30:38 ↗ think it's a no to go 30 60 and 30 000

30:41 ↗ in general but

30:44 ↗ um really exempting four or less without

30:48 ↗ coupling them with the lead

30:50 ↗ certification requirements so if someone

30:52 ↗ wanted to build two homes

30:54 ↗ they could do that and that wouldn't be

30:56 ↗ exempt from C that would be exempt from

30:58 ↗ cepa we wouldn't require them to get

31:00 ↗ Leed certified so keeping the code AS is

31:03 ↗ for up to four but anything from four to

31:08 ↗ 10 to 20 would be coupled with requiring

31:13 ↗ uh Sustainable Building

31:15 ↗ and and third party certification for

31:17 ↗ that

31:18 ↗ so that's sort of a summary of where we

31:21 ↗ are on this topic so if this committee

31:24 ↗ has any direction for us you know we can

31:27 ↗ talk further on that

31:29 ↗ I think we do have a question at this

31:31 ↗ time council president Walsh thanks okay

31:34 ↗ this one was complicated and I

31:36 ↗ appreciate you going through that as a

31:40 ↗ concept the difference between what's

31:42 ↗ included in the packet and what came out

31:45 ↗ of the PPC meeting because I was kind of

31:46 ↗ confused on that

31:49 ↗ um

31:50 ↗ can you explain what the difference

31:54 ↗ is in development in the developers

31:58 ↗ costs in the results for the city

32:00 ↗ between the kind of Standard

32:03 ↗ Environmental review that's going to

32:06 ↗ happen on any project versus lead gold

32:10 ↗ certified versus the cepa checklist

32:14 ↗ because it's it's well enough to talk

32:17 ↗ about the buckets but I need to know

32:19 ↗ what they mean and what the results will

32:21 ↗ be yeah so a CPA checklist is your

32:25 ↗ typical cipa review process so some of

32:27 ↗ these projects you know if someone were

32:29 ↗ to build a 10 000 square foot building

32:30 ↗ under the existing code and if we go

32:33 ↗ with a 10 000 square foot threshold

32:35 ↗ would fill out a checklist it would

32:37 ↗ evaluate the impact on the environment

32:39 ↗ that you know and we would assess it if

32:43 ↗ it's already covered by a code critical

32:45 ↗ areas steep slopes all of that then we

32:47 ↗ we're not going to ask for CPA

32:49 ↗ mitigation because that you'll get the

32:51 ↗ mitigation by compliance with the city's

32:53 ↗ code

32:54 ↗ we have storm water regulations anything

32:56 ↗ related to that would be covered under

32:58 ↗ that we have concurrency requirements

33:00 ↗ for traffic so storm water traffic and

33:03 ↗ critical areas are generally the things

33:06 ↗ that that CPA mitigation is required for

33:10 ↗ um

33:11 ↗ not to say there could be other you know

33:12 ↗ the checklist has all those categories

33:14 ↗ uh earth water you know any kind of

33:17 ↗ impact to that

33:19 ↗ um so the impact to the applicant would

33:22 ↗ be there's additional review process but

33:25 ↗ the outcome isn't really any different

33:27 ↗ so it's not like the city is going to

33:29 ↗ require mitigation because

33:31 ↗ they're going to comply with the code

33:33 ↗ that those impacts are going to be

33:35 ↗ mitigated by compliance with the code

33:37 ↗ if it was a far-off project

33:41 ↗ that would have an impact on the

33:44 ↗ environment then we could use CPA as a

33:47 ↗ tool to require mitigation and these

33:50 ↗ fees that we talked about the mitigation

33:52 ↗ fees like for police and general

33:54 ↗ services

33:56 ↗ what we heard during the public

33:57 ↗ testimony was you know the the cost

34:00 ↗ increase for these sustainable buildings

34:03 ↗ and third-party certifications for these

34:06 ↗ larger buildings you know they one of

34:09 ↗ the developers said they get basis

34:11 ↗ points from the banks for incorporating

34:13 ↗ sustainable development so it's actually

34:15 ↗ they get a lower rate because they're

34:17 ↗ doing sustainable so they weren't

34:19 ↗ complaining that this is going to add

34:20 ↗ additional cost to

34:23 ↗ um to their project

34:27 ↗ one or two folks have said the

34:29 ↗ certification the lead certification you

34:32 ↗ know it's it's evolving uh right now

34:34 ↗ it's gold but a lot of cities are going

34:36 ↗ towards Platinum

34:38 ↗ certification that's becoming the

34:39 ↗ Baseline so

34:42 ↗ um that you can get a Sustainable

34:44 ↗ Building without going through these

34:46 ↗ certifications which is true for smaller

34:49 ↗ projects these can be costly but for

34:51 ↗ these larger projects

34:53 ↗ um you know that could be

34:55 ↗ um something that would absorb and it's

34:57 ↗ not insignificant but I mean it's not a

35:00 ↗ huge cost to to get that and and based

35:03 ↗ on some testimony from folks they were

35:05 ↗ saying well the lower rates in itself

35:09 ↗ justifies them doing this

35:11 ↗ um

35:12 ↗ so

35:14 ↗ putting people through sipa were as

35:18 ↗ added time and cost and money when the

35:20 ↗ outcome isn't that we're going to ask

35:22 ↗ for any additional mitigation

35:24 ↗ it becomes a redundant process for some

35:27 ↗ of these projects larger projects yes

35:29 ↗ they would be still subject to cipa and

35:32 ↗ we would have that evaluation

35:34 ↗ um I don't know if that provides you

35:36 ↗ enough

35:37 ↗ what you were looking for that gives me

35:39 ↗ a lot and I I think that's useful I

35:42 ↗ think the word larger versus smaller is

35:45 ↗ where it comes into this metric and does

35:50 ↗ that differ when you're talking about

35:52 ↗ office or commercial versus residential

35:56 ↗ whether single family or multi-family is

35:59 ↗ there a point where it's cost effective

36:04 ↗ versus not yeah yeah you know our

36:08 ↗ recommendation would be at a minimum we

36:11 ↗ should raise the threshold from four to

36:12 ↗ ten units because as you've seen none of

36:15 ↗ our peer cities really has four units

36:17 ↗ triggering sipa

36:19 ↗ um whether you want to go up to 20

36:22 ↗ um you know if you stay with 10 10 and

36:24 ↗ 10 000 at least that has brought it

36:27 ↗ Forward uh with the you know so we

36:32 ↗ raised from four thousand to ten

36:34 ↗ thousand square feet and four units to

36:36 ↗ ten units so that's the lower end of

36:40 ↗ getting the you know I think we're

36:42 ↗ planning a policy commission could

36:44 ↗ support that I think they were just

36:46 ↗ uncomfortable going larger because they

36:48 ↗ didn't know what sipa what would we we

36:52 ↗ would get out of cipa and um

36:55 ↗ you know

36:56 ↗ um so

36:58 ↗ from our recommendation is at least we

37:00 ↗ should raise it from four to ten and

37:04 ↗ then from four thousand to ten thousand

37:06 ↗ square feet because there's no point in

37:08 ↗ putting people through a process that is

37:10 ↗ just for the sake of process

37:13 ↗ okay and

37:16 ↗ um one of the things that was kind of

37:18 ↗ helpful for me was in the PPC meetings

37:21 ↗ you guys were kind of talking about

37:24 ↗ um like a 10 000 square foot building

37:27 ↗ was like the chase on Gilman yeah we

37:31 ↗ gave them some examples yeah so what are

37:33 ↗ examples of something that's twenty

37:36 ↗ thousand and thirty thousand I think a

37:38 ↗ city hall was about 35 000 square feet

37:41 ↗ and the library

37:43 ↗ um

37:44 ↗ I can look up

37:46 ↗ um we we had that in the packet I

37:49 ↗ could find it real quick for you okay

37:52 ↗ that that's just a useful metric Chase

37:55 ↗ Bank was about 4 000 square feet so a

37:58 ↗ smaller four thousand yeah okay yeah

38:00 ↗ okay I thought they had mentioned 10.

