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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF