City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Thursday, October 6, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 22, 2022

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 4:48 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The following public comment was provided:

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Contractor Code of Conduct ID 1092

30 min · James Gray, Building Official · packet pp.9–53

▶ Watch from 0:36 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends adding a separate Construction Contractor Code of Conduct to the existing Pre-Construction Requirements Checklist (

Title 18: Process & Procedures ID 1276

90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.55–226

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:39 Open packet at p.55 ↗

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.

3006 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ [Music]

0:05 ↗ foreign

0:07 ↗ good evening welcome everyone I

0:10 ↗ councilmember hunt call the October 6

0:12 ↗ 2022 city council Planning Development

0:15 ↗ and environment committee to order

0:18 ↗ I am Victoria hunt and I'm here today

0:20 ↗ with council president Walsh and council

0:22 ↗ member Ray

0:24 ↗ there will be multiple public comment

0:26 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:28 ↗ will be a general public comment

0:29 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:30 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:32 ↗ the presentation and counsel a question

0:34 ↗ and answer period on tonight's agenda

0:36 ↗ items and there are two agenda items

0:38 ↗ this evening

0:43 ↗ so we will start now with public

0:46 ↗ comments and members of the public May

0:48 ↗ address council at this time in person

0:50 ↗ or virtually those who are signed up in

0:52 ↗ advance to make comments will be called

0:53 ↗ on first if you are joining us virtually

0:55 ↗ and would like to make comments please

0:56 ↗ raise your virtual hand if you're on the

0:59 ↗ phone press star 3 and if you have

1:00 ↗ joined by computer or smartphone look

1:02 ↗ for the hand icon this varies by device

1:04 ↗ one option may be to go to the

1:06 ↗ participant panel and choose the raise

1:07 ↗ hands icon in the lower right hand

1:09 ↗ corner and if you're in the room and did

1:11 ↗ not sign up I will ask for other

1:13 ↗ speakers before closing the public

1:14 ↗ comment portion of the meeting so I will

1:17 ↗ wait for a moment to see if anyone would

1:20 ↗ like to address the council this time

1:22 ↗ okay and then I will read some

1:24 ↗ additional guidelines

1:26 ↗ please direct comments to the whole

1:28 ↗ Council not individuals well this is not

1:30 ↗ a question and answer session we will

1:32 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed when

1:34 ↗ recognized please unmute your microphone

1:35 ↗ or step up to the lectern please state

1:38 ↗ your name address relationship to the

1:39 ↗ city please speak clearly and pause

1:42 ↗ frequently and please limit your

1:43 ↗ comments to five minutes and if you're

1:45 ↗ attending virtually and do not respond

1:47 ↗ after your name or phone number is

1:48 ↗ called or if your connection is lost

1:50 ↗ unexpectedly the meeting will need to

1:51 ↗ proceed and you are encouraged to rejoin

1:53 ↗ the meeting if you are able

1:55 ↗ all right so clerk could you please

1:58 ↗ identify the first person who signed up

1:59 ↗ to speak

2:02 ↗ chair hunt Connie Marsh we'd like to

2:05 ↗ address the committee

2:07 ↗ all right thank you

2:09 ↗ [Music]

