City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, December 6, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 1, 2022

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-01-22 City Council Planning, Development & Page (0000) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. November 1, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18 Land Use Code: Consolidated Draft [2 hrs.] ID 1273

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.7–178

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 27, 2021 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 24, 2021 Planning Policy Commission · Jul 15, 2021 Planning Policy Commission · Jul 22, 2021

▶ Watch from 0:29 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The city is currently undertaking a large overhaul of the Title 18, the City’s land use code. This update is being guided by various city adopted policies in the following documents: Strategic Plan, Comprehensive Plan & Olde Town Subarea Plan, Central Issaquah Plan, Parks Strategic Plan, Mobility Master Plan, Climate Action Plan and Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee created Goals, Policy Changes, and Desired Outcomes Document. This update also incorporates updates that are to ensure consistency with State Law and other best management practices.

2288 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ foreign

0:09 ↗ I councilmember hunt called the December

0:12 ↗ 6 2022 city council Planning Development

0:15 ↗ and environment committee meeting to

0:17 ↗ order I am councilmember Victoria hunt

0:19 ↗ and I serve as committee chair for this

0:21 ↗ committee I am joined today by council

0:23 ↗ president Walsh and council member Ray

0:25 ↗ and we will start I will say we have one

0:29 ↗ agenda item this evening which is ID

0:32 ↗ 1273 Title 18 land use code Consolidated

0:35 ↗ draft

0:37 ↗ and we will also have a public comment

0:40 ↗ after that item but before that we will

0:42 ↗ start with public comments there will be

0:45 ↗ multiple public comment opportunities at

0:46 ↗ tonight's meeting there will be a

0:47 ↗ general public comment opportunity at

0:49 ↗ the beginning of the meeting or you can

0:50 ↗ make comments after the presentation and

0:53 ↗ counsel question and answer period on

0:54 ↗ tonight's agenda item members of the

0:57 ↗ public May address council at this time

0:59 ↗ in person or virtually those who are

1:00 ↗ signed up in advance to make comments

1:02 ↗ will be called on First and if you are

1:04 ↗ joining us virtually and would like to

1:05 ↗ make comments please raise your virtual

1:07 ↗ hand if you are on the phone please

1:09 ↗ press star 3 and if you have joined by

1:11 ↗ computer or smartphone please look for a

1:13 ↗ hand icon this varies by device one

1:15 ↗ option may be to go to the participant

1:16 ↗ panel and choose the raise hand icon in

1:18 ↗ the lower right hand corner

1:21 ↗ um so I will take a moment see if

1:22 ↗ anybody virtually has

1:24 ↗ um either signed on and um and or

1:27 ↗ indicated a desire to speak and I will

1:29 ↗ also note for the record that there are

1:31 ↗ no members of the public present in

1:33 ↗ council chambers this evening so

1:36 ↗ Claire kabowski has anybody signed up or

1:39 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this evening

1:42 ↗ chair hunt no one has signed up uh

1:44 ↗ previously and we have one citizen

1:47 ↗ attendee

1:49 ↗ at the moment but I see no virtual hand

1:51 ↗ raised to speak okay great thank you if

1:55 ↗ we do have comments later in the evening

1:56 ↗ I'll read some additional guidelines but

1:58 ↗ I will skip that part for now

2:02 ↗ um so we will get into our agenda then

2:07 ↗ the first item is approval of the

2:09 ↗ minutes we have minutes from November

2:11 ↗ 1st do we have any corrections or

2:14 ↗ changes or issues with that

2:16 ↗ okay move to approve

2:21 ↗ all those in favor please signify by

2:23 ↗ saying aye aye aye aye okay that passes

2:25 ↗ unanimously we have approved the minutes

2:27 ↗ and we will get into our first agenda

2:30 ↗ item which is id12 first and only agenda

2:32 ↗ item which is id1273 Title 18 land use

2:35 ↗ code Consolidated draft presented by

2:37 ↗ director dollywall director dollywall

2:39 ↗ please take it away

2:41 ↗ foreign

2:43 ↗ council members and members of the

2:45 ↗ community

2:46 ↗ um we also I wanted to make sure we

2:50 ↗ acknowledge we have few folks from staff

2:52 ↗ in attendance today and also Anne-Marie

2:55 ↗ Soto from a journal Law Group for the

2:57 ↗ committee members if you have any legal

2:59 ↗ questions for her Christian guys are

3:02 ↗ planning manager and Stephen Perdue are

3:04 ↗ a long-range planning manager also

3:06 ↗ online

3:07 ↗ and with that I will

3:10 ↗ um

3:12 ↗ share my screen

3:19 ↗ can you all

3:21 ↗ see my

3:23 ↗ right

3:26 ↗ um so today is the culmination of

3:30 ↗ um all six topic areas that you'd seen

3:33 ↗ and really preparing you for what's

3:36 ↗ coming as a Consolidated draft and

3:39 ↗ really seeking input from you all in

3:42 ↗ terms of

3:44 ↗ um what do you want you know what do you

3:46 ↗ envision the final review process of the

3:48 ↗ title 18 Consolidated draft to look like

3:51 ↗ we also want to discuss the status of

3:54 ↗ changes that you had requested and PPC

3:57 ↗ fed by the community comments in the

3:59 ↗ first round of public hearing so we've

4:01 ↗ included that in your agenda back-end we

4:04 ↗ want to introduce some policy questions

4:06 ↗ that planning and policy commission will

4:08 ↗ be discussing later this week and then

4:11 ↗ on you know sharing some results of the

4:14 ↗ code testing

4:15 ↗ and also in your agenda packet is the

4:18 ↗ complete comprehensive public common

4:21 ↗ Matrix and you know giving you a status

4:23 ↗ of what we did what we heard throughout

4:26 ↗ this update process and and what the

4:29 ↗ status is of each of those items so

4:33 ↗ we're hoping to get direction from you

4:35 ↗ on the process for reviewing the draft

4:37 ↗ like I said and feedback on the policy

4:40 ↗ questions if there are additional policy

4:42 ↗ questions you'd like us to bring forward

4:44 ↗ what kind of analysis you want us to

4:46 ↗ bring with the Consolidated draft

4:49 ↗ um

4:50 ↗ just a quick little background you all

4:52 ↗ are very familiar with this but you know

4:54 ↗ we embarked on this journey of updating

4:56 ↗ an overhaul of the whole Title 18 and we

4:59 ↗ split it into three different phases the

5:01 ↗ first was the gaps analysis where we met

5:03 ↗ with various boards and commissions in

5:06 ↗ total 26 meetings we had four Council

5:09 ↗ meetings phase two was the first round

5:13 ↗ of public hearings of for each of the

5:15 ↗ six buckets so for that we had 25 boards

5:19 ↗ and commission meetings 10 meetings with

5:20 ↗ the council members 12 additional public

5:23 ↗ meetings and we're here in phase three

5:26 ↗ where we have

5:29 ↗ where we plan on having three public

5:31 ↗ hearings with the planning and policy

5:33 ↗ commission and bringing forward their

5:35 ↗ recommendation to the council committee

5:37 ↗ and then moving on to council's full

5:39 ↗ Council for adoption

5:42 ↗ um

5:42 ↗ and in your packet real quick is this

5:45 ↗ list of changes uh that have been made

5:49 ↗ that we're working on releasing the

5:51 ↗ final draft but it goes through a

5:54 ↗ Consolidated list for all the topics

5:56 ↗ what we heard from PPC from PD from your

5:59 ↗ committee and the public comments and

6:02 ↗ and things that we incorporated to make

6:04 ↗ changes in the in the final draft so

6:05 ↗ that's your attachment

6:08 ↗ um like I said the whole complete public

6:10 ↗ comment Matrix uh code testing summary

6:13 ↗ and then we've introduced the table of

6:15 ↗ contents which we hope to get you the

6:18 ↗ final draft soon

6:20 ↗ um in a kind of in mid-December late

6:24 ↗ December public hearing feedback three

6:28 ↗ public hearings with bpc in January

6:32 ↗ just real quick in terms of what this

6:34 ↗ list of changes that's in your packet we

6:37 ↗ picked a sample of three but we can go

6:40 ↗ to any particular one that you'd like to

6:41 ↗ discuss so the format here was

6:45 ↗ there's eight different topic areas in

6:48 ↗ the Consolidated draft so we've put the

6:50 ↗ on the top the part three which is the

6:53 ↗ division of land so it's under the

6:55 ↗ subdivision chapter

6:56 ↗ we brought forward all the discussion

6:59 ↗ and you all asked us to go back to PPC

7:02 ↗ to consider goal six increasing housing

7:04 ↗ diversity so we had that discussion with

7:07 ↗ PPC we gave them pros and cons and they

7:10 ↗ made a recommendation

7:11 ↗ on the two topics you know maximum block

7:14 ↗ length and zero lot line

7:17 ↗ and said for Central Highlands and tales

7:20 ↗ not city-wide the block land and on zero

7:24 ↗ lot lines they added the single-family

7:27 ↗ Zone that has a minimum density of 7.26

7:30 ↗ to those other three neighborhoods

7:33 ↗ um so we've included that and then the

7:35 ↗ last column you'll see are the specific

7:37 ↗ citations of the section of the code

7:39 ↗ that those changes were made similarly

7:43 ↗ there was discussion in the part four

7:46 ↗ development standards uh section on

7:50 ↗ weather protection and you know whether

7:53 ↗ it should be along alleys and facades

7:56 ↗ that don't have pedestrian access so

7:58 ↗ that was in our code and you know there

8:02 ↗ was a robust discussion on it and I

8:05 ↗ think we heard

8:06 ↗ um it's important but it should also

8:09 ↗ make logical sense and so the question

8:12 ↗ was should we add width and be

8:14 ↗ consistent with different sections of

8:15 ↗ what we did was we looked at the

8:17 ↗ different sections and made it

8:19 ↗ consistent so there was a consistency

8:21 ↗ issue there were a few things slightly

8:23 ↗ different

8:24 ↗ and then where we landed on this was if

8:27 ↗ the alley provides more than service

8:29 ↗ access than whether protection is

8:31 ↗ required as long as it doesn't impede

8:34 ↗ those services

8:36 ↗ and you know we've given you exactly

8:38 ↗ those sections of the code that those

8:40 ↗ changes were made

8:42 ↗ there was discussion about food trucks

8:45 ↗ and 60-day limit and the guidance we got

8:47 ↗ from both PPC and you was not to have

8:51 ↗ that limit so we made an annual permit

8:55 ↗ process which is a level one review and

8:59 ↗ we added some language but simplified

9:01 ↗ the permitting process

9:04 ↗ there was another ask from this

9:08 ↗ committee to look at ecological score

9:11 ↗ that Redmond uses so we did look into it

9:14 ↗ and in your packet we in that Matrix

9:17 ↗ we've kind of identified the 16 things

9:19 ↗ that breadman requires for getting a

9:23 ↗ minimum ecological score we determined

9:26 ↗ that majority of these things we already

9:28 ↗ require them and so the other feedback I

9:32 ↗ think we had heard was we don't want to

9:34 ↗ over complicate our code by creating you

9:37 ↗ know a process that doesn't have a clear

9:41 ↗ outcome to it so that was the other

9:43 ↗ factor that fed into we have native tree

9:46 ↗ requirements We have tree retention

9:48 ↗ requirements we have Evergreen you know

9:50 ↗ diversity of tree species

9:53 ↗ um a few things we probably don't call

9:56 ↗ out as a requirement are you know Green

9:59 ↗ roofs per se or solar panel and we

10:02 ↗ encourage those so