38:02 ↗ okay

38:03 ↗ I could be wrong but

38:05 ↗ we'll get you those

38:09 ↗ numbers okay

38:10 ↗ um

38:11 ↗ I had a question one of our goals with

38:13 ↗ this land use code update is to align

38:17 ↗ with best practices and oftentimes we're

38:19 ↗ looking at pure cities as you are here

38:20 ↗ so do any of our peer cities

38:23 ↗ have a combination of the this sort of

38:26 ↗ lead

38:27 ↗ no so this is but okay so none of our

38:31 ↗ peer cities have this kind of

38:33 ↗ combination approach but from developers

38:36 ↗ standpoint they they were supportive

38:39 ↗ according to the public comment that you

38:41 ↗ were summarizing is that right yeah

38:44 ↗ okay thank you I mean we could have it

38:47 ↗ separated out we could just have super

38:49 ↗ thresholds you require sleep or not and

38:51 ↗ then we could have Sustainable Building

38:53 ↗ developments as a separate threshold

38:55 ↗ anything larger than this you need to go

38:58 ↗ we won't there is an added incentive for

39:01 ↗ folks to do sustainable buildings and

39:04 ↗ give them an out from sipa

39:07 ↗ so yeah that's an option for the

39:09 ↗ committee if you want us to keep them

39:11 ↗ separate

39:14 ↗ okay thank you

39:22 ↗ should I move on to the next topic

39:25 ↗ we have some answers on the Square

39:28 ↗ footages okay

39:30 ↗ so if we get the square footage we'll

39:31 ↗ come back to that

39:33 ↗ forested Hillside preservation so this

39:36 ↗ is a brand new chapter

39:37 ↗ uh and this is was written to meet goal

39:42 ↗ number one protect forested hillsides

39:44 ↗ the critical area code really

39:47 ↗ um

39:49 ↗ regulate slopes 40 or more and you know

39:53 ↗ development is prohibited on those kind

39:55 ↗ of slopes but anything below 40 percent

39:57 ↗ we didn't have any design standards so

40:00 ↗ so this chapter was created to create

40:04 ↗ um some standards

40:06 ↗ um there is some flexibility built in it

40:08 ↗ for wall Heights terracing grading

40:11 ↗ standards if the ultimate goal is to

40:14 ↗ protect those standards so that's a

40:17 ↗ section in there

40:19 ↗ um and then you know primarily to kind

40:21 ↗ of follow the natural Contours protect

40:24 ↗ pedestrian environment visual impacts

40:26 ↗ that that's been the intent of all of

40:28 ↗ this one of the things

40:31 ↗ um

40:33 ↗ um we um you know nuances of this thing

40:37 ↗ is also the retaining walls and the

40:39 ↗ heights so we've added a lot of Graphics

40:41 ↗ in this section to kind of talk about

40:43 ↗ where you can put the road which what is

40:45 ↗ it out and what isn't allowed

40:47 ↗ um subdivision design I think one of the

40:50 ↗ questions uh councilmember Walsh you had

40:52 ↗ was

40:54 ↗ um if um

40:56 ↗ if the the whole purpose is to

41:00 ↗ um

41:02 ↗ um require

41:04 ↗ um some of these things

41:06 ↗ um that all lots are same will that

41:09 ↗ actually be the intent that was not the

41:11 ↗ intent uh to uh you know say all Lots

41:15 ↗ will have the same kind of topography

41:17 ↗ but the intent is that you would

41:18 ↗ preserve uh the steeper sides of the

41:21 ↗ slope parts of the slope so it wasn't

41:23 ↗ that you create some flat lots and then

41:25 ↗ one lot that's extremely steep so we'll

41:28 ↗ fix the language uh related to that I

41:30 ↗ think you were asking couldn't someone

41:32 ↗ create a portion of the site as a TDR so

41:36 ↗ I think the intent is still to be for

41:37 ↗ folks to be able to do that so we'll

41:40 ↗ we'll make sure the language reflects

41:42 ↗ that

41:43 ↗ um and then you know the other thing we

41:46 ↗ get into the retaining wall and the

41:48 ↗ maximum Heights and things of this

41:49 ↗ nature to come into play is what happens

41:54 ↗ with the street projects so sometimes

41:56 ↗ you know by requiring the the walls

41:59 ↗ along the streets to be four feet you're

42:01 ↗ chasing the slope which ends up clear

42:04 ↗ cutting the steep slopes which is

42:06 ↗ counter to the intent of preserving the

42:08 ↗ hillside so we have some exemptions

42:10 ↗ related to that

42:12 ↗ whereas the end goal is to protect the

42:14 ↗ forested hillsides protect the tree

42:16 ↗ canopy

42:18 ↗ um and then accessory and temporary uses

42:21 ↗ this is where you heard some of the

42:23 ↗ public testimony here and and really the

42:26 ↗ intent here was to clarify not make any

42:28 ↗ substantive changes so the heliport

42:31 ↗ standards we had some stuff which is

42:34 ↗ heavily regulated by FAA so we've

42:36 ↗ eliminated that the food trucks um I

42:39 ↗ think

42:40 ↗ um just as a little background so right

42:43 ↗ now the process is they apply for a

42:45 ↗ business license they have to get a King

42:47 ↗ County Health Department approval and we

42:50 ↗ look at whether it's a permitted use

42:52 ↗ where they're located on the site and

42:54 ↗ all of this review is done as part of

42:56 ↗ the business license now the business

42:58 ↗ license used to be you know they had to

43:00 ↗ get a permit from the city but now it's

43:02 ↗ all Consolidated where it's applied

43:04 ↗ through the state so that's

43:05 ↗ consolidation of the business license

43:07 ↗ they apply for the uba you know their

43:10 ↗ all their state licenses and then we get

43:13 ↗ notified and then we do this informal

43:15 ↗ review for the food trucks as and via

43:19 ↗ email so it's it's captured under the

43:21 ↗ business license so the intent was to

43:24 ↗ kind of simplify it for the folks that

43:26 ↗ come into the city to do this business

43:27 ↗ and also

43:29 ↗ to have some clarity along what are we

43:33 ↗ reviewing it for

43:35 ↗ um I think the the biggest a change was

43:39 ↗ because these are temporary uses I think

43:42 ↗ there was a placeholder put in to say a

43:44 ↗ 60-day maximum time frame on private

43:47 ↗ property and I believe a week along the

43:49 ↗ streets I think what we heard from the

43:51 ↗ public testimony is there's a four hour

43:54 ↗ limit for parking on the street anyway

43:56 ↗ so seven seven days doesn't really make

43:58 ↗ a whole lot of sense

44:00 ↗ regardless the PPC discussion on this

44:03 ↗ was uh perhaps it's an annual renewal uh

44:08 ↗ license so you create a streamlined

44:11 ↗ permit where they submit a site plan

44:13 ↗ they show that it meets fire lane and

44:16 ↗ and doesn't impede the traffic and you

44:18 ↗ know safety considerations so a simple

44:20 ↗ site plan that's submitted through the

44:23 ↗ permitting process and then perhaps an

44:26 ↗ annual renewal so if there's no problem

44:28 ↗ you know it's just an automatic renewal

44:30 ↗ or some sort of a streamlined permit

44:33 ↗ process with a renewal built into that

44:38 ↗ um and then the sustainable micro

44:40 ↗ infrastructure was really taking what's

44:43 ↗ already in the code but consolidating

44:45 ↗ the language to provide some clarity so

44:48 ↗ those were the changes under the

44:49 ↗ accessory and temporary uses

44:52 ↗ um so we asked planning apology should

44:54 ↗ we should these be limited for long and

44:57 ↗ I just mentioned what what their

44:59 ↗ feedback was and should it be a separate

45:01 ↗ permit operating in private property I

45:03 ↗ think there was some

45:04 ↗ desire to know where these are located

45:06 ↗ within the city uh whether it happens

45:09 ↗ through a business license or a separate

45:11 ↗ permit uh just with the idea of having a

45:14 ↗ streamlined process that isn't

45:18 ↗ um confusing for folks now we didn't get

45:21 ↗ into whether we should limit

45:24 ↗ one per property have more than one

45:27 ↗ property but those are all things you

45:29 ↗ know the committee can let us know if

45:32 ↗ those are things we should explore

45:35 ↗ um or not

45:37 ↗ these food trucks are not allowed in

45:40 ↗ residential zones

45:42 ↗ and you know one of the things that the

45:45 ↗ King County health department requires

45:46 ↗ is an access to a restroom and so and

45:50 ↗ then there there's some fire regulations

45:52 ↗ and things like that that come into play

45:54 ↗ so if there was a vacant residential lot

45:57 ↗ uh they couldn't come in and get a

45:59 ↗ business license to put a food truck

46:00 ↗ there

46:03 ↗ um through block passages

46:06 ↗ so the biggest change here was you know

46:09 ↗ this was a section in a a requirement in

46:13 ↗ the central Issaquah plan we heard loud

46:15 ↗ and clear that these if if we require

46:17 ↗ them they don't really function they

46:20 ↗ look like private through block you know

46:21 ↗ people don't know whether these are

46:23 ↗ public through block connections it was

46:25 ↗ a lot of confusion among staff and the

46:28 ↗ applicants and then for general public

46:30 ↗ that use these so our intent here was to

46:33 ↗ really clarify where these would go how

46:37 ↗ these would function how these would be

46:39 ↗ signed that these are public places

46:42 ↗ um

46:43 ↗ so we've attempted to create a map which

46:46 ↗ isn't like these have to be in these

46:48 ↗ locations but more about these are

46:51 ↗ general area where it would make sense

46:53 ↗ to have these connections

46:55 ↗ um but that's only in central Issaquah

46:57 ↗ we've added some language to have these

47:00 ↗ um in the rest of the city but it's

47:02 ↗ pretty broad

47:04 ↗ um section I think there was a question

47:06 ↗ from you uh council president Walsh

47:08 ↗ about Talus and Highlands so there are

47:12 ↗ in the replacement regulation sections

47:15 ↗ about trails in both of those sections

47:17 ↗ that got carried forward from the

47:18 ↗ development agreement times

47:20 ↗ and we're looking at that to uh to move

47:24 ↗ into the street Section Street standard

47:27 ↗ section uh but we'll we'll take a second

47:30 ↗ look at to make sure the intent of where

47:33 ↗ those Trails have to come in is carried

47:34 ↗ forward in Title 18 for tallison and

47:37 ↗ Highlands so I think you were concerned