2:14 ↗ hi my name is Connie Marsh and my first

2:18 ↗ comment is format when we went to these

2:21 ↗ committee meetings the idea was that it

2:24 ↗ was going to be able to create more of a

2:26 ↗ dialogue and I have not seen the

2:30 ↗ dialogue be achieved in these

2:32 ↗ subcommittee meetings that we used to

2:34 ↗ have and part of that I think is that

2:36 ↗ you're sitting up in the chairs and so

2:40 ↗ you each speak one at a time and you

2:43 ↗ don't have as much of a conversation you

2:45 ↗ speak sort of past each other instead of

2:49 ↗ between each other and I would I don't I

2:53 ↗ don't think that that makes a functional

2:55 ↗ sub committee having watched these for

2:57 ↗ many years I did ask if the old way of

3:01 ↗ sitting down where you could be more

3:03 ↗ conversational was a possibility and I

3:07 ↗ was told no that the moving around of

3:11 ↗ the room was

3:14 ↗ not what they wanted to do so I am here

3:18 ↗ to request that that happened anyway

3:21 ↗ even if it is harder because I think

3:25 ↗ it's better and then I was listening to

3:28 ↗ the opening statement and another thing

3:30 ↗ that occurred in the old form of having

3:33 ↗ subcommittees is council members

3:36 ↗ actually did answer questions if they

3:40 ↗ knew the answers to them or they had

3:43 ↗ staff answer questions at the

3:46 ↗ subcommittee meeting level because it

3:49 ↗ was supposed to be more back and forth

3:52 ↗ between the community too

3:54 ↗ and so that is that is exactly what you

3:59 ↗ said would not be

4:02 ↗ um and so I would like that reconsidered

4:04 ↗ too because if you actually want to have

4:06 ↗ a dialogue with the community at some

4:09 ↗ point in time you have to give a chance

4:14 ↗ to actually answer each other because at

4:18 ↗ this point it's set up so that you can't

4:20 ↗ Unless somehow you meet on the street

4:22 ↗ corner and you don't want me standing on

4:24 ↗ your street corner waiting to pounce I'm

4:26 ↗ here to tell you okay thank you

4:30 ↗ thank you very much

4:32 ↗ um city clerk has anyone else signed up

4:34 ↗ to speak on the public comment

4:38 ↗ uh nobody else has signed up to speak

4:40 ↗ chair hunt and we have no virtual

4:42 ↗ attendees

4:44 ↗ okay thank you very much so then I'll

4:46 ↗ move to the next item on our agenda

4:48 ↗ which is approval of the minutes these

4:51 ↗ are the minutes from our September 22nd

4:53 ↗ meeting I did not have any corrections

4:57 ↗ do we have any corrections or comments

4:59 ↗ okay then I moved to approve the minutes

5:01 ↗ of the September 22nd meeting as the

5:04 ↗ appear in our agenda those in favor say

5:06 ↗ aye aye aye aye that passes unanimously

5:10 ↗ and then secondly due to staff

5:13 ↗ availability I'm going to propose that

5:15 ↗ we switch the order of the two agenda

5:17 ↗ items so that

5:19 ↗ um the item that appears as Item B which

5:23 ↗ is the title 18 process and procedures

5:26 ↗ ID 1276 actually comes first and then we

5:30 ↗ will move to id1092 which is the

5:32 ↗ contractor code of conduct so would

5:35 ↗ there be any objections to doing that

5:37 ↗ due to staff availability

5:39 ↗ okay there being no objections we will

5:42 ↗ proceed with the items in that order and

5:45 ↗ then we will start with id1276 Title 18

5:48 ↗ processing procedures presented by

5:49 ↗ director daliwal

5:52 ↗ good evening council members and members

5:55 ↗ of the community

5:56 ↗ um so I'm going to quickly share my

5:58 ↗ screen here

6:00 ↗ um

6:03 ↗ and start the presentation so tonight

6:06 ↗ we're talking about the last of the the

6:10 ↗ six buckets process and procedures in

6:14 ↗ the title 18 land use code update and

6:17 ↗ we're seeking this committee's input

6:21 ↗ on if there are any additional

6:23 ↗ considerations for the planning policy

6:25 ↗ commission to study before they finalize

6:27 ↗ their recommendation to city council

6:30 ↗ and if the proposed changes meet the

6:33 ↗ goals and outcomes intended for this

6:35 ↗ topic or if there are any additional

6:37 ↗ topics we should you know consider when

6:39 ↗ making final edits to the Consolidated

6:41 ↗ draft

6:43 ↗ um Title 18 procedures and

6:45 ↗ administration topic uh had these six

6:48 ↗ five goals four goals uh protect

6:51 ↗ forested hillsides increase public

6:53 ↗ awareness effective management of travel

6:56 ↗ and modernize the code and incorporate

6:58 ↗ best practices

7:00 ↗ so at the last meeting we covered the

7:03 ↗ first five sub-topics and today we're

7:06 ↗ covering the last one process and

7:08 ↗ procedures and and we're divided into

7:10 ↗ two further subtopics first off is

7:14 ↗ vesting and we have our City attorney

7:17 ↗ here today if Council committee members

7:19 ↗ have any questions for her and Marie is

7:22 ↗ on the line

7:23 ↗ so we'll get into the first topic so in

7:27 ↗ Washington the vested rights Doctrine

7:30 ↗ provides

7:32 ↗ certain land use permits be considered

7:34 ↗ under the zoning and land use Control

7:36 ↗ Ordinance in effect at the time a

7:38 ↗ complete application has been submitted

7:40 ↗ it's the this Doctrine is statutorily

7:43 ↗ based on the context of a building

7:45 ↗ permit a subdivision short subdivision

7:49 ↗ or a

7:50 ↗ um you know more than nine Lots is

7:52 ↗ considered a subdivision in most cities

7:54 ↗ um

7:55 ↗ and development agreements so those are

7:57 ↗ the three statues that apply for vesting

8:01 ↗ the cities May however authorize in

8:04 ↗ other situations if we put that in our

8:06 ↗ specific code or a policy

8:09 ↗ um

8:10 ↗ and

8:12 ↗ um

8:13 ↗ so what are we authorized to change to

8:18 ↗ meet local needs and circumstances

8:20 ↗ we can decide what items are needed for

8:24 ↗ a complete application we can have that

8:26 ↗ in our code what is deemed complete the

8:29 ↗ city can decide if there are other land

8:31 ↗ use applications in addition to the

8:34 ↗ subdivision short platter building

8:35 ↗ permits that will allow vesting such as

8:38 ↗ site development permit

8:40 ↗ and and other applications like that

8:44 ↗ the city May impose an explicit

8:46 ↗ expiration date that's tied to the

8:49 ↗ expiration of the permit for other

8:52 ↗ projects for other applications than

8:54 ↗ those three listed in the state law

8:57 ↗ if a new regulation is adopted because a

9:01 ↗ change in conditions

9:02 ↗ can result in serious threat to public

9:06 ↗ health and safety the city is authorized

9:08 ↗ to impose the new regulation even on a

9:11 ↗ previously vested application

9:13 ↗ the city may also provide for major

9:16 ↗ modifications to a vested application

9:20 ↗ um

9:21 ↗ and so those are other you know where we

9:24 ↗ can go above and beyond those three

9:26 ↗ items

9:28 ↗ that are previously listed so when we

9:31 ↗ had this discussion with the planning

9:32 ↗ and policy commission we laid out these

9:34 ↗ three options uh first one was to allow

9:38 ↗ it for building permits uh short plaid

9:40 ↗ subdivisions and development agreements

9:42 ↗ uh option two was in addition to those

9:45 ↗ three we could add to that list you know

9:47 ↗ site development permits could be some

9:50 ↗ larger land use applications or all land

9:52 ↗ use applications we can buy policy and

9:54 ↗ and council's Direction can include

9:57 ↗ language in the code related to that

10:00 ↗ or option third was to have some sort of

10:04 ↗ a limited time period until the adoption

10:07 ↗ after the adoption of Title 18 then

10:10 ↗ could could be pursued so yeah a

10:13 ↗ question if you could sure

10:15 ↗ thank you okay so that I don't

10:18 ↗ use the wrong terminology can you go

10:21 ↗ through

10:22 ↗ um let's say for a multi-family housing

10:24 ↗ project what the different types of

10:28 ↗ permits and applications they would get

10:30 ↗ from kind of start to end and which one

10:34 ↗ of those are the land use applications

10:36 ↗ versus these other types that you're

10:39 ↗ saying could be an option and sure

10:42 ↗ so a multi-family project that's more

10:44 ↗ than four units under our existing code

10:46 ↗ today would require cipa it would

10:49 ↗ require you know depending on the scale

10:52 ↗ of the project it could be an

10:53 ↗ administrative site development permit

10:55 ↗ or it could be a site development permit

10:57 ↗ that's approved by the development

10:59 ↗ commission if it has a stream running

11:02 ↗ through it there is a possibility it

11:04 ↗ might require a shoreline substantial

11:06 ↗ development permit so those are the top

11:09 ↗ three or four that come to mind and and

11:11 ↗ and then of course tree permit if

11:13 ↗ there's a separatory regulations but a

11:16 ↗ lot of those things would be reviewed

11:17 ↗ under the site development permit

11:20 ↗ um if they were asking for a variance

11:22 ↗ for a certain standard it under our

11:25 ↗ existing code it could be an

11:26 ↗ administrative adjustment of Standards

11:28 ↗ or if or a variance with a public

11:32 ↗ hearing and by a hearing examiner so

11:34 ↗ specifics of where the project is

11:37 ↗ located the scale of the project for a

11:39 ↗ multi-family will determine some of

11:40 ↗ those nuances but it could be sipa

11:43 ↗ Shoreline site development permit and

11:46 ↗ maybe a few other these are all under

11:48 ↗ the land use application now once these

11:51 ↗ are approved I mean there's no

11:53 ↗ prohibition from someone applying for

11:54 ↗ these building construction permits

11:56 ↗ simultaneously under our code so but

12:01 ↗ those are issued after the land use

12:02 ↗ approval is is approved so those can be

12:06 ↗ a building permit for the actual

12:07 ↗ construction other construction is you

12:11 ↗ know if there's retaining walls they may

12:12 ↗ require a separate permit a landscaping

12:14 ↗ permit a site work permit so we have a

12:18 ↗ slew of construction permits

12:20 ↗ um that will follow the land use

12:22 ↗ approval

12:24 ↗ so let me follow up with the and

12:26 ↗ question then it

12:29 ↗ it sounds like from my reading option

12:33 ↗ one was kind of the most conservative it

12:38 ↗ was subdivision short plats and building

12:40 ↗ permits whereas option two

12:44 ↗ included other things like site

12:47 ↗ development permits and land use

12:49 ↗ applications which would come earlier is

12:52 ↗ that correct that's correct okay just

12:54 ↗ making sure I'm getting the difference

12:56 ↗ between those thank you

12:59 ↗ foreign

13:01 ↗ so that's

13:04 ↗ um pretty much the options we discussed

13:06 ↗ with the planning and policy commission

13:08 ↗ and I think our recommendation was just

13:12 ↗ follow the the first option uh you know

13:16 ↗ all of these other options are legal

13:18 ↗ it's just the first one is very clear

13:21 ↗ about these three things uh vesu we've

13:25 ↗ heard from developers on their concerns

13:28 ↗ with option one

13:31 ↗ um and uh you know so um so at this

13:35 ↗ point we're just explore you know having

13:38 ↗ this in an open transparent way so the

13:40 ↗ other part I think I want to bring a

13:42 ↗ clip make it clear is

13:43 ↗ this is the options we've laid out for

13:46 ↗ Council and planning and policy

13:47 ↗ commission to weigh in when the new code

13:49 ↗ goes into effect so what what do we want

13:52 ↗ the language and the new code to be so

13:54 ↗ as new applications come in under the

13:55 ↗ new proposed code how would those be

13:58 ↗ treated so the concerns we've heard are

14:01 ↗ you know you change your code you adopt

14:03 ↗ the new code we apply and spend our time

14:06 ↗ applying for this application but then

14:08 ↗ the code changes while we haven't had

14:11 ↗ the time to apply for a building permit

14:13 ↗ that they want they want some assurances

14:15 ↗ there that we won't do that reality is

14:18 ↗ we're not going to change the code you

14:20 ↗ know immediately after this and so so

14:22 ↗ that's uh one area the how we are going

14:26 ↗ to treat the the applications that are

14:28 ↗ currently in the hopper is not what

14:30 ↗ we're asking Council to weigh in because

14:31 ↗ the existing code will apply to them and

14:33 ↗ we'll evaluate it at the administration

14:35 ↗ level which code applies what's the

14:38 ↗ particular decision on a particular

14:40 ↗ application

14:42 ↗ so I just wanted that to be clear I

14:45 ↗ think there were some public testimony

14:47 ↗ in the previous PPC world that may have

14:49 ↗ raised some confusion

14:51 ↗ okay thank you councilmembery

14:54 ↗ can you provide just a really brief

14:57 ↗ summary of the pros and cons of each of

14:58 ↗ the three options you know y1 Y2 and Y3

15:03 ↗ yeah so option one

15:05 ↗ um you know is the most uh predictable

15:09 ↗ people know this is what is going to

15:12 ↗ vest us and there's no we treat some

15:15 ↗ applications this way and the other one

15:17 ↗ so it's the most cleanest from you know

15:19 ↗ you're applying it to these three things

15:22 ↗ so if you really are concerned about

15:24 ↗ code changing you have to apply for that

15:27 ↗ the con is I think what we've heard from

15:29 ↗ the development Community is the

15:32 ↗ building permit is the most expensive

15:33 ↗ for them for preparing the application

15:36 ↗ submitting the application our fees are

15:39 ↗ more for building permit than they are

15:41 ↗ for land use so they have to you know

15:44 ↗ commit to that the other con we've heard

15:47 ↗ is it takes us a long time to process

15:49 ↗ our land use applications our building

15:52 ↗ permits expire

15:54 ↗ within 18 months of an application but

15:57 ↗ those are things we can accommodate in

15:59 ↗ our code updates that you know if you

16:01 ↗ have a land use application and you've

16:04 ↗ applied for a building permit we're now

16:05 ↗ going to pull the plug on you because

16:07 ↗ the building official will has the

16:09 ↗ authority to Grant an extension in in

16:11 ↗ those circumstances we can make the

16:13 ↗ language more clear to provide certainty

16:15 ↗ on that

16:16 ↗ the option two uh you know accommodates

16:20 ↗ the developers concerns about we've

16:22 ↗ invested a lot of time into preparing

16:24 ↗ for these larger projects and we want

16:27 ↗ some Assurance other than from applying

16:30 ↗ for a building permit which will re-roll

16:33 ↗ but later at this time we want some

16:35 ↗ guarantees that you're not going to

16:37 ↗ change the code

16:39 ↗ the if we pick and choose which

16:41 ↗ applications to apply to and just go

16:44 ↗ with the larger applications you know

16:46 ↗ site development permits and Shoreline

16:48 ↗ permits and those kind of things

16:50 ↗ then potentially we could get an

16:53 ↗ argument about why I am a smaller you

16:55 ↗ know project why did I get a different

16:57 ↗ treatment than a larger project so

16:59 ↗ there's there's that of

17:01 ↗ creating more complexity of treating

17:03 ↗ some in one way and the other one so

17:05 ↗ that's a con for option two option three

17:08 ↗ we haven't really fleshed that out you

17:10 ↗ know when we graph the language for it

17:12 ↗ but

17:14 ↗ it gives some

17:16 ↗ firm date it it prevents people from you

17:20 ↗ know bringing in a glut of application

17:21 ↗ just to get vesting so we don't get a

17:24 ↗ flood of applications just so that the

17:26 ↗ new code doesn't apply to them that we

17:29 ↗ have some sort of a certain date time

17:31 ↗ period within that it accommodates

17:34 ↗ um folks

17:35 ↗ um you know who have a concern that

17:38 ↗ we're not just going to change the code

17:39 ↗ from them as we're reviewing these

17:42 ↗ applications so the first one is the

17:45 ↗ most cleanest to implement

17:47 ↗ um is more clear but has these other

17:50 ↗ issues for

17:52 ↗ developers option two

17:56 ↗ um you know we we can if we create three

17:59 ↗ different applications differently then

18:01 ↗ we have to justify why and all that and

18:05 ↗ option three is just accommodating a

18:07 ↗ little bit more time I don't know if

18:08 ↗ that answers no that's super thank you

18:10 ↗ okay

18:16 ↗ so that's it for this particular topic

18:20 ↗ um

18:21 ↗ any other questions for the City

18:24 ↗ attorney

18:25 ↗ this time

18:28 ↗ okay thank you Anne-Marie for joining us

18:35 ↗ so I'll keep going she's waving by

18:40 ↗ um

18:41 ↗ so the next topic where we

18:44 ↗ um have um stuff in our code in the

18:47 ↗ draft code is the rezone process

18:50 ↗ so the intent here and Stephen Padua

18:53 ↗ who's been working with the city

18:54 ↗ attorney and on this particular topic is

18:57 ↗ also joining us so feel free to ask any

19:00 ↗ questions and we may have him weigh in

19:03 ↗ um

19:04 ↗ uh here really our Focus has been to

19:07 ↗ provide Clarity between quasi-judicial

19:09 ↗ reasons and legislative rezones uh the

19:13 ↗ boundaries between the two get blurred

19:15 ↗ when it's a site-specific rezone but has

19:17 ↗ an accompanying Lane a comprehensive

19:19 ↗ plan Amendment

19:21 ↗ um so

19:23 ↗ um what we're hoping to provide is a

19:25 ↗ Clarity for everyone involved for

19:28 ↗ planning and policy commission for

19:29 ↗ Council

19:30 ↗ and then the other thing you know we

19:34 ↗ never had a criteria for what makes it

19:36 ↗ into the docket or not so we've added

19:38 ↗ the criteria for PPC to make a

19:41 ↗ recommendation and cancel to make a

19:42 ↗ decision on whether it makes it into the

19:44 ↗ docket

19:46 ↗ there we've included some exceptions to

19:49 ↗ annual amendments and those are under

19:50 ↗ the state law but just so that

19:52 ↗ everyone's clear that we can make some

19:54 ↗ amendments on as needed basis for

19:57 ↗ emergencies and other things that don't

19:59 ↗ have they're not subject to the ones a

20:01 ↗ year Amendment limitation

20:03 ↗ um

20:04 ↗ again we've added the approval criteria

20:07 ↗ for these reasons and you know one of

20:10 ↗ the things when the city goes through

20:12 ↗ the comprehensive planning process and

20:14 ↗ and establishes a comprehensive rezone

20:18 ↗ um there really has to be some things

20:19 ↗ changed from that time in order to apply

20:22 ↗ this and so we didn't have a criteria

20:24 ↗ what has changed from the time the city

20:25 ↗ did this work so things like that that

20:28 ↗ we felt uh were needed

20:30 ↗ um to provide now

20:33 ↗ um what we are still working on is this

20:37 ↗ cleaning up the boundaries between

20:39 ↗ quasi-judicial and legislative reasons

20:42 ↗ it's still a work in progress but one of

20:44 ↗ the things that has come up is

20:48 ↗ for site-specific reasons which I tend

20:51 ↗ to act more like quasi-judicial matters

20:54 ↗ there's a limitation on one hearing only

20:57 ↗ there's a limitation of 120 days that we

21:01 ↗ have to make a decision on that doesn't

21:02 ↗ always you know blend in with annual

21:06 ↗ comp plan amendment process so we're

21:08 ↗ figuring out that process of how do

21:11 ↗ these two tie in at the at the end but

21:14 ↗ they also meet the 120 day and one

21:16 ↗ public hearing process so what we would

21:19 ↗ like a committee to consider and give us

21:22 ↗ some feedback on is

21:24 ↗ because it can only be one public

21:26 ↗ hearing

21:28 ↗ that you know and it's treated as a

21:31 ↗ quasi-judicial matter where you're

21:33 ↗ limited from ex parte communication

21:35 ↗ you're

21:37 ↗ um you know subject to appearance of

21:38 ↗ fairness questions and concerns that if

21:41 ↗ Council want you know wants to be

21:43 ↗ Council has to be the decision-making

21:45 ↗ Authority because under the state law

21:46 ↗ reasons have to have be adopted by

21:49 ↗ ordinance so then it would come directly

21:53 ↗ to Council in a quasi-judicial matter

21:56 ↗ um

21:57 ↗ so if we go through the advisory you

22:02 ↗ know decision from the planning and

22:04 ↗ policy commission they really can't hold

22:06 ↗ a public hearing then what value does

22:08 ↗ that add because public can you know so

22:11 ↗ we're still working through this but if

22:13 ↗ you have

22:14 ↗ anything you'd like us to study more on

22:16 ↗ this topic or to clean up from your

22:19 ↗ perspective we can accommodate that in

22:21 ↗ the next draft

22:23 ↗ so I can pause at this topic and answer

22:26 ↗ any questions

22:29 ↗ um so I I did have a question it was one

22:31 ↗ that I sent in by email but I think I

22:34 ↗ wasn't clear about it so

22:36 ↗ um

22:36 ↗ I think you just answered though

22:39 ↗ council is actually required to be the

22:42 ↗ quasi-judicial decision maker for for

22:45 ↗ this and for all of the other for all of

22:48 ↗ the cases in this code that we would be

22:50 ↗ in that role it's required by law that

22:52 ↗ we'd be in that role when you have to

22:54 ↗ adopt the ordinance to rezone so well

22:56 ↗ and and so in a rezone yes the council

22:59 ↗ and the comprehensive plan Amendment the

23:01 ↗ council has to

23:03 ↗ okay and there's no other cases where we

23:06 ↗ would be in a quasi-judicial role no we

23:08 ↗ removed uh the other Master site plan

23:11 ↗ where the council had asked for uh not

23:13 ↗ to be the decision maker so I'll go over

23:15 ↗ that part so we're talking re-zones at

23:18 ↗ this time okay so we the ones that are

23:21 ↗ in here we are required by law to be the

23:24 ↗ question judicial because you have to

23:25 ↗ adopt an ordinance

23:27 ↗ just let a body okay yeah okay

23:30 ↗ Council memory

23:32 ↗ can you talk briefly to the difference

23:34 ↗ between a quasi-judicial rezone and a

23:37 ↗ legislative rezone what are the

23:38 ↗ characteristics of the sure

23:42 ↗ um so one example of a legislative

23:44 ↗ rezone is you know the entire Central

23:46 ↗ Issaquah uh was zoned single-family

23:49 ↗ residential and and times have changed

23:52 ↗ and you want it to be zoned multi-family

23:54 ↗ mixed use it's an area wide so one it's

23:59 ↗ not one particular property but it's

24:01 ↗ more of a impact to the you know sub

24:05 ↗ area of the city or something like that

24:06 ↗ that would be a legislative rezone a

24:10 ↗ particular property

24:12 ↗ that has a particular you know so

24:15 ↗ rezones can be too different one can

24:17 ↗ have an accompanying comp plan Amendment

24:19 ↗ or one that doesn't have one so if we if

24:22 ↗ a comprehensive plan was just

24:23 ↗ residential uh and it's currently zoned

24:26 ↗ a single family and we want to resume

24:29 ↗ you know someone wants to rezone it

24:31 ↗ multi-family you're not changing the

24:33 ↗ comprehensive plan

24:35 ↗ so that's that's not a legislative

24:37 ↗ decision because it's just it doesn't

24:39 ↗ have an accompanying comp plan but

24:41 ↗ anytime you have to change the comp plan

24:44 ↗ but it still site specific that's where

24:47 ↗ it gets kind of um unclear our current

24:51 ↗ code treats them legislative

24:53 ↗ um and so we're trying to provide some

24:55 ↗ clarity of very site-specific rezones

24:57 ↗ that have an accompanying comp plan

24:59 ↗ should be quasi-judicial under the new

25:02 ↗ proposed code and if so

25:05 ↗ then they come directly to council

25:09 ↗ and there's reason to want them to be

25:13 ↗ quasi-judicial versus legislative when

25:16 ↗ there's a comp plan change involved if

25:19 ↗ it's a specific properly then yes they

25:22 ↗ should be treated as quasi-judicials is

25:24 ↗ that because of state law or best

25:25 ↗ practice or state I mean case law case

25:28 ↗ law okay

25:29 ↗ okay great thanks

25:35 ↗ keep going all right

25:38 ↗ so other major changes in this section

25:42 ↗ uh definitions so thank you to community

25:45 ↗ members and council members that took a

25:47 ↗ deeper dive into so that we definitely

25:50 ↗ need to scrub those and we'll continue

25:52 ↗ to work on refining them in the in the

25:55 ↗ next draft but our our thought process

25:58 ↗ in that has been to make it clear

25:59 ↗ reference the state codes take out

26:02 ↗ redundant ones and such and such

26:05 ↗ the neighborhood meetings were extremely

26:08 ↗ confusing in our existing code some

26:11 ↗ triggered an environmental neighborhood

26:13 ↗ meeting

26:14 ↗ and others triggered a collaborate you

26:18 ↗ know Community collaboration hosted by

26:20 ↗ development commission and others with

26:22 ↗ just meetings there were some projects

26:24 ↗ that triggered both type of meetings and

26:27 ↗ so we've struggled with

26:29 ↗ how do we accommodate community members

26:31 ↗ that don't draw that distinction between

26:33 ↗ three different flavors of meetings it's

26:34 ↗ about the same project but we also want

26:37 ↗ to have an ability for it to to answer

26:40 ↗ questions to hear from the community and

26:42 ↗ provide for that so we've Consolidated

26:45 ↗ that and called it a pre-application

26:48 ↗ you know neighborhood meeting or

26:50 ↗ something like that we can change the

26:52 ↗ name

26:52 ↗ so that it just says neighborhood

26:55 ↗ meeting or something like that to make

26:56 ↗ it clear

26:57 ↗ and then the administrative adjustment

27:00 ↗ of Standards is the other part our

27:03 ↗ existing code has

27:04 ↗ you can ask for any standards to be

27:07 ↗ administratively deviated if you meet

27:09 ↗ this pretty broad vague criteria except

27:12 ↗ for these five things you know far

27:15 ↗ density you know there's few things that

27:17 ↗ we're not allowed to administratively

27:19 ↗ change but everything else can

27:21 ↗ we flipped that in the proposed draft to

27:24 ↗ say yes we want to provide flexibility

27:26 ↗ for certain things but here are the 10

27:28 ↗ things that we want to have flexibility

27:30 ↗ for anything else requires a variance

27:34 ↗ from the hearing examiner which is a

27:35 ↗ public hearing process and you really

27:37 ↗ have to show your hardship criteria of

27:41 ↗ meeting that so it's public process it's

27:44 ↗ a much stronger bar to meet

27:46 ↗ and to get a deviation on that but then

27:49 ↗ we accommodated where it did make sense

27:51 ↗ and provide some flexibility options you

27:54 ↗ know for instance if you have a Grove of

27:57 ↗ trees that in your Landscaping plan you

28:00 ↗ can count towards instead of planting

28:02 ↗ them in a row then maybe we can make

28:04 ↗ that adjustment uh in your site design

28:06 ↗ but then we have a specific criteria

28:09 ↗ we're going to add in in that specific

28:10 ↗ chapter for when we can approve that and

28:13 ↗ it'll be a written decision earlier in

28:16 ↗ the process on those things

28:19 ↗ levels of review

28:21 ↗ um

28:22 ↗ so these are all over the map in our

28:25 ↗ existing code where it belongs in

28:29 ↗ replacement regulations refer you to

28:33 ↗ um centrals and then outside of central

28:35 ↗ it's a separate table and the permitted

28:39 ↗ uses you know

28:41 ↗ establishes the level of review

28:43 ↗ so if it's a daycare then it establishes

28:46 ↗ whether it's a level two or level three

28:47 ↗ it doesn't take into account how big the

28:51 ↗ the daycare is a small building versus a

28:54 ↗ large building it's the same process for

28:56 ↗ that so what we've attempted to do with

28:59 ↗ this draft is to just have the permitted

29:01 ↗ uses table to say whether the use is

29:03 ↗ allowed or not allowed and then have the

29:06 ↗ threshold for reviews separate from the

29:08 ↗ permitted uses table and

29:11 ↗ and have that very clear

29:14 ↗ um you know established threshold for it

29:18 ↗ um we'll get into the policy questions

29:19 ↗ that we as planning and policy

29:21 ↗ commission and and shared with you

29:24 ↗ um the other thing you know during the

29:26 ↗ early gaps analysis we asked who should

29:29 ↗ be the decision maker on these

29:32 ↗ quasi-judicial land use matters and what

29:35 ↗ the role of development commission

29:37 ↗ should be we heard loud and clear from

29:40 ↗ the community members and from

29:41 ↗ development commission that they value

29:43 ↗ they really value the development

29:44 ↗ commission's role in evaluating these

29:47 ↗ and so we've kept development commission

29:50 ↗ as a decision maker

29:53 ↗ but we also heard development

29:55 ↗ Commissioners saying they're not the

29:57 ↗ experts on traffic study or storm water

29:59 ↗ study and you give us a large document

30:02 ↗ agenda packet

30:04 ↗ where they felt they brought in value

30:06 ↗ was building design and site design and

30:09 ↗ addressing those kind of issues so this

30:11 ↗ draft establishes where we could give

30:15 ↗ some clear answers to developers earlier

30:18 ↗ in the process because they've gone

30:20 ↗ through a technical review of their

30:23 ↗ Wetland they've shown us what the report

30:25 ↗ you know if it's a type 2 or a Type 3

30:28 ↗ we've had it peer-reviewed we've had an

30:30 ↗ environmental neighborhood meeting and

30:32 ↗ we can tell them it's a type 3 Wetland

30:34 ↗ and it establishes 100 foot buffer as

30:37 ↗ opposed to we can give you an answer

30:38 ↗ wait till the end and we don't know what

30:40 ↗ development commission is going to do

30:42 ↗ with it at the end so

30:45 ↗ um we're still working through some

30:47 ↗ technicalities with this section because

30:49 ↗ it's only one public hearing for

30:50 ↗ quasi-judicial matters we want to make

30:52 ↗ sure that uh you know those things those

30:55 ↗ um X's are crossed and T's are done in

30:57 ↗ the final draft but uh the proposed

31:00 ↗ draft has the technical document section

31:01 ↗ in there uh public notification we

31:04 ↗ solicited input of what makes sense

31:07 ↗ um and we have changed it from 300 feet

31:10 ↗ to 500 feet and also to property owners

31:14 ↗ and tenants when majority of our

31:17 ↗ community members are renters we wanted

31:19 ↗ to ensure that everyone was notified

31:22 ↗ um

31:23 ↗ then a lot of clarification and

31:26 ↗ simplification

31:28 ↗ um text with tables

31:30 ↗ consolidation and so the policy

31:32 ↗ questions we have for Council uh with

31:35 ↗ that we shared with planning and policy

31:36 ↗ commission is what's the size of

31:39 ↗ buildings that should be reviewed

31:40 ↗ administratively

31:42 ↗ and which ones should go to the

31:44 ↗ development commission

31:46 ↗ and then we also have a policy question

31:49 ↗ about cities Capital Improvement

31:52 ↗ projects city parks streets and other

31:55 ↗ infrastructure there tends to be a lot

31:57 ↗ of confusion about where the city is in

32:00 ↗ the process a lot of these projects go

32:03 ↗ through public process during making it

32:05 ↗ into the capital CIP list

32:08 ↗ you know that's a public process and

32:10 ↗ then when it goes through a design

32:11 ↗ process parks department will hold open

32:15 ↗ houses and and invite the community

32:17 ↗ members to weigh in on the design and so

32:20 ↗ a lot of Outreach occurs at that time

32:22 ↗ and then

32:24 ↗ when they're ready to apply for their

32:26 ↗ land use and construction permits it

32:28 ↗ gets tangled up in that process

32:30 ↗ but any surprises that come down at that

32:34 ↗ point for compliance with code result in

32:37 ↗ delays to the project uh you know

32:39 ↗ communities money being spent on

32:41 ↗ internal

32:42 ↗ review and process so what we're

32:46 ↗ recommending here in your

32:49 ↗ uh I have slides that are slightly

32:53 ↗ so we can come back to the details of

32:56 ↗ that one since I'm talking about public

32:57 ↗ projects I'll keep going here

33:00 ↗ um so we divided it into two different

33:02 ↗ parts

33:03 ↗ um you know one within the existing

33:05 ↗ right-of-way so if you're repairing and

33:08 ↗ maintaining an existing paved area if

33:11 ↗ you're putting a new sewer line or you

33:13 ↗ know within an existing paved area or

33:16 ↗ you're doing a layover of a street that

33:20 ↗ probably shouldn't require any land use

33:22 ↗ approval unless sea power Shoreline are

33:25 ↗ required if you're expanding your

33:28 ↗ infrastructure or streets or building

33:30 ↗ new streets again we feel the public

33:33 ↗ Outreach and input needs to be

33:34 ↗ standardized when it happens earlier in

33:37 ↗ the city's capital projects but that's

33:40 ↗ the time when major changes can be made

33:42 ↗ you know different evaluations can be

33:45 ↗ done and then we and we actually have a

33:50 ↗ Consolidated permit we can call it

33:53 ↗ capital Improvement permit where we hold

33:56 ↗ the city accountable for meeting the

33:58 ↗ rules and regulations that have been

34:00 ↗ adopted so tree regulations critical

34:02 ↗ area regulations and all of that and if

34:06 ↗ there is a construction permit required

34:09 ↗ that would be all bundled in so it'll be

34:10 ↗ a simultaneous land use in construction

34:12 ↗ permit what we've heard from Project

34:15 ↗ managers is when we split them into five

34:17 ↗ different projects and each one has a

34:19 ↗ list of conditions it becomes hard

34:21 ↗ during the bidding process to track

34:24 ↗ these multiple conditions and different

34:26 ↗ things and then every time a contractor

34:28 ↗ has a change order because this

34:30 ↗ condition got missed here that cost the

34:32 ↗ city more money as well

34:34 ↗ so hoping to to have a more robust

34:38 ↗ public Outreach and a stream you know a

34:41 ↗ clear path earlier with a more

34:44 ↗ streamlined review process but still

34:47 ↗ holding ourselves accountable to the the

34:49 ↗ regulations that we've adopted so the

34:52 ↗ second one is really

34:55 ↗ um not in the right-of-way so Capital

34:56 ↗ Improvement projects that are not within

34:58 ↗ the street a new park a maintenance of a

35:02 ↗ new you know an existing Park so repair

35:03 ↗ and maintenance again no land use Sip

35:06 ↗ and Shoreline if they're triggered

35:08 ↗ expansion of an existing use or a new

35:10 ↗ park again robust public Outreach and

35:14 ↗ engagement during the design phase

35:16 ↗ Consolidated

35:17 ↗ construction review

35:20 ↗ uh permit review Consolidated land use

35:22 ↗ and permit review at the end what we

35:25 ↗ heard from planning and policy

35:26 ↗ commission is when we engage with the

35:29 ↗ community members earlier

35:31 ↗ um we we should then keep them informed

35:34 ↗ as the project you know moves through

35:37 ↗ the construction phases and other phases

35:39 ↗ so we'll incorporate some of those

35:42 ↗ um you know processes during the um the

35:46 ↗ permit review process

35:48 ↗ um to do that

35:50 ↗ so

35:52 ↗ um I'll go back real quickly to the

35:54 ↗ options for which ones go to development

35:57 ↗ commission which ones don't with the

36:00 ↗ planning and policy commission we shared

36:02 ↗ two options one our existing code has

36:05 ↗ these high visibility priority corridors

36:08 ↗ so the way the existing code is written

36:11 ↗ if you're along these streets and you

36:13 ↗ are in Central Issaquah area or Talus or

36:17 ↗ Highlands anything over 4 000 gets

36:20 ↗ automatically bumped to a development

36:22 ↗ Commission if you're outside of those

36:25 ↗ three areas

36:26 ↗ anything regardless of the size gets

36:28 ↗ bumped up to development Commission

36:31 ↗ and the anywhere outside of those three

36:35 ↗ areas the thresholds really vary for

36:37 ↗ each use there's a different threshold

36:40 ↗ that establishes which criteria for

36:44 ↗ retail and office it's one for the other

36:46 ↗ ones so it becomes

36:48 ↗ a very

36:50 ↗ hard process to figure out who's

36:52 ↗ actually going to make the decision on

36:54 ↗ which project depending on where you are

36:56 ↗ what the use is and all that so our hope

36:59 ↗ is to streamline when we ask the

37:02 ↗ planning and policy commission do you

37:03 ↗ care about this high visibility Frontage

37:06 ↗ um they you know I think there was

37:08 ↗ consensus to not go down that path and

37:11 ↗ just go with a threshold now we haven't

37:14 ↗ landed on what threshold makes sense

37:17 ↗ they wanted us to come back with some

37:19 ↗ more options

37:20 ↗ we think we can develop a few more

37:23 ↗ options but one committee's feedback on

37:26 ↗ where you think we we need to flush it

37:28 ↗ out more

37:30 ↗ um so one option is anything 4 000 or

37:33 ↗ more goes to development commission

37:35 ↗ which could trigger a lot more workload

37:37 ↗ for development commission

37:39 ↗ um maybe uh any or and then in and then

37:45 ↗ keep anything below so one we could

37:48 ↗ really only send 45 000 or more under

37:50 ↗ option one we could send anything over

37:53 ↗ four thousand or more or we could we

37:55 ↗ think in the middle ten thousand is

37:58 ↗ where I think we've landed on CPA

38:00 ↗ thresholds where we want the buildings

38:02 ↗ to be sustainable and that's a good

38:06 ↗ sized building but not huge

38:09 ↗ um you know we gave you some samples of

38:11 ↗ the size of the building so

38:13 ↗ King County Library on Front Street is

38:16 ↗ 15 000 square feet the city hall is 35

38:20 ↗ 000 square feet so those would all go to

38:21 ↗ the development commission so our

38:23 ↗ recommendation is we land a thousand at

38:25 ↗ 10 000 square feet anything above that

38:27 ↗ goes to development commission anything

38:29 ↗ below that will still include a public

38:31 ↗ process but it will be issued

38:34 ↗ administratively it'll still be subject

38:35 ↗ to the same criteria but it won't

38:38 ↗ involve a development Commission

38:41 ↗ so that's all we have

38:43 ↗ in terms of options for you at this

38:45 ↗ point council president Walsh

38:48 ↗ can you talk a little bit more about the

38:50 ↗ burden on the development commission

38:53 ↗ also about what the difference is for a

38:58 ↗ developer

38:59 ↗ whether we think that we would get

39:01 ↗ potentially people avoiding building

39:04 ↗ above that criteria and thus miss out on

39:07 ↗ some missing middle

39:10 ↗ um

39:11 ↗ and let's see so volume of projects that

39:14 ↗ this might send to DC

39:17 ↗ time requirements

39:19 ↗ all of that yeah so um in terms of

39:22 ↗ comparing it with the existing process

39:25 ↗ you know anything along those high

39:27 ↗ visibility streets is automatically

39:29 ↗ going to development commission at 4 000

39:31 ↗ or even Below in certain areas so so we

39:36 ↗ don't think you know even if it's 4 000

39:40 ↗ even if we land at anything above four

39:41 ↗ thousand goes to development commission

39:43 ↗ it shouldn't exponentially increase

39:45 ↗ their case but it's hard to tell what

39:47 ↗ the Redevelopment in the future is going

39:49 ↗ to look like and are we going to get a

39:51 ↗ lot of smaller

39:53 ↗ ten thousand but you're absolutely right

39:55 ↗ once you establish a threshold people

39:58 ↗ will try and avoid that higher review

40:00 ↗ process and just want to build

40:02 ↗ 9999 square feet because they're not

40:05 ↗ wanting you know that that they may feel

40:08 ↗ May save them more

40:10 ↗ time

40:12 ↗ um not having to go through that process

40:13 ↗ which isn't necessarily true you know

40:16 ↗ once we get the code updated it

40:17 ↗ shouldn't it it'll be the same criteria

40:20 ↗ it's whether we evaluate and produce a

40:23 ↗ staff report or the development

40:25 ↗ commission then evaluates it so

40:28 ↗ in terms of the workload for DC you know

40:30 ↗ we haven't done an in-depth analysis of

40:32 ↗ what uh how you know what in the

40:34 ↗ historically we've received

40:37 ↗ scale of projects and how many they get

40:39 ↗ but since I have been here for a year I

40:42 ↗ think we they haven't you know they

40:43 ↗ approved the school district they

40:45 ↗ approve the brown bear

40:47 ↗ um and maybe one or two other

40:48 ↗ neighborhood meetings that they've had

40:50 ↗ so

40:54 ↗ so

40:55 ↗ I'm trying to figure out how I come at

40:59 ↗ this information and understand it so

41:02 ↗ that I can provide good feedback so

41:06 ↗ you're saying you don't think it's going

41:08 ↗ to be an exponential increase

41:11 ↗ in the number of projects that

41:13 ↗ development commission is going to have

41:15 ↗ to look at you have an ass development

41:18 ↗ commission what their preferences

41:20 ↗ necessarily but you did ask PPC about

41:24 ↗ that

41:25 ↗ um

41:26 ↗ what do other cities do

41:30 ↗ we can look around you know I think

41:32 ↗ everyone has as their own unique this is

41:35 ↗ what do we you know what what brings

41:37 ↗ value so it's not necessarily what what

41:39 ↗ would work for one City versus US I mean

41:42 ↗ we I think Issaquah has had this the

41:45 ↗ spray high visibility Street option

41:47 ↗ floating around and you know if there

41:49 ↗ are really unique places that you truly

41:52 ↗ care about then maybe we continue down

41:55 ↗ that path that that deserves a higher

41:58 ↗ scrutiny but

41:59 ↗ so there's really no right or wrong

42:01 ↗ answer in this one it's really whatever

42:04 ↗ the community and and Council chooses to

42:06 ↗ do

42:08 ↗ um the outcome I think if we focus on

42:11 ↗ the outcome it's the same criteria

42:14 ↗ whether you're about whether staff is

42:16 ↗ evaluating it so the problem in the past

42:18 ↗ has been we don't have good criteria we

42:20 ↗ don't have good basis so where PPC and

42:22 ↗ development commission have been

42:23 ↗ invaluable is really looking at the

42:25 ↗ criteria and development commission has

42:27 ↗ looked at that criteria we can check

42:29 ↗ back with them we indeed we engage them

42:31 ↗ earlier in the conversation in a role of

42:33 ↗ DC and got some good feedback you know

42:35 ↗ we don't care about the technical pieces

42:37 ↗ we do care about these so so we can

42:40 ↗ check in with them on the procedures

42:42 ↗ section if that if Council wants us to

42:45 ↗ go to them

42:46 ↗ and get their feedback

42:50 ↗ okay

42:51 ↗ um

42:54 ↗ do you have any sense because we do

42:56 ↗ currently have this high visibility

42:59 ↗ streets versus not

43:01 ↗ is there a way that you could look at a

43:04 ↗ project that was on a high visibility

43:06 ↗ street that had to go to DC and the

43:09 ↗ amount of time that it took to go

43:11 ↗ through the process versus one that was

43:13 ↗ not and went through the administrative

43:15 ↗ so I'm just trying to understand what

43:18 ↗ the time difference is and the reason I

43:20 ↗ ask about the other

43:22 ↗ communities and what they do is because

43:24 ↗ I don't want to lose a missing middle

43:26 ↗ project to Kirkland because they have a

43:30 ↗ different level of review required for

43:33 ↗ that if we have the opportunity to have

43:37 ↗ that project here

43:39 ↗ I want to make sure we're doing

43:41 ↗ everything right so I think I'm

43:42 ↗ interested in both of those sets of

43:45 ↗ information okay

43:47 ↗ yeah it's hard you know um

43:49 ↗ the time issue because we're cleaning up

43:53 ↗ the code that's going to improve right

43:56 ↗ so

43:57 ↗ so using our existing benchmarks is

44:00 ↗ probably not going to give you the right

44:03 ↗ information you need to make an informed

44:05 ↗ decision but what happened so so my

44:08 ↗ recommendation on this would be you know

44:10 ↗ um

44:11 ↗ is if your concern is the the this you

44:15 ↗ want to have a more

44:17 ↗ not have more onerous process for

44:19 ↗ certain type of projects

44:22 ↗ that perhaps we can articulate what

44:24 ↗ those kind of projects you might be

44:26 ↗ thinking of that we we look at those

44:29 ↗ specific things of you know adding a

44:33 ↗ public hearing I mean out of the top of

44:35 ↗ my head I can say if you go to a public

44:37 ↗ hearing with the development commission

44:39 ↗ it involves you know we'll still be

44:42 ↗ notifying in the other process it's just

44:44 ↗ the public hearing aspects of it and

44:46 ↗ then coordinating the meeting so it

44:49 ↗ might add two months to the permit

44:51 ↗ review process I mean out of the I'm

44:53 ↗ just throwing out numbers that with the

44:55 ↗ new streamline efficient code and that

44:59 ↗ might be the difference at a very high

45:02 ↗ level

45:03 ↗ fantastic thanks

45:09 ↗ yep

45:10 ↗ so yeah I think those are the two

45:13 ↗ questions with seeking feedback public

45:15 ↗ projects what you know do you this is

45:17 ↗ the process we think we've laid out if

45:20 ↗ uh committee agrees I think we got

45:23 ↗ um agreement from planning and policy

45:25 ↗ Commission on this with some feedback

45:26 ↗ about keeping Community informed then we

45:29 ↗ can craft start crafting language actual

45:32 ↗ regulatory language to put in the code

45:34 ↗ and then what's the threshold

45:38 ↗ to go to DC yep

45:40 ↗ [Music]

45:49 ↗ is that are you concluded with your

45:50 ↗ presentation okay

45:52 ↗ um do we have any questions before we

45:54 ↗ take public comment on this

45:56 ↗ section

45:58 ↗ okay

46:00 ↗ um then I will at this time call for a

46:02 ↗ public comment to anyone wishing to

46:05 ↗ comment on this

46:07 ↗ [Music]

46:14 ↗ um Connie Marsh

46:16 ↗ [Music]

46:22 ↗ hi Connie Marsh again

46:28 ↗ no delayed vesting number one is the

46:32 ↗ best option but our problem with vesting

46:34 ↗ at this point in time is our criteria

46:37 ↗ for a complete application is too low we

46:42 ↗ often get poor incomplete or downright

46:44 ↗ wrong information when we get a complete

46:47 ↗ application and then they're vested in

46:49 ↗ something that is not even reality and I

46:53 ↗ I think we need to change that because

46:55 ↗ if we let people vest we want them in

46:59 ↗ accurately right now we don't review any

47:02 ↗ of it we just say hope okay we got the

47:04 ↗ stuff

47:05 ↗ it isn't is it good stuff

47:09 ↗ so uh there were nine pieces in that

47:11 ↗ pattern

47:13 ↗ um for legislative rezones

47:17 ↗ must the city allow an applicant to

47:21 ↗ apply for a legislative rezone if asked

47:25 ↗ or can they deny that that happened with

47:30 ↗ what

47:31 ↗ um melding with the school district

47:34 ↗ they they were able to Mush two parts of

47:38 ↗ an application together because they

47:40 ↗ asked for it and we didn't seem to have

47:43 ↗ a way to stop it so I don't want to put

47:46 ↗ things into this code that the city

47:48 ↗ cannot say no to if the applicant asks

47:53 ↗ for it I think we always need to have a

47:55 ↗ possibility to be able to say no even if

47:58 ↗ that is slightly different criteria than

48:02 ↗ a legislative resume because I could see

48:04 ↗ that you would have different criteria

48:06 ↗ there

48:08 ↗ um I am concerned that the Consolidated

48:11 ↗ public meetings could be incredibly

48:14 ↗ complex somewhat like the PPC meetings

48:17 ↗ that have 300 pages and then in two

48:21 ↗ hours you are expecting a back and forth

48:24 ↗ good conversation between the developer

48:27 ↗ and the concerned community members so

48:30 ↗ if all the topics are put together then

48:33 ↗ I don't and it's a and it's a big deal I

48:36 ↗ don't think you're going to have the

48:37 ↗ conversation that is appropriate for the

48:40 ↗ intent of those meetings so if if it's

48:44 ↗ light and there isn't much content to it

48:46 ↗ or if it's only one topic or another

48:48 ↗ like it's all environmental and not very

48:50 ↗ much everything else I can see a meeting

48:52 ↗ would probably work but if it's big I

48:56 ↗ think you should be split it up and I

48:58 ↗ don't know how to get that in code but

48:59 ↗ if you look at what you think success is

49:03 ↗ I think you can you will find

49:04 ↗ frustration

49:06 ↗ and potential failure sometimes at these

49:10 ↗ meetings so it has to be appropriate in

49:12 ↗ order to push them all together

49:14 ↗ and so the adjustment of Standards

49:17 ↗ language

49:19 ↗ puts us almost exactly where we have

49:21 ↗ been before with the same level of

49:23 ↗ frustration I don't see that the

49:25 ↗ criteria or any easier to implement and

49:29 ↗ to have the developer do what fits the

49:32 ↗ code better I don't see that it's

49:35 ↗ possible to say no to most of those so

49:38 ↗ it's the same conversation again and to

49:41 ↗ me that is a huge thing

49:43 ↗ so now

49:45 ↗ threshold review

49:47 ↗ I was pondering this in the middle of

49:49 ↗ the night of course and the development

49:52 ↗ agreements in the central Issaquah plan

49:54 ↗ have all had eis's and the central

49:57 ↗ Issaquah plan

49:59 ↗ has some extra permitting on top of that

50:03 ↗ so in those areas that have had a lot of

50:07 ↗ review already

50:09 ↗ I could see that the threshold would be

50:11 ↗ higher however

50:13 ↗ because these are tight areas think

50:16 ↗ there needs to be take extra care that

50:19 ↗ the community around these areas is very

50:22 ↗ aware of what is happening and how it

50:24 ↗ might impact their lives and their

50:26 ↗ businesses because even at four thousand

50:29 ↗ square foot building in the wrong place

50:31 ↗ could kill a business if if it harmed

50:34 ↗ their access and so you really need to

50:36 ↗ make sure that the community is not left

50:38 ↗ out of the conversation because you've

50:40 ↗ made a threshold very high and I don't

50:42 ↗ really see that happening here we have a

50:45 ↗ a little bit more push out but I you

50:49 ↗ know

50:50 ↗ how do you how do you take a

50:52 ↗ notification and make it an active

50:55 ↗ community so then we get to our public

50:59 ↗ projects versus our private project

51:01 ↗ Jackson process and the community is

51:04 ↗ totally baffled in oh it's a public

51:07 ↗ works project it's a Parks project it's

51:10 ↗ a private project and we're going to

51:11 ↗ talk about a public project way out here

51:15 ↗ and then what comes in is something very

51:18 ↗ different than they talked about at the

51:20 ↗ higher level because you have value

51:22 ↗ engineering you have all kinds of

51:24 ↗ different things that change and the

51:25 ↗ community is left out of that

51:27 ↗ conversation I personally would like to

51:29 ↗ see a consistent process with parks and

51:33 ↗ Public Works in all public projects so

51:35 ↗ that the community can know it's going

51:37 ↗ to come out early and we are going to

51:39 ↗ have touch points through this this this

51:41 ↗ and this and then everyone will know

51:44 ↗ what to expect all the time and right

51:46 ↗ now it's basically a a crap shoot and

51:50 ↗ that isn't even a bad word because it's

51:52 ↗ a game

51:53 ↗ um Ms Marsh your time is up so could you

51:55 ↗ summarize

51:59 ↗ I'm going to summarize by saying

52:02 ↗ five minutes isn't long enough

52:05 ↗ on a really complex topics

52:07 ↗ and I'm the only one here

52:10 ↗ so I would ask

52:12 ↗ that I'd be able to finish my few more

52:16 ↗ topics of conversation

52:18 ↗ so that I can have complete process

52:21 ↗ [Music]

52:28 ↗ okay and we also are available by email

52:30 ↗ for any of these topics yes but it's not

52:33 ↗ the same

52:35 ↗ okay you can finish

52:37 ↗ um so then the uh administrative

52:42 ↗ approval has fewer eyes so when you

52:46 ↗ reduce the threshold you are basically

52:49 ↗ not giving it as good of a a scan

52:52 ↗ development commission is pretty

52:54 ↗ educated and they can often take a

52:57 ↗ project that is okay and make it much

53:00 ↗ better and I think that's what we want

53:02 ↗ in our town is we want really good

53:04 ↗ projects

53:05 ↗ even if it takes a little more review

53:07 ↗ because we don't just need adequate

53:10 ↗ projects even though it's sort of what

53:12 ↗ we technically want to have

53:15 ↗ and Technical documents would be coming

53:18 ↗ in before anyone even really knows

53:20 ↗ what's happening so I don't really

53:23 ↗ understand is everybody going to be

53:25 ↗ noticed when a technical document comes

53:28 ↗ out because uh basically you don't even

53:32 ↗ have a project

53:34 ↗ yet that's out all you have are

53:36 ↗ technical documents and those will be

53:39 ↗ finals and you will lose your

53:41 ↗ appealability if

53:43 ↗ the community does not know right now

53:47 ↗ you can you appeal the project and the

53:51 ↗ technical documents at the same time so

53:54 ↗ I'm really concerned with that level one

53:58 ↗ review

53:59 ↗ same with parks and Public Works

54:01 ↗ engineering you don't have your

54:03 ↗ technical reviews in advance and so then

54:07 ↗ by the time you know there's a wetland

54:10 ↗ or there's traffic impacts basically

54:13 ↗ it's already been approved in the level

54:15 ↗ one review by by the planning department

54:18 ↗ and that is it thank you I appreciate

54:22 ↗ your your minor time extension thank you

54:27 ↗ all right committee so um if we could

54:31 ↗ walk through the

54:33 ↗ um questions that would be helpful and

54:35 ↗ we can take them one at a time as we've

54:37 ↗ been doing with Title 18 since there are

54:39 ↗ many different parts of these

54:42 ↗ um

54:43 ↗ of these items

54:48 ↗ director Dolly well just a quick

54:50 ↗ question

54:51 ↗ um

54:52 ↗ so to get a a building permit or a site

54:57 ↗ short subdivision or division

54:59 ↗ application approved or

55:02 ↗ um does I mean for it to best does it

55:04 ↗ have to be approved and complete and do

55:06 ↗ we have a definition of what complete is

55:09 ↗ and and so it I can't just like Chuck a

55:12 ↗ bunch of stuff at you and say here it is

55:15 ↗ and then say okay now I'm vested I'm

55:17 ↗ good to go it's got to actually have

55:19 ↗ gone further than that

55:22 ↗ so we've we've had discussions on it my

55:25 ↗ preference would be to have that clearly

55:27 ↗ laid out in the code so there's no

55:29 ↗ questions

55:30 ↗ um I think the current uh draft talks

55:32 ↗ about a checklist that's maintained by

55:34 ↗ the department but I think that just

55:36 ↗ leads to so for the purposes of land use

55:39 ↗ application I think in the next draft we

55:42 ↗ intend to hardwire what you know basic

55:45 ↗ minimum

55:47 ↗ requirements are for completeness and

55:49 ↗ the way the land use application

55:50 ↗ requirement under the state level we've

55:53 ↗ been you know we will follow is you get

55:55 ↗ an application you have 28 days to

55:57 ↗ determine and complete and then you know

55:59 ↗ we notify them the applicant it's

56:02 ↗ complete and then we immediately start

56:04 ↗ the public notification process so

56:07 ↗ within 14 days then we would circulate

56:09 ↗ the notice to all the surrounding

56:11 ↗ property owners that we've received this

56:12 ↗ application we'll post the site whatever

56:15 ↗ the notice requirements are triggered so

56:18 ↗ all the technical reports and everything

56:20 ↗ will be uploaded at that time on the

56:23 ↗ city's active projects list

56:25 ↗ so at the time it's deemed complete let

56:27 ↗ me just clarify so there's really no

56:29 ↗ approval of these documents it's really

56:31 ↗ that I have all of the things and

56:33 ↗ they're complete okay thank you

56:36 ↗ I was just going to mention it's on page

56:39 ↗ 79 of the draft the application

56:42 ↗ completeness in case you want to look it

56:45 ↗ up there's basically four criteria it

56:48 ↗ fully complies with the form and

56:51 ↗ contents of application meets any other

56:54 ↗ procedural submission requirements

56:56 ↗ includes full payment of fees and is

56:59 ↗ sufficient for continued processing

57:02 ↗ yeah and and we will revise that in the

57:06 ↗ Consolidated draft because I think the

57:08 ↗ first one is just referring you to a

57:10 ↗ checklist that is maintained outside of

57:12 ↗ the code and so we want to say we need

57:16 ↗ an owner affidavit you need a site plan

57:19 ↗ you need a you know basic minimum

57:21 ↗ requirements we intend to have that be

57:24 ↗ part of the code in the next iteration

57:27 ↗ so it it will get work done so is that

57:31 ↗ coming back to us after as part of the

57:33 ↗ Consolidated draft yet oh goodness

57:36 ↗ gracious

57:37 ↗ um is there going to be a set like we've

57:40 ↗ talked a lot about this set of like

57:42 ↗ future updates and all of that is there

57:45 ↗ a way that we can get those coming to us

57:49 ↗ separate from well that has changed yeah

57:53 ↗ so we will include a list of things that

57:55 ↗ have changed from the first version that

57:57 ↗ you've seen so we're working on how we

58:00 ↗ package the next time you all touch so

58:03 ↗ you don't have to look at it all over

58:05 ↗ again that you can focus on the things

58:07 ↗ that have changed from the first version

58:09 ↗ to to now

58:12 ↗ okay I am intimidated by that concept

58:15 ↗ and I will look at what it is at that

58:17 ↗ point but I know we're going to be given

58:19 ↗ a hundreds if not thousands of page

58:22 ↗ document at some point and

58:25 ↗ okay yeah I mean the expectation is that

58:28 ↗ as goes through the public process it

58:29 ↗ evolves right I mean you all have good

58:31 ↗ feedback community members have good

58:33 ↗ feedback so this is the first draft

58:35 ↗ it'll it'll have changes if we want to

58:38 ↗ make it effective for you all to not

58:40 ↗ spend too much time and you can you know

58:43 ↗ highlight where the changes are so we're

58:45 ↗ working on but if you have feedback on

58:48 ↗ how you'd like to see

58:50 ↗ the Consolidated draft where we can

58:52 ↗ accommodate that yeah I think there's a

58:55 ↗ difference between we were handed a

58:58 ↗ piece we made comments on it and you

59:00 ↗ made changes based on those comments or

59:02 ↗ based on ppc's comments there's a

59:05 ↗ difference between that and seeing

59:07 ↗ something for the first time and having

59:10 ↗ the ability to process it see how it

59:14 ↗ relates to everything so

59:16 ↗ I don't really have a question just a

59:19 ↗ nervousness in my heart

59:23 ↗ fair enough

59:28 ↗ um would you be able to bring up the

59:30 ↗ first question I believe the first one

59:32 ↗ was the best thing with the three

59:33 ↗ options

59:37 ↗ okay do we have any other questions

59:38 ↗ before we start on the first okay

59:41 ↗ the first item is what vesting options

59:43 ↗ does the city have with respect to Title

59:46 ↗ 18 update and we have three options that

59:48 ↗ are put forward with the administration

59:51 ↗ and staff's recommendation being option

59:53 ↗ one

59:55 ↗ who would like to kick us off

59:58 ↗ councilman Ray thanks um

1:00:01 ↗ thank you for doing the pros and cons of

1:00:03 ↗ the three options because it really

1:00:04 ↗ helped crystallize me on

1:00:06 ↗ there was no compelling reason to go

1:00:08 ↗ beyond in my opinion Beyond option

1:00:10 ↗ number one so

1:00:12 ↗ um you know I think you're on the right

1:00:13 ↗ track with option one I think if there

1:00:15 ↗ is something that

1:00:18 ↗ um

1:00:18 ↗ some other option that would make sense

1:00:21 ↗ and would have uh you know would

1:00:24 ↗ would give us more control and more

1:00:26 ↗ flexibility that'd be great but I think

1:00:28 ↗ the way this right now option one is is

1:00:30 ↗ certainly my preferred option

1:00:33 ↗ thank you yeah I'm I also fall under

1:00:36 ↗ option one I will be very curious how

1:00:38 ↗ the administration is going to handle

1:00:40 ↗ this big update because as you said this

1:00:42 ↗ is applying to Future updates of the

1:00:45 ↗ code so I'll just put that as a question

1:00:47 ↗ mark of I'd like to hear at some point

1:00:50 ↗ what the administration's recommendation

1:00:52 ↗ is for that

1:00:55 ↗ um I agree with my colleagues on the

1:00:57 ↗ committee I also think that for the the

1:01:01 ↗ reasons that were listed predictability

1:01:03 ↗ and that it's

1:01:06 ↗ um the the cleanest way as you said

1:01:09 ↗ um I think that option one is the way to

1:01:11 ↗ go I also wanted to acknowledge that we

1:01:13 ↗ did receive comments

1:01:15 ↗ um I believe that and as was mentioned

1:01:18 ↗ PPC also received comments um so we did

1:01:21 ↗ take those into consideration

1:01:23 ↗ um but I think on this item option one

1:01:29 ↗ so

1:01:30 ↗ um we are all in agreement we can move

1:01:33 ↗ on to unless you need anything else from

1:01:35 ↗ us we can move on to the next one

1:01:43 ↗ yeah okay

1:01:44 ↗ [Music]

1:01:50 ↗ I am honestly

1:01:53 ↗ uncertain

1:01:55 ↗ um I think this is a big big decision I

1:01:58 ↗ would like it to go to the development

1:02:01 ↗ commission to get some feedback

1:02:05 ↗ um

1:02:06 ↗ I don't my concerns here are putting in

1:02:10 ↗ something that's

1:02:11 ↗ too onerous that's going to stop

1:02:15 ↗ development that would be beneficial for

1:02:17 ↗ the community while at the same time

1:02:20 ↗ potentially eliminating a very important

1:02:23 ↗ public process and I just don't know

1:02:27 ↗ where the right

1:02:29 ↗ size of building is I would love to know

1:02:33 ↗ what other communities do because from

1:02:36 ↗ my perspective that gives me a sense of

1:02:39 ↗ okay we're not doing something too hard

1:02:43 ↗ that's going to make development want to

1:02:45 ↗ happen somewhere else

1:02:48 ↗ um

1:02:49 ↗ so I think that would be the feedback I

1:02:53 ↗ have on it I

1:02:55 ↗ I like some of the other streamlining

1:02:58 ↗ that you guys did on the levels and I

1:03:00 ↗ really appreciate that work I just don't

1:03:02 ↗ quite know where it should be a

1:03:05 ↗ development commission or not

1:03:07 ↗ and do you have thoughts on that high

1:03:08 ↗ visibility streets

1:03:11 ↗ um

1:03:11 ↗ aspect

1:03:13 ↗ because that's another aspect that's

1:03:14 ↗ probably good for us to give some

1:03:15 ↗ feedback yeah I mean

1:03:19 ↗ I like the concept of it I don't know

1:03:22 ↗ whether that in itself

1:03:24 ↗ gives a reason to move down to 4 000

1:03:27 ↗ square feet so I think there's something

1:03:29 ↗ there whether or not

1:03:32 ↗ that means that basically any project

1:03:34 ↗ that's happening on a high visibility

1:03:35 ↗ Street

1:03:36 ↗ should come into contact with DC I don't

1:03:40 ↗ know

1:03:42 ↗ um so again I'd like to see if any other

1:03:44 ↗ communities use that as logic

1:03:49 ↗ um

1:03:50 ↗ is there any way to say something well I

1:03:55 ↗ was going to say something that's

1:03:56 ↗ retailer commercial

1:03:58 ↗ has to go through whereas

1:04:00 ↗ housing

1:04:01 ↗ could you have a different square

1:04:04 ↗ footage requirement for that yeah but

1:04:07 ↗ we're trying not to kind of tease out

1:04:09 ↗ you know because right now it's more

1:04:11 ↗ complex and and the the issue I think

1:04:14 ↗ with the high visibility I think the

1:04:16 ↗ intent is good however if someone has a

1:04:19 ↗ project one parcel down and they're

1:04:22 ↗ gonna say well we the community members

1:04:24 ↗ would say well how come you didn't tell

1:04:26 ↗ us that this was a public hearing and it

1:04:28 ↗ was a development commission but

1:04:30 ↗ you know this one did so it's just

1:04:33 ↗ that's a very good point kind of

1:04:35 ↗ um

1:04:36 ↗ [Music]

1:04:39 ↗ yeah and I think director Dolly well

1:04:40 ↗ before was talking about the daycare and

1:04:42 ↗ a big daycare little daycare that was

1:04:44 ↗ based on use previously and that that

1:04:46 ↗ was kind of

1:04:48 ↗ um

1:04:49 ↗ can it was more complicated for sure

1:04:53 ↗ we could base it on youth but we're

1:04:54 ↗ trying to make it more

1:04:57 ↗ um simple and consistent

1:05:00 ↗ [Music]

1:05:02 ↗ sorry

1:05:03 ↗ um I just want to jump in I

1:05:05 ↗ I think the high visibility Frontage

1:05:08 ↗ just adds a level of complexity that we

1:05:09 ↗ that we don't need so I would be very

1:05:11 ↗ much in favor of taking that out and I'd

1:05:13 ↗ like to make this as simple as we can so

1:05:16 ↗ I think the difficult thing and I think

1:05:18 ↗ this is where the council president was

1:05:19 ↗ going is where's that threshold and I

1:05:21 ↗ think that's the question you really

1:05:22 ↗ asked where's that threshold and so I

1:05:24 ↗ think some a couple of Dimensions that

1:05:26 ↗ would help us make that determination

1:05:28 ↗ one is I agree where where do other

1:05:30 ↗ people do it I mean is it four thousand

1:05:32 ↗ is it ten thousand is it forty five

1:05:34 ↗ thousand

1:05:35 ↗ um and then the second thing is what

1:05:38 ↗ would be the you know comparison of the

1:05:40 ↗ number of

1:05:42 ↗ um development

1:05:44 ↗ reviews that would go to DC under which

1:05:48 ↗ the threshold level so I mean it would

1:05:49 ↗ be interesting to see where those uh

1:05:51 ↗ those knees where it breaks

1:05:54 ↗ um and then it wouldn't be really

1:05:56 ↗ I don't know how to do this either but

1:05:58 ↗ it would be interesting to talk to the

1:05:59 ↗ building community and say you know what

1:06:02 ↗ what's what's it mean to you I mean if

1:06:04 ↗ if it's an extra

1:06:07 ↗ month as if it's an extra two months

1:06:09 ↗ where does it start to become like I'm

1:06:10 ↗ not going to build in Issaquah so so I I

1:06:14 ↗ think that one you know can use a little

1:06:15 ↗ more

1:06:16 ↗ um input and some feedback from DC would

1:06:18 ↗ be good

1:06:19 ↗ um

1:06:21 ↗ but I guess I don't feel like we know

1:06:23 ↗ the answer right now either other than

1:06:24 ↗ to pull it out of the air and that feels

1:06:26 ↗ wrong

1:06:29 ↗ director Dolly well do you have

1:06:31 ↗ um comments and thoughts on this from

1:06:34 ↗ the building community that you've heard

1:06:38 ↗ you know because we didn't get any

1:06:39 ↗ specific comments from folks on this

1:06:42 ↗ thing when we originally were asking

1:06:43 ↗ whether it should go to the hearing

1:06:45 ↗ examiner I think master builder

1:06:46 ↗ Association and and the development

1:06:48 ↗ Community preferred that I mean they're

1:06:52 ↗ used to that being the case with a lot

1:06:54 ↗ of other communities development

1:06:56 ↗ Commissioners along routes here bring

1:06:59 ↗ value we are loud and clear from the

1:07:01 ↗ community so we

1:07:03 ↗ um you know went with that option but

1:07:05 ↗ really

1:07:07 ↗ um

1:07:08 ↗ in terms of what other people do you

1:07:11 ↗ know we can that's easy we can look look

1:07:12 ↗ around and give you how many of them

1:07:14 ↗ actually use volunteer boards to approve

1:07:16 ↗ quasi-judicial matters how many don't

1:07:18 ↗ and and if they what the what's

1:07:21 ↗ administrative what is a public hearing

1:07:23 ↗ whoever is the decision maker whether

1:07:25 ↗ it's the DC or the hearing examiner we

1:07:27 ↗ can put that together and then look at

1:07:29 ↗ historically what has gone to DC it

1:07:32 ↗ sounds like that information would be

1:07:33 ↗ helpful and then we can plan a meeting

1:07:35 ↗ with DC and just share this and get

1:07:38 ↗ their feedback

1:07:39 ↗ if you do that

1:07:40 ↗ [Music]

1:07:42 ↗ okay if that's if that's enough for now

1:07:45 ↗ I will add that I agree about the high

1:07:48 ↗ visibility streets I think it's

1:07:51 ↗ um I think it's very complicated and

1:07:55 ↗ um

1:07:55 ↗ as this as this city grows and changes

1:07:58 ↗ to

1:07:59 ↗ um it would continue to be more and more

1:08:01 ↗ complicated so I I don't support that I

1:08:06 ↗ think I also in thinking through this

1:08:08 ↗ and then with the examples that you gave

1:08:09 ↗ as far as the library being about 15

1:08:13 ↗ 000 square feet I believe you said I

1:08:15 ↗ think the thresholds are probably about

1:08:17 ↗ in the right place for the review levels

1:08:20 ↗ um but it would be great great to get

1:08:22 ↗ that as far as the 10 000 going to DC

1:08:25 ↗ and less being administratively approved

1:08:28 ↗ but it would be great if it's not

1:08:32 ↗ um if it's possible to make decisions on

1:08:35 ↗ a recommendation on all the other items

1:08:37 ↗ and then for this one to get more

1:08:38 ↗ information because it is true it's it's

1:08:40 ↗ hard to not feel like we're kind of

1:08:42 ↗ pulling the numbers out of thin air yeah

1:08:44 ↗ yeah we'll bring all that back with the

1:08:46 ↗ Consolidated draft you know we'll we'll

1:08:48 ↗ take all that information to DC

1:08:50 ↗ shared with the planning and policy

1:08:52 ↗ commission during the Consolidated draft

1:08:54 ↗ packaging and then when once it comes

1:08:57 ↗ back to you as part of the Consolidated

1:08:58 ↗ draft will it'll be vetted out a little

1:09:01 ↗ bit more and we'll have all the

1:09:03 ↗ information you were looking for okay

1:09:04 ↗ that sounds good the other the other one

1:09:07 ↗ last thing I'll add is another reason

1:09:08 ↗ why and I think it says this somewhere

1:09:10 ↗ in our materials another reason why the

1:09:12 ↗ 10 000 might be good is because we have

1:09:14 ↗ previously set that as the threshold on

1:09:16 ↗ the um on the last sepa conversation so

1:09:19 ↗ that's that's a threshold that we've set

1:09:23 ↗ um and it would be somewhat more

1:09:25 ↗ internally consistent if we use that for

1:09:27 ↗ other things

1:09:28 ↗ in the code

1:09:31 ↗ sounds good okay and then for the last

1:09:34 ↗ question

1:09:36 ↗ um City's Capital Improvement projects

1:09:38 ↗ process

1:09:41 ↗ do you have any feedback on what we've

1:09:44 ↗ laid out

1:09:45 ↗ [Music]

1:09:49 ↗ let's go ahead I I think PPC did a good

1:09:53 ↗ job understanding that there is a lot of

1:09:56 ↗ feedback that goes into a public project

1:09:58 ↗ in the early stages

1:10:01 ↗ I do think that having a you know notify

1:10:05 ↗ me list or something like that that

1:10:08 ↗ allows for updates to go out would be

1:10:11 ↗ important I think similar to you know

1:10:15 ↗ I'm

1:10:16 ↗ going back into the construction code of

1:10:19 ↗ conduct notes that I'd put down but I

1:10:22 ↗ really want to be better about getting

1:10:25 ↗ communication back out to the public

1:10:29 ↗ and so

1:10:31 ↗ I'd like to see

1:10:33 ↗ signage on our public projects that are

1:10:39 ↗ similar to what are required on private

1:10:42 ↗ projects

1:10:43 ↗ um

1:10:44 ↗ well probably more extensive but that

1:10:47 ↗ have a QR code that go to a website that

1:10:50 ↗ is related to that project that talks

1:10:52 ↗ through what the schedule is

1:10:55 ↗ what the feedback received from the

1:10:57 ↗ community is what the adjustments what

1:10:59 ↗ the timeline I think all of those things

1:11:02 ↗ go to the concept of

1:11:06 ↗ we've engaged from this point we're

1:11:08 ↗ committed to staying engaged and here's

1:11:12 ↗ the results of that engagement and I

1:11:15 ↗ think that just helps take the process

1:11:18 ↗ through to full completion

1:11:25 ↗ that's all right

1:11:27 ↗ this one's hard for me um

1:11:29 ↗ because we're talking about this public

1:11:32 ↗ engagement as part of the the permitting

1:11:35 ↗ process not as part of being good city

1:11:38 ↗ government and good stewards of

1:11:41 ↗ of City projects so I'm a little bit

1:11:45 ↗ torn because there's this part of me

1:11:46 ↗ that says I think that if we got a

1:11:48 ↗ process that's causing us as the city to

1:11:51 ↗ jump through hoops and incur costs and

1:11:53 ↗ so we're gonna short-circuit that then

1:11:55 ↗ we got to process that's broken because

1:11:56 ↗ that means we're driving our developers

1:11:58 ↗ through that same process that being

1:12:01 ↗ said we're also a different Beast

1:12:02 ↗ because we have different procurement

1:12:04 ↗ rules and different things like that so

1:12:07 ↗ um it's not the same playing field

1:12:09 ↗ so I think I could get behind

1:12:12 ↗ the proposal but I think and I think

1:12:15 ↗ this is where the council president was

1:12:16 ↗ going to is but that doesn't mean we

1:12:19 ↗ stopped talking to the public about what

1:12:21 ↗ we're doing with public projects but

1:12:23 ↗ it's more related to a public project

1:12:25 ↗ than it is the permitting and land use

1:12:28 ↗ review of a public project so

1:12:31 ↗ um

1:12:32 ↗ yes I think we can do this and simplify

1:12:35 ↗ the permitting prior but no we can't

1:12:38 ↗ stop the communications part

1:12:44 ↗ uh well I agree with all of that and I

1:12:46 ↗ think

1:12:48 ↗ um I think the point is well taken that

1:12:50 ↗ the public input for these projects does

1:12:53 ↗ begin earlier and it should begin

1:12:55 ↗ earlier when the city is

1:12:59 ↗ um

1:13:00 ↗ when there is a public project relative

1:13:03 ↗ to a private project and so I I agree

1:13:07 ↗ generally with the recommended way

1:13:09 ↗ forward and yeah I think the comments

1:13:14 ↗ um are to make sure that we continue to

1:13:17 ↗ engage the community throughout the

1:13:18 ↗ process

1:13:21 ↗ do you does do you have any no I I think

1:13:24 ↗ I agree the success of the streamlining

1:13:26 ↗ of the permitting process relies on

1:13:29 ↗ standardized touch points Clarity among

1:13:33 ↗ community members of where the project

1:13:34 ↗ is the the items you were saying is no

1:13:37 ↗ sign that takes you to a website we

1:13:39 ↗ maintain a website for each project you

1:13:41 ↗ know those kind of notific but also

1:13:45 ↗ um so I think we we can make that work

1:13:48 ↗ um the title 18 is the land using the

1:13:50 ↗ permitting piece the other part of the

1:13:52 ↗ capital projects is Administration you

1:13:55 ↗ know us working with

1:13:57 ↗ um different project managers and and

1:13:59 ↗ things in streamlining and standardizing

1:14:01 ↗ but it'll help the community members

1:14:02 ↗ because there's so much confusion about

1:14:04 ↗ we didn't get notification of this they

1:14:06 ↗ didn't go through the permitting did it

1:14:08 ↗ go through the permitting this one had

1:14:10 ↗ an open house and this one didn't so I

1:14:12 ↗ think that will happen outside of the

1:14:14 ↗ title 18 work

1:14:15 ↗ um the the engagement and

1:14:17 ↗ standardization of the capital projects

1:14:19 ↗ but the permitting piece will put it in

1:14:21 ↗ the title 18.

1:14:25 ↗ I want to put a plus one to what council

1:14:28 ↗ member Ray said about

1:14:29 ↗ you know if we're having a problem with

1:14:32 ↗ it then we need to make sure we're

1:14:34 ↗ looking at what that process is for the

1:14:37 ↗ developers and so my only concern with

1:14:44 ↗ changing the process for a public

1:14:47 ↗ project is that we don't have to go

1:14:49 ↗ through the pain and thus want to update

1:14:53 ↗ it but on the other side I also know

1:14:55 ↗ that your staff is going through the

1:14:57 ↗ pain of administering it every day and

1:15:01 ↗ so has a view into it so

1:15:04 ↗ yeah sure no I I understand your

1:15:07 ↗ concerns there I mean we want to be the

1:15:09 ↗ good stewards of public money and and do

1:15:11 ↗ our even above and beyond what the

1:15:13 ↗ regulations we expect for everyone else

1:15:14 ↗ uh it's just that you know private

1:15:17 ↗ development doesn't go through the

1:15:19 ↗ public process before you know that's

1:15:21 ↗ the first time folks see that this is a

1:15:24 ↗ project whereas capital projects have

1:15:27 ↗ already gone through the process so

1:15:28 ↗ there's a distinction between those two

1:15:35 ↗ okay do you have what you need from like

1:15:37 ↗ we do this one thank you so we can move

1:15:40 ↗ on to the next item

1:15:42 ↗ you

1:15:45 ↗ are you moving on to the code of conduct

1:15:49 ↗ correct no oh we are okay yes I have a

1:15:54 ↗ few General comments too I'm at the next

1:15:56 ↗ like question so yep so

1:15:59 ↗ um as I was looking through it on the

1:16:02 ↗ variants section I was pretty surprised

1:16:04 ↗ that section didn't mention the decision

1:16:07 ↗ maker I'm sure it's somewhere else in

1:16:09 ↗ the code but I feel like that would be

1:16:11 ↗ useful information to include in that

1:16:13 ↗ section

1:16:15 ↗ um

1:16:16 ↗ there was a section about legal

1:16:19 ↗ non-conformity for the Issaquah

1:16:21 ↗ Highlands and Telus projects that were

1:16:24 ↗ exempt from that and I just didn't

1:16:26 ↗ understand that I don't know why we have

1:16:30 ↗ specific projects that are already

1:16:32 ↗ called out in code

1:16:36 ↗ do you want to move in yeah and then

1:16:37 ↗ yeah so um you know the way the

1:16:40 ↗ replacement regulation framework is in

1:16:42 ↗ the code it lists every single parcel

1:16:45 ↗ and then what the the permitted you know

1:16:49 ↗ capacity is so for a lot of these things

1:16:52 ↗ it was Zero gross square footage because

1:16:54 ↗ they've already developed and we had

1:16:56 ↗ these long tables embedded in the code

1:16:58 ↗ for a lot of these Parcels that were

1:17:01 ↗ already developed with a development

1:17:03 ↗ capacity of zero so we've taken those

1:17:06 ↗ that are fully developed and added them

1:17:08 ↗ here that you know if they were

1:17:09 ↗ development of the code

1:17:11 ↗ then that's what they they can they were

1:17:13 ↗ approved as so it was a plant that went

1:17:15 ↗ through this that's what the those

1:17:17 ↗ regulations apply to them so the other

1:17:20 ↗ part the the projects that had unbuilt

1:17:23 ↗ you know uh undeveloped properties those

1:17:26 ↗ are the only ones that we've left in the

1:17:28 ↗ table so instead of having these

1:17:29 ↗ scrolling tables in the replacement

1:17:31 ↗ regulations it's just parsing them out

1:17:34 ↗ these already developed these rules

1:17:36 ↗ apply these are the ones that still have

1:17:38 ↗ so much gross square footage of

1:17:40 ↗ entitlements that are embedded in the

1:17:43 ↗ code and that's those are the

1:17:44 ↗ regulations that apply so there's no

1:17:46 ↗ substantive change it's more

1:17:48 ↗ streamlining the code so that you don't

1:17:50 ↗ have scrolling tables

1:17:53 ↗ um which where each parcel number is

1:17:55 ↗ assigned

1:17:57 ↗ uh so it's legal non-conformity because

1:18:01 ↗ those

1:18:04 ↗ Parcels that are undeveloped are still

1:18:08 ↗ assigned to the previous code because

1:18:11 ↗ they were in a development agreement or

1:18:13 ↗ the legal non-conformity is only for the

1:18:15 ↗ developed person so the undeveloped this

1:18:16 ↗ doesn't apply to the undeveloped

1:18:18 ↗ personals

1:18:23 ↗ I'm going to have to go back and look at

1:18:26 ↗ what is I think look at them both

1:18:29 ↗ together so the legal non-conf and maybe

1:18:32 ↗ I can walk you through in terms of what

1:18:35 ↗ how the existing code is set up and and

1:18:38 ↗ this this doesn't materially change

1:18:39 ↗ anything it's just

1:18:41 ↗ not having scrolling tables

1:18:44 ↗ in the code

1:18:46 ↗ [Music]

1:18:47 ↗ so

1:18:49 ↗ then you're saying the

1:18:54 ↗ the items that are listed there are the

1:18:57 ↗ areas that haven't been developed is

1:19:00 ↗ that correct correct so the table will

1:19:02 ↗ only include undeveloped properties

1:19:06 ↗ okay

1:19:08 ↗ [Music]

1:19:11 ↗ because if I understand correctly it

1:19:13 ↗ before it listed everything that was

1:19:15 ↗ already developed also so it's

1:19:16 ↗ everything

1:19:18 ↗ which you don't need

1:19:21 ↗ okay it just it was surprising to me

1:19:24 ↗ seeing that as I was going through there

1:19:25 ↗ it was odd to say you're developing you

1:19:27 ↗ know development is zero because someone

1:19:30 ↗ could tear down and rebuild

1:19:32 ↗ you know over a long period of time so

1:19:34 ↗ yes

1:19:35 ↗ um that's why we separated that out yeah

1:19:39 ↗ okay and then

1:19:41 ↗ um just I think the last comment that I

1:19:43 ↗ had written down

1:19:45 ↗ um I really appreciate and the part two

1:19:48 ↗ of the procedures section that that as

1:19:51 ↗ new code has kind of a q a format the

1:19:56 ↗ titles of it are you know how do I know

1:19:58 ↗ if my permit is approved and things like

1:20:01 ↗ that I really like that as a concept I

1:20:04 ↗ think that's very clear the only thing I

1:20:08 ↗ came up to is not a lot of people like

1:20:10 ↗ to read the procedures and all of that

1:20:14 ↗ section so somebody else is starting or

1:20:16 ↗ if somebody's starting at another Point

1:20:18 ↗ let's say they go to look at the zones

1:20:21 ↗ or something for multi-family how do

1:20:24 ↗ they know

1:20:26 ↗ to come back to that section is there

1:20:29 ↗ something that points them from other

1:20:31 ↗ areas of the code there yeah I know I

1:20:33 ↗ have that in my notes I think you've you

1:20:35 ↗ know you've expressed an interest in

1:20:37 ↗ knowing the road map of someone I want

1:20:39 ↗ to do this how do they know which

1:20:40 ↗ sections apply so that'll most likely

1:20:44 ↗ come with the implementation of the code

1:20:46 ↗ but you know and handouts and other

1:20:48 ↗ things that will produce but even in the

1:20:50 ↗ table of contents you know as we

1:20:52 ↗ consolidate we'll try and make it

1:20:54 ↗ explicitly clear to the extent we can

1:20:57 ↗ um of an order you go here first you

1:21:00 ↗ determine your you know what's the

1:21:02 ↗ zoning and then you go to this chapter

1:21:04 ↗ to determine if the use is allowed then

1:21:06 ↗ you determine what you know form and

1:21:08 ↗ intensity means what other development

1:21:10 ↗ standards apply and then how do you

1:21:13 ↗ apply your application as a procedure so

1:21:15 ↗ we can put something

1:21:17 ↗ um you know short and sweet but then

1:21:18 ↗ more detailed information during the

1:21:20 ↗ implementation phase I love that thanks

1:21:23 ↗ [Music]

1:21:25 ↗ okay um I had just a few comments on

1:21:29 ↗ generally

1:21:30 ↗ um I think the definitions you mentioned

1:21:32 ↗ this there's a lot of definitions some

1:21:35 ↗ of them

1:21:36 ↗ um I think that list basically needs to

1:21:38 ↗ be scrubbed because one of our goals

1:21:40 ↗ with this one of our umbrella goals

1:21:42 ↗ overarching goals with this is to make

1:21:44 ↗ it easy to use readable and so if it's a

1:21:47 ↗ commonly known word or word that you can

1:21:49 ↗ look it up in any dictionary and it

1:21:50 ↗ would be the same meaning as what's in

1:21:51 ↗ our code I don't think we need to Define

1:21:53 ↗ it in our code it also sends you to

1:21:55 ↗ different places for different

1:21:57 ↗ parts of the definitions which I

1:21:59 ↗ understand is necessary for some cases

1:22:01 ↗ but it just ends up being a lot so if we

1:22:04 ↗ could get that into a more manageable

1:22:06 ↗ number of necessary definitions that are

1:22:09 ↗ unique to this code and important for

1:22:12 ↗ people to know that would be that would

1:22:14 ↗ be great the other thing I saw that some

1:22:17 ↗ other

1:22:18 ↗ um

1:22:18 ↗ some other codes it seems like if the

1:22:21 ↗ word is only used once they just Define

1:22:24 ↗ it where it's used and then you don't

1:22:27 ↗ have to put it also in the definitions

1:22:29 ↗ and then it's also right where the

1:22:30 ↗ person would need to know the definition

1:22:32 ↗ of that word when they're looking at the

1:22:33 ↗ code

1:22:35 ↗ um so

1:22:37 ↗ that was one thing one other thing on

1:22:39 ↗ the definitions is

1:22:41 ↗ um if there is

1:22:42 ↗ outdated language or seemingly outdated

1:22:45 ↗ language and it's in an RCW or in a code

1:22:49 ↗ that we don't have control over I think

1:22:51 ↗ it would be good for I would like us to

1:22:55 ↗ consider just going to that reference

1:22:58 ↗ that yeah reference that so we don't

1:22:59 ↗ duplicate this language

1:23:02 ↗ um and you know the examples that I

1:23:05 ↗ mentioned so the um other one

1:23:09 ↗ that I had is just two things I liked

1:23:11 ↗ which is I like the and I wanted to say

1:23:14 ↗ thank you for the changes

1:23:16 ↗ um to uh notifying tenants that also the

1:23:20 ↗ increased radius the 500 beat I think

1:23:22 ↗ that's that's a very positive change

1:23:25 ↗ um we are consolidating meetings but

1:23:27 ↗ we're also expanding that range and I

1:23:29 ↗ think we're also making by simplifying

1:23:32 ↗ the process we're making more meaningful

1:23:33 ↗ engagement opportunities for the

1:23:35 ↗ community so I'm supportive of that and

1:23:38 ↗ then also wanted to flag support for the

1:23:41 ↗ changes to

1:23:43 ↗ treat the treasures list separately in

1:23:46 ↗ the code so that they don't have to come

1:23:49 ↗ into compliance with our code because

1:23:52 ↗ um with certain aspects of the code

1:23:54 ↗ because they are they are Treasures so

1:23:56 ↗ keeping them the way they is the way

1:23:58 ↗ they is the way they are meets all of

1:24:00 ↗ our goals for the code

1:24:03 ↗ um so yeah I thought that was a great

1:24:05 ↗ um change and I know you've mentioned it

1:24:07 ↗ before but this was the first time I

1:24:08 ↗ think we actually saw the wording how it

1:24:10 ↗ was implemented

1:24:12 ↗ these are my comments do you have

1:24:14 ↗ anything else before we go to the next

1:24:15 ↗ and final item all right

1:24:18 ↗ you have what you need from our

1:24:19 ↗ committee I do thank you for all your

1:24:22 ↗ time great okay um so then the second

1:24:25 ↗ item will be id12 no

1:24:29 ↗ id1092 contractor code of conduct

1:24:32 ↗ yeah and so

1:24:34 ↗ um James Gray our building official is

1:24:36 ↗ here to present

1:24:38 ↗ um James are you gonna share your screen

1:24:40 ↗ and to the presentation or did you want

1:24:42 ↗ me to pull it up

1:24:44 ↗ I can do it director okay

1:25:08 ↗ can you see the screen not yet

1:25:13 ↗ so under share you have to go into

1:25:17 ↗ the application

1:25:19 ↗ and then maybe you should

1:25:22 ↗ maybe you should share okay

1:25:25 ↗ sorry no worries

1:25:27 ↗ [Music]

1:25:57 ↗ so I'm trying to get to your SharePoint

1:26:00 ↗ site Chris where you've saved them

1:26:06 ↗ I'll send you the

1:26:09 ↗ Lincoln teams okay

1:26:14 ↗ okay

1:26:15 ↗ [Music]

1:26:22 ↗ there we go

1:26:29 ↗ okay are we ready yep yes we're ready

1:26:33 ↗ thanks so much committee uh my name is

1:26:35 ↗ James Gray I am the building official of

1:26:37 ↗ the City of Issaquah and I'm here to

1:26:39 ↗ talk to you about the proposed

1:26:40 ↗ contractors code of conduct

1:26:46 ↗ the next slide

1:26:49 ↗ so our purpose is to give the committee

1:26:51 ↗ some information about our existing

1:26:53 ↗ process which includes a

1:26:55 ↗ pre-construction documentation and

1:26:58 ↗ meeting process for regulating things

1:27:01 ↗ like parking and conduct

1:27:05 ↗ contractor conduct on sites

1:27:09 ↗ uh next slide please

1:27:13 ↗ so we would like some direction from the

1:27:15 ↗ committee we would request information

1:27:18 ↗ about our current pre-construction

1:27:20 ↗ requirements checklist and whether or

1:27:22 ↗ not we need a separate code of conduct

1:27:24 ↗ or other tool that should be developed

1:27:27 ↗ and incorporated into our current

1:27:28 ↗ practice

1:27:34 ↗ a little bit of background we understand

1:27:36 ↗ that there have been concerns about

1:27:37 ↗ parking and construction hours site

1:27:40 ↗ conditions and public complaints about

1:27:42 ↗ particular construction sites and as a

1:27:45 ↗ result this item was added to the city

1:27:47 ↗ Citywide work plan

1:27:51 ↗ since at least 2018 Community Planning

1:27:54 ↗ and Development

1:27:56 ↗ prior to this was development services

1:27:58 ↗ used something called a pre-construction

1:28:01 ↗ meeting requirement checklist and this

1:28:04 ↗ checklist functions as both a meeting

1:28:06 ↗ agenda and list of requirements for

1:28:07 ↗ contractors that that we go through with

1:28:11 ↗ the contractors before the process

1:28:13 ↗ before the construction process starts

1:28:16 ↗ covers things like parking and hours of

1:28:18 ↗ operation

1:28:21 ↗ it's used at every pre-construction

1:28:23 ↗ meeting to discuss the project scope

1:28:26 ↗ some of these are very large projects

1:28:28 ↗ some of them are smaller But it includes

1:28:31 ↗ the developers construction team and the

1:28:33 ↗ city's construction oversight team this

1:28:35 ↗ is building inspectors site inspectors

1:28:37 ↗ there might be a planner there might be

1:28:39 ↗ a plans examiner there just depends on

1:28:41 ↗ the size of the project and the

1:28:44 ↗ developer the contractor is required to

1:28:46 ↗ they actually get read through this

1:28:48 ↗ entire checklist and they can ask

1:28:51 ↗ questions about it and then they sign it

1:28:53 ↗ they get a copy and they take it with

1:28:55 ↗ them and store it at the site

1:29:04 ↗ so there are additional items that we

1:29:07 ↗ might consider in a contract or code of

1:29:10 ↗ conduct besides what is already in our

1:29:12 ↗ pre-construction checklist which is

1:29:15 ↗ included in your agenda packet as in as

1:29:18 ↗ a addendum item there's a commercial at

1:29:21 ↗ a residential that you've or you've been

1:29:23 ↗ included as the detail but we'd like to

1:29:25 ↗ talk about keeping noise levels down

1:29:27 ↗ which of course is regulated under the

1:29:29 ↗ Washington administrative code

1:29:31 ↗ and

1:29:32 ↗ our city Vista glass beautifully cleaned

1:29:35 ↗ and well maintained and obviously we

1:29:37 ↗ want to keep that up we want Community

1:29:41 ↗ Information about this project and about

1:29:45 ↗ every project and that that topic comes

1:29:49 ↗ up more and more often and so we would

1:29:51 ↗ like to address that in a potential

1:29:53 ↗ contract or code of conduct and of

1:29:55 ↗ course doing construction in a safe

1:29:58 ↗ manner that maintains Public Safety is

1:30:01 ↗ is Paramount for us

1:30:05 ↗ so in addition to a contractor code of

1:30:08 ↗ conduct we can include more more

1:30:11 ↗ oversight by field inspectors so on some

1:30:14 ↗ of these really large projects uh

1:30:17 ↗ violations can occur because

1:30:19 ↗ subcontractors and even contractors

1:30:21 ↗ change over time uh we might start with

1:30:24 ↗ a pre-construction checklist and it

1:30:26 ↗ might be two years down the line until a

1:30:29 ↗ complaint is received about a project

1:30:31 ↗ complete different list of

1:30:33 ↗ subcontractors at that point

1:30:35 ↗ we want to have some uh Community

1:30:38 ↗ Education on the tools that are

1:30:39 ↗ available to make complaints and to make

1:30:43 ↗ staff aware of issues like see click fix

1:30:45 ↗ just simple phone calls and and emails

1:30:48 ↗ and would like to talk about on-site

1:30:52 ↗ construction notification signs that

1:30:55 ↗ actually post the contractor code of

1:30:56 ↗ conduct so everyone can see it

1:30:59 ↗ in addition we have a new code

1:31:00 ↗ enforcement process that allows us to

1:31:03 ↗ use some additional enforcement tools

1:31:05 ↗ under title 16 which include things that

1:31:08 ↗ are that are that are pretty severe like

1:31:11 ↗ stop work orders and even revocation

1:31:13 ↗ permit if we need to do that to get

1:31:15 ↗ compliance

1:31:19 ↗ so we've offered a couple of options for

1:31:21 ↗ you option number one is continuing to

1:31:24 ↗ use our pre-construction requirements

1:31:26 ↗ checklist that we've been using for some

1:31:28 ↗ time the commercial and residential to

1:31:31 ↗ address the contractor conduct

1:31:35 ↗ and the second one is to develop a

1:31:37 ↗ separate contractor code of conduct tool

1:31:41 ↗ and it will it will basically address

1:31:43 ↗ those items that are on those checklists

1:31:45 ↗ but roll that up into more of a

1:31:48 ↗ Consolidated Consolidated document that

1:31:51 ↗ is more easily understood and and can be

1:31:54 ↗ posted on on site and again we've we've

1:31:58 ↗ proposed some additional items to

1:32:00 ↗ address noise construction site

1:32:01 ↗ maintenance keeping the community

1:32:03 ↗ informed Public Safety and other things

1:32:06 ↗ that can be incorporated and we're

1:32:08 ↗ seeking committees input on any other

1:32:10 ↗ specific items that committee might

1:32:13 ↗ think is should be included on that code

1:32:15 ↗ of conduct

1:32:19 ↗ so the administration would like to

1:32:21 ↗ recommend option two that and that would

1:32:24 ↗ be developing a separate contractor code

1:32:26 ↗ of conduct tool to address these

1:32:28 ↗ additional concerns and use it in

1:32:30 ↗ addition to our pre-construction

1:32:32 ↗ documents

1:32:37 ↗ but we get to the timing and next steps

1:32:39 ↗ after the committee provides

1:32:42 ↗ provides feedback CPD will proceed in

1:32:45 ↗ accordance with the option selected and

1:32:47 ↗ we'd like to propose coming back to the

1:32:48 ↗ committee in November with the results

1:32:54 ↗ and with that we're back to our

1:32:55 ↗ Direction

1:32:56 ↗ [Music]

1:32:59 ↗ great

1:33:00 ↗ um thank you James does the committee

1:33:02 ↗ have any questions at this point

1:33:04 ↗ [Music]