10:04 ↗ that that's up for this committee to

10:06 ↗ discuss or you know but our

10:08 ↗ recommendation was to not create more

10:11 ↗ process with everyone will pick the same

10:14 ↗ kind of options that that they will like

10:16 ↗ and we won't get the intended outcome

10:19 ↗ for what was in you know what what the

10:21 ↗ city plans to get out of this

10:24 ↗ um

10:25 ↗ so real quickly I'm going to walk you

10:26 ↗ through the final policy questions that

10:28 ↗ we've

10:29 ↗ um identified and these came out of the

10:33 ↗ first round so there were a few things

10:35 ↗ that were do more research on outdoor

10:38 ↗ spaces do more re you know finalize the

10:41 ↗ deviation criteria there was an ask for

10:44 ↗ having a sliding scale for steep slope

10:48 ↗ buffers uh through the testing process

10:50 ↗ we heard uh and you know that critical

10:53 ↗ code critical areas code for homeowners

10:56 ↗ needed some adjustments so so these

11:00 ↗ policy questions were fed by the first

11:02 ↗ round and things that we've either

11:04 ↗ further looked into or made edits into

11:06 ↗ so we've kind of highlighted these just

11:09 ↗ so it's clear for the committee and the

11:11 ↗ community members of the things that you

11:14 ↗ can weigh in on

11:15 ↗ um from a policy perspective

11:18 ↗ um so the first one uh site-specific

11:21 ↗ rezones so you know these are

11:24 ↗ quasi-judicial matters when the

11:26 ↗ individual property owner is asking for

11:28 ↗ a rezone they're subject to appearance

11:31 ↗ of fairness they're subject to One open

11:33 ↗ record hearing

11:35 ↗ um but there are some options for you

11:37 ↗ all to consider

11:38 ↗ the our recommendation is that the

11:41 ↗ hearing examiner makes a recommendation

11:42 ↗ to the city council after holding an

11:44 ↗ open record hearing this will give the

11:48 ↗ council a clear record and a full

11:50 ↗ analysis

11:52 ↗ in a more legal framework and then the

11:56 ↗ council will make the final decision on

11:58 ↗ the application the con of this is you

12:01 ↗ will still not be able to talk to the

12:02 ↗ community members and you won't hold

12:04 ↗ your public hearing so it does put you

12:07 ↗ in in a position where you're barred

12:10 ↗ from talking to the community members

12:12 ↗ yet you're making the final decision

12:14 ↗ the second option which is similar to

12:17 ↗ what we have now is planning commission

12:19 ↗ makes a recommendation they hold the

12:21 ↗ open record hearing you make the final

12:23 ↗ decision but there's no open record

12:25 ↗ hearing so it won't be anyone can submit

12:28 ↗ comments and and you know as it moves

12:31 ↗ forward to you the record is going to

12:33 ↗ get closed after the first open record

12:35 ↗ hearing

12:37 ↗ um the challenges with quasi-judicial

12:39 ↗ matter and appearance of fairness you

12:42 ↗ know members of the community that live

12:43 ↗ in the community may have to recuse

12:46 ↗ themselves they may you know planning

12:47 ↗ Commissioners may have to

12:50 ↗ not be able to participate and you know

12:52 ↗ there are other

12:54 ↗ nwcia recommends

12:57 ↗ volunteer boards and commissions from

12:59 ↗ not making these quasi-judicial

13:02 ↗ decisions

13:03 ↗ having said that

13:05 ↗ Planning Commission also wears ahead of

13:08 ↗ a legislative recommendation to to you

13:11 ↗ all so there's a confusion between are

13:14 ↗ they acting in a quasi-judicial matter

13:16 ↗ or in a legislative matter so it can be

13:19 ↗ confusing option three is that you hold

13:23 ↗ the open record hearing and everything

13:25 ↗ comes to you and then you make the final

13:27 ↗ decision

13:29 ↗ is there a question okay

13:32 ↗ yeah so process question and then a

13:35 ↗ substance questions the process question

13:37 ↗ is are you going to want this committee

13:40 ↗ to weigh in on these questions or are

13:42 ↗ these questions that you're sort of

13:44 ↗ raising for our awareness that are that

13:45 ↗ I'm going to go to planning policy and

13:48 ↗ you would like us to just sort of

13:50 ↗ opai and if we want to have the question

13:52 ↗ you know some different aspects of the

13:54 ↗ question the latter but just so that you

13:56 ↗ know we have this opportunity for you

13:58 ↗ I'm just walking you through as you read

14:00 ↗ the Consolidated draft we bring forward

14:03 ↗ ppc's recommendation then you can make

14:05 ↗ the final

14:06 ↗ call on the on the topic okay

14:08 ↗ um so my question on this one was it's

14:11 ↗ am I correct that all three of these the

14:14 ↗ city council is quasi-judicial decision

14:17 ↗ maker so it's really just the

14:19 ↗ differences in

14:21 ↗ who who and how a recommendation gets

14:24 ↗ made correct but in the third option you

14:27 ↗ have an open record public hearing where

14:29 ↗ community members will come and speak to

14:31 ↗ you in a public hearing format the other

14:34 ↗ ones you will not they will not directly

14:36 ↗ talk to you

14:38 ↗ um in a public hearing format the record

14:41 ↗ will be built in the previous whoever

14:44 ↗ makes your recommendation to you

14:46 ↗ okay thanks

14:48 ↗ question

14:49 ↗ yeah thanks um so I'm just kind of

14:52 ↗ curious on on the rationale for the rec

14:55 ↗ administration's recommending option one

14:57 ↗ were there factors that led you there

15:00 ↗ yeah so um you know because these can

15:03 ↗ these are you know sometimes very

15:07 ↗ contentious uh from one party or the

15:09 ↗ other either the proponent or the

15:10 ↗ opponent the hearing examiner builds a

15:13 ↗ more legal record for you whether it

15:15 ↗ complies with the criteria or not and

15:17 ↗ and it's a more open you know

15:19 ↗ conversation that the community members

15:21 ↗ would have and Marie is online do you

15:24 ↗ want to try and give why it was also the

15:28 ↗ city attorney's recommendation of option

15:30 ↗ one

15:32 ↗ yeah so a lot of cities are shifting

15:35 ↗ away from using their planning

15:38 ↗ commissions for quasi-judicial matters

15:41 ↗ um and moving more towards having their

15:43 ↗ hearing examiner handle those types of

15:45 ↗ matters the reason one of the reasons

15:48 ↗ for doing that is that hearing examiners

15:51 ↗ are typically trained in the law and

15:54 ↗ they are often more removed from the

15:57 ↗ community than people who might be on

16:00 ↗ the Planning Commission so it allows the

16:03 ↗ city to have a more defensible

16:07 ↗ record for any potential challenges to

16:10 ↗ the rezone it also keeps the planning

16:14 ↗ Commissioners more in that legislative

16:17 ↗ role and lessen that quasi judicial

16:19 ↗ quasi-judicial role and so this is

16:21 ↗ something that we see with a lot of

16:23 ↗ cities this is a big shift that we've

16:26 ↗ noticed over the last several years

16:27 ↗ trying to have more of those types of

16:30 ↗ decisions being either made by or

16:34 ↗ recommended by a hearing Examiner

16:37 ↗ great thank you

16:43 ↗ so then as the rezone criteria so we

16:47 ↗ have made some edits that we included in

16:50 ↗ your in your memo

16:52 ↗ just clean up kind of things that came

16:55 ↗ up during previous iterations and the

16:58 ↗ clarity is the increased density just in

17:01 ↗ the regional growth Center can it be

17:04 ↗ outside

17:05 ↗ what does this development agreement

17:07 ↗ mean like

17:09 ↗ um and and really taking a look at that

17:11 ↗ but we wanted to flag it for your

17:13 ↗ attention to see if there's you know if

17:16 ↗ there's other policy kind of

17:18 ↗ edits that needed to be made to to the

17:22 ↗ nine criteria

17:23 ↗ you asked earlier councilman president

17:27 ↗ Walsh about the peer cities so we did

17:29 ↗ look at our you know Bellevue Redmond

17:33 ↗ Kirkland and they they have similar kind

17:36 ↗ of decisions but it really does vary on

17:39 ↗ each City so there isn't a clear this is

17:42 ↗ where you do have the flux ability to

17:44 ↗ say whether you know you'll approve a

17:46 ↗ reason or not the idea for these site

17:48 ↗ specific reasons really is isn't to

17:50 ↗ bypass the longer planning Vision that

17:53 ↗ the city has done through the

17:54 ↗ comprehensive planning process but more

17:56 ↗ for things change over time you know you

18:00 ↗ do it every eight years but there's a

18:03 ↗ new light rail station that has gone in

18:05 ↗ and suddenly that wasn't factored in and

18:07 ↗ you haven't done a comprehensive

18:08 ↗ planning on it allowing folks to apply

18:11 ↗ for this site-specific or

18:13 ↗ the city purchased a land right next to

18:15 ↗ it and it's a park and you know the the

18:17 ↗ the idea that it's a single family Zone

18:19 ↗ maybe doesn't really apply anymore so

18:21 ↗ change circumstances is already covered

18:24 ↗ under one of the conditions but this is

18:26 ↗ up for policy discussion for um if you

18:30 ↗ think some things need to come out new

18:32 ↗ things need to be put in but this will

18:35 ↗ help guide any future site-specific

18:38 ↗ reasons

18:45 ↗ yep I have a question on this one which

18:48 ↗ is that the change or it seems to me

18:51 ↗ that the relevant change here is on the

18:53 ↗ county-wide housing targets not met um

18:55 ↗ so I wondered on that one what the

18:57 ↗ rationale for that as the

19:01 ↗ um the new specification of the target

19:03 ↗ was and also so that's for the whole

19:05 ↗ County right that's a little bit

19:06 ↗ different

19:09 ↗ I think this is just a summary of the

19:12 ↗ things but in your memo we have the full

19:14 ↗ language it's it's a growth targets have

19:16 ↗ not been met yeah okay so it's just sort

19:18 ↗ of clarifying the existing yep

19:22 ↗ okay interested to hear what they think

19:24 ↗ of that one thanks

19:27 ↗ any further discussion on this one

19:30 ↗ yeah

19:33 ↗ yes I think we'll go through and do

19:35 ↗ questions and then we will

19:37 ↗ um go back through and give any well

19:39 ↗ we'll do public comment if there's any

19:41 ↗ comment and then we'll go back through

19:42 ↗ and give any of our comments

19:45 ↗ yeah for the deviations so why this is

19:49 ↗ put up here is a couple of reasons

19:52 ↗ um one throughout the first round we

19:54 ↗ heard uh you know administrative

19:56 ↗ adjustment of standards were pretty

19:58 ↗ vague and arbitrary we couldn't give

20:00 ↗ people an answer yes or no until they

20:02 ↗ went through the process it was usually

20:03 ↗ towards the tail end and everything was

20:05 ↗ designed so this was our attempt to you

20:09 ↗ know provide some flexibility but also

20:11 ↗ some predictability for both the

20:13 ↗ applicant and the staff to say yes or no

20:16 ↗ um

20:17 ↗ um but but really being clear about the

20:20 ↗ criteria for deviation so here's a

20:23 ↗ Consolidated list of these are the only

20:25 ↗ things you could ask for deviations

20:26 ↗ under this new proposed draft the

20:29 ↗ previous draft had

20:31 ↗ you could ask for any deviation anywhere

20:33 ↗ in the code except for density or height

20:36 ↗ or floor area ratio you know there were

20:38 ↗ three or four things you couldn't ask

20:39 ↗ for but everything else you could ask

20:41 ↗ for from flexibility

20:44 ↗ with pretty broad criteria so we've

20:47 ↗ narrowed it down to this list and each

20:50 ↗ of these lists then in your packet in

20:53 ↗ your memo have included it in one place

20:55 ↗ so it's easy for you to read then have

20:56 ↗ to go you know find it in different

20:58 ↗ sections of the code that has each

21:02 ↗ criteria for each of these nine items so

21:04 ↗ there's a broad criteria you have to you

21:06 ↗ know meet in order to qualify and then

21:08 ↗ for each of these you would have to meet

21:11 ↗ that specific criteria yeah

21:14 ↗ foreign

21:17 ↗ so I'm trying to absorb this list and

21:21 ↗ understand I I don't have a sense of

21:24 ↗ what else could be on this list so I

21:26 ↗ think something do you have a sense of

21:29 ↗ like

21:31 ↗ what the top asks for the administrative

21:35 ↗ adjustment of standards would be for the

21:38 ↗ last several years we did we did take a

21:41 ↗ look at it and I think we have about 60

21:43 ↗ aas's a Christian is on the line he just

21:47 ↗ did this research today

21:50 ↗ um and a lot of them were trees

21:53 ↗ signs

21:55 ↗ um

21:56 ↗ uh Christian do you remember the other

21:58 ↗ high priority requests

22:04 ↗ yeah they were they range from trees and

22:06 ↗ signs to retaining walls uh step back

22:10 ↗ issues

22:13 ↗ um and many times there were multiple

22:15 ↗ requests associated with the same

22:18 ↗ project so a project could have you know

22:21 ↗ retaining wall set packs and and height

22:24 ↗ allowances along with vegetation

22:26 ↗ reductions and setback allowances as

22:30 ↗ well so those are the primary and

22:32 ↗ typically what we'd see or what it looks

22:35 ↗ like we've seen over the years

22:38 ↗ okay and then would it be possible so I

22:43 ↗ always like to think of things in the

22:45 ↗ lens of what makes

22:48 ↗ you know housing more affordable to

22:51 ↗ develop would it be at all possible to

22:54 ↗ look at these deviations and the asks

22:56 ↗ that people are doing and kind of

22:59 ↗ summarize them as either

23:03 ↗ hey it it just had to happen because it

23:06 ↗ didn't fit with that lot but it wasn't

23:09 ↗ about reducing costs because there's

23:11 ↗ some things that a developer is going to

23:13 ↗ ask for because it reduces cost either

23:16 ↗ so they can make more profit or so that

23:18 ↗ the housing can be sold at a lower level

23:21 ↗ but there are other things like Signs

23:23 ↗ where it may just be about where the

23:26 ↗ placement is so I wonder if there's a

23:28 ↗ way that we can look at this

23:30 ↗ set of potential deviations including

23:33 ↗ the deviations that were the

23:35 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

23:37 ↗ that were requested previously and get a

23:41 ↗ sense

23:42 ↗ what what's the end benefit of that is

23:46 ↗ it

23:47 ↗ just that you know they're able to

23:49 ↗ adjust some of the orientation of it or

23:53 ↗ does it actually save on costs for the

23:56 ↗ development

23:57 ↗ and then the other piece there is it is

24:01 ↗ it possible to bring to PPC than the set

24:06 ↗ of aes's that were requested previously

24:10 ↗ and which ones were granted by category

24:12 ↗ to kind of give a sense of which ones we

24:15 ↗ previously deemed useful and which ones

24:18 ↗ we were more likely to say no to

24:21 ↗ yeah we can share the data with PPC I

24:24 ↗ think at the end of the day

24:27 ↗ um it's it's that balance between you

24:29 ↗ know you go through this process you

24:32 ↗ have a robust public Outreach you

24:35 ↗ establish your standards and then you

24:37 ↗ can't turn around and deviate anything

24:39 ↗ you have to accommodate as a due process

24:41 ↗ for any property owner or an applicant

24:43 ↗ if there are topographical issues you

24:46 ↗ know if they're real challenges with

24:48 ↗ development so that's a variance process

24:50 ↗ so that's a due process everyone has but

24:52 ↗ it's a hardship standard there these are

24:55 ↗ more for flexibility in making the calls

24:57 ↗ and you know it's still public notice

24:59 ↗ required for these but it's not a public

25:01 ↗ hearing and a hearing examiner making a

25:03 ↗ decision so they're

25:05 ↗ scales of deviation so these are the low

25:08 ↗ hanging you know things that we we have

25:12 ↗ to do and and the reason for some of

25:14 ↗ these are

25:15 ↗ um varied for instance the window

25:18 ↗ transparency issue came up as a public

25:20 ↗ comment having multi-family right next

25:23 ↗ to the sidewalk was a problem for some

25:25 ↗ some folks and so we've built that into

25:28 ↗ this flexibility the others like the

25:30 ↗ preservation of view corridors unless

25:33 ↗ the city does a full view study which is

25:36 ↗ on the future updates list we can't just

25:38 ↗ deny an application because it's you

25:40 ↗ know preventing we can work with an

25:42 ↗ applicant to design their buildings and

25:45 ↗ and do things like that but you but you

25:47 ↗ don't have you you can't build because

25:49 ↗ you're you know so until so these that

25:52 ↗ sort of informed this list of why some

25:56 ↗ of these things came up here

25:58 ↗ um some of them were carry over like

26:00 ↗ adult entertainment use separation

26:01 ↗ requirements that that was through some

26:03 ↗ legislative process that the city had

26:05 ↗ done back in the day

26:08 ↗ so it's it's an assortment of reasons

26:12 ↗ why these nine got here but what I hear

26:15 ↗ you asking is it's hard for you all to

26:18 ↗ say what else without having more

26:21 ↗ information and so we can share what the

26:24 ↗ previous AAS is and were with bpc as we

26:28 ↗ talk about this one

26:32 ↗ um

26:34 ↗ um based on that conversation it occurs

26:36 ↗ to me that it might be good to have an

26:38 ↗ indication of where those different ones

26:40 ↗ come from

26:42 ↗ um you know one was from a Community

26:43 ↗ member one was

26:45 ↗ from the city's previous legislative

26:48 ↗ process you said

26:49 ↗ um I personally was wondering about the

26:51 ↗ fill and cut exception for an elevator

26:55 ↗ um seems like that's an awfully specific

26:57 ↗ request that got made at some point so

27:00 ↗ um just where these come from might be

27:01 ↗ good some good context

27:04 ↗ we can we

27:09 ↗ do our amenity space so this was one of

27:11 ↗ the items in the first round of draft

27:13 ↗ you know it showed 48 square feet as the

27:17 ↗ open space the comments we received were

27:19 ↗ you know if there's a balcony

27:21 ↗ requirement that's separate from the

27:24 ↗ outdoor and then the the terminology we

27:26 ↗ used was confusing so we've put the word

27:29 ↗ outdoor and indoor to distinguish those

27:32 ↗ two

27:32 ↗ but really we went back and did some

27:35 ↗ research in terms of peer cities what

27:38 ↗ makes sense if you are going to separate

27:41 ↗ where did 48 come from it was it six by

27:44 ↗ eight you know balcony that if you

27:47 ↗ provided that that was sort of met the

27:49 ↗ standard and this afternoon council

27:53 ↗ member you asked for some what existing

27:57 ↗ projects that the city had approved and

27:58 ↗ what the square footage was so that was

28:00 ↗ emailed to you earlier but we really

28:03 ↗ looked at 48 square feet as one option

28:05 ↗ which is in the draft code but really to

28:06 ↗ address the public comments um and and

28:10 ↗ to align a little bit with what our

28:11 ↗ other cities are saying and requiring

28:14 ↗ for this um

28:16 ↗ is um to have it go up to 100 square

28:19 ↗ feet and not count the balconies towards

28:22 ↗ your outdoor amenity space

28:25 ↗ um or you have the option to go up to

28:27 ↗ 200 square feet I mean bottle and

28:29 ↗ Kirkland have that standard so

28:32 ↗ um I think in in your memo I've kind of

28:35 ↗ laid out the pros and cons

28:37 ↗ um 200 square feet for uh 300 apartment

28:41 ↗ complex the you know could be 60 000

28:44 ↗ square feet so close to more than an

28:46 ↗ acre of open space so there's there's

28:49 ↗ that so trying to find the balance

28:51 ↗ between having good amenity spaces but

28:54 ↗ not

28:55 ↗ so much that they

28:58 ↗ um very so our recommendation is 100

29:00 ↗ square feet on that

29:03 ↗ so is the question also whether we count

29:07 ↗ balconies and private

29:09 ↗ outdoor space is that also going to PPC

29:13 ↗ as a question that came through public

29:15 ↗ comments and and they were clear about

29:17 ↗ BBC's recommendation was that they

29:19 ↗ shouldn't be so we've made that so the

29:21 ↗ clarification that balconies or private

29:23 ↗ spaces are counted is with our current

29:25 ↗ code but the draft code does not include

29:28 ↗ balconies or private open space correct

29:31 ↗ okay fantastic in the first round it was

29:34 ↗ 48 square feet and when we had the

29:36 ↗ public Hearing in now the Consolidated

29:38 ↗ draft is going to show 100 square feet

29:42 ↗ but you can discuss whether what number

29:44 ↗ makes sense

29:45 ↗ okay

29:47 ↗ um and then you had provided the

29:50 ↗ information in email about some of the

29:53 ↗ most recent developments and

29:55 ↗ multi-family developments and what the

29:58 ↗ outdoor amenity space they provided

30:02 ↗ what you provided I guess the amount of

30:05 ↗ square footage above the requirement

30:09 ↗ would it be possible to also provide

30:11 ↗ just their total

30:13 ↗ amount of square footage and maybe even

30:16 ↗ related to the property size so to get a

30:20 ↗ sense of

30:21 ↗ perspective I'm just it's always hard

30:24 ↗ when I'm given a number of you know 2

30:27 ↗ 000 square feet is like

30:29 ↗ okay is that sure enough or not so

30:33 ↗ thanks

30:36 ↗ yep should we move on

30:38 ↗ uh steep slope buffers uh this was the

30:41 ↗ other

30:42 ↗ um you know recommendation from ppcn

30:44 ↗ based on public comments was to explore

30:47 ↗ other options then have a standard 50

30:50 ↗ foot buffer uh which then gets peer

30:52 ↗ reviewed by our subject matter expert at

30:55 ↗ geotechnical engineer and and applicants

30:59 ↗ can request a buffer reduction but no

31:01 ↗ more than you know you still have to

31:03 ↗ meet the 10-foot buffer reduction and a

31:05 ↗ 15-foot setback so a total of 25 foot

31:09 ↗ um but it can be reduced beyond that so

31:12 ↗ we looked at slope height was you know

31:15 ↗ there was a request to see if we could

31:18 ↗ have a variable width based on the

31:20 ↗ height of the slope

31:22 ↗ um our subject you know our consultant

31:26 ↗ who's who's done a lot of work within

31:29 ↗ Issaquah is our peer reviewer for a lot

31:31 ↗ of these things

31:32 ↗ um also looked at slope geology with a

31:36 ↗ variable buffer and then we've also laid

31:38 ↗ out a fourth option which is to keep the

31:41 ↗ same 50 foot by the buffer reduction are

31:44 ↗ limited to 50 of the slope height so

31:46 ↗ it's somewhat similar to option one but

31:48 ↗ slightly different I want to kind of get

31:51 ↗ into the weeds with this one because I

31:52 ↗ think it'll help you as you understand

31:54 ↗ what what this really means and why we

31:57 ↗ recommended option one

31:59 ↗ um so the height of the slope

32:02 ↗ is you know from the toe to the bottom

32:05 ↗ and then based on the second option if

32:10 ↗ your slope is the height is the

32:13 ↗ difference between the top and the

32:14 ↗ bottom is 20 feet then from the top you

32:16 ↗ have 10 feet and you have 14 feet you

32:18 ↗ know from the toe

32:21 ↗ um if your height is 100 feet you have

32:23 ↗ 50 feet and 70 feet so it really can

32:27 ↗ vary but the problem with this approach

32:29 ↗ is that it's only one variable and we

32:32 ↗ know geology and issaqua is so complex

32:35 ↗ and water and all those things

32:38 ↗ um that we are not recommending this