47:40 ↗ about if there was a Redevelopment would

47:42 ↗ we still have the ability to get those

47:44 ↗ so um we want to preserve that ability

47:47 ↗ which I as far as I know we're looking

47:51 ↗ at in the street section but we'll carry

47:53 ↗ forward some language in the True Blood

47:54 ↗ connection or at least a reference to

47:56 ↗ that section

47:58 ↗ um

47:59 ↗ and we have a question before you go on

48:02 ↗ please

48:02 ↗ okay can you explain why in one area of

48:07 ↗ the city this would be handled through

48:09 ↗ you said basically a Trails map whereas

48:13 ↗ the other would be through a through

48:15 ↗ block passage yeah that's how it's

48:17 ↗ currently set up so anything in Talus

48:21 ↗ and Highlands has a Trails connection a

48:23 ↗ multi-use trail a wounder you know these

48:25 ↗ are things that have specific standards

48:28 ↗ and those are in the replacement

48:29 ↗ regulations there's a section in there

48:31 ↗ for those those things they aren't

48:33 ↗ called through block connection it they

48:36 ↗ aren't

48:37 ↗ standards that every so many feet you

48:39 ↗ have to have them kind of a thing so

48:43 ↗ um

48:44 ↗ but but all of those connections were

48:46 ↗ developed as part of the development

48:48 ↗ agreement

48:49 ↗ but when a development occurs

48:52 ↗ those come into play

48:54 ↗ um I don't know Stephen if you have

48:56 ↗ anything to add to how Highlands and

48:58 ↗ Telesis is being carried forward I think

49:01 ↗ what I would add is that

49:03 ↗ um when we were putting together the

49:05 ↗ development agreements we set up

49:08 ↗ multiple different standards of what a

49:10 ↗ voonor or even a trail is which is why

49:12 ↗ it's very similar to what the through

49:13 ↗ block passage looks like Central so

49:17 ↗ we were calling him different things

49:18 ↗ even though they're performing and

49:20 ↗ operating the same and so that's part of

49:22 ↗ what we're trying to simplify with the

49:24 ↗ updated code is ruiners are upright

49:28 ↗ these kind of options Trails provide

49:30 ↗ these kind of options and through block

49:31 ↗ passages particularly in central is this

49:34 ↗ option which is primarily just going to

49:37 ↗ be non-motorized access to break up the

49:39 ↗ blocks

49:43 ↗ coming through that then I have

49:47 ↗ two areas of concern one is like

49:51 ↗ this concept of however the trails were

49:55 ↗ designed in the highlands

50:00 ↗ is very easily recognizable as public

50:03 ↗ access and so whatever is there is there

50:07 ↗ a way to capture that in this

50:10 ↗ through block passage design

50:14 ↗ because it obviously there's some kind

50:16 ↗ of aesthetic there that's not just

50:18 ↗ related to there's a sign so is there a

50:22 ↗ way to use that

50:24 ↗ in here

50:26 ↗ yes there is uh part of it when it was

50:29 ↗ designed in Highlands it's part of a

50:30 ↗ larger deck work so when you get to a

50:31 ↗ street you see a connection across it's

50:34 ↗ it's a little more intuitive that it's a

50:36 ↗ public access and that's how we're

50:38 ↗ designing the code or at least the

50:40 ↗ standards for through block passages for

50:42 ↗ Central okay and then the second part is

50:45 ↗ obviously

50:47 ↗ with the highlands and Talus making sure

50:50 ↗ that these through blocks are continued

50:53 ↗ to be required if any Redevelopment

50:56 ↗ happens so it sounds like you're saying

50:58 ↗ that isn't currently

51:01 ↗ protected or required with this version

51:05 ↗ of the code is that right

51:09 ↗ that is correct we don't have a section

51:11 ↗ on Talus and Highlands in this current

51:13 ↗ draft

51:14 ↗ we are caring for some of the

51:17 ↗ regulations that would be applied

51:19 ↗ city-wide so that trails and the through

51:22 ↗ block passages can be applied

51:23 ↗ particularly with like cluster housing

51:25 ↗ which was part of the discussion that we

51:27 ↗ had with the commission okay so is there

51:30 ↗ anything we can do to include that

51:33 ↗ because that that seems well I'll save

51:36 ↗ my comments for later but yeah

51:44 ↗ you can proceed I think thank you

51:48 ↗ so

51:49 ↗ um

51:50 ↗ and then you know we added some flexible

51:52 ↗ some language for deviations from these

51:55 ↗ things because they you can't for know

51:57 ↗ for sure depending on the type of

51:58 ↗ projects it is and all that so but

52:01 ↗ there's some clear guidance on how the

52:03 ↗ deviations would be processed and what

52:06 ↗ the criteria is for that

52:09 ↗ um

52:10 ↗ and then I think

52:11 ↗ um the discussion with the PPC was what

52:14 ↗ about the other neighborhoods not these

52:16 ↗ three but other neighborhoods should we

52:18 ↗ require that so we have some language uh

52:20 ↗ which is more broad that if there is an

52:22 ↗ opportunity to have these connections

52:24 ↗ you could get that but

52:27 ↗ um but but the real work you know could

52:29 ↗ occur as we talk go through the

52:31 ↗ comprehensive plan updates and have

52:33 ↗ these neighborhood meetings and

52:35 ↗ neighborhood plans at that time some of

52:37 ↗ these connections and Trail connections

52:39 ↗ and all those things can be further

52:40 ↗ explored and then they can be codified

52:42 ↗ into the code

52:44 ↗ through the neighborhood planning

52:46 ↗ process

52:47 ↗ that pretty much concludes this these

52:52 ↗ topics and just so

52:55 ↗ um everyone's clear on the next steps

52:58 ↗ um so you know we'll get your

53:01 ↗ recommendation or your guidance or

53:03 ↗ Direction tonight then we will fold all

53:06 ↗ of that into the Consolidated draft that

53:09 ↗ will be at a public in November

53:11 ↗ and we'll be back to city council this

53:16 ↗ Committee in December with ppc's

53:18 ↗ recommendation if they're able to

53:19 ↗ finalize by then

53:22 ↗ that concludes my presentation okay

53:26 ↗ thank you do we have additional

53:27 ↗ questions at this time okay I I did have

53:30 ↗ one question which is on the food trucks

53:32 ↗ one

53:34 ↗ so the food trucks is listed under

53:37 ↗ temporary uses and you said there were

53:40 ↗ going to be changes made to those time

53:42 ↗ limits but then if the if the food truck

53:44 ↗ is there for multiple years is that then

53:48 ↗ because it's it's a accessory user at

53:52 ↗ the main use is that the distinction

53:56 ↗ correct so um I mean right now that's

53:59 ↗ that's what what happens they apply for

54:01 ↗ a business license they have to renew

54:04 ↗ their business license every year uh but

54:07 ↗ it just it's an automatic renewal so we

54:09 ↗ would carry forward the same sort of an

54:12 ↗ understanding that

54:14 ↗ um it's a annual renewal process

54:18 ↗ okay so for for business owners then

54:21 ↗ what would be the difference with the

54:23 ↗ new code versus the process for

54:26 ↗ that was previously in place before or

54:28 ↗ actually now since we have to talk to

54:30 ↗ this new code the draft had the language

54:32 ↗ about 60 days only and then that's all

54:36 ↗ that you could do uh there could be you

54:39 ↗ know

54:40 ↗ um that that was implying that you have

54:42 ↗ to move your truck every 60 days uh to a

54:45 ↗ different site and go through that

54:48 ↗ process again that's not how we do food

54:51 ↗ truck licensing right now

54:53 ↗ but that was put to you know that was

54:56 ↗ put in the draft

54:58 ↗ um based on the ppc's discussion uh I

55:01 ↗ think was to not have that limit of 60

55:04 ↗ days but have some sort of an annual

55:06 ↗ renewal process which would be what we

55:08 ↗ do now with the business license whether

55:09 ↗ it's a business license or a streamlined

55:12 ↗ permit process

55:15 ↗ um that can be decided

55:18 ↗ okay so so then the packet the materials

55:22 ↗ that we have don't reflect the changes

55:24 ↗ that you would intend to make as a

55:27 ↗ result of the PPC discussion in any

55:29 ↗ event yeah but the draft you have is the

55:31 ↗ one PPC head yep okay

55:34 ↗ all right

55:35 ↗ um thank you that was my question any

55:38 ↗ additional questions okay

55:40 ↗ um well then at this time I will call

55:42 ↗ for public comment on this item so I'll

55:45 ↗ check in with Kirk user if there is

55:47 ↗ anyone on the line to make bubble

55:50 ↗ comment and I will note that there are

55:51 ↗ no members of the public

55:56 ↗ um

55:58 ↗ we don't have any members of the public

56:00 ↗ virtually if you'd like I can quickly

56:02 ↗ ask them if they want to make calls okay

56:13 ↗ I'm sorry

56:38 ↗ okay so

56:40 ↗ um I will check in with the clerk if

56:42 ↗ there's anyone on the line

56:43 ↗ virtually

56:45 ↗ no one from the public is on the line

56:47 ↗ any longer okay

56:49 ↗ um

56:50 ↗ I'll just

56:51 ↗ pause for a minute then and

56:54 ↗ might call it a recess actually

56:58 ↗ okay

56:59 ↗ um

57:00 ↗ I'll call a five minute recess

57:03 ↗ and so we'll be back in five minutes and

57:08 ↗ then thank you

59:49 ↗ foreign

59:53 ↗ all right we are back

59:56 ↗ um thank you for that quick break and

59:59 ↗ um at this time I will go into public

1:00:02 ↗ comment but first I just wanted to

1:00:03 ↗ re-ask

1:00:05 ↗ um the question that I asked right

1:00:07 ↗ before the break um so that we can we

1:00:09 ↗ can have a shared understanding on this

1:00:11 ↗ so for the food trucks code there was

1:00:14 ↗ that temporary uses table which

1:00:16 ↗ indicated 60 days for example

1:00:19 ↗ um for and then you would have to move

1:00:21 ↗ the food truck and so can you explain

1:00:24 ↗ ppc's recommendation on that and what

1:00:27 ↗ staff will intend to the changes that

1:00:30 ↗ staff intends to make to that code as a

1:00:32 ↗ result of ppc's conversation and then

1:00:35 ↗ additionally be great if you could

1:00:37 ↗ summarize any changes for food truck

1:00:39 ↗ owners in terms of how how operations

1:00:42 ↗ will go from the current way that we do

1:00:46 ↗ licensing and permitting to the proposed

1:00:50 ↗ code once the ppc's recommendations