1:33:07 ↗ councilman Ray

1:33:09 ↗ um thanks that's that's great

1:33:11 ↗ um have you

1:33:12 ↗ um in putting together what the content

1:33:14 ↗ of the code of conduct would be have you

1:33:16 ↗ done any Outreach or any engagement with

1:33:19 ↗ with the community I was thinking that

1:33:21 ↗ there's probably some people out there

1:33:22 ↗ have some

1:33:23 ↗ some other ideas about what might be

1:33:25 ↗ included in this and make make our

1:33:28 ↗ contractors better Neighbors

1:33:31 ↗ thank you for the question council

1:33:33 ↗ member we have in fact just today we've

1:33:36 ↗ gotten a couple of emails which I think

1:33:39 ↗ have come to council and also to to

1:33:41 ↗ staff regarding a few other things uh

1:33:44 ↗ control of noxious Weeds on sites was

1:33:47 ↗ was one of them and we we have a process

1:33:49 ↗ in place to do that so we could

1:33:52 ↗ certainly incorporate that into our code

1:33:54 ↗ of conduct I I think probably the uh the

1:34:00 ↗ loudest voice we've heard is about more

1:34:02 ↗ opportunities for Community involvement

1:34:04 ↗ and education

1:34:05 ↗ and so we want to make sure that we have

1:34:08 ↗ that tool for folks to be able to

1:34:12 ↗ report issues and get them in in a

1:34:14 ↗ timely manner so that we can get them

1:34:16 ↗ addressed in a timely manner

1:34:19 ↗ all right super thank you

1:34:20 ↗ council president

1:34:22 ↗ um how does this apply to non-building

1:34:25 ↗ projects things like Utilities Road work

1:34:29 ↗ right-of-way projects Parks Trails all

1:34:32 ↗ of that and does it is the intention for

1:34:35 ↗ it to apply just to private developers

1:34:38 ↗ or also to ourselves as a public

1:34:41 ↗ developer and any contractors that we

1:34:43 ↗ might bring in for our projects

1:34:46 ↗ thank you for the question council

1:34:48 ↗ president so the pre-construction

1:34:51 ↗ process where we sit down with the

1:34:53 ↗ contractor and go through this pretty

1:34:55 ↗ exhaustive list and have them sign

1:34:57 ↗ everything and it's customized for that

1:35:00 ↗ uh is is for building permits and large

1:35:04 ↗ site work projects it is not it's not a

1:35:09 ↗ process that we that we currently have

1:35:12 ↗ in place for every utility project for

1:35:15 ↗ instance or uh we got comments about

1:35:18 ↗ cell towers and some things like that

1:35:20 ↗ that doesn't mean that we don't have a

1:35:23 ↗ tool to promulgate that contractor code

1:35:26 ↗ of conduct to those sites or to take

1:35:28 ↗ complaints about them we can certainly

1:35:30 ↗ do both

1:35:34 ↗ so we're saying currently the the

1:35:38 ↗ process that we currently have which is

1:35:40 ↗ that pre-development meeting wouldn't

1:35:44 ↗ happen with these other types of

1:35:47 ↗ construction

1:35:49 ↗ but in the future if we had a code of

1:35:53 ↗ conduct that would be distributed to

1:35:57 ↗ those types of construction activities

1:35:59 ↗ and we would have the expectation

1:36:02 ↗ but also is there not a public

1:36:06 ↗ notification board for those types of

1:36:10 ↗ activities construction activities

1:36:12 ↗ because it isn't a building permit

1:36:17 ↗ so council president there are some

1:36:19 ↗ notification processes I I can't tell

1:36:24 ↗ you specifically what what all of them

1:36:26 ↗ are we have our major projects lists and

1:36:30 ↗ Public Works has major projects lists if

1:36:33 ↗ it requires a permit if and and those

1:36:36 ↗ public projects most of those public

1:36:39 ↗ projects require permits those

1:36:41 ↗ contractors meet with us in the same way

1:36:43 ↗ they they would if it were a building

1:36:45 ↗ permit

1:36:47 ↗ I can't tell you that every one of those

1:36:49 ↗ goes through that this same process but

1:36:52 ↗ that's something we can certainly

1:36:55 ↗ investigate

1:36:59 ↗ okay now that brings up another question

1:37:01 ↗ because we just talked about the other

1:37:04 ↗ information which was the title 18

1:37:07 ↗ process and procedures and one of the

1:37:08 ↗ questions in there was on public

1:37:11 ↗ projects whether we were going to have

1:37:13 ↗ the same

1:37:16 ↗ um permit requirement so

1:37:19 ↗ yeah if I may um kind of um jump in here

1:37:23 ↗ a couple of things I think what you were

1:37:25 ↗ getting at was the city hires the

1:37:28 ↗ contractors to do the work for a trail

1:37:30 ↗ maintenance and things like that how do

1:37:32 ↗ we hold them so that's a little you know

1:37:35 ↗ we we can require whatever in a bidding

1:37:38 ↗ process of we want more local hiring

1:37:40 ↗ more local jobs we want this you know

1:37:43 ↗ there are other required things for

1:37:45 ↗ jurisdictions to have and those kind of

1:37:47 ↗ call for

1:37:49 ↗ um for things and that can have its own

1:37:51 ↗ list of what we want

1:37:52 ↗ the right code of conduct for the

1:37:55 ↗ contractors to be for public projects I

1:37:57 ↗ think that this focus and and the issues

1:38:00 ↗ we highlighted were for private

1:38:01 ↗ developers coming in into the city to do

1:38:04 ↗ private development

1:38:06 ↗ um if you want one document that

1:38:09 ↗ captures anyone that the city hires I

1:38:12 ↗ mean we we also have contractors you

1:38:15 ↗ know so that's just a city policy that

1:38:17 ↗ probably exists

1:38:18 ↗ in a different location I mean more

1:38:21 ↗ sustainable development I mean we can

1:38:22 ↗ have multiple other things for through

1:38:26 ↗ the city's bidding project process that

1:38:29 ↗ we can hold the contractors you know as

1:38:32 ↗ our desired wish list of who we want to

1:38:35 ↗ award the bid for

1:38:36 ↗ uh so it's slightly different uh process

1:38:40 ↗ but then there are other things like

1:38:43 ↗ Puget Sound Energy might come in and you

1:38:45 ↗ know there's a snowstorm and they want

1:38:47 ↗ to cut down the trees to so there are

1:38:49 ↗ certain exemptions for

1:38:52 ↗ some type of government entity or

1:38:54 ↗ private entity contractor so there'll

1:38:57 ↗ always be different flavors but this was

1:38:59 ↗ more geared towards if you have a permit

1:39:00 ↗ from the city what what are you going to

1:39:03 ↗ hold yourself accountable for not to say

1:39:04 ↗ we can't expand the code of conduct to

1:39:07 ↗ every type of different types of

1:39:09 ↗ contractors but so that's why we're here

1:39:12 ↗ to kind of understand it was on the

1:39:13 ↗ city's work plan

1:39:15 ↗ and we wanted to kind of make sure we

1:39:18 ↗ understood what council was looking for

1:39:21 ↗ okay I will save my comments on that for

1:39:24 ↗ later

1:39:27 ↗ do you have any other questions nope

1:39:29 ↗ okay great

1:39:31 ↗ um so then at this time I will call for

1:39:33 ↗ public comments on this item

1:39:37 ↗ um

1:39:38 ↗ and I see we have one member of the

1:39:40 ↗ community that would like to speak on

1:39:42 ↗ this and I also wanted to check in if

1:39:43 ↗ there's anyone on the line at this time

1:39:46 ↗ that might also want to get public on it

1:39:49 ↗ uh chair hunt we do have a citizen

1:39:52 ↗ online that would like to speak on this

1:39:54 ↗ topic okay great

1:39:56 ↗ um so first we will have

1:39:58 ↗ Connie go ahead

1:40:00 ↗ okay Connie Marsh again and um

1:40:04 ↗ like the like a code of conduct

1:40:07 ↗ it's gotten better with the checklist it

1:40:10 ↗ was absolute chaos before

1:40:12 ↗ but from this the draft code of conduct

1:40:16 ↗ I sent you an email that pointed out

1:40:18 ↗ some things that could improve it so our

1:40:23 ↗ biggest problems in the community now

1:40:26 ↗ are public private projects and public

1:40:30 ↗ projects and we have not found an

1:40:34 ↗ effective way to make those better it's

1:40:38 ↗ actually harder to get a response on a

1:40:40 ↗ public project than a private project

1:40:43 ↗ and often the responses

1:40:47 ↗ um

1:40:48 ↗ don't make anything better so

1:40:52 ↗ we the the community especially like on

1:40:56 ↗ Newport and some of these other projects

1:40:58 ↗ has really suffered for years trying to

1:41:01 ↗ figure out how to fix it and this is the

1:41:04 ↗ first time that there's been a little

1:41:06 ↗ loophole where we could see that maybe

1:41:09 ↗ progress could be made and I am struck

1:41:14 ↗ by the hesitation

1:41:16 ↗ of

1:41:17 ↗ a one part of the city to try to get the

1:41:21 ↗ other part of the city

1:41:23 ↗ to behave in the community's best

1:41:27 ↗ interest it's very difficult

1:41:29 ↗ to to try to regulate your your the

1:41:34 ↗ people that you work with and I don't

1:41:37 ↗ know how to solve that problem and the

1:41:39 ↗ only way I can think of it is to make it

1:41:41 ↗ code so it's not personal it just is and

1:41:44 ↗ it always is and that it is just the way

1:41:46 ↗ it is and so something like a code of

1:41:50 ↗ conduct for all public with some

1:41:53 ↗ exemptions for emergencies I think is

1:41:57 ↗ a priority not something to do later

1:42:01 ↗ thank you

1:42:04 ↗ thank you city clerk could you please

1:42:06 ↗ call the second person that wants to

1:42:09 ↗ make a public comment yes uh chair hunt

1:42:12 ↗ uh Mary Lynch would like to speak to the

1:42:14 ↗ committee Ms Lynch I have made you a

1:42:16 ↗ panelist you should be able to unmute

1:42:18 ↗ now and share your video

1:42:22 ↗ okay this is Mary Lynch

1:42:25 ↗ yes we can hear you whoops okay I'm

1:42:28 ↗ muted now

1:42:30 ↗ we can hear you okay it looked like it

1:42:33 ↗ crossed me out okay I have been asking

1:42:35 ↗ for this for years with the city my

1:42:40 ↗ background was is with construction

1:42:43 ↗ management and I started my career with

1:42:45 ↗ Procter and Gamble and we as

1:42:48 ↗ construction managers had to deal not

1:42:51 ↗ only with the public with our employees

1:42:54 ↗ with environment and I learned and cut

1:42:57 ↗ my teeth on dealing with the public and

1:43:00 ↗ workers and we had a code of conduct

1:43:03 ↗ that anybody that came onto any of our

1:43:05 ↗ site including employees had to read the

1:43:09 ↗ code of conduct had to obey the con

1:43:12 ↗ conduct and were walked off property if

1:43:15 ↗ they violated the code of conduct and a

1:43:18 ↗ lot of that had to do with dealing and

1:43:20 ↗ working with a communicating with the

1:43:23 ↗ public the workers we were having to

1:43:25 ↗ continue

1:43:26 ↗ our processes while we were doing

1:43:28 ↗ construction so we're very concerned

1:43:30 ↗ about the public about our workers about

1:43:33 ↗ the food and all that was still being

1:43:36 ↗ manufactured when we were doing this so

1:43:38 ↗ I my background is safety and

1:43:40 ↗ Communications and construction

1:43:43 ↗ management and the lack of it that I've

1:43:45 ↗ seen here in in Issaquah off is

1:43:48 ↗ appalling and I live out on Newport Way

1:43:51 ↗ and I've seen gone through since the

1:43:53 ↗ early 90s one construction project after

1:43:56 ↗ the another and having continually to

1:43:59 ↗ call the city because they did

1:44:01 ↗ communicate with us things are happening

1:44:04 ↗ they're blocking our roadways and even

1:44:08 ↗ with the current project out here on our

1:44:10 ↗ street the city's totally set up this

1:44:12 ↗ new project without reaching out to the

1:44:15 ↗ community at all with anything and we're

1:44:18 ↗ having issues and basically the letter I

1:44:21 ↗ get back from the city where we've

1:44:23 ↗ already resolved this there are no

1:44:24 ↗ issues with how we've designed and

1:44:27 ↗ working with it needless to say we have

1:44:29 ↗ cars that are blocking

1:44:31 ↗ our crosswalk we have cars that are

1:44:35 ↗ blocking our entrance out and we need to

1:44:38 ↗ have a code of conduct with the public

1:44:41 ↗ or

1:44:42 ↗ um contractors and also with our Public

1:44:46 ↗ Works projects that are happening to

1:44:49 ↗ make sure that we're reaching out to the

1:44:51 ↗ community and talking with them and the

1:44:54 ↗ community has a way of communicating

1:44:56 ↗ with whoever is responsible for that

1:44:59 ↗ project

1:45:00 ↗ and doing it at the beginning and during

1:45:03 ↗ and after the projects and that isn't

1:45:06 ↗ happening

1:45:07 ↗ and I don't see with this code of

1:45:09 ↗ conduct that it really has even the

1:45:12 ↗ community involved at those levels so

1:45:16 ↗ that you can get an understanding of

1:45:17 ↗ what's needed in when you're doing

1:45:20 ↗ projects

1:45:22 ↗ um and I sent a letter and gave you some

1:45:26 ↗ examples and I would like to see on this

1:45:28 ↗ code of conduct that there are some

1:45:30 ↗ Community meetings where you're sitting

1:45:32 ↗ down with some of us who's have to live

1:45:34 ↗ with these things going on to get input

1:45:37 ↗ to these and

1:45:40 ↗ fortunately I heard about it today but

1:45:42 ↗ this is the first time I've seen it and

1:45:44 ↗ I would like to have some more time and

1:45:46 ↗ also say we ought to be reaching out to

1:45:48 ↗ the other communities that have lived

1:45:50 ↗ with these projects and

1:45:53 ↗ um work on this code of conduct so it it

1:45:55 ↗ meets the needs of the people and it's

1:45:58 ↗ we can hold not only our private

1:46:01 ↗ contractors accountable but our Public

1:46:02 ↗ Works contracts because I also drive on

1:46:05 ↗ second and what's happening over at

1:46:07 ↗ second and Bush right now is appalling

1:46:09 ↗ and the safety issues that are happening

1:46:12 ↗ over there and had the public been more

1:46:14 ↗ involved with the planning of that and

1:46:17 ↗ the code of conduct with those

1:46:20 ↗ contractors over there I don't think we

1:46:22 ↗ would have the issues that we're seeing

1:46:24 ↗ over there now on Bush and second and if

1:46:27 ↗ people haven't visited it lately well

1:46:29 ↗ you're lucky and we're lucky we haven't

1:46:31 ↗ had any serious accident so the code of

1:46:35 ↗ conduct should be for communications

1:46:37 ↗ we're not only with the city but with

1:46:39 ↗ the public and safety should be

1:46:41 ↗ emphasized too

1:46:43 ↗ thank you I'd be glad to participate and

1:46:46 ↗ if I've given timely notice to see if we

1:46:49 ↗ can improve upon what's already exists

1:46:51 ↗ and what's being presented

1:46:55 ↗ thank you

1:46:56 ↗ thank you

1:46:58 ↗ click Grabowski do we have anyone else

1:47:00 ↗ on the line

1:47:03 ↗ uh no chair hunt that is everybody okay

1:47:07 ↗ great thank you then at this time we

1:47:10 ↗ will move into Council discussion on

1:47:12 ↗ this item and we do have a we can

1:47:16 ↗ potentially make a recommendation on

1:47:18 ↗ this item if we would like to although

1:47:21 ↗ it is to send the the recommended

1:47:25 ↗ um motion would be to recommend so that

1:47:27 ↗ we send it back to for another meeting I

1:47:30 ↗ believe so all right

1:47:32 ↗ um

1:47:33 ↗ councilman Ray yes

1:47:36 ↗ um thanks um thanks for all the work

1:47:37 ↗ you've done on this um I I do believe

1:47:40 ↗ this is something I started talking

1:47:41 ↗ about in in 2018 so it's very gratifying

1:47:44 ↗ to see it it coming to fruition so I

1:47:47 ↗ just want to go back to some of the

1:47:48 ↗ reasons for it having lived in a

1:47:50 ↗ construction site for way too many years

1:47:53 ↗ um it kind of hits home so

1:47:56 ↗ this this is an important thing but

1:47:58 ↗ anyway contractors are short-term

1:47:59 ↗ neighbors and they should be good

1:48:01 ↗ neighbors and I think that's what we're

1:48:02 ↗ trying to do is to make sure that we

1:48:05 ↗ make make our contractors good neighbors

1:48:06 ↗ while they're in our neighborhood

1:48:08 ↗ and the one thing that I will tell you

1:48:10 ↗ and I think we heard this from Mary

1:48:12 ↗ Lynch is people's tolerance for

1:48:13 ↗ contractors wanes over time so I may be

1:48:16 ↗ really pretty happy and not too grumpy

1:48:19 ↗ but it's uh it's like water torture it

1:48:22 ↗ wears you down so I think best to get

1:48:25 ↗ out in front of it and and not let the

1:48:27 ↗ uh let that Fester so I think this is

1:48:30 ↗ really good

1:48:31 ↗ um

1:48:31 ↗ I think also that I think City projects

1:48:35 ↗ should be good neighbors too so I think

1:48:36 ↗ just like we talked about with

1:48:39 ↗ um you know the permitting process we we

1:48:41 ↗ should we should make sure that the same

1:48:43 ↗ behavior is happening it may go through

1:48:46 ↗ a different Channel but it the outcome

1:48:47 ↗ should be the same

1:48:49 ↗ um and then ultimately one of the things

1:48:52 ↗ that would really help is just

1:48:54 ↗ information I know we talked about

1:48:55 ↗ information and how to tell people what

1:48:57 ↗ the schedule is and you know that

1:48:59 ↗ drilling that they're doing that's only

1:49:01 ↗ going to go on for another 20 days so

1:49:03 ↗ you don't have to to worry about it

1:49:04 ↗ going on Beyond 20 days so you can

1:49:07 ↗ manage your expectations but good

1:49:09 ↗ information about schedule

1:49:11 ↗ having people be thoughtful is very

1:49:15 ↗ important mineralize minimizing traffic

1:49:17 ↗ to disruptions is really important

1:49:20 ↗ um

1:49:22 ↗ uh you know I think I'm just gonna stop

1:49:26 ↗ talking about what's really important

1:49:27 ↗ because I think you know

1:49:28 ↗ and I have I my thing a list of things

1:49:31 ↗ that I I like oh that really frustrates

1:49:33 ↗ me and I wish that we had like a board

1:49:35 ↗ where I had a QR code and I could shoot

1:49:37 ↗ it and then I could send an email and

1:49:39 ↗ and I would be get a speedy response

1:49:43 ↗ um but I kind of agree with what I heard

1:49:45 ↗ tonight too from the public which is

1:49:47 ↗ um it would be good if we could

1:49:49 ↗ um get some public input on what what

1:49:54 ↗ would have made a difference what down

1:49:55 ↗ in Newport way what would have made a

1:49:57 ↗ difference

1:49:58 ↗ um over the years that that area was in

1:50:01 ↗ a lot of

1:50:02 ↗ a lot of uh kind of back-to-back

1:50:05 ↗ instruction and um and help us do this

1:50:10 ↗ um in such a way that it makes the

1:50:11 ↗ biggest impact of the community so that

1:50:14 ↗ you know I I would rather take a few

1:50:16 ↗ more months and

1:50:18 ↗ um

1:50:18 ↗ get some input then feel like we have to

1:50:21 ↗ get it done right now

1:50:22 ↗ that's those are my thoughts

1:50:26 ↗ thank you

1:50:27 ↗ um on that last

1:50:29 ↗ sentence uh do you think that until

1:50:32 ↗ November would be or I and I can also

1:50:35 ↗ check in with um James but I'm wondering

1:50:38 ↗ about I mean are you expecting that it

1:50:40 ↗ would be longer than what's

1:50:42 ↗ happening if it was longer I guess

1:50:45 ↗ that's what I'm saying I mean the sooner

1:50:46 ↗ the better but longer better right than

1:50:49 ↗ short okay

1:50:51 ↗ got it

1:50:54 ↗ yes

1:50:55 ↗ councilmember Ray members of the

1:50:57 ↗ committee good evening I guess some

1:50:59 ↗ questions so would you like us to come

1:51:02 ↗ back with a more uh form a form document

1:51:06 ↗ for the committee before we take it to

1:51:08 ↗ the community do you want us to take it

1:51:10 ↗ to the community basically in the form

1:51:12 ↗ it's in now and then from those

1:51:14 ↗ discussions come back to you

1:51:16 ↗ with a proposal

1:51:18 ↗ [Music]