32:40 ↗ option this happens on a case-by-case

32:42 ↗ analysis when they give us their Geotech

32:45 ↗ and we study their Geotech it's not like

32:48 ↗ your Wetland and stream buffers that can

32:49 ↗ be you know one size fits all it's so

32:52 ↗ unique to the property so then we said

32:54 ↗ okay well can you look at geology

32:57 ↗ and they did and they looked at you know

33:00 ↗ glacial tell versus fell versus bedrock

33:05 ↗ and came up with some justifiable

33:08 ↗ standard that takes into account the

33:11 ↗ height and the geology but even then we

33:15 ↗ feel this is has to be you know it

33:18 ↗ doesn't this would still need to be

33:20 ↗ peer-reviewed because of the

33:22 ↗ geotechnical engineer would need to

33:24 ↗ verify that that's the geology that and

33:26 ↗ the correct one it's not like someone

33:27 ↗ could go to this table and just pick a

33:29 ↗ number and that's the their setback so

33:31 ↗ it doesn't take away the peer review it

33:34 ↗ sort of creates a more

33:37 ↗ um

33:37 ↗ uh you know one size fits all or an

33:40 ↗ average of all those things it there is

33:43 ↗ still issues with this option

33:46 ↗ uh so therefore

33:48 ↗ um I think we laid are we still

33:51 ↗ recommending option one which is your

33:53 ↗ standard buffer it can be reduced based

33:57 ↗ on the peer review but not for all I

34:01 ↗ think there's a perception that these

34:02 ↗ were handed out for all requests that

34:06 ↗ came in so we've beefed up the criteria

34:08 ↗ for a buffer reduction so it's not you

34:11 ↗ know nobody could argue that they

34:13 ↗ deserve this unless the

34:15 ↗ the engineers agree on that but we've

34:18 ↗ added the fourth option if that's still

34:20 ↗ a concern that instead of reducing it

34:22 ↗ down to 10 feet that you would take the

34:25 ↗ slope height into consideration while

34:27 ↗ reducing the the iron

34:30 ↗ um you know land is expensive and and

34:33 ↗ development has to be tied to whether

34:35 ↗ that you it's based on science

34:38 ↗ and so option one where you do a

34:42 ↗ case-by-case assessment and establish

34:44 ↗ from a public safety standpoint so the

34:46 ↗ intent of these buffers isn't really

34:49 ↗ to protect the forested hillsides that's

34:52 ↗ happening through the first at Hillside

34:53 ↗ chapter this is more about safety and

34:55 ↗ landslides and liquefaction and you know

34:58 ↗ all of those things and so therefore our

35:00 ↗ recommendation is still option one

35:03 ↗ um the last question we've yeah I have a

35:07 ↗ question yep

35:09 ↗ um so in the email I had asked about

35:11 ↗ what peer cities do and what the best

35:13 ↗ available science and what you had

35:15 ↗ provided was

35:17 ↗ five columns worth of information on

35:20 ↗ minimum buffers which was coal mines

35:22 ↗ steep slopes erosion Hazard Landslide

35:25 ↗ hazards and seismic hazards

35:27 ↗ but in this you've only mentioned steep

35:29 ↗ slope does that account for all of them

35:32 ↗ or is it just yeah yeah good question

35:35 ↗ those are separate sections in the

35:36 ↗ critical areas code so we our current

35:39 ↗ draft did not have a setback from coal

35:41 ↗ mine hazards that's already in the draft

35:43 ↗ then we have to have 15 minutes you know

35:45 ↗ 15 feet or whatever we say as a as a

35:48 ↗ buffer this comment was really related

35:51 ↗ to the steep slope issue not those other

35:55 ↗ critical areas

35:57 ↗ so among the geologically Hazardous

36:01 ↗ areas there are five different types of

36:03 ↗ geologically hazardous areas and this

36:06 ↗ these options are just only for steep

36:08 ↗ slopes

36:10 ↗ so okay trying to understand it when you

36:13 ↗ mentioned that this steep slope buffer

36:17 ↗ is about safety you also mentioned

36:19 ↗ Landslide but there's another buffer in

36:22 ↗ there and another buffer for erosion so

36:27 ↗ if if there is a steep slope that could

36:31 ↗ have a landslide and erosion are there

36:33 ↗ potentially three different buffers that

36:35 ↗ they have to deal with correct but you

36:38 ↗ know we yeah

36:40 ↗ those are three distinct things but they

36:43 ↗ usually come in together with a

36:44 ↗ geotechnical report and they get

36:46 ↗ reviewed together so there could be an

36:48 ↗ overlap between them and and so if there

36:52 ↗ was a steep slope that also was a

36:53 ↗ landslide potential yeah you know highly

36:56 ↗ likely that we won't grant them a buffer

36:58 ↗ reduction for for instance so they do

37:01 ↗ play off of each other but this comment

37:04 ↗ was specifically to this requirement of

37:06 ↗ 50-foot buffer from the top and the

37:08 ↗ bottom of a steep slope and and the

37:12 ↗ other thing I think to keep in mind is

37:13 ↗ that on 40 percent or greater slope you

37:16 ↗ know there's you can't you can't develop

37:18 ↗ that under existing code or the proposed

37:20 ↗ draft

37:21 ↗ so well you can't develop on the slope

37:24 ↗ but you could develop at the base or the

37:26 ↗ top correct right correct and so at the

37:29 ↗ base or the top this steep slope buffer

37:32 ↗ would come into effect correct yeah so

37:34 ↗ you're talking about buffers at the top

37:36 ↗ of the bottom but if it's uh 30 slope

37:39 ↗ you know you still would have but it's

37:41 ↗ 40 that you can't do you know you can't

37:44 ↗ build on the slope correct yeah okay

37:46 ↗ thanks

37:49 ↗ and the last question we've identified

37:51 ↗ is really

37:52 ↗ um through the testing program that we

37:55 ↗ had we heard that there needed to be

37:58 ↗ additional that it was hard for

38:00 ↗ homeowners to figure out when you had to

38:04 ↗ provide a

38:05 ↗ stream or buffer or a wetland study it

38:08 ↗ was expensive it needed they asked for a

38:13 ↗ separate variance criteria for the

38:15 ↗ homeowners so

38:17 ↗ we already have in our code in a memo I

38:19 ↗ included those excerpts from the code so

38:22 ↗ it's you know you don't have to go

38:23 ↗ looking for them

38:24 ↗ but when single-family homeowners do not

38:29 ↗ have to provide a critical area study

38:31 ↗ because we do understand it's expensive

38:34 ↗ and if there is an existing impervious

38:37 ↗ surface they can enclose it so you know

38:40 ↗ if they have a patio they could build

38:42 ↗ over it because it's not an additional

38:43 ↗ impact kind of thing

38:45 ↗ the the option two we've really laid out

38:50 ↗ for the purposes of discussion in

38:52 ↗ response to those public comments that

38:54 ↗ you know if the policy is if the council

38:57 ↗ or nppc want to have a more liberal

39:00 ↗ policy or more leniency for a

39:03 ↗ single-family homeowners then maybe

39:05 ↗ there could be a threshold of 500 or 100

39:07 ↗ square feet that you would allow

39:09 ↗ homeowners to expand

39:11 ↗ as long as they did buffer enhancement

39:15 ↗ so you would still get a waiver from the

39:17 ↗ critical area study but you could plan

39:19 ↗ native vegetation in your backyard and

39:21 ↗ buffer and really enhance the the

39:25 ↗ environment

39:26 ↗ um and you know we could add things like

39:28 ↗ you can't remove any significant tree

39:30 ↗ with this expansion because that would

39:32 ↗ be an impact

39:33 ↗ um I laid out some pros and cons uh you

39:36 ↗ know without getting a monitoring report

39:37 ↗ it's going to be hard did the homeowners

39:40 ↗ really plant and did they maintain it it

39:42 ↗ will really depend so there's the trust

39:44 ↗ of what will happen

39:46 ↗ um

39:48 ↗ as a net gain so those are some options

39:51 ↗ we've kind of synthesized but again the

39:54 ↗ next steps will be PPC Hearing in

39:57 ↗ January

39:58 ↗ so that concludes the presentation and I

40:02 ↗ can stop sharing

40:13 ↗ yeah thank you director Dolly wall

40:17 ↗ um if you have any questions at this

40:18 ↗ point

40:20 ↗ all right I'll check in with Kurt

40:22 ↗ Grabowski if there are members of the

40:24 ↗ public on the line that might wish to

40:26 ↗ provide public comments and if so I have

40:28 ↗ some guidelines

40:31 ↗ chair hunt we have one member of the

40:34 ↗ public online at the moment

40:36 ↗ um giving them a moment to see if they

40:39 ↗ will want to raise their hand

40:41 ↗ and yes uh

40:45 ↗ okay great thank you um so I will read

40:48 ↗ these guidelines

40:51 ↗ citizen comments are an important part

40:53 ↗ of the public process we take them

40:54 ↗ seriously and Factor them into the

40:56 ↗ decisions we make please direct comments

40:57 ↗ to the whole Council and not individuals

40:59 ↗ this is not a question and answer

41:01 ↗ session but we will contact you to

41:03 ↗ follow up if needed when recognized

41:04 ↗ please unmute your microphone please

41:07 ↗ state your name address in relationship

41:09 ↗ to the city please speak clearly and

41:11 ↗ pause frequently and please limit

41:13 ↗ comments to five minutes if you are

41:16 ↗ attending virtually and do not respond

41:17 ↗ after your name or phone number is

41:18 ↗ called the meeting will need to proceed

41:20 ↗ and you're encouraged to rejoin

41:22 ↗ um city clerk if you could please

41:24 ↗ identify the speaker thank you very much

41:28 ↗ Connie would like to address the

41:32 ↗ the committee Connie Marsh

41:35 ↗ Connie I'm making you a panelist you

41:36 ↗ should be able to unmute and also turn

41:39 ↗ on your video

41:41 ↗ got it thank you

41:44 ↗ um Connie Marshall so I'm going to start

41:48 ↗ with Minnie's

41:49 ↗ last

41:51 ↗ thing first

41:53 ↗ um

41:54 ↗ so what has happened over time in the

41:57 ↗ city is the buffers have gotten whiter

42:00 ↗ and wider and wider on the critical

42:02 ↗ areas and what that has done is it has

42:05 ↗ created a whole bunch of people who are

42:08 ↗ legally

42:09 ↗ non-conforming in the critical area

42:11 ↗ buffers

42:13 ↗ and so uh this this is

42:18 ↗ um

42:19 ↗ this has made them unable to do

42:26 ↗ even very small things without an

42:30 ↗ extraordinary amount of study in advance

42:33 ↗ of doing them and uh most of these

42:37 ↗ people they know they live by Issaquah

42:39 ↗ Creek they know they know they're in

42:41 ↗ these critical areas because they've

42:43 ↗ lived with them

42:45 ↗ for quite some time

42:46 ↗ So This legal non-conforming

42:52 ↗ grouping is the group that we were we

42:58 ↗ were trying to figure out how they could

43:00 ↗ make minor improvements to their house

43:04 ↗ without it just starting out by costing

43:07 ↗ them thirty thousand dollars by having

43:08 ↗ to do all the critical area studies

43:10 ↗ right and so

43:13 ↗ um our concern was not so much that they

43:15 ↗ wouldn't do what they say they're going

43:18 ↗ to do because most of the people who

43:21 ↗ live in these areas next to the critical

43:24 ↗ areas

43:26 ↗ um they try to be good stewards of their

43:28 ↗ land probably better than some others so

43:30 ↗ there was that now I'm going to pop to

43:33 ↗ the steep slopes

43:36 ↗ um in the past our steep slope buffer

43:39 ↗ code did not keep up with our steep

43:42 ↗ slope buffer practice and we added a

43:47 ↗ bunch of different things like peer

43:48 ↗ reviews and different studies that they

43:51 ↗ had to do in order to get that buffer

43:54 ↗ set back to 10 feet

43:59 ↗ but what this has done is this is

44:02 ↗ creating a a situation where you have a

44:06 ↗ lot of development right next to these

44:10 ↗ these steep slopes which

44:14 ↗ um are tentatively stable over time they

44:18 ↗ might be okay for the moment