1:00:53 ↗ would have been implemented

1:00:56 ↗ uh sure

1:00:57 ↗ um so the planning and policy Commission

1:01:00 ↗ on on the two topics the timing

1:01:03 ↗ um requirements that were added in the

1:01:05 ↗ draft was to not have a 60-day limit but

1:01:09 ↗ have some sort of an annual renewal

1:01:11 ↗ permit so you would approve them for a

1:01:13 ↗ year but they would get come in and get

1:01:15 ↗ a renewal

1:01:16 ↗ based on every every year which is how

1:01:20 ↗ things are done right now because they

1:01:22 ↗ apply for a business license all the

1:01:24 ↗ review occurs under the business license

1:01:25 ↗ and a business license is renewed every

1:01:28 ↗ year

1:01:29 ↗ on the topic of permit whether it should

1:01:32 ↗ be still bundled under the business

1:01:34 ↗ license or have some sort of a

1:01:36 ↗ streamlined permit process

1:01:39 ↗ the the fact that the business license

1:01:41 ↗ review was Consolidated with the state

1:01:43 ↗ review some of this review is occurring

1:01:45 ↗ via email so we're looking at creating a

1:01:49 ↗ streamlined permit process where they

1:01:51 ↗ could apply simple site plan location

1:01:55 ↗ um and you know that can be verified to

1:01:58 ↗ meet whether the user is allowed whether

1:02:00 ↗ it meets the setbacks whether it's

1:02:03 ↗ creating any traffic hazards or or not

1:02:06 ↗ and meet fire code requirements so and

1:02:08 ↗ has a King County Public Health

1:02:09 ↗ Department approval so a minimal review

1:02:12 ↗ to meet the safety considerations like

1:02:14 ↗ that and the use is permitted piece

1:02:17 ↗ um so we're looking at creating some

1:02:19 ↗ sort of a permit that within automatic

1:02:22 ↗ renewal so that'll be included in the

1:02:24 ↗ final Consolidated draft with the public

1:02:26 ↗ Hearing in November

1:02:28 ↗ that we can circulate to all parties of

1:02:31 ↗ record for for the topic to weigh in

1:02:34 ↗ okay thank you

1:02:36 ↗ um so that was my last question do you

1:02:38 ↗ have additional questions no so then um

1:02:40 ↗ at this time I'll call for public

1:02:42 ↗ comments on this item

1:02:45 ↗ um and if you could please if you are

1:02:48 ↗ wishing make a public comment if you

1:02:49 ↗ could please step to the lectern and

1:02:52 ↗ state your name address and relationship

1:02:54 ↗ to the city and please also limit your

1:02:57 ↗ comments to five minutes

1:02:59 ↗ you can oh and yes um there's a button

1:03:02 ↗ all right great thank you how's

1:03:05 ↗ everybody doing uh my name is Laz and I

1:03:07 ↗ own laza's Tacos on 25 the Northwest

1:03:10 ↗ Gilman Boulevard at the Chevron gas

1:03:12 ↗ station

1:03:13 ↗ um I'm new to the food truck industry so

1:03:16 ↗ it's a learning process for me as well

1:03:19 ↗ um but I did my research and uh I have

1:03:21 ↗ all the permits that I need I have the

1:03:23 ↗ city permits

1:03:25 ↗ um

1:03:26 ↗ the health department permits and um

1:03:29 ↗ I think it's just in a great area as far

1:03:31 ↗ as being on a private property

1:03:34 ↗ um you know I consider myself a

1:03:35 ↗ restaurant but you know

1:03:37 ↗ also a food truck at the same time even

1:03:39 ↗ though I'm not mobile some of my permits

1:03:41 ↗ aren't for for moving around I can't go

1:03:44 ↗ and park at a different uh spot or

1:03:46 ↗ something to sell because I don't have

1:03:48 ↗ those type of permits I'm stuck where my

1:03:51 ↗ address is at my billing address and my

1:03:53 ↗ physical address

1:03:55 ↗ um like I said um I'm just new to

1:03:58 ↗ everything and I just wanna

1:04:00 ↗ let everybody know that you know I'm

1:04:01 ↗ there but you know I'm learning at the

1:04:04 ↗ same time so

1:04:05 ↗ yeah and then

1:04:07 ↗ as far as moving the truck or being on a

1:04:10 ↗ private property whether the regulations

1:04:12 ↗ that you guys are trying to make is you

1:04:14 ↗ guys don't want it to be there like

1:04:16 ↗ permanently do we have to take it home

1:04:18 ↗ or you know take it to a uh

1:04:20 ↗ um like you know some other place where

1:04:23 ↗ you don't want it I guess there every

1:04:25 ↗ night it can be moved you know and

1:04:27 ↗ brought back every morning however I

1:04:29 ↗ don't know what type of regulations you

1:04:31 ↗ guys were trying to make and changes

1:04:33 ↗ but as far as uh right now yeah it stays

1:04:35 ↗ it stays there and it's permanently

1:04:37 ↗ there

1:04:39 ↗ and yeah that's about it

1:04:42 ↗ thank you very much for the come

1:04:45 ↗ click users anyone else joined us online

1:04:48 ↗ like to make comment no okay then I will

1:04:51 ↗ close public comments on this topic and

1:04:53 ↗ we can then um begin our committee

1:04:56 ↗ deliberations and I think we can just go

1:05:00 ↗ through the items in the order that they

1:05:02 ↗ were presented so if you could um pull

1:05:05 ↗ up the first item which I believe was

1:05:07 ↗ the Wireless Communications then we can

1:05:09 ↗ just just threw them that way

1:05:49 ↗ okay thank you

1:05:53 ↗ um so on this on this one I don't think

1:05:55 ↗ we have any policy questions for us so

1:05:58 ↗ for this one I think um I don't think

1:06:01 ↗ there's any questions okay go ahead

1:06:03 ↗ council president yeah I just had one

1:06:05 ↗ comment

1:06:07 ↗ um commissioner Lewis had mentioned

1:06:09 ↗ asking for images that have people to

1:06:11 ↗ scale and I just thought that was a

1:06:13 ↗ really good concept to call out um for

1:06:16 ↗ any of the pictures in that scenario

1:06:19 ↗ because sometimes it's hard to

1:06:20 ↗ understand how large really one of the

1:06:24 ↗ wireless facilities is but otherwise I I

1:06:26 ↗ agreed with the changes that were made

1:06:28 ↗ in

1:06:29 ↗ we had touched on this topic pretty

1:06:31 ↗ quick uh recently so yep

1:06:35 ↗ um and I think your questions via email

1:06:37 ↗ had some food for thought in terms of

1:06:41 ↗ the the categories for those two so

1:06:42 ↗ we'll look at clarifying some language

1:06:44 ↗ in those categories

1:06:50 ↗ okay I think we I I am

1:06:52 ↗ um I understand the reasons for these

1:06:54 ↗ ones and I agree we recently updated

1:06:56 ↗ this code so I um

1:06:58 ↗ I think we can move to the next item

1:07:08 ↗ do you like to start on this one happy

1:07:10 ↗ to start

1:07:12 ↗ um

1:07:13 ↗ I'll start with a little bit of

1:07:16 ↗ just frustration in going back and

1:07:20 ↗ watching the meetings with development

1:07:22 ↗ commission PPC those are hard to watch

1:07:24 ↗ it was a lot of chaos a lot of

1:07:26 ↗ misunderstanding there so

1:07:30 ↗ I'd like to apologize in the first place

1:07:33 ↗ to the Commissioners if I kind of take a

1:07:35 ↗ different tact because I just didn't

1:07:37 ↗ feel like there was an overarching

1:07:40 ↗ conversation that really happened there

1:07:43 ↗ and solidified in the same way that many

1:07:45 ↗ of their others do

1:07:47 ↗ um

1:07:48 ↗ when I'm looking at the cepa thresholds

1:07:50 ↗ first of all seeing that other

1:07:53 ↗ neighborhood cities have increased this

1:07:56 ↗ and hearing from director dollywall

1:07:59 ↗ about hey we already require a lot of

1:08:02 ↗ these mitigations because we have things

1:08:04 ↗ in our code that directly address

1:08:06 ↗ certain areas

1:08:08 ↗ I start to think about well what are we

1:08:10 ↗ losing out when a developer looks at our

1:08:13 ↗ code and says you're going to make me do

1:08:16 ↗ a cepa checklist if I want to build five

1:08:19 ↗ units or 4 000 square feet so

1:08:23 ↗ if one of our goals is to improve the

1:08:27 ↗ ability of missing metal

1:08:30 ↗ I'm going to look at this and say hey

1:08:32 ↗ maybe this is a barrier

1:08:34 ↗ so I'm pretty comfortable with moving

1:08:40 ↗ the sepa threshold up to 20

1:08:46 ↗ or maybe even 30 units or maybe 20 units

1:08:50 ↗ and 30 000 square feet for the offices

1:08:54 ↗ and Commercial I think we're already

1:08:56 ↗ going to get

1:08:58 ↗ a fair amount of environmental

1:09:02 ↗ um you know building Wise from the

1:09:04 ↗ building code that the state has adopted

1:09:08 ↗ um

1:09:09 ↗ so I'm generally

1:09:13 ↗ feeling a little bit

1:09:16 ↗ okay with moving up a little bit higher

1:09:18 ↗ than I think PPC Headroom recommended

1:09:23 ↗ um

1:09:25 ↗ and I think I would probably need a

1:09:28 ↗ little bit more information about the

1:09:31 ↗ costs of lead

1:09:34 ↗ certification for the single family and

1:09:38 ↗ multi-family residential I think what

1:09:42 ↗ you've clarified is for bigger projects

1:09:46 ↗ of some sort

1:09:47 ↗ it makes cost-effective sense because of

1:09:50 ↗ the rates that they can get from Banks I

1:09:53 ↗ just

1:09:54 ↗ I want to make sure that we're not

1:09:57 ↗ pushing that too far down that

1:10:00 ↗ somebody who's looking at a potential

1:10:02 ↗ project of like

1:10:05 ↗ six multi-family units if the lead gold

1:10:09 ↗ certification makes it

1:10:11 ↗ too expensive that they would choose to

1:10:13 ↗ go down to four

1:10:15 ↗ and so I just want a little bit more

1:10:18 ↗ information a little bit of

1:10:22 ↗ understanding or you know something

1:10:24 ↗ that's going to say

1:10:25 ↗ whatever choice we make here isn't going

1:10:28 ↗ to hurt our opportunities for missing

1:10:31 ↗ middle

1:10:32 ↗ so that's kind of where I'm thinking

1:10:35 ↗ about things I'm interested to hear what

1:10:38 ↗ you've got

1:10:42 ↗ okay thank you council president Walsh

1:10:45 ↗ um so I

1:10:47 ↗ was reflecting on that one of our goals

1:10:50 ↗ with this update is to um align with

1:10:53 ↗ best practices and we've had code that

1:10:57 ↗ in the you know one of our goals is to

1:10:59 ↗ make the code more predictable and more

1:11:01 ↗ understandable and easy to follow and

1:11:03 ↗ consistent and we've looked to peer

1:11:04 ↗ cities on a number of things including

1:11:06 ↗ this so I do have a concern about

1:11:11 ↗ um

1:11:12 ↗ adding this layer of complexity with the