1:51:23 ↗ he didn't take it take it as because I

1:51:24 ↗ think you've done a lot of good work I

1:51:26 ↗ mean I like what I see I mean it's a

1:51:28 ↗ good it's a good start I just don't know

1:51:29 ↗ that it's complete and right and

1:51:31 ↗ accurate because I just have my

1:51:32 ↗ experiences and there's 40 000 other

1:51:35 ↗ people in this town that might have

1:51:36 ↗ other experiences so I would you know

1:51:38 ↗ take that it's a great start you know

1:51:40 ↗ say what have we missed you know and go

1:51:43 ↗ from there so then I

1:51:46 ↗ my senses then we would need to have a

1:51:48 ↗ general community meeting on this topic

1:51:51 ↗ with sufficient notice

1:51:54 ↗ my guess is we probably could get that

1:51:57 ↗ done before Thanksgiving because I think

1:51:59 ↗ once you hit Thanksgiving that window

1:52:01 ↗ closes very fast for Community input so

1:52:05 ↗ if we were to do that by the end of

1:52:07 ↗ November we could come back to you

1:52:09 ↗ probably in January with

1:52:13 ↗ the results of that and it may be a more

1:52:16 ↗ finalized document for the community to

1:52:17 ↗ respond to is that a reasonable time

1:52:19 ↗ frame this is just me one of three I'm a

1:52:23 ↗ one of seven I'm fine with that like I

1:52:25 ↗ said I'd rather

1:52:26 ↗ get the community input and take a

1:52:28 ↗ little more time than to move it forward

1:52:30 ↗ quicker

1:52:34 ↗ [Music]

1:52:42 ↗ so I think the one of the two options

1:52:45 ↗ that was listed here was basically

1:52:49 ↗ take this to PPC I assume it doesn't

1:52:53 ↗ mention just as develop a separate

1:52:56 ↗ contractor code of conduct

1:53:00 ↗ yeah I don't believe we had a a proposed

1:53:03 ↗ path for further input so

1:53:06 ↗ um we could take it I I don't know the

1:53:09 ↗ PPC quite honestly is the right place I

1:53:11 ↗ think that I think that you know I if

1:53:14 ↗ you'd like we can have a general

1:53:15 ↗ community meeting uh and see what

1:53:18 ↗ feedback we get from that

1:53:20 ↗ um that's more not hard to set up we've

1:53:24 ↗ not had one on a general Topic in a long

1:53:27 ↗ time but uh would this will give us some

1:53:29 ↗ good opportunities I'm sure we would

1:53:31 ↗ need to do it hybrid and

1:53:33 ↗ so I think probably the room is less

1:53:35 ↗ important and probably just having the

1:53:37 ↗ technology my guess is a lot of folks

1:53:39 ↗ will just given the opportunity just

1:53:42 ↗ zoom in not have to worry about rooms

1:53:45 ↗ and things so certainly would be if not

1:53:48 ↗ in this room some public meeting room

1:53:50 ↗ but we would use a hybrid technology

1:53:54 ↗ okay that sounds like a good way forward

1:53:57 ↗ and then if we're developing a separate

1:54:01 ↗ contractor code of conduct is there any

1:54:04 ↗ change to Title 18 to reference that

1:54:08 ↗ that would then if we have at some point

1:54:11 ↗ already adopted Title 18 would we have

1:54:13 ↗ to go back and adjust

1:54:16 ↗ you know once we figure out what we want

1:54:18 ↗ as part of this contractor code of

1:54:20 ↗ conduct if there's a some more mechanism

1:54:23 ↗ in the code for enforcement we think we

1:54:26 ↗ have that covered in title 16 because

1:54:28 ↗ it's really construction uh piece um and

1:54:31 ↗ we'll come back to council with some

1:54:33 ↗ changes to the building code anyways for

1:54:35 ↗ sustainability and all that kind of

1:54:37 ↗ stuff so uh we don't think that you know

1:54:40 ↗ in January if we go with a community

1:54:42 ↗ outreach and then come back to you if

1:54:44 ↗ there is something that needs to change

1:54:46 ↗ in the code because we need more teeth

1:54:48 ↗ to enforce we can certainly look at that

1:54:51 ↗ but at this point it's more

1:54:54 ↗ um we we believe we have the enforcement

1:54:56 ↗ tools it's more about figuring out what

1:54:58 ↗ do we want this code of conduct look

1:55:01 ↗ like and I think as we've talked

1:55:03 ↗ internally about this the the checklist

1:55:05 ↗ as it exists is likely the vehicle for

1:55:09 ↗ code of conduct enforcement the code of

1:55:11 ↗ conduct you know we are not going to

1:55:13 ↗ want to post you know what my might be

1:55:16 ↗ multiple pages of what's really in the

1:55:20 ↗ checklist but what we would see and I

1:55:22 ↗ think what we've seen from other

1:55:23 ↗ communities around the country is the

1:55:25 ↗ code is sort of an umbrella and so that

1:55:27 ↗ may be something that's posted on a job

1:55:29 ↗ site it references other documents that

1:55:32 ↗ people can look at so I think that's

1:55:35 ↗ likely the the area that that we would

1:55:37 ↗ land because I think we have found that

1:55:39 ↗ the the checklist is a good thing and it

1:55:42 ↗ is effective we need to build a bridge

1:55:45 ↗ with the community so that they're aware

1:55:47 ↗ of that they realize that there are

1:55:48 ↗ paths if they observe a project not

1:55:52 ↗ following that real or perceived I mean

1:55:55 ↗ I think that's going to be the other

1:55:56 ↗ challenge is perception versus versus

1:56:00 ↗ reality it's the problem we face now and

1:56:03 ↗ so if this at least allows folks who

1:56:06 ↗ aren't as plugged into our processes to

1:56:10 ↗ again have a QR code have something and

1:56:12 ↗ then we can at least satisfy a curiosity

1:56:15 ↗ or deal with with a real problem much

1:56:17 ↗ quicker because as we all know

1:56:19 ↗ perception becomes reality and if

1:56:21 ↗ there's a perception people aren't

1:56:22 ↗ following then regardless of the reality

1:56:25 ↗ is that's what people think so we can

1:56:28 ↗ put together a meeting before the end of

1:56:30 ↗ November I'll come back in January

1:56:33 ↗ um and I think that would be a good way

1:56:35 ↗ forward

1:56:42 ↗ yeah I think that sounds good

1:56:45 ↗ okay

1:56:46 ↗ um

1:56:48 ↗ well if that is agreeable to this

1:56:50 ↗ committee and the administration I think

1:56:52 ↗ we can go forward with that do we have

1:56:53 ↗ any other comments um I think we had one

1:56:56 ↗ one comment to the effect of the current

1:56:59 ↗ the current

1:57:01 ↗ um

1:57:02 ↗ analysis that was done that the list of

1:57:04 ↗ items uh although not in a code format

1:57:08 ↗ that that's that's a good starting point

1:57:10 ↗ for this community conversation right do

1:57:13 ↗ we have anything that we would want to

1:57:15 ↗ suggest adding or that we don't think

1:57:18 ↗ needs to be in there or change council

1:57:21 ↗ president

1:57:22 ↗ I have a bunch of notes

1:57:24 ↗ um

1:57:25 ↗ basically I love that we're finally

1:57:28 ↗ doing this to me it brings up a lot of

1:57:32 ↗ questions about what is the appropriate

1:57:35 ↗ communication method for the community

1:57:38 ↗ and particularly what belongs on the

1:57:41 ↗ notification board

1:57:43 ↗ and what belongs on the website as a way

1:57:46 ↗ to

1:57:48 ↗ convey the information about the project

1:57:50 ↗ about

1:57:52 ↗ what the neighbors can expect from the

1:57:56 ↗ project as far as timeline and allowed

1:57:58 ↗ work hours and expected noise and

1:58:00 ↗ traffic and all of those things as well

1:58:03 ↗ as 24 7 emergency contact information I

1:58:06 ↗ love the idea of a QR code on that

1:58:10 ↗ I would love there to be some kind of

1:58:13 ↗ public notification whether it's on the

1:58:16 ↗ website or on that notification board of

1:58:19 ↗ any violations that were found and what

1:58:22 ↗ the consequences were I think it's much

1:58:25 ↗ easier as a community member if I see

1:58:27 ↗ that you know

1:58:30 ↗ there's been a violation I'm more likely

1:58:32 ↗ to call in the next time I see something

1:58:35 ↗ um so I think that's important

1:58:38 ↗ um I think as far as

1:58:42 ↗ what needs to be included whether it's

1:58:45 ↗ in the checklist or the code of conduct

1:58:47 ↗ is something about the school district

1:58:49 ↗ and Metro bus stops I think it's really

1:58:53 ↗ important that there's notification to

1:58:55 ↗ those organizations early

1:58:58 ↗ particularly so that they can move a bus

1:59:02 ↗ stop rather than try and get it to

1:59:05 ↗ happen

1:59:06 ↗ in front of a construction site and I

1:59:09 ↗ know we don't control those things but

1:59:11 ↗ we should at least require that they

1:59:12 ↗ make contact

1:59:14 ↗ and then

1:59:16 ↗ I do agree that public projects should

1:59:19 ↗ have to be a good neighbor as well so I

1:59:21 ↗ would love to hear from our new Public

1:59:24 ↗ Works director and just get her involved

1:59:26 ↗ in this process as far as what

1:59:30 ↗ what how do we make this applicable for

1:59:33 ↗ our public works department and for our

1:59:35 ↗ subcontractors that are coming on site

1:59:37 ↗ to handle a project for us so I think

1:59:40 ↗ that would be another piece of

1:59:42 ↗ information as far as how to get

1:59:44 ↗ feedback

1:59:45 ↗ thanks

1:59:49 ↗ okay great

1:59:51 ↗ um so I I think that all sounds like a

1:59:53 ↗ good way forward and

1:59:56 ↗ um one thing I think that also would be

1:59:58 ↗ helpful to get expert information on is

2:00:03 ↗ um or expert perspective on is about

2:00:06 ↗ how applicable this would be if we do

2:00:08 ↗ expand it to

2:00:10 ↗ um you know things like road projects

2:00:12 ↗ and trails because I was thinking when

2:00:15 ↗ you mentioned that you know a trail in a

2:00:18 ↗ trail that's far from where people are

2:00:20 ↗ living it probably isn't as much of an

2:00:22 ↗ issue about notifying about noise and

2:00:24 ↗ these other things so there's probably

2:00:26 ↗ pieces that are and that was just when

2:00:28 ↗ you said that I thought of that but I'm

2:00:30 ↗ sure there are lots of other sort of

2:00:31 ↗ nuances

2:00:33 ↗ um because this as it's written I think

2:00:35 ↗ really was meant to apply to buildings

2:00:37 ↗ and contractors

2:00:40 ↗ uh

2:00:41 ↗ doing that particular form of

2:00:43 ↗ construction so I think expanding where

2:00:48 ↗ it makes sense I would be okay with it

2:00:51 ↗ but I think it probably doesn't

2:00:53 ↗ yeah it's probably not a

2:00:55 ↗ one-size-fits-all

2:00:57 ↗ um and then I I think the list is good I

2:01:00 ↗ think the main questions really are

2:01:02 ↗ around

2:01:03 ↗ the communication

2:01:05 ↗ to the community the neighbors

2:01:09 ↗ um interesting point about bus stops but

2:01:12 ↗ you know other other important

2:01:14 ↗ neighboring facilities that all of that

2:01:16 ↗ communication is probably important I

2:01:17 ↗ think one other thing we could do

2:01:20 ↗ um it would probably be done through

2:01:22 ↗ this process anyway but get a get a

2:01:24 ↗ sense of the community's preferences

2:01:26 ↗ with c-click fix and if that's working

2:01:29 ↗ if they feel that that's responsive and

2:01:31 ↗ I know we recently had a report as one

2:01:34 ↗ of our consent items just sort of

2:01:35 ↗ describing how C click fix is going but

2:01:39 ↗ this might be an opportunity to kind of

2:01:41 ↗ say get more into

2:01:43 ↗ if people are using it or not or what

2:01:45 ↗ they would prefer to use

2:01:48 ↗ so

2:01:49 ↗ um yeah I think that all sounds like a

2:01:50 ↗ great way forward for me as well one

2:01:52 ↗ other thing which was mentioned in

2:01:54 ↗ mentioned by James is I think noxious

2:01:58 ↗ weeds could be added because they do

2:02:00 ↗ overrun sites and so that would be good

2:02:02 ↗ to make sure that people know they're

2:02:03 ↗ expected to keep those under control as

2:02:06 ↗ part of the code of conduct but

2:02:07 ↗ otherwise I thought all the components

2:02:09 ↗ were there and then maybe it's just

2:02:10 ↗ fine-tuning with Community input and

2:02:14 ↗ input from our Public Works and staff

2:02:18 ↗ council president yeah I was just

2:02:21 ↗ looking back at the goals and outcomes

2:02:22 ↗ chart and this relates to number five

2:02:25 ↗ improved public awareness of Development

2:02:27 ↗ and Construction activities and I have

2:02:29 ↗ to say honestly when we created that

2:02:31 ↗ goals and outcomes chart I really

2:02:33 ↗ thought that applied much more to

2:02:36 ↗ redesigning and kind of rethinking

2:02:38 ↗ what's on that notification board and

2:02:40 ↗ what's on a website so I just want to

2:02:42 ↗ make sure that is included in this that

2:02:46 ↗ we're not just developing the contractor

2:02:48 ↗ code of conduct because the public

2:02:51 ↗ awareness

2:02:52 ↗ part of that goal as an outcome is

2:02:55 ↗ really super important

2:02:59 ↗ and I think it's important to recognize

2:03:01 ↗ we could not find one city west of the

2:03:03 ↗ Mississippi that had a contractor code

2:03:06 ↗ of conduct

2:03:07 ↗ because they are all handling it the way

2:03:10 ↗ you just described that it's not a

2:03:13 ↗ contractor code of conduct it's what's a

2:03:15 ↗ central place to have information about

2:03:18 ↗ projects for people to communicate that

2:03:20 ↗ doesn't make a contractor grow a conduct

2:03:22 ↗ bad it's just that you know I think our

2:03:26 ↗ sense is that other communities use the

2:03:28 ↗ checklist they use proper signage they

2:03:30 ↗ use you know technology to do that I

2:03:34 ↗ think it'll be great for us to put an

2:03:36 ↗ umbrella on top of it but do all the

2:03:38 ↗ things you just said it's not just a

2:03:40 ↗ matter of plopping up a sign that says

2:03:42 ↗ here's the contractor code of conduct

2:03:44 ↗ we're done it's about integrating these

2:03:46 ↗ other tools and if we want to publicize

2:03:49 ↗ it by saying we have this contractor

2:03:51 ↗ code of conduct but here's all the other

2:03:53 ↗ mechanisms that fall underneath it

2:03:55 ↗ that's where the real success is it's

2:03:57 ↗ not having a contractor code of conduct

2:03:59 ↗ because again we could not find one City

2:04:02 ↗ West the Mississippi that had one we saw

2:04:04 ↗ Lots about contractor checklists we saw

2:04:07 ↗ Lots about signage you saw Lots about

2:04:09 ↗ notification but we didn't see anything

2:04:11 ↗ about a contract or go to conduct

2:04:14 ↗ great so then just to be clear when we

2:04:18 ↗ are going to have a public meeting on

2:04:20 ↗ this I would hope that a notification

2:04:24 ↗ board and what information the community

2:04:26 ↗ wants to see on that and what they want

2:04:28 ↗ to see on our website would be part of

2:04:30 ↗ that and then also whether notification

2:04:35 ↗ boards

2:04:36 ↗ and or website pages are appropriate and

2:04:40 ↗ expected for public projects and what

2:04:43 ↗ those types of public projects are as

2:04:46 ↗ council member hunt mentioned maybe a

2:04:48 ↗ trail that's in the middle of a trail

2:04:49 ↗ system doesn't apply but maybe a trail

2:04:52 ↗ head that comes to a roadway near houses

2:04:55 ↗ does and so getting Community feedback

2:04:58 ↗ on what those things are I think would

2:05:03 ↗ be helpful in order to kind of figure

2:05:07 ↗ out how we apply this to some of those

2:05:10 ↗ projects

2:05:15 ↗ foreign

2:05:20 ↗ do we have any additional feedback or

2:05:23 ↗ thoughts on this no okay

2:05:26 ↗ um since the administration

2:05:28 ↗ have what you need from our committee in

2:05:30 ↗ terms of this and then my last question

2:05:32 ↗ is should we take action or or is it

2:05:36 ↗ adequate I I'm I can report back to

2:05:38 ↗ Council on our discussion and that we've

2:05:41 ↗ made this recommendation the item

2:05:44 ↗ remains in committee yeah

2:05:46 ↗ so that and that doesn't require an

2:05:48 ↗ action okay all right so if there's no

2:05:51 ↗ further conversation on this one or

2:05:53 ↗ thought celebration great

2:05:56 ↗ um

2:05:57 ↗ very good then um are there any

2:05:59 ↗ announcements any committee members have

2:06:01 ↗ no okay then there being no further

2:06:04 ↗ business this meeting is adjourned at

2:06:09 ↗ um 8 37.

2:06:12 ↗ thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Victoria Hunt

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Audience commenters (1)

Connie Marsh

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The Committee members agreed to the proposal.