44:21 ↗ but

44:23 ↗ this the the new code does not make it

44:26 ↗ better all it does is codify what we

44:30 ↗ have been doing for the last eight years

44:32 ↗ and uh I am one of the people who thinks

44:35 ↗ that it needs to be more scalable if you

44:38 ↗ have a much larger steep slope you

44:41 ↗ shouldn't be able to get as close to the

44:43 ↗ edge of it or as close to the bottom of

44:45 ↗ it for safety over time with more rain

44:49 ↗ but if you have a smaller steep slope

44:52 ↗ that is just above that 20 feet rise

44:54 ↗ that you need you might very well be

44:56 ↗ able to get within the to the 10 foot

44:59 ↗ buffer because the safety and the

45:02 ↗ stability of the slope is uh much easier

45:05 ↗ to understand and like less likely to

45:07 ↗ slide so I wanted to uh tell you that

45:10 ↗ they actually aren't changing the

45:13 ↗ reality of what we used to do they're

45:15 ↗ just changing the code to match the

45:17 ↗ reality of what we ended up with for

45:19 ↗ that steep slope buffer situation uh

45:22 ↗ thank you

45:26 ↗ thank you very much

45:27 ↗ all right so now we will move into our

45:31 ↗ comments looks like we are

45:33 ↗ um

45:34 ↗ we are being asked to provide General

45:37 ↗ guidance did you want any

45:39 ↗ um specific feedback or should we sort

45:42 ↗ of March through the different slides

45:44 ↗ and give comments that way how would you

45:45 ↗ like how would what kind of feedback

45:47 ↗ would be most useful for you yeah sure

45:49 ↗ um I'll let uh Wally speak to it too but

45:52 ↗ I think for our purposes as we go down

45:55 ↗ this process if you know what's the

45:57 ↗ format do you want a paper copy you know

45:59 ↗ it'll be good for us to know how to walk

46:02 ↗ you through the Consolidated draft what

46:04 ↗ information would be useful for so

46:06 ↗ that's a Paramount question for us

46:08 ↗ tonight okay

46:10 ↗ um well yep

46:11 ↗ we talked internally about this evening

46:13 ↗ in the presentation this evening we felt

46:15 ↗ it was really important to raise the

46:17 ↗ issues that we've just walked through

46:19 ↗ without looking for specific feedback

46:21 ↗ other than just additional general

46:23 ↗ information we felt it was very

46:25 ↗ important that you first hear from PPC

46:27 ↗ before you had any deliberations so I'm

46:29 ↗ sorry if that wasn't crystal clear at

46:31 ↗ the outset but really as as many as

46:33 ↗ mentioned we're just looking really just

46:35 ↗ for Logistics I think we see January

46:38 ↗ your January meeting you you get a pass

46:42 ↗ on Title 18 and we're going to bring the

46:44 ↗ contractor code of conduct back so

46:46 ↗ that'll be the item for January we have

46:49 ↗ at least two meetings currently on the

46:52 ↗ calendar on February three two with the

46:55 ↗ committee for the committee I think two

46:56 ↗ so there's there's two meetings if your

46:59 ↗ sense tonight is that sufficient grade

47:01 ↗ of your sense tonight is we need to

47:03 ↗ start looking for third that would be

47:05 ↗ good feedback as well and then we have a

47:08 ↗ committee the whole scheduled with the

47:10 ↗ council in March which would be the

47:12 ↗ committee's opportunity to start sharing

47:14 ↗ that so those are the sort of broad

47:16 ↗ parameters that we're looking at if we

47:18 ↗ could get feedback on that and again any

47:20 ↗ additional information that would be

47:21 ↗ helpful to you either in writing as soon

47:24 ↗ as we can provide it uh or as we work

47:27 ↗ toward what would be a February

47:29 ↗ committee meeting for deliberations

47:35 ↗ Mr President Walsh

47:37 ↗ yeah I just had a few thoughts about

47:40 ↗ kind of process I think from my

47:43 ↗ perspective there were kind of three

47:44 ↗ sections of comments here which is what

47:48 ↗ do we want the final review process the

47:49 ↗ Consolidated draft to look like

47:52 ↗ is there any other commentary on the

47:55 ↗ policy questions not our opinions but

47:57 ↗ like it we would like to make sure PPC

48:01 ↗ is asked these questions something like

48:04 ↗ that and then the third was code testing

48:08 ↗ um because that wasn't in the

48:09 ↗ presentation but it wasn't our memo

48:10 ↗ talking through kind of some of that so

48:14 ↗ I don't know how you feel but that was

48:15 ↗ kind of the three sections that I kind

48:18 ↗ of saw and I don't know if it makes

48:20 ↗ sense to kind of take it in those clumps

48:22 ↗ or just go through all of them

48:26 ↗ why don't we

48:28 ↗ um

48:29 ↗ why don't we do them in grouping

48:31 ↗ groupings

48:32 ↗ um I did want to ask do you have any

48:34 ↗ questions on code testing because we

48:36 ↗ didn't receive any we didn't receive a

48:38 ↗ presentation it wasn't our packet

48:40 ↗ um I don't know that you're looking for

48:42 ↗ feedback on that since it's completed

48:44 ↗ but um

48:46 ↗ I think that that part was more

48:48 ↗ informational yeah I asked if this is

48:50 ↗ part of the process you know you want to

48:52 ↗ raise something yeah I had asked a few

48:55 ↗ questions over email

48:58 ↗ including about what

49:01 ↗ the information that we were presented

49:03 ↗ had something like overall experience

49:05 ↗ and overall code tester feedback like

49:07 ↗ who that came from

49:10 ↗ um and what other options we would have

49:12 ↗ to kind of simplify the single family so

49:15 ↗ that those questions are over to you but

49:18 ↗ I guess my

49:20 ↗ question there is what does the

49:22 ↗ administration think is the next steps

49:25 ↗ for either code testing or synthesizing

49:29 ↗ the information who is it getting

49:30 ↗ presented to and who's making decisions

49:33 ↗ about what or recommendations about what

49:36 ↗ needs to be done

49:37 ↗ for the testing piece yeah so the

49:40 ↗ testing piece was added you know as

49:42 ↗ another item to to the the whole

49:46 ↗ Outreach and and ready for folks to

49:49 ↗ understand how to apply the code you

49:51 ↗ know the application of the code makes

49:52 ↗ more sense sometimes but also to see you

49:55 ↗ know will it work will it not work what

49:57 ↗ are some hindrances and how to improve

49:58 ↗ the readability of the code and things

50:00 ↗ like that so I think in the in in the

50:03 ↗ memo it lists a few things about what we

50:06 ↗ are planning on changing I mean it led

50:08 ↗ to one of the policy questions here

50:10 ↗ about single family homeowners that came

50:12 ↗ out of the testing the other items were

50:15 ↗ more about ones the code is adopted how

50:19 ↗ will we kind of you know have this

50:20 ↗ information so that's the implementation

50:22 ↗ stage of the whole update and and

50:25 ↗ there's some feedback there about you

50:27 ↗ know graphic representation and more

50:30 ↗ robust Outreach and so we'll work on

50:32 ↗ that after the code is adopted

50:35 ↗ um but beyond that there were a few you

50:37 ↗ know

50:39 ↗ um things like oh this this section is

50:41 ↗ missing from the draft code that was

50:43 ↗ released for testing and so we we've

50:45 ↗ made sure you know some of those kind of

50:47 ↗ things were addressed inadvertent

50:49 ↗ emissions and things like that that came

50:51 ↗ out uh Stevens also online Stephen do

50:54 ↗ you want to talk about testing he led

50:56 ↗ that with Valerie

51:03 ↗ thank you Minnie um good evening

51:04 ↗ committee members for co-testing we

51:07 ↗ ultimately were trying to get a a scale

51:11 ↗ of usability of the draft code and and

51:14 ↗ and looking at if there were any

51:16 ↗ difficulties with any of the regulations

51:18 ↗ that were being applied for the

51:19 ↗ different or the varying projects that

51:21 ↗ people were working with staff on it or

51:24 ↗ even for the projects that staffed on

51:26 ↗ were there any regulations that made it

51:28 ↗ difficult for any project to actually

51:30 ↗ move forward

51:31 ↗ um it led to a lot of questions but it

51:33 ↗ didn't really point to any particular

51:35 ↗ regulations that that needed a stronger

51:40 ↗ look at in terms of determining if we

51:41 ↗ need to re-look at any specific policies

51:43 ↗ with the exceptional one that we're

51:45 ↗ going to be posing as part of the policy

51:47 ↗ discussions with the planning policy

51:48 ↗ Commission

51:51 ↗ Penny did you want me to dive a little

51:53 ↗ bit any any did that answer your

51:55 ↗ question

51:58 ↗ I think that answers my question about

52:00 ↗ what your approach is I will have

52:02 ↗ comments on that but where do you want

52:04 ↗ to start

52:06 ↗ uh let's start with

52:09 ↗ okay so now we just have the

52:11 ↗ um process and

52:14 ↗ General comments right those are the two

52:16 ↗ buckets that you're

52:17 ↗ the process the policy questions and

52:20 ↗ code testing okay right

52:23 ↗ process policy

52:27 ↗ um yeah I have comments on each of those

52:29 ↗ okay let's start with the comments on

52:32 ↗ process would you like to go ahead

52:35 ↗ sure let me pull that up

52:40 ↗ Okay so

52:44 ↗ I think we did a good job starting this

52:47 ↗ whole process with the goals and

52:49 ↗ outcomes chart

52:50 ↗ and so that's really where I want to

52:52 ↗ finish things up

52:54 ↗ I would like to be able to fill out that

52:58 ↗ or have you guys fill out the outcomes

53:00 ↗ chart you know

53:03 ↗ um

53:04 ↗ based on what changes were made and I'm

53:07 ↗ really looking for bullet points so with

53:10 ↗ things like the steep slope or the tree

53:14 ↗ um

53:15 ↗ retention you know added a section

53:19 ↗ included these you know pieces

53:22 ↗ everything I'm really looking to say can

53:25 ↗ we check the boxes off on those and from

53:29 ↗ my perspective that's not just those

53:31 ↗ specific items that were in the goals

53:34 ↗ and outcomes it's also the umbrella

53:35 ↗ items

53:37 ↗ and unfortunately from my perspective

53:39 ↗ when I'm trying to look at this and when

53:41 ↗ I'm looking at the code testing answers

53:44 ↗ it really feels like that's where we're

53:47 ↗ going to have the biggest problem

53:49 ↗ so being able to look at that and say

53:52 ↗ it's easier to use it you know there's

53:56 ↗ transparency

53:58 ↗ you know all of those things

54:01 ↗ stating here's the things that we did to

54:04 ↗ ensure those things would be really

54:07 ↗ helpful in being able to really say yes

54:09 ↗ we've done the thing that we said we

54:11 ↗ wanted to do

54:14 ↗ um

54:15 ↗ and then from my perspective uh the code

54:19 ↗ testing should

54:22 ↗ hopefully

54:24 ↗ um answer some of those questions that

54:27 ↗ were in the umbrella goals around ease

54:29 ↗ of use predictability and organization

54:32 ↗ um

54:33 ↗ I would like to see those both related

54:35 ↗ to the specific areas of the code that

54:39 ↗ were changed but also

54:42 ↗ just from a general sense of

54:45 ↗ single-family multi-family commercial

54:49 ↗ you know our various land uses and zones

54:55 ↗ does the code testing say we're getting

54:57 ↗ what we want

54:59 ↗ so code testing was about are we getting

55:02 ↗ the results that we want which is the

55:04 ↗ outcomes of the goals and outcomes chart

55:07 ↗ and is it meeting the umbrella goals

55:11 ↗ and so what I'd like to see when kind of

55:15 ↗ trying to analyze is this

55:18 ↗ ready is understanding

55:22 ↗ is it is it meeting the needs that we

55:25 ↗ aligned and is it easy enough to use and

55:30 ↗ I saw in the code testing a lot of stuff

55:32 ↗ about

55:33 ↗ um