1:11:15 ↗ lead certification options in addition

1:11:18 ↗ to the cipa and kind of having this

1:11:21 ↗ combined system when none of our

1:11:24 ↗ neighbor cities have that it seems like

1:11:26 ↗ adding a complexity and also bringing us

1:11:29 ↗ out of line with what other neighboring

1:11:31 ↗ cities are doing

1:11:33 ↗ um I I agreed with council president

1:11:37 ↗ Walsh on the comments about aligning

1:11:40 ↗ with their neighboring cities so I think

1:11:41 ↗ for me I was looking at more like

1:11:44 ↗ Bellevue which has it's not all the way

1:11:46 ↗ up to the maximum allowed by the state

1:11:48 ↗ but it's a middle ground it is one of

1:11:50 ↗ our neighboring cities and they have 10

1:11:53 ↗ units for example in the single family

1:11:54 ↗ residential

1:11:56 ↗ so I think that I think

1:12:00 ↗ aligning especially as as was stated

1:12:02 ↗ that it doesn't the super review is

1:12:05 ↗ maybe not very

1:12:07 ↗ effective at these small number of units

1:12:10 ↗ in any event

1:12:11 ↗ um so I I would with given that guidance

1:12:13 ↗ from staff I would also be be okay with

1:12:17 ↗ and supportive of increasing to

1:12:19 ↗ something like 10 units

1:12:22 ↗ um or that Bellevue column basically

1:12:24 ↗ which kind of a middle ground column and

1:12:26 ↗ I'm also very interested in making sure

1:12:28 ↗ that we do have incentives for Leed

1:12:30 ↗ certified buildings and green buildings

1:12:32 ↗ but I would I would like to provide a

1:12:35 ↗ separate route from that not have it be

1:12:38 ↗ become something where it's Unique to

1:12:40 ↗ Issaquah that you have these you know

1:12:42 ↗ this interchangeable set of uh sipa and

1:12:47 ↗ lead certification type options I also

1:12:50 ↗ don't think they quite do the exactly

1:12:51 ↗ the same thing so that's another reason

1:12:54 ↗ why I didn't necessarily support

1:12:56 ↗ coupling them

1:12:58 ↗ um so yeah I don't know if there's if it

1:13:01 ↗ sounded like you had considered options

1:13:03 ↗ where you could have a Green Building

1:13:06 ↗ program lead certification but separate

1:13:07 ↗ from the the cepa thresholds and so I

1:13:10 ↗ think that would be more what I was

1:13:12 ↗ interested in I'm definitely very

1:13:13 ↗ interested in the lead certification

1:13:14 ↗ just not the

1:13:15 ↗ the closely linking to this Cuba

1:13:25 ↗ so it's my understanding that one of the

1:13:28 ↗ reasons that the lead gold was brought

1:13:30 ↗ up for this was because we don't have

1:13:33 ↗ the new building code which would really

1:13:38 ↗ do many of the same things so when is

1:13:41 ↗ that building code

1:13:43 ↗ potentially going to be adopted because

1:13:45 ↗ it's the state version of that and it is

1:13:48 ↗ my understanding of that correct that

1:13:51 ↗ what we were trying to accomplish was

1:13:53 ↗ get the same types of things that the

1:13:55 ↗ building code would allow

1:13:57 ↗ but earlier

1:13:59 ↗ yeah so the State Building Code goes

1:14:02 ↗ into effect July of next year 2023 it

1:14:06 ↗ has a bunch of things you know on-site

1:14:08 ↗ renewable energy generation is required

1:14:11 ↗ for commercial buildings over ten

1:14:12 ↗ thousand square feet you know even

1:14:15 ↗ internally there's some lighting levels

1:14:17 ↗ for open spaces so it the whole goal

1:14:20 ↗ there is energy you know reduction and

1:14:24 ↗ it does it in a multiple kind of ways so

1:14:26 ↗ it isn't requiring certification or

1:14:28 ↗ anything like that but it just meets

1:14:30 ↗ those energy conservation goals

1:14:33 ↗ so that goes into effect next year

1:14:36 ↗ Council will have to adopt it and you

1:14:38 ↗ know will bring forward an ordinance and

1:14:40 ↗ all that for you but

1:14:43 ↗ the the other you know so that goes into

1:14:46 ↗ effect and then we can have a more

1:14:47 ↗ robust discussion with the icap

1:14:49 ↗ implementation of what

1:14:52 ↗ um Sustainable Building program looks

1:14:53 ↗ like but that's on the Whiteboard

1:14:56 ↗ um and this was supposed to be a stop

1:14:58 ↗ Gap measure that if some really big

1:14:59 ↗ building was going to be built in

1:15:01 ↗ Issaquah and we have all these goals uh

1:15:04 ↗ adopted by the icap that we would at

1:15:06 ↗ least require larger buildings to be

1:15:07 ↗ third party certified now historically

1:15:10 ↗ Issaquah has required homes in Highlands

1:15:13 ↗ and Talus all to be third party

1:15:15 ↗ certified so the way that processes work

1:15:17 ↗ through the development agreement

1:15:19 ↗ they're required to be built Green

1:15:20 ↗ certified and before we give them the

1:15:22 ↗ final inspection we get a report that

1:15:25 ↗ they complete you know that they meet

1:15:26 ↗ the Bill Green certification and then of

1:15:28 ↗ course we had the Z homes you know so

1:15:31 ↗ we've been on uh on the way of getting

1:15:34 ↗ some of this through development

1:15:36 ↗ agreements or through some other

1:15:37 ↗ incentives so that isn't new however

1:15:40 ↗ anywhere rest of the city

1:15:42 ↗ um you know it could be an added cost to

1:15:45 ↗ get Bill Green certification for an

1:15:46 ↗ average homeowner to that's building a

1:15:48 ↗ new home so we want to be thoughtful

1:15:51 ↗ about that give them options for meeting

1:15:53 ↗ the same goals but not necessarily a

1:15:55 ↗ third party certification and

1:15:57 ↗ third-party certification is also

1:15:58 ↗ evolving

1:16:00 ↗ um and then we have other projects like

1:16:02 ↗ the Poplar building that use the CLT and

1:16:05 ↗ meet some of those require you know

1:16:07 ↗ Sustainable Building goals but isn't

1:16:09 ↗ necessarily A certified lead certified

1:16:13 ↗ kind of thing so

1:16:16 ↗ um so this was our attempt at with this

1:16:18 ↗ code update we at least have a stop Gap

1:16:21 ↗ measure for larger buildings to be

1:16:23 ↗ required to be third party certified and

1:16:26 ↗ PPC agreed with that when we had that

1:16:28 ↗ discussion with them separate from the

1:16:30 ↗ cepa and those were the three options we

1:16:32 ↗ laid we worked with the Stacy in

1:16:34 ↗ sustainability in laying out these three

1:16:36 ↗ options

1:16:37 ↗ um

1:16:38 ↗ so we could I I guess I'm hearing

1:16:41 ↗ uncouple the two if there's consensus on

1:16:44 ↗ uncoupling the two uh then we can go

1:16:47 ↗ back to PPC and that's uh the you know

1:16:49 ↗ present that as an option uh these are

1:16:52 ↗ the super thresholds separate not tying

1:16:55 ↗ them with lead certified but lead

1:16:57 ↗ certification for these many units and

1:17:00 ↗ these many uh square feet for commercial

1:17:02 ↗ building required regardless and that'll

1:17:04 ↗ simplify simplify uh to some extent

1:17:11 ↗ and remind me the state energy code is

1:17:15 ↗ going to require certain

1:17:19 ↗ changes for even existing buildings over

1:17:23 ↗ a certain square footage so

1:17:26 ↗ I have to imagine that a large project

1:17:29 ↗ that's going to be built now knows

1:17:33 ↗ that the state energy code is coming

1:17:35 ↗ that's going to have a requirement

1:17:38 ↗ so they might as well build it that way

1:17:39 ↗ anyway

1:17:41 ↗ correct but

1:17:42 ↗ um they don't have to

1:17:47 ↗ so you know it could be yeah so yes they

1:17:51 ↗ might know that the state energy code is

1:17:53 ↗ going to come in but they may meet just

1:17:56 ↗ the state energy code requirements so

1:17:58 ↗ this would be making sure that other

1:18:01 ↗ pieces of the project meet

1:18:03 ↗ okay so our recommendation is you know

1:18:06 ↗ if you want to go with the uncoupling

1:18:08 ↗ that's great that's fine we would uh

1:18:11 ↗ raise the threshold for CPA to wherever

1:18:13 ↗ uh the community and and council is

1:18:15 ↗ comfortable with but for the the meeting

1:18:18 ↗ the sustainable goals for larger

1:18:20 ↗ developments that we at least have a

1:18:22 ↗ stop Gap measure for larger projects to

1:18:25 ↗ require third party certifications

1:18:27 ↗ okay so is the concept then that we

1:18:30 ↗ would

1:18:31 ↗ have this conversation about lead gold

1:18:34 ↗ or some kind of

1:18:36 ↗ um

1:18:37 ↗ building certification

1:18:40 ↗ now or would it be on the future updates

1:18:43 ↗ list it would be part of this code

1:18:45 ↗ update for larger bill for 10 20 or 30

1:18:49 ↗ 000 square foot

1:18:50 ↗ or you know or equivalent residential

1:18:53 ↗ units we would pick one of these and say

1:18:55 ↗ anything larger than this you have to be

1:18:57 ↗ third parties lead Platinum certified I

1:19:01 ↗ think that's where most of the cities

1:19:02 ↗ are going the gold is no longer the gold

1:19:05 ↗ standard yeah so this is the stop Gap

1:19:07 ↗ and yeah um but we need a stop Gap

1:19:12 ↗ um so for me as far as the stop Gap

1:19:15 ↗ options which are displayed here

1:19:19 ↗ um there's a there's a note that says

1:19:22 ↗ um one advantage of the second option is

1:19:24 ↗ that it does not add certification

1:19:25 ↗ requirement for small scale projects

1:19:27 ↗ such as nine to ten units Residential

1:19:29 ↗ Building missing middle but anything

1:19:30 ↗ larger than 20 000 would need to be

1:19:32 ↗ certified but actually the first one is

1:19:35 ↗ up to 10 units so that one also applies

1:19:38 ↗ to those nine to ten units correct

1:19:41 ↗ um and so I I agree with that logic but

1:19:44 ↗ I think it applies to the first item the

1:19:48 ↗ first option and so you know based on

1:19:50 ↗ wanting to have our wanting to have

1:19:53 ↗ buildings aligned and to support the

1:19:55 ↗ icap than I I would be in favor of that

1:19:57 ↗ first option using the logic in the

1:19:58 ↗ second option

1:20:00 ↗ um council president Walsh do you have

1:20:02 ↗ thoughts on this one

1:20:04 ↗ yeah I I think I agree with option

1:20:07 ↗ number one for Sustainable Building

1:20:11 ↗ I think we disagreed or we didn't come

1:20:13 ↗ to a conclusion on cepa because what I

1:20:19 ↗ heard from PPC was 20 units

1:20:22 ↗ and I think twenty thousand