55:34 ↗ the reviewers but I didn't see a lot

55:38 ↗ about staff or necessarily developers I

55:42 ↗ would love to go to the rallies or

55:45 ↗ another regular developer in the city

55:47 ↗ and

55:50 ↗ you know think about can you use this

55:53 ↗ code so that's part of what I'm looking

55:56 ↗ for in order to being able to review the

55:58 ↗ Consolidated draft

56:02 ↗ yes so are you asking we do more testing

56:06 ↗ and re do more reach out to folks I mean

56:10 ↗ what we had trouble with people raised

56:12 ↗ their hand then people said we want to

56:13 ↗ be testers and you didn't select us and

56:15 ↗ then when it came down to actually

56:17 ↗ spending six meetings with staff to sit

56:19 ↗ through and picking your and getting the

56:21 ↗ property owner it became labor intensive

56:24 ↗ for the testers so we had people drop

56:26 ↗ out because it was a time commitment for

56:29 ↗ folks to do the testing so it's not an

56:32 ↗ easy lift for people when they're not

56:34 ↗ really doing a development project to do

56:36 ↗ this but staff has done this throughout

56:39 ↗ the process right I mean we're looking

56:41 ↗ at it from what does this mean for this

56:43 ↗ and what and and one of the things I

56:45 ↗ think after the testing was the feedback

56:47 ↗ on

56:48 ↗ and one of the projects selected was

56:50 ↗ Berg's ma property and that was staff

56:52 ↗ LED testing and you know how would the

56:55 ↗ forested hillsides and the road work so

56:57 ↗ we did some additional go back and and

57:00 ↗ evaluate that and came up with some some

57:03 ↗ information to that the organization

57:06 ↗ kind of questions that you know

57:07 ↗ suggestions that came out through the

57:09 ↗ code testing we did that I mean we moved

57:11 ↗ sections around to kind of help with the

57:13 ↗ flow of the movement of of the things so

57:17 ↗ um so it'll be good to know what you

57:20 ↗ think is missing is it just the feedback

57:23 ↗ coming back to you or go back and do

57:25 ↗ more testing

57:28 ↗ so I think the feedback was pretty clear

57:30 ↗ that it was very difficult to navigate

57:32 ↗ from a single family standpoint and I

57:35 ↗ know the administration's recommendation

57:36 ↗ was we'll pull together some flow charts

57:40 ↗ and things like that that are sit

57:42 ↗ outside of the code and help people

57:45 ↗ through that

57:46 ↗ and I think that

57:48 ↗ is also necessary but I don't think

57:51 ↗ that's an answer so I don't feel like

57:54 ↗ we've made the code easier to use from a

57:58 ↗ single family perspective

58:00 ↗ I have other things on the code testing

58:02 ↗ there wasn't anything that was

58:03 ↗ multi-family and that's the large

58:07 ↗ majority of things that are going to get

58:08 ↗ developed

58:09 ↗ in the city

58:11 ↗ over the last few years and over the

58:13 ↗ next few years we're gonna have a lot of

58:15 ↗ multi-family housing because that's what

58:17 ↗ developers want to build so the fact

58:20 ↗ that we didn't get to see the code

58:22 ↗ testing on that to me is a problem and

58:28 ↗ that's where one of the developers that

58:29 ↗ we were working with said I don't have

58:31 ↗ time for this anymore and I appreciate

58:33 ↗ that and I think at a certain point

58:35 ↗ recognizing that that isn't something

58:37 ↗ that a Community member or a developer

58:40 ↗ needs to take on is is fine we needed

58:43 ↗ some Community input from people who are

58:46 ↗ very involved and could point out some

58:48 ↗ of these areas but

58:51 ↗ what I need in order to say this is

58:54 ↗ working may have to come from staff

58:56 ↗ because one of the perspectives that I

59:00 ↗ have is is this going to be easily

59:03 ↗ understood by staff that if four

59:06 ↗ different staff members were to look

59:08 ↗ over this they would all come to the

59:09 ↗ same conclusion

59:12 ↗ correct and so you know um

59:15 ↗ yeah I think golden outcomes chart will

59:17 ↗ definitely help you kind of figure that

59:19 ↗ out the other than the things that were

59:23 ↗ in the golden outcomes chart you know

59:24 ↗ we're not changing the policy on the

59:28 ↗ form and intensity the zone you know the

59:31 ↗ zoning the height and all those things

59:33 ↗ were not part of this code update so

59:36 ↗ that that's where I think the testing

59:39 ↗ from a multi-family you know the

59:41 ↗ standards were carried forward we didn't

59:43 ↗ say you you you're only allowed yeah and

59:47 ↗ that's fine but we've reorganized and

59:49 ↗ rewrote and created no definitions

59:53 ↗ I want to make sure the code is

59:55 ↗ navigable and easily understood by staff

59:58 ↗ and that we're going to come to the same

1:00:00 ↗ conclusions we can create a slide that

1:00:02 ↗ shows you the roadmap of you know and an

1:00:05 ↗ application of it so it's not just read

1:00:07 ↗ the code but it's like when you get a

1:00:10 ↗ multi-family project here's where you go

1:00:12 ↗ go to this chapter go to that chapter to

1:00:14 ↗ figure this out so we can create sort of

1:00:16 ↗ a flow of how where the different

1:00:20 ↗ standards apply will that be a useful

1:00:22 ↗ raffle

1:00:25 ↗ I I think we're having difficulty

1:00:27 ↗ understanding what success in your mind

1:00:28 ↗ is do you want do you want the planners

1:00:31 ↗ to appear before the committee

1:00:33 ↗ um I think we're trying to outline uh

1:00:36 ↗ the processes that have been involved uh

1:00:38 ↗ but I I'm not understanding what you're

1:00:40 ↗ looking for

1:00:42 ↗ um

1:00:44 ↗ it's good

1:00:45 ↗ hopefully helpful question

1:00:47 ↗ um so right now we haven't seen the

1:00:52 ↗ version that will appear on the website

1:00:55 ↗ the online published version that

1:00:57 ↗ presumably will have links and you know

1:00:59 ↗ different chapter headings that you can

1:01:00 ↗ click on and go to that section and all

1:01:02 ↗ that stuff

1:01:04 ↗ um so through this process I have looked

1:01:06 ↗ at a few other sites uh you know a few

1:01:09 ↗ other cities codes and they have these

1:01:12 ↗ links and you can sort of easily jump to

1:01:13 ↗ a definition you can jump back to your

1:01:15 ↗ section things like that

1:01:17 ↗ um I think part of the navigability

1:01:19 ↗ issue like when you're saying we're

1:01:21 ↗ going to have a separate flow chart

1:01:22 ↗ hopefully more of that is easier to

1:01:26 ↗ navigate when it's in its

1:01:28 ↗ um final

1:01:31 ↗ States the way that people are going to

1:01:33 ↗ use it they don't have to go to you know

1:01:35 ↗ separate flowchart document but we

1:01:37 ↗ haven't seen it like that so I'm

1:01:39 ↗ wondering I guess the first question is

1:01:41 ↗ was the

1:01:43 ↗ was the code testing able to be tested

1:01:46 ↗ in that sort of a state or not yet and

1:01:49 ↗ then and then will we be able to see it

1:01:51 ↗ in that that more like with hyperlink

1:01:55 ↗ final

1:01:57 ↗ stage because I think a lot of the

1:01:59 ↗ expected Navi navigation and the

1:02:04 ↗ expected user experience is going to be

1:02:07 ↗ based on that

1:02:09 ↗ the way it actually works

1:02:11 ↗ through a browser which is the way most

1:02:13 ↗ people are gonna look at the code

1:02:16 ↗ yeah so um you know like up here cities

1:02:19 ↗ I'm in Redmond where they have the we

1:02:21 ↗ use the same company code publishing

1:02:22 ↗ which is now purchased by someone else

1:02:24 ↗ so

1:02:25 ↗ um they check the references they

1:02:27 ↗ publish you know do all that the cleanup

1:02:29 ↗ before the ordinances are adopted so as

1:02:32 ↗ we continue to make changes we we

1:02:34 ↗ haven't told them to go do that level of

1:02:37 ↗ work I mean we could do that now and

1:02:39 ↗ then they would have to go do that again

1:02:41 ↗ when it's a final published version so

1:02:43 ↗ we've struggled with when is that right

1:02:46 ↗ time to to do that and so for now it's

1:02:50 ↗ you know the policy questions maybe in

1:02:52 ↗ the you know we've we've landed on where

1:02:54 ↗ the regulations need to be the flow and

1:02:56 ↗ things like that so

1:02:59 ↗ um the the electronic version of the

1:03:02 ↗ Consolidated draft will be able to

1:03:05 ↗ you'll be able to have a table of

1:03:06 ↗ contents and Link from that but the the

1:03:10 ↗ next step of if it's a defined term and

1:03:13 ↗ you're reading that section you click on

1:03:15 ↗ that it takes you to the definitions

1:03:17 ↗ that'll happen after code publishing

1:03:19 ↗ looks at it and so that is not slated to

1:03:22 ↗ happen prior to all the changes are made

1:03:25 ↗ because otherwise they have to do it

1:03:27 ↗ multiple times yeah

1:03:30 ↗ um so I think what I think hopefully if

1:03:33 ↗ I understand correctly what we're sort

1:03:35 ↗ of grappling with is especially for some

1:03:37 ↗ of these umbrella goals which we've held

1:03:39 ↗ from near the beginning of this process

1:03:42 ↗ um they will be best assessed at the

1:03:45 ↗ very end I think when it's actually in

1:03:49 ↗ its final form things like

1:03:52 ↗ um

1:03:52 ↗ things like you know uh

1:03:56 ↗ reform regulations for more improved

1:03:58 ↗ efficiency Equity consistency and

1:04:00 ↗ predictability I think you know we'll

1:04:02 ↗ have to see this in practice as a whole

1:04:05 ↗ and then also make the code easier to

1:04:06 ↗ understand better organized for use by

1:04:08 ↗ the public property owners and staff I

1:04:10 ↗ think it's hard we had a we had a group

1:04:13 ↗ that you know did good work trying to

1:04:16 ↗ test the code for us but a very small

1:04:17 ↗ group that was able and and ultimately

1:04:20 ↗ went through that process so I think

1:04:23 ↗ it's going to be hard to do that without

1:04:27 ↗ um so maybe maybe the question is like

1:04:29 ↗ how do we assess these what's the

1:04:31 ↗ process for assessing these if the best

1:04:32 ↗ time to assess them is

1:04:35 ↗ after it's published then maybe we could

1:04:37 ↗ think about how we want to assess them

1:04:39 ↗ after it's published for some of these

1:04:41 ↗ umbrella goals I think some of them we

1:04:42 ↗ can some of them are much more policy

1:04:44 ↗ specific right prototype reporters said

1:04:46 ↗ Hillside as we can say did we did we set

1:04:49 ↗ you know did we address these objectives

1:04:50 ↗ did we address these issues that we have

1:04:52 ↗ and you think we get the desired

1:04:54 ↗ outcomes with the policy so some of them

1:04:55 ↗ are much more straightforward but for

1:04:57 ↗ those umbrella goals I think that's kind

1:05:00 ↗ of what we're grappling with is that

1:05:01 ↗ we're gonna have to see how it works

1:05:04 ↗ yeah I think staying at the policy

1:05:05 ↗ discussion for now and then we'll get it

1:05:08 ↗ in a place where it needs to be with all

1:05:10 ↗ the links and everything else will come

1:05:12 ↗ later because as fair amount you all

1:05:15 ↗ need to kind of that's why we teased out

1:05:17 ↗ these six policy questions for Council

1:05:19 ↗ to stay at that level of okay are we

1:05:22 ↗ going there and and then I think

1:05:24 ↗ producing the golden outcomes chart like

1:05:26 ↗ um council president Walsh has requested

1:05:28 ↗ that'll help kind of close that Loop of

1:05:31 ↗ what what has been done barring these

1:05:35 ↗ umbrella gold of uh you know ease to

1:05:38 ↗ read and all that I mean I think the

1:05:39 ↗ language has been clarified so there are

1:05:41 ↗ things we've done you know wishy-washy

1:05:43 ↗ language and arbitrary

1:05:45 ↗ um criteria have been removed you know

1:05:48 ↗ so so some of those umbrella goals have

1:05:50 ↗ happened from a substantive changes

1:05:52 ↗ we've made but some of those

1:05:54 ↗ use of user interface type of things

1:05:57 ↗ with hyperlinks and things like that

1:05:59 ↗ will will be the implementation phase of

1:06:02 ↗ the code update yeah I mean I I

1:06:04 ↗ throughout the process you pointed out

1:06:06 ↗ where there have been disagreements

1:06:08 ↗ between existing sections of code you

1:06:10 ↗ know you've made it agree or you've

1:06:12 ↗ removed one redundant section and a

1:06:14 ↗ number of those things I think will

1:06:15 ↗ ultimately will ultimately lead to the

1:06:19 ↗ these outcomes of making it easier to

1:06:21 ↗ understand is just that I think what

1:06:23 ↗ we're struggling with is we don't have

1:06:25 ↗ it in a state right now where we can

1:06:27 ↗ really easily assess like how does the

1:06:29 ↗ public perceive the difference because

1:06:31 ↗ they have not I mean homeowners will

1:06:33 ↗ never find code you know easy to read I

1:06:36 ↗ mean that's just if that's our test I

1:06:38 ↗ mean we can make it better and better

1:06:39 ↗ and better but

1:06:41 ↗ there's not going to be everyone's not

1:06:44 ↗ going to fully get to unless we really

1:06:47 ↗ don't care about regulations and it's

1:06:48 ↗ only two pages of Regulation so I think

1:06:51 ↗ yeah noted so can I make a suggestion or

1:06:54 ↗ how do we might move forward absolutely

1:06:55 ↗ I think

1:06:57 ↗ um what if we as a body maker

1:06:59 ↗ recommendation about a check-in about

1:07:02 ↗ you know a memo as far as usability of

1:07:04 ↗ the code after what like perceived staff

1:07:07 ↗ usability of the code for example that

1:07:08 ↗ should be I think not

1:07:11 ↗ um hopefully not a huge lift and then

1:07:13 ↗ perhaps

1:07:14 ↗ um you know we could see if there are

1:07:16 ↗ members of the public that'd be willing

1:07:17 ↗ to do a survey as well after they've

1:07:19 ↗ tested they've you actually use the code

1:07:21 ↗ and and see check in on these things a

1:07:24 ↗ few months I don't know six months or so

1:07:26 ↗ after the new code has been adopted does

1:07:28 ↗ that make sense and does that sound

1:07:30 ↗ acceptable

1:07:32 ↗ would that help address some of these

1:07:34 ↗ issues councilman council president

1:07:35 ↗ Washington thanks

1:07:38 ↗ um so

1:07:40 ↗ I appreciate all the feedback the there

1:07:43 ↗ are two areas for me that are

1:07:46 ↗ potentially causing problems which is in

1:07:48 ↗ the umbrella goals the first is reform

1:07:50 ↗ regulations for more improved efficiency

1:07:52 ↗ Equity consistency and predictability I

1:07:55 ↗ think we can evaluate that if again we

1:07:58 ↗ were to have three or four staff members

1:08:01 ↗ go through the code with a project in

1:08:04 ↗ mind or a few different things that they

1:08:07 ↗ were supposed to test and come to a

1:08:08 ↗ conclusion on and figure out if they

1:08:11 ↗ come to the same conclusion if they have

1:08:15 ↗ to go to multiple areas of the code in

1:08:17 ↗ order to find it

1:08:19 ↗ that one is about consistency and that's

1:08:24 ↗ really about is the staff going to

1:08:26 ↗ consistently review it in the same way

1:08:29 ↗ so that would be my proposal there

1:08:32 ↗ the last bullet point on the goals and

1:08:34 ↗ outcomes umbrella goals was make the

1:08:36 ↗ code easier to understand and better

1:08:38 ↗ organized for use by the public property

1:08:40 ↗ owners and staff

1:08:41 ↗ I hear you in saying that code is not

1:08:46 ↗ inherently easy

1:08:48 ↗ or a homeowner to understand

1:08:51 ↗ there are certain cities that have done

1:08:53 ↗ this and done a great job of rewriting

1:08:55 ↗ it

1:08:56 ↗ and I didn't get that in early enough to

1:09:00 ↗ make this just super simple but what we

1:09:05 ↗ did see in the code testing comments one

1:09:09 ↗ of them says it seems most of the public

1:09:11 ↗ Public's concerns regarding the code are

1:09:14 ↗ oriented toward the smaller private

1:09:15 ↗ residential homeowners being unable to

1:09:18 ↗ interpret the code and determine

1:09:19 ↗ submittal requirements and trying to

1:09:21 ↗ develop a budget to see if their project

1:09:23 ↗ is even viable and so what I would like

1:09:26 ↗ from the administration is

1:09:30 ↗ first of all

1:09:31 ↗ how did you make the code easier to

1:09:34 ↗ understand I think it's just important

1:09:37 ↗ for us to document that

1:09:40 ↗ and then second of all given the many

1:09:43 ↗ comments in there are there other things

1:09:46 ↗ that we can do

1:09:48 ↗ whether it's about navigation or tables

1:09:53 ↗ or definitions like there's got to be

1:09:57 ↗ something

1:09:58 ↗ that can make the code

1:10:01 ↗ easier to interpret

1:10:04 ↗ for somebody who's going to read this

1:10:06 ↗ and I agree that the

1:10:08 ↗ flow charts and all of that can help you

1:10:11 ↗ figure out where do I start and all of

1:10:14 ↗ those things I think that's going to be

1:10:15 ↗ necessary but if

1:10:18 ↗ I have a flow chart I know where to

1:10:20 ↗ start and I look at the code and I go

1:10:23 ↗ I don't even know how to interpret this

1:10:27 ↗ I feel like there's got to be a better

1:10:29 ↗ way

1:10:30 ↗ to either pull it together with charts

1:10:34 ↗ or tables or something like that

1:10:36 ↗ especially in that single family area

1:10:39 ↗ sure

1:10:40 ↗ yep yeah and you know right now the code

1:10:44 ↗ is

1:10:45 ↗ five different documents

1:10:47 ↗ each one is as unique unicorn that you

1:10:50 ↗ have to go figure out why this happens

1:10:52 ↗ so by having it all in eight parts that

1:10:57 ↗ flow I think as you as if you if the

1:10:59 ↗ comparison is between existing 20

1:11:01 ↗ different documents and you go dig for a

1:11:04 ↗ particular regulation to what you will

1:11:06 ↗ see in the Consolidated draft that's a

1:11:08 ↗ day and night difference so I think as

1:11:10 ↗ we put together what has been

1:11:12 ↗ accomplished on the golden outcomes

1:11:13 ↗ chart that'll help I think Council and

1:11:15 ↗ we'll highlight those things City

1:11:17 ↗ minister

1:11:19 ↗ uh amber DeSoto from uh Madrona I mean

1:11:23 ↗ has been living and breathing the very

1:11:25 ↗ point that councilmember council

1:11:27 ↗ president Walsh is banking so I've asked

1:11:29 ↗ Anne-Marie to chime in with some of her

1:11:31 ↗ thoughts on this Anne Marie

1:11:33 ↗ yeah so I hear everything that

1:11:37 ↗ um the committee members are saying I

1:11:40 ↗ hear everything that staff is saying you

1:11:42 ↗ know at this point the code is still in

1:11:45 ↗ a draft form and as we're reviewing it

1:11:49 ↗ over at the general Law Group one of the

1:11:52 ↗ things that we're keeping in mind is how

1:11:55 ↗ these particular Provisions will be

1:11:58 ↗ actually used and is it confusing to the

1:12:01 ↗ reader and so we are pointing those

1:12:04 ↗ things out making changes to help the

1:12:07 ↗ readability so that when it is actually

1:12:10 ↗ being used and when it's even provided

1:12:13 ↗ to the Planning Commission hopefully

1:12:16 ↗ that will provide some of the

1:12:19 ↗ um assistance that's really needed to be

1:12:21 ↗ able to make sense of the code as all of

1:12:25 ↗ you know this is a huge project and

1:12:27 ↗ there were so many different pieces to

1:12:30 ↗ the city's land use through various

1:12:34 ↗ policies regulations could Provisions

1:12:37 ↗ different types of planning documents

1:12:40 ↗ that are all being merged into one place

1:12:42 ↗ and so it's really difficult to make

1:12:45 ↗ sure that you're putting it all together

1:12:46 ↗ in a form that's going to be easy for

1:12:49 ↗ people to read but that is something

1:12:52 ↗ that we're working on right now and

1:12:54 ↗ hoping that we can address some of those

1:12:56 ↗ concerns that are being raised tonight

1:12:58 ↗ with the next draft that will then be

1:13:00 ↗ provided to Planning Commission within

1:13:02 ↗ the next couple of weeks

1:13:05 ↗ so Madam chair members of the committee

1:13:08 ↗ were committed to having that draft too

1:13:10 ↗ shortly I think the 15th is the latest

1:13:13 ↗ date I mean is that correct well I think

1:13:15 ↗ I heard anybody say for the next couple

1:13:17 ↗ of weeks so okay well before the before

1:13:21 ↗ the 25th of December I think is we're

1:13:23 ↗ still shooting for that

1:13:25 ↗ um let you have it let planning policy

1:13:27 ↗ have it you have a January meeting we

1:13:30 ↗ can certainly I think put on that agenda

1:13:32 ↗ sort of just a check-in point with that

1:13:35 ↗ and I think we can take back the

1:13:38 ↗ comments from this evening and perhaps

1:13:40 ↗ maybe give an update in January about

1:13:42 ↗ our work on those comments for the

1:13:45 ↗ Fuller discussion in February but I know

1:13:48 ↗ again as Anne-Marie has said uh we're

1:13:51 ↗ really in that point process right now

1:13:53 ↗ and the reason you don't have a draft

1:13:54 ↗ tonight is the insistence of the mayor

1:13:57 ↗ and myself to say we want that draft to

1:14:00 ↗ be the best rap possible and with that

1:14:03 ↗ is coming the the careful eye that

1:14:06 ↗ Anne-Marie and her colleagues are

1:14:07 ↗ putting toward this so I guess my

1:14:09 ↗ request would be let us finish that work

1:14:11 ↗ you'll see the draft shortly we can add

1:14:14 ↗ to the agenda in January just a quick

1:14:16 ↗ check-in and so when you begin your

1:14:18 ↗ discussions in February there's

1:14:19 ↗ additional work we need to do during the

1:14:21 ↗ month of January we'll have that

1:14:23 ↗ opportunity Plus at the same time ask

1:14:25 ↗ the exact same questions a planning

1:14:27 ↗ policy and bring you their feedback

1:14:29 ↗ because I'm sure they're as concerned

1:14:32 ↗ about usability as you all are and they

1:14:34 ↗ may very well have some comments on this

1:14:36 ↗ which you'll want to hear and will want

1:14:38 ↗ to react to as the administration does

1:14:39 ↗ that seem a reasonable course

1:14:43 ↗ all right

1:14:45 ↗ let me just jump in here um

1:14:48 ↗ because I think this is a fascinating

1:14:50 ↗ discussion but it really drove back to

1:14:52 ↗ is if we use the goals and outcomes as

1:14:55 ↗ sort of a touchstone so ultimately we

1:14:58 ↗ want to be able to check that off and if

1:15:00 ↗ we're not there then we can't check it

1:15:02 ↗ off so

1:15:03 ↗ um I think that you didn't answer your

1:15:06 ↗ original question like what's the go

1:15:07 ↗ forward plan I think we still have

1:15:09 ↗ clearly some work to do I mean that that

1:15:12 ↗ was obvious and then I think we have

1:15:13 ↗ some more touches of it as a committee

1:15:15 ↗ and then I think there's a at that point

1:15:18 ↗ we go forward with it and say

1:15:21 ↗ um to the committee of a whole of the

1:15:23 ↗ whole here's where we're at and and and

1:15:26 ↗ and

1:15:27 ↗ here with what we set out to do and

1:15:30 ↗ here's what we changed and here's the

1:15:32 ↗ reference in code and we think we've

1:15:34 ↗ addressed this you know so it makes it

1:15:36 ↗ very easy for

1:15:38 ↗ um somebody who hasn't been through all

1:15:39 ↗ these meetings to to assimilate this

1:15:41 ↗ information very quickly and if we think

1:15:44 ↗ that we can't check the box it says um

1:15:46 ↗ you know the code is easier to

1:15:48 ↗ understand or or we don't think it's it

1:15:50 ↗ it may be easier that's it's a