1:20:26 ↗ what you were proposing was and I think

1:20:30 ↗ that was what I was proposing and you

1:20:33 ↗ were proposing something more like

1:20:35 ↗ Bellevue with 10 units right

1:20:40 ↗ yes but but also one thing to comply or

1:20:44 ↗ wanting to bring us into alignment with

1:20:47 ↗ neighboring cities which either of these

1:20:49 ↗ would do

1:20:52 ↗ yeah I think that 10 would be

1:20:55 ↗ um a good compromise for PPC I think

1:20:57 ↗ some members in the PPC were not

1:20:59 ↗ comfortable and some community members

1:21:00 ↗ were not comfortable so if we go with

1:21:03 ↗ option one here

1:21:06 ↗ which is 10 to 15 and 10 000 then just

1:21:10 ↗ for consistency and ease we could just

1:21:12 ↗ keep this at 10 units and ten thousand

1:21:14 ↗ and you know and then that's not to say

1:21:17 ↗ we can't come back and change it you

1:21:18 ↗ know in the future updates but but that

1:21:20 ↗ would be a nominal increase from where

1:21:22 ↗ Issaquah is right now we were tested out

1:21:25 ↗ and then in the future we can have a

1:21:28 ↗ future increase

1:21:36 ↗ okay so I think we're I think we are

1:21:40 ↗ good to move to the next section if you

1:21:42 ↗ have what you need on this one yeah so

1:21:44 ↗ to summarize uncouple the two

1:21:46 ↗ requirements uh option one for

1:21:48 ↗ sustainable buildings ten thousand

1:21:50 ↗ square feet or 10 to 15 residential

1:21:52 ↗ units for sipa we land at increase the

1:21:55 ↗ thresholds to 10 units uh single family

1:21:58 ↗ multifamily in 10 000 square feet of

1:22:00 ↗ commercial space

1:22:04 ↗ um

1:22:05 ↗ the next one is forested Hillside

1:22:07 ↗ preservation

1:22:09 ↗ um you know we didn't really have any

1:22:11 ↗ policy questions for you but this is a

1:22:13 ↗ brand new chapter

1:22:15 ↗ um so if you think it it met the mark of

1:22:18 ↗ protecting Forester hillsides or if we

1:22:20 ↗ missed it anything you'd like to see

1:22:23 ↗ more

1:22:27 ↗ I thought that was fantastic I mean

1:22:30 ↗ the fact that we were currently at 40

1:22:32 ↗ and now we have a

1:22:36 ↗ chapter that provides a lot of graphics

1:22:41 ↗ and really explanation of and here's

1:22:44 ↗ what you would need to do if you're on

1:22:46 ↗ something between 15 and 40. I did have

1:22:50 ↗ the the comment around kind of terracing

1:22:55 ↗ particularly on decks where I think

1:22:57 ↗ you'd need either a written or pictorial

1:23:01 ↗ clarification

1:23:03 ↗ and then

1:23:06 ↗ let's see oh I had the question about

1:23:10 ↗ um when you're splitting up a lot

1:23:13 ↗ um I just I'm not sure that we got to

1:23:18 ↗ the right point there and so I wonder if

1:23:20 ↗ there are any other examples from other

1:23:22 ↗ cities that might give us some different

1:23:26 ↗ options because I liked the drawings

1:23:28 ↗ that you had done and I could see the

1:23:30 ↗ intention of where that goes but I think

1:23:32 ↗ there are a couple other possibilities

1:23:34 ↗ there that we need to address and deal

1:23:36 ↗ with yeah certainly you know the will

1:23:39 ↗ will fix the language to to keep the

1:23:41 ↗ intent that you could have a portion of

1:23:43 ↗ your site set up as DDR if you chose

1:23:45 ↗ choose to do that or

1:23:48 ↗ um or as a tract as you know the

1:23:50 ↗ ultimate goal is Preservation of the

1:23:52 ↗ hillside so it doesn't necessarily but

1:23:55 ↗ but the intent is not so that someone

1:23:56 ↗ doesn't do the rest and then squeezes

1:23:59 ↗ one one lot that's extremely Steep and

1:24:02 ↗ tries to maximize uh development

1:24:04 ↗ potential there so well thank that

1:24:08 ↗ to meet that intent the language that

1:24:10 ↗ you you brought to our attention yeah

1:24:16 ↗ um so this one we had a goal which was

1:24:19 ↗ to preserve forested hillsides and then

1:24:21 ↗ this is an added chapter that takes

1:24:24 ↗ great strides to do that so I think it's

1:24:26 ↗ well aligned with our goals for this

1:24:27 ↗ code update I I was just thinking that

1:24:30 ↗ because this is a new chapter or new a

1:24:34 ↗ new section it's probably one that would

1:24:36 ↗ be especially interesting to look at

1:24:38 ↗ through the lens of the code testing

1:24:40 ↗ because it's it's new so using some real

1:24:44 ↗ world examples might get at some of the

1:24:46 ↗ sort of edge cases or you know real

1:24:48 ↗ world complexity that would come about

1:24:50 ↗ through an actual implementation but

1:24:52 ↗ yeah I thought it was I thought it was

1:24:54 ↗ um pretty straightforward and good

1:24:57 ↗ yeah it's one of the six categories for

1:25:00 ↗ testing

1:25:01 ↗ um the first event side so yeah we will

1:25:03 ↗ pay more attention on the testing phase

1:25:06 ↗ with this one

1:25:10 ↗ if we can move to the next step

1:25:12 ↗ so accessory and temporary uses we kind

1:25:15 ↗ of talked about the the real comments

1:25:18 ↗ here were on the food truck and really

1:25:20 ↗ the only issue was the time limit and

1:25:23 ↗ the permits uh needed so we we sort of

1:25:27 ↗ um got the direction from PPC to not

1:25:30 ↗ have the 60-day

1:25:32 ↗ time limit

1:25:34 ↗ um and instead go with an annual renewal

1:25:37 ↗ option so we'll we'll fill that in in

1:25:40 ↗ the next draft

1:25:58 ↗ I'll go ahead

1:26:00 ↗ um so on this one uh I think they're

1:26:03 ↗ because the packet and that code is a

1:26:07 ↗ bit behind the PPC or is is what the PPC

1:26:11 ↗ saw and then there were changes that

1:26:13 ↗ um would be made coming out of that

1:26:15 ↗ conversation I think our materials are a

1:26:17 ↗ bit behind the development or where the

1:26:21 ↗ conversation has landed so I do like I

1:26:24 ↗ like the direction that it has has gone

1:26:26 ↗ after the PPC conversation

1:26:29 ↗ um one of our goals for the code update

1:26:32 ↗ is across the city there are a variety

1:26:35 ↗ of public amenities housing types

1:26:37 ↗ educational other services that

1:26:38 ↗ contribute to a livable community and so

1:26:41 ↗ you know food I think the food trucks

1:26:43 ↗ are a service we had a number of public

1:26:45 ↗ comments about um foreign about the

1:26:48 ↗ importance of the food trucks and

1:26:51 ↗ and I think you know the intense I think

1:26:54 ↗ there may have been some

1:26:57 ↗ um misunderstanding about the intent

1:27:00 ↗ here especially with the 60 days but at

1:27:03 ↗ least from my perspective I don't think

1:27:04 ↗ the intent is to make food trucks move

1:27:07 ↗ every 60 days or really make it more

1:27:11 ↗ difficult for the food trucks to operate

1:27:13 ↗ in the city than than they are currently

1:27:14 ↗ and I think anything to the contrary of

1:27:17 ↗ that would go against that goal of

1:27:19 ↗ having a variety of services throughout

1:27:20 ↗ the city so for those reasons I I

1:27:24 ↗ support the

1:27:26 ↗ um

1:27:27 ↗ the changes I don't support the code

1:27:30 ↗ um as it is in our packet but I support

1:27:32 ↗ you know allowing the streamlined

1:27:34 ↗ process for continued annual updates and

1:27:39 ↗ the business permit very similar to the

1:27:41 ↗ current process just continuing with

1:27:43 ↗ that I think makes a lot of sense to me

1:27:47 ↗ that's president Walsh yeah I would

1:27:49 ↗ agree I think an annual option is great

1:27:52 ↗ this is a wonderful use of land use that

1:27:55 ↗ is most likely parking that is not being

1:27:58 ↗ utilized currently I think it creates

1:28:01 ↗ great relationships between existing

1:28:03 ↗ property owners and small businesses

1:28:07 ↗ um

1:28:08 ↗ I did do a little bit of research and it

1:28:11 ↗ looks like Kirkland has a situation

1:28:14 ↗ where the actual property owner is the

1:28:18 ↗ one that files the permit with the city

1:28:22 ↗ because they're the ones that kind of

1:28:24 ↗ have to certify that their parking is

1:28:26 ↗ being effectively used and that it isn't

1:28:29 ↗ harming anybody's ability to get in and

1:28:32 ↗ out and so I thought that might be a

1:28:36 ↗ really good way of handling it um

1:28:39 ↗ because then

1:28:41 ↗ you can you can associate it with an

1:28:44 ↗ actual location and be able to do that

1:28:48 ↗ type of thing maybe you know I don't

1:28:50 ↗ know what the actual business

1:28:52 ↗ relationship is it may be easier if it

1:28:54 ↗ if the application could come from

1:28:57 ↗ either or

1:28:59 ↗ um but that was one of the things I was

1:29:02 ↗ thinking about there

1:29:04 ↗ um

1:29:05 ↗ and then there was a little bit of a

1:29:07 ↗ conversation about like Christmas tree

1:29:10 ↗ lots versus construction trailers versus

1:29:13 ↗ retail pop-ups and I just didn't feel

1:29:17 ↗ like the

1:29:18 ↗ code was

1:29:20 ↗ perfectly clear about something that was

1:29:23 ↗ potentially Mobile versus

1:29:26 ↗ a temporary use of

1:29:30 ↗ an existing

1:29:32 ↗ unit

1:29:34 ↗ um and so I was thinking that it would

1:29:37 ↗ be a good idea I looked through like

1:29:39 ↗ Redmond and Kirkland's code and some of

1:29:41 ↗ them do call Out Construction trailers

1:29:43 ↗ and kind of what the requirements are

1:29:45 ↗ for that and then also retail pop-ups so

1:29:49 ↗ I just feel like there's a few little

1:29:51 ↗ tweaks that we can do there just to make

1:29:54 ↗ sure that everything is

1:29:56 ↗ clarified but I definitely approve of

1:29:59 ↗ the one-year concept rather than the 60

1:30:03 ↗ days

1:30:05 ↗ so I think those were my thoughts

1:30:11 ↗ good um yeah we'll take a look at

1:30:14 ↗ um you know the retail pop-ups and

1:30:16 ↗ construction trailers usually allowed

1:30:18 ↗ when there's construction on the

1:30:20 ↗ property and you know they have to meet

1:30:22 ↗ ADA requirements so the building code

1:30:23 ↗ kind of captures some of those things

1:30:25 ↗ um as well but uh we'll see if we can

1:30:28 ↗ address the retail pop-ups

1:30:32 ↗ okay

1:30:33 ↗ um and just one additional thought on

1:30:35 ↗ this you know I was looking a lot at the

1:30:37 ↗ goals lately especially because we're

1:30:39 ↗ kind of into these individual sections

1:30:41 ↗ and so trying to use the goals as a

1:30:43 ↗ framework for making decisions and we

1:30:46 ↗ also have this goal which is one of our

1:30:48 ↗ umbrella our overarching goals to

1:30:51 ↗ provide transparent code update process

1:30:53 ↗ that allows for groups and individuals

1:30:54 ↗ to engage in the process so I think

1:30:57 ↗ um I think just making sure that we are

1:30:59 ↗ communicating where we are in the

1:31:01 ↗ process with the business Community

1:31:03 ↗ um you know we heard several comments

1:31:05 ↗ from the food truck operators this

1:31:08 ↗ evening and just making sure that they

1:31:10 ↗ um that that they are able to engage and

1:31:13 ↗ participate in the in the process and

1:31:15 ↗ understand where we are because it's

1:31:16 ↗ been a long process a long complicated

1:31:18 ↗ process and I think on this topic we are

1:31:21 ↗ making the recommendation that the

1:31:23 ↗ operation of those food trucks not be

1:31:27 ↗ much different at all than the current

1:31:29 ↗ regulations and so just to make sure

1:31:32 ↗ that that's communicated and and so that

1:31:34 ↗ those business owners can engage in the

1:31:37 ↗ process in a

1:31:39 ↗ as we as we go forward

1:31:41 ↗ sounds good okay great

1:31:44 ↗ um

1:31:45 ↗ I think that's it on this one did you

1:31:47 ↗ have any additional comments on the

1:31:48 ↗ other accessory uses or no okay

1:31:57 ↗ um

1:31:59 ↗ right now

1:32:02 ↗ so through blog passages

1:32:06 ↗ um

1:32:07 ↗ this one you know again Central will

1:32:11 ↗ make sure the the trail stuff uh in

1:32:13 ↗ Dallas and Highlands is uh somewhat

1:32:15 ↗ referenced or carried forward the actual

1:32:18 ↗ standards will move in the street

1:32:20 ↗ standard section

1:32:22 ↗ um

1:32:23 ↗ so anything any other feedback on the

1:32:26 ↗ through block passages

1:32:34 ↗ um I think did you have you had comments

1:32:36 ↗ about my my one thought is that we we

1:32:39 ↗ want to make for for regulations where

1:32:42 ↗ it makes sense we want to have the same

1:32:43 ↗ regulations city-wide for consistency

1:32:45 ↗ and predictability and all of that and

1:32:47 ↗ so that was where I thought

1:32:51 ↗ um there could be a conversation I think

1:32:54 ↗ um especially with Redevelopment adding

1:32:57 ↗ these through block passages or having

1:32:59 ↗ that as a as an option

1:33:01 ↗ um

1:33:02 ↗ would be good

1:33:05 ↗ but I don't know if you have additional

1:33:07 ↗ thoughts on this yeah I I came to the

1:33:09 ↗ same conclusion because I think the

1:33:11 ↗ policy questions here for me were does

1:33:13 ↗ this only happen on subdivisions or do

1:33:16 ↗ we require it with Redevelopment and I

1:33:18 ↗ absolutely think that it should happen

1:33:20 ↗ in both cases

1:33:22 ↗ um otherwise we lose the option to get a

1:33:25 ↗ through block when Redevelopment happens

1:33:27 ↗ and then it's not going to happen again

1:33:29 ↗ for 50 years

1:33:30 ↗ and then the map overlay I think is is

1:33:35 ↗ useful but I I don't want this only to

1:33:40 ↗ happen in central Issaquah and so I

1:33:44 ↗ think we need to

1:33:47 ↗ somehow

1:33:48 ↗ I mean it doesn't make sense to require

1:33:51 ↗ three block passages in a single-family

1:33:54 ↗ Estates area

1:33:56 ↗ um but there's there's got to be some

1:33:57 ↗ way that we can either tie it to certain

1:34:00 ↗ zones or with certain densities that

1:34:03 ↗ require it

1:34:05 ↗ um I don't think it should just be based

1:34:09 ↗ on

1:34:10 ↗ block length alone

1:34:13 ↗ but I feel like there's got to be a way

1:34:15 ↗ to incorporate it in more than just the

1:34:18 ↗ three neighborhoods or a subdivision

1:34:21 ↗ that happens

1:34:23 ↗ um I'm not sure where that lands us

1:34:27 ↗ because I don't want to be too

1:34:28 ↗ prescriptive and say that something in a

1:34:30 ↗ single family estates has to have a

1:34:32 ↗ through block

1:34:33 ↗ um

1:34:35 ↗ so I don't know if there's a better way

1:34:37 ↗ to address that or if there are any

1:34:38 ↗ other cities that might be examples for

1:34:40 ↗ that

1:34:42 ↗ yeah I think um if I can pull up

1:34:46 ↗ um where we what we say in

1:35:00 ↗ so there is a section in there that that

1:35:03 ↗ is for

1:35:05 ↗ um

1:35:06 ↗ outside of central if I can find it real

1:35:09 ↗ quickly here

1:35:31 ↗ it looks like it's

1:35:34 ↗ 18.702.040 through block passages

1:35:37 ↗ outside of central Issaquah yeah

1:35:39 ↗ um so I think we the note here says we

1:35:45 ↗ used Kirkland as a model

1:35:48 ↗ um

1:35:48 ↗ this section applies to all areas of the

1:35:51 ↗ city that lie outside Central may

1:35:53 ↗ require the applicant to install through

1:35:56 ↗ block passages and dedicate a public

1:35:58 ↗ access easement

1:36:01 ↗ when as when is Incorporated in the when

1:36:05 ↗ our comp plan has something in it a

1:36:07 ↗ transportation element

1:36:08 ↗ Stephen feel free to pitch in where we

1:36:11 ↗ say that in the comp plan and then a

1:36:13 ↗ true block passage is reasonably

1:36:15 ↗ necessary to provide efficient

1:36:17 ↗ pedestrian bicyclist or non-motorized

1:36:19 ↗ access to the building such as schools

1:36:22 ↗ Parks shopping area employment center or

1:36:25 ↗ Transit

1:36:26 ↗ uh just that I don't know if you're mean

1:36:30 ↗ to be showing it or not but we're not

1:36:31 ↗ seeing it so okay yes I was

1:36:34 ↗ [Music]

1:36:35 ↗ let's see if I have to

1:36:39 ↗ stop sharing and then

1:36:42 ↗ share again

1:36:45 ↗ my

1:36:55 ↗ foot

1:36:57 ↗ not yet

1:36:59 ↗ so let's see

1:37:09 ↗ able to see it

1:37:12 ↗ um

1:37:13 ↗ so

1:37:16 ↗ you know if it is shown in our

1:37:18 ↗ transportation element in the comp plan

1:37:20 ↗ or it's reasonably necessary to provide

1:37:24 ↗ efficient pedestrian bicyclists to and

1:37:27 ↗ connection to school Park Shopping Area

1:37:29 ↗ employment or Transit

1:37:31 ↗ so it gives us some ability to require

1:37:34 ↗ it as long as you're connecting to those

1:37:36 ↗ destinations

1:37:38 ↗ and then we say must be accessible

1:37:44 ↗ and then some design standards so we can

1:37:46 ↗ look at

1:37:48 ↗ you know the beefing this section uh if

1:37:52 ↗ there's specific things that you you

1:37:55 ↗ want covered

1:37:58 ↗ I feel like we could add something in

1:38:00 ↗ there about block length

1:38:02 ↗ um could be an indicator that

1:38:06 ↗ um a through block is useful because

1:38:11 ↗ I mean I guess that would be another

1:38:13 ↗ indicator that effective pedestrian

1:38:15 ↗ access

1:38:17 ↗ um

1:38:18 ↗ would be useful but it's not necessarily

1:38:20 ↗ related to

1:38:23 ↗ buildings yeah

1:38:26 ↗ um so in our in our presentation there's

1:38:30 ↗ this discussion about through through

1:38:32 ↗ block passages and it talks about that

1:38:34 ↗ there will be neighborhood planning in

1:38:36 ↗ the future and we could through that

1:38:38 ↗ process identify specific through bot

1:38:40 ↗ through block passage locations through

1:38:43 ↗ the neighborhood planning process that

1:38:45 ↗ would be implemented during

1:38:46 ↗ Redevelopment so I think for me that

1:38:48 ↗ seemed to make sense

1:38:50 ↗ um I I was also thinking back to our

1:38:52 ↗ conversations about block lengths and

1:38:55 ↗ you know not every not it doesn't always

1:38:57 ↗ make sense to have those shorter block

1:38:58 ↗ links in some of the neighborhoods so I

1:39:00 ↗ think the same sort of

1:39:02 ↗ um like that conversation we had where

1:39:04 ↗ it might go up against a

1:39:06 ↗ Hillside and um so that that whole same

1:39:10 ↗ I think

1:39:12 ↗ um

1:39:13 ↗ those same reasons would apply here that

1:39:15 ↗ it might not always make sense just a

1:39:17 ↗ longer block doesn't necessarily need

1:39:19 ↗ that

1:39:20 ↗ um through block Crossing but but if you

1:39:22 ↗ looked at a neighborhood at the

1:39:23 ↗ neighborhood scale there might be places

1:39:25 ↗ where it would make sense and those

1:39:26 ↗ could be identified so

1:39:28 ↗ um that would be my preference is to go

1:39:30 ↗ with that identifier through block

1:39:31 ↗ passages in the neighborhood planning

1:39:34 ↗ process and stick with this because this

1:39:37 ↗ too with the schools and parks and stuff

1:39:40 ↗ because that I think is also important

1:39:44 ↗ okay

1:39:49 ↗ okay so

1:39:51 ↗ um I think that was it for the topics

1:39:54 ↗ that we had celebrations on I did want

1:39:57 ↗ to also ask if you director Dolly well

1:40:01 ↗ could give us an update about the code

1:40:03 ↗ testing process and

1:40:05 ↗ um and uh yeah just how that's going and

1:40:09 ↗ and your thoughts yeah sure

1:40:12 ↗ um so

1:40:13 ↗ um thank you for asking about that we've

1:40:16 ↗ been giving it some thought it's an

1:40:19 ↗ important part of the whole public

1:40:20 ↗ process

1:40:22 ↗ um and we had a call for

1:40:25 ↗ um you know folks that were interested

1:40:28 ↗ in bing testers so we sent out an email

1:40:31 ↗ to everyone that's signed up for to be

1:40:35 ↗ an interested party list for our Title

1:40:38 ↗ 18 update which is onwards of 100 plus

1:40:42 ↗ individuals and then all boards and

1:40:45 ↗ commissions and anyone that applied for

1:40:48 ↗ a land use application last year so as a

1:40:51 ↗ result of that call we heard some

1:40:55 ↗ feedback one of it was there wasn't

1:40:58 ↗ enough time to sign up so we take that

1:41:03 ↗ feedback seriously and if there's anyone

1:41:06 ↗ that's listening or wants to sign up

1:41:08 ↗ please reach out to me but but we did

1:41:11 ↗ get good

1:41:13 ↗ amount of folks that raised their hand

1:41:15 ↗ so we received about 21 people that were

1:41:19 ↗ interested in being testers we

1:41:21 ↗ identified six categories and I can kind

1:41:24 ↗ of go over what those categories are

1:41:27 ↗ real quick here

1:41:29 ↗ um

1:41:31 ↗ and

1:41:34 ↗ so those were

1:41:36 ↗ [Music]

1:41:37 ↗ you know single family home renovation

1:41:39 ↗ adjacent to a wetland because we've

1:41:41 ↗ changed our critical areas code a

1:41:43 ↗ business remodel in Old Town we'd heard

1:41:46 ↗ um you know the the added complexity of

1:41:49 ↗ uh some of those regulations and and

1:41:52 ↗ um and Landscaping and things when you

1:41:54 ↗ have limited room how do we look at

1:41:57 ↗ parking and Landscaping and things of

1:41:58 ↗ that nature a multi-family in mixed-use

1:42:01 ↗ development in central Issaquah so that

1:42:04 ↗ meet the vision of central esqua a

1:42:07 ↗ commercial development outside of

1:42:09 ↗ central Issaquah was the fourth category

1:42:11 ↗ and then a development adjacent to a

1:42:14 ↗ mapped Shoreline or a major stream again

1:42:16 ↗ we have had you know changes in the

1:42:19 ↗ Stream

1:42:20 ↗ area and the shoreline s p updates in

1:42:24 ↗ the critical areas code and then the

1:42:26 ↗ last category involving a development on

1:42:28 ↗ a forested hillside site

1:42:31 ↗ so based on those six categories we

1:42:34 ↗ heard from about 21 individuals we we've

1:42:38 ↗ identified one person per each of these

1:42:40 ↗ categories so we have about six or seven

1:42:42 ↗ folks that will become this part of this

1:42:45 ↗ robust testing team the other

1:42:48 ↗ individuals in that team I'm going to

1:42:50 ↗ try and reach out to all of them and see

1:42:52 ↗ how we can engage their services if they

1:42:56 ↗ have the time and willingness to be

1:42:58 ↗ reviewers or but this you know we can

1:43:01 ↗ share them the um the Consolidated draft

1:43:05 ↗ with them we can share the evaluation

1:43:07 ↗ framework with them we can invite them

1:43:10 ↗ to the meetings that these

1:43:13 ↗ um you know the the score team of

1:43:14 ↗ testers is going to participate in so

1:43:17 ↗ we're looking at how best to engage all

1:43:21 ↗ of them

1:43:22 ↗ uh and then we've heard from three other

1:43:24 ↗ individuals that were at a business

1:43:25 ↗ leadership meeting that are interested

1:43:27 ↗ in being part of the tester so I'm going

1:43:29 ↗ to reach out to them as well

1:43:31 ↗ um the code testing process itself for

1:43:34 ↗ the core testers involves four to six

1:43:37 ↗ meetings with staff uh to identify the

1:43:40 ↗ project finalize the project we walk

1:43:43 ↗ them through the code and we give them

1:43:46 ↗ an evaluation framework that they fill

1:43:48 ↗ out and which will capture you know is

1:43:52 ↗ the code readable is it clear is can you

1:43:55 ↗ navigate the code and then General input

1:43:57 ↗ on the standards that have changed from

1:43:59 ↗ the existing code to the new code

1:44:02 ↗ so the idea here is that the project

1:44:04 ↗ team can then identify actual

1:44:07 ↗ improvements to the code that you know

1:44:10 ↗ before the Consolidated draft is

1:44:12 ↗ released for public hearing

1:44:15 ↗ um

1:44:15 ↗ so if the committee or anyone from the

1:44:19 ↗ community has any input on how best to

1:44:21 ↗ accommodate this additional interest in

1:44:24 ↗ testing we're open to that we you know

1:44:27 ↗ we really appreciate everyone's time

1:44:29 ↗ energy that has gone up to this point we

1:44:32 ↗ want to keep that momentum and build on

1:44:35 ↗ that momentum of of making sure

1:44:38 ↗ um you know all that feedback is folded

1:44:40 ↗ in as we are in the last stretches of

1:44:42 ↗ this update

1:44:44 ↗ so that's all I have

1:44:46 ↗ um looking for feedback from the

1:44:47 ↗ committee

1:44:50 ↗ council president Walsh

1:44:52 ↗ so I guess

1:44:55 ↗ I mean that sounds really intense sounds

1:44:57 ↗ like it's a lot of work and I'm super

1:44:59 ↗ grateful for anybody who's volunteered

1:45:01 ↗ and I think it will be very useful for

1:45:04 ↗ staff and decision makers and everything

1:45:09 ↗ um

1:45:10 ↗ I'm wondering

1:45:13 ↗ what kind of outcome or report what kind

1:45:16 ↗ of results will we see from that that

1:45:20 ↗ shows either

1:45:21 ↗ this was difficult and thus we're

1:45:24 ↗ proposing to make this change or this

1:45:28 ↗ resulted in a negative effect that we

1:45:30 ↗ didn't anticipate it it sounds like

1:45:34 ↗ there's some of that

1:45:36 ↗ that I wonder about

1:45:37 ↗ yeah so the evaluation framework is

1:45:40 ↗ going to be the key to how this all

1:45:43 ↗ rolls out and that we are developing at

1:45:45 ↗ this point

1:45:47 ↗ um but but again I think you're

1:45:49 ↗ absolutely right council president Walsh

1:45:51 ↗ that the what's the outcome of this you

1:45:53 ↗ know it's not just testing for the sake

1:45:55 ↗ of testing it's what comes out of it and

1:45:58 ↗ so

1:46:00 ↗ um the our our intent is that when we

1:46:02 ↗ finalize the evaluation framework we'll

1:46:05 ↗ share it with you

1:46:07 ↗ um and then also when we get that

1:46:11 ↗ evaluation filled out by the the testers

1:46:14 ↗ or anyone else who's interested in being

1:46:16 ↗ the reviewer

1:46:17 ↗ that we will include all of that for PPC

1:46:21 ↗ to see you know this is what we heard

1:46:22 ↗ this is what the testers felt and then

1:46:25 ↗ we would say we were able to make these

1:46:27 ↗ changes based on this testing so a

1:46:30 ↗ summary of of the changes that we were

1:46:32 ↗ able to incorporate in the draft as a

1:46:35 ↗ result of the testing so that we would

1:46:37 ↗ take that to PPC and we can bring that

1:46:39 ↗ back to this committee

1:46:41 ↗ okay so there's one piece which is what

1:46:44 ↗ was the user experience the readability

1:46:47 ↗ the

1:46:48 ↗ accessibility the ability to navigate

1:46:50 ↗ through the code the other piece is what

1:46:54 ↗ do we get out of that as far as

1:46:56 ↗ development and so

1:47:00 ↗ for these six projects is there going to

1:47:03 ↗ be a sense that

1:47:05 ↗ staff would review what that project

1:47:08 ↗ would result in with the current code

1:47:11 ↗ versus the new code okay so you you're

1:47:14 ↗ you're thinking comparison between

1:47:16 ↗ existing and the proposed code yeah

1:47:19 ↗ for that particular goal

1:47:23 ↗ um you know if it's forested Hillside

1:47:25 ↗ that is being evaluated then what the

1:47:29 ↗ existing code is which is no regulations

1:47:32 ↗ at this time to yes we can regulate yeah

1:47:35 ↗ we can we can frame it based on that

1:47:38 ↗ particular topic yeah yeah because that

1:47:40 ↗ would be the way that

1:47:42 ↗ I want the code to be usable and you

1:47:46 ↗ know easy to interpret from staff and

1:47:50 ↗ developers but I also want to make sure

1:47:51 ↗ we're getting the results that we

1:47:53 ↗ intended and the best way to do that is

1:47:56 ↗ to understand what we would get with a

1:47:58 ↗ project in

1:48:00 ↗ the existing code versus new code the

1:48:03 ↗ other piece there that and that might be

1:48:06 ↗ something where if you can present that

1:48:09 ↗ type of thing to the larger Community

1:48:12 ↗ that's interested in this and get their

1:48:15 ↗ feedback to say did the new code result

1:48:18 ↗ in

1:48:20 ↗ the goals and outcomes that you would

1:48:22 ↗ like to see that might be a way for them

1:48:24 ↗ to analyze it without having to come to

1:48:26 ↗ four to six meetings similarly

1:48:30 ↗ instead of just looking at a potential

1:48:33 ↗ proposed project being able to evaluate

1:48:36 ↗ an existing project that we can see on

1:48:40 ↗ the ground and see how it might be

1:48:43 ↗ different in the new code is another

1:48:45 ↗ possible way of looking at it yeah so

1:48:48 ↗ staff is going to pick a couple of

1:48:50 ↗ existing projects that have gone through

1:48:52 ↗ the process so use those as samples and

1:48:54 ↗ then use one public project you know it

1:48:57 ↗ could be a road Public Works project or

1:48:59 ↗ a Parks project we haven't landed on

1:49:00 ↗ which one but there would be a couple of

1:49:03 ↗ Staff in testers looking at existing

1:49:06 ↗ projects and and doing that comparison

1:49:08 ↗ but what I hear you is that you you

1:49:10 ↗ would like to see you know besides the

1:49:13 ↗ usability readability and and ease a

1:49:17 ↗ comparison between existing code and

1:49:19 ↗ that for standards and for process you

1:49:22 ↗ know did we make the process more clear

1:49:24 ↗ consistent you know consistent not

1:49:26 ↗ convoluted and then the standard itself

1:49:30 ↗ yeah we can come up with something like

1:49:32 ↗ that right and then my final piece of

1:49:34 ↗ feedback is I'd also like to see those

1:49:36 ↗ evaluation feedback forms from the staff

1:49:39 ↗ because if they don't find it easier to

1:49:42 ↗ deal with this code now granted they've

1:49:44 ↗ probably been in the weeds and writing

1:49:47 ↗ this and they're getting to be more

1:49:49 ↗ familiar but they've been very familiar

1:49:51 ↗ with the previous code and so making

1:49:53 ↗ sure that they're able to find all the

1:49:55 ↗ standards that they need that they don't

1:49:57 ↗ feel like something is missing compared

1:49:58 ↗ to what they could find in the previous

1:50:00 ↗ code from staff yeah oh yeah I mean it's

1:50:03 ↗ it's going to be Leaps and Bounds easier

1:50:07 ↗ and then well then I want to hear that

1:50:09 ↗ because that just justifies all the work

1:50:11 ↗ that you've done

1:50:14 ↗ um but yeah I think that would be an

1:50:15 ↗ important element because part of this

1:50:17 ↗ is making sure that staff can get

1:50:20 ↗ through it more quickly so that we can

1:50:23 ↗ get back to the developers and there's

1:50:25 ↗ just clear transparency around what the

1:50:29 ↗ code is so that it doesn't have to go up

1:50:30 ↗ five levels to get interpreted yeah 10

1:50:32 ↗ meetings to figure out a simple question

1:50:34 ↗ yeah absolutely

1:50:38 ↗ okay great well I think that sounds

1:50:41 ↗ great so thank you very much for that

1:50:43 ↗ overview of the testing process

1:50:46 ↗ um that concludes our one item of

1:50:48 ↗ business

1:50:49 ↗ um this evening so do we have any

1:50:50 ↗ announcements

1:50:52 ↗ there being no announcements and there

1:50:54 ↗ being no further business than we are

1:50:55 ↗ adjourned at 8 21 pm

1:50:58 ↗ thank you

1:51:08 ↗ foreign

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 (2)

Victoria Hunt

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Tisha Gieser, City Clerk

Excused

Chris Reh

Audience commenters (1)

Sandra Favvet

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
It was requested that the Committee receive input on both the process and standards of the proposed code as part of the testing process.