1:15:53 ↗ comparative not an absolute so it's not

1:15:56 ↗ easy to understand but it's easier to

1:15:57 ↗ understand we and we can point to what

1:15:59 ↗ we've done to to get that way and I

1:16:01 ↗ think at some point this is where the

1:16:03 ↗ larger body also should be oh

1:16:06 ↗ um and able to opine about yeah I think

1:16:09 ↗ this this is this meta met our outcomes

1:16:12 ↗ and goals or it didn't so

1:16:15 ↗ um I just think from a you know kind of

1:16:16 ↗ to answer the question I think was asked

1:16:19 ↗ from my perspective where I think we're

1:16:20 ↗ on the right track and I loved what the

1:16:22 ↗ council president said is tie it all

1:16:24 ↗ back to the the goals and outcomes

1:16:26 ↗ document and and show us show show me

1:16:30 ↗ the money where where you know where did

1:16:32 ↗ we address each of these things and how

1:16:33 ↗ did we address it and I think that will

1:16:35 ↗ make it very consumable for the our

1:16:38 ↗ colleagues that haven't been living this

1:16:41 ↗ um for a year and a half

1:16:45 ↗ great okay so we all agree on the goals

1:16:48 ↗ and outcomes chart being the backbone of

1:16:52 ↗ the process for these next steps and our

1:16:55 ↗ evaluation will be sort of the ultimate

1:16:57 ↗ evaluation tool that we use and that

1:17:01 ↗ will propose our recommendation that

1:17:03 ↗ will base our recommendation on to

1:17:05 ↗ council using that as a as a sort of

1:17:09 ↗ um

1:17:10 ↗ guiding document

1:17:12 ↗ council president Walsh

1:17:13 ↗ I just want to make sure on the umbrella

1:17:16 ↗ goals

1:17:17 ↗ um my ask is to have staff

1:17:22 ↗ see if the interpretation is

1:17:25 ↗ all the same because that was one of the

1:17:28 ↗ umbrella goals of saying and one of the

1:17:31 ↗ reasons we wanted to do code testing I

1:17:32 ↗ specifically asked not just for

1:17:34 ↗ Community feedback but for staff's

1:17:37 ↗ feedback on how usable it was and I

1:17:40 ↗ think that would get me to that point of

1:17:42 ↗ being able to say yes it feels like

1:17:44 ↗ we're achieving these because I agree

1:17:47 ↗ the specific goals and outcomes we're

1:17:50 ↗ going to do a great job of being able to

1:17:52 ↗ list out those things that we've done

1:17:56 ↗ and that's going to make it much easier

1:17:59 ↗ for the rest of council to do that

1:18:01 ↗ interpretation but I still want to make

1:18:03 ↗ sure that we're addressing these

1:18:05 ↗ umbrellicals in some way both to PBC and

1:18:09 ↗ yeah thanks

1:18:12 ↗ okay so

1:18:14 ↗ um just to confirm then we would have

1:18:16 ↗ back to this committee there would be a

1:18:19 ↗ memo or information about the

1:18:22 ↗ predictability

1:18:25 ↗ umbrella goal which is

1:18:28 ↗ the

1:18:30 ↗ the third one down was the one year yeah

1:18:32 ↗ the third one down

1:18:34 ↗ um about with the staff member

1:18:36 ↗ assessment of predictability based on a

1:18:38 ↗ couple staff members

1:18:39 ↗ um

1:18:40 ↗ sort of looking at the same

1:18:43 ↗ uh trying to trying to see if they get

1:18:46 ↗ the same outcome using the same part of

1:18:48 ↗ the code is that right okay so and

1:18:50 ↗ that's that's feasible from your

1:18:51 ↗ standpoint sure sure great okay

1:18:54 ↗ um I think and then we've we've heard

1:18:55 ↗ already from director Dolly wall that

1:18:58 ↗ um she and staff are planning on

1:18:59 ↗ providing us with the documentation

1:19:01 ↗ about how it meets all of the goals

1:19:03 ↗ including the umbrella goals so that

1:19:04 ↗ will come back to us and we can scratch

1:19:06 ↗ my earlier suggestion about the sort of

1:19:09 ↗ follow-up survey since I think we'll

1:19:11 ↗ consider that later but it didn't meet

1:19:13 ↗ the

1:19:14 ↗ Council president's objectives okay

1:19:16 ↗ um so are we good with policy I had a

1:19:20 ↗ few other process rather I had a few

1:19:23 ↗ okay I have one more thing I think

1:19:27 ↗ um so if

1:19:28 ↗ anybody other than me could read my

1:19:29 ↗ handwriting I'd had goals and outcomes

1:19:31 ↗ of the first thing so I completely agree

1:19:33 ↗ with that I thought that was well said

1:19:36 ↗ um I think the goals and outcomes when

1:19:38 ↗ it goes back to planning policy would

1:19:40 ↗ also be good so then we have their

1:19:42 ↗ assessment of those so we can kind of

1:19:43 ↗ all be on the same page as it goes

1:19:45 ↗ through the whole process uh similarly

1:19:47 ↗ for those legal things like today we

1:19:50 ↗ heard about the

1:19:51 ↗ legal reasons why the recommendation on

1:19:54 ↗ the quasi-judicial process is the way it

1:19:58 ↗ is we've heard that from City attorney

1:20:00 ↗ you know I think that's really important

1:20:02 ↗ that we all have the same context going

1:20:04 ↗ through the process for some of those

1:20:06 ↗ policy discussions so it's really

1:20:07 ↗ important that we have I think the City

1:20:10 ↗ attorney or at the very least that legal

1:20:15 ↗ um

1:20:16 ↗ perspective on the issue so that we're

1:20:18 ↗ all on the same page as as that decision

1:20:22 ↗ is is made jointly so

1:20:25 ↗ um that's one

1:20:27 ↗ comment there several other committees

1:20:30 ↗ did make

1:20:32 ↗ did give feedback did look at different

1:20:35 ↗ parts of the code environmental

1:20:37 ↗ committee for example I know they're

1:20:38 ↗ really interested in where their

1:20:40 ↗ feedback went what happens you know

1:20:43 ↗ um I I don't expect that it needs to be

1:20:47 ↗ um

1:20:48 ↗ I'm I'm just expecting that that Loop be

1:20:51 ↗ closed in a meaningful way for those

1:20:54 ↗ committees that did put in their time

1:20:55 ↗ and would like to see what happened to

1:20:58 ↗ their work and where did the code end up

1:21:00 ↗ and you know see that their work was

1:21:02 ↗ valued and Incorporated so I would ask

1:21:05 ↗ that they'd be sort of looped back in at

1:21:07 ↗ an appropriate time

1:21:10 ↗ um yeah on that real quick

1:21:13 ↗ um so we did Circle back with the

1:21:15 ↗ economic Vitality commission already to

1:21:17 ↗ kind of give them the highlights we are

1:21:20 ↗ scheduled to go to environmental board

1:21:22 ↗ mid-December and then another touch with

1:21:24 ↗ them in January and we really want to

1:21:27 ↗ take what feedback they gave us and give

1:21:29 ↗ them that information you know that one

1:21:31 ↗ of the members helped create update the

1:21:33 ↗ tree list so we want to share that work

1:21:35 ↗ with them the icap table that we shared

1:21:38 ↗ with you all so we're working on a touch

1:21:41 ↗ point with them but really closing the

1:21:43 ↗ loop on substantive issues of what they

1:21:46 ↗ raised in in the urban forestry you know

1:21:48 ↗ they raised that and you funded that in

1:21:50 ↗ the budget so we'll we're planning to do

1:21:52 ↗ that with the environmental board with a

1:21:54 ↗ park board I you know we've been trying

1:21:55 ↗ to schedule stuff but um and they

1:21:58 ↗ weighed in on the community spaces and

1:22:00 ↗ and how we fold it in the park in open

1:22:03 ↗ space with the development commission

1:22:04 ↗ we've already you know had multiple

1:22:06 ↗ touches with them so absolutely to the

1:22:09 ↗ extent we want to thank them them for

1:22:11 ↗ their time and there was really good

1:22:13 ↗ feedback from all of them so that

1:22:16 ↗ great

1:22:18 ↗ um

1:22:18 ↗ and the last thing was similar to my

1:22:22 ↗ earlier

1:22:23 ↗ comment about the legal

1:22:26 ↗ opinions legal context being the same

1:22:29 ↗ for planning policy you know so that

1:22:31 ↗ there could be on the same page as us

1:22:33 ↗ when we make our recommendation

1:22:35 ↗ similarly I think it would be very

1:22:37 ↗ helpful especially with this last sort

1:22:39 ↗ of these last remaining questions to

1:22:41 ↗ have the context around why these

1:22:43 ↗ questions are there some seem

1:22:45 ↗ uh some seem less tied to the goals and

1:22:49 ↗ outcomes shirt in my opinion than others

1:22:51 ↗ and some seem awfully situation specific

1:22:53 ↗ and some seem pretty broad so having

1:22:55 ↗ that joint context as we do grapple with

1:22:58 ↗ this last bucket of

1:23:00 ↗ questions having to do with all

1:23:02 ↗ different parts of

1:23:04 ↗ um the code I think would be helpful and

1:23:06 ↗ I imagine there will be other questions

1:23:07 ↗ that pop up too so just you know why are

1:23:09 ↗ these the questions who raise them and

1:23:12 ↗ um and why are they being addressed at

1:23:14 ↗ this point rather than earlier point I

1:23:15 ↗ think would just be helpful as we move

1:23:17 ↗ through the process yeah

1:23:20 ↗ um that was it for me on process and I

1:23:23 ↗ think we have anything else no okay then

1:23:26 ↗ the last part is the policies themselves

1:23:29 ↗ if there's any

1:23:31 ↗ um additional

1:23:33 ↗ things we thought planning policy should

1:23:35 ↗ consider or or other issues with the

1:23:38 ↗ policy questions go ahead yeah on the

1:23:40 ↗ question to the site-specific rezones

1:23:44 ↗ um are any additional changes needed to

1:23:46 ↗ the approval criteria I think that in

1:23:50 ↗ itself is a pretty big question and I

1:23:53 ↗ think it's it's a really useful one that

1:23:55 ↗ came up I think because we were talking

1:23:58 ↗ about the approval criterias we went

1:24:01 ↗ through the comp plan amendments

1:24:03 ↗ um just trying to understand

1:24:08 ↗ why certain things were recommended that

1:24:12 ↗ change from our existing

1:24:14 ↗ choices particularly around the if

1:24:19 ↗ located outside the regional growth

1:24:21 ↗ Center the county-wide housing growth

1:24:22 ↗ targets must not be met

1:24:25 ↗ seems to be

1:24:28 ↗ rather tight of a concept and so I just

1:24:31 ↗ want to make sure that specifically is

1:24:33 ↗ brought up to PPC so that we get that

1:24:36 ↗ perspective

1:24:39 ↗ and from

1:24:40 ↗ the way I'm thinking about it is that we

1:24:45 ↗ talked to King County this you know last

1:24:49 ↗ year when we were talking about the

1:24:51 ↗ housing targets and we really asked for

1:24:54 ↗ a lower number because we had previously

1:24:57 ↗ met it and some of the other cities

1:24:58 ↗ hadn't so as as I've gotten into this

1:25:02 ↗ process I've recognized that the housing

1:25:03 ↗ targets are a little bit of a mushy

1:25:07 ↗ yeah it's it's very political and so I

1:25:12 ↗ I'm not sure

1:25:15 ↗ how that really really really truly

1:25:19 ↗ should be used as a code criteria so I

1:25:24 ↗ just sure I want to make sure that you

1:25:25 ↗ tease these out right I mean we're going

1:25:27 ↗ to give you a 700 page document so it

1:25:29 ↗ was our attempt of the things that you

1:25:31 ↗ and the PPC told us go back and research

1:25:33 ↗ more there were more public comments

1:25:36 ↗ that helped inform shaping of these

1:25:37 ↗ questions so we can get specific about

1:25:39 ↗ where this came from public comment PPC

1:25:42 ↗ comment pde common

1:25:44 ↗ um but yes the the criteria you know

1:25:48 ↗ that that was what legislatively the

1:25:50 ↗ council decided in whatever year that

1:25:53 ↗ that criteria was put into place and so

1:25:55 ↗ if you feel now it needs to come out now

1:25:58 ↗ would be the time to to make that change

1:26:01 ↗ well but what you're proposing here

1:26:04 ↗ differs from our current code and I

1:26:08 ↗ think it clarifies some of the questions

1:26:09 ↗ that came up right so what's a policy is

1:26:13 ↗ it to get growth in the central Issaquah

1:26:15 ↗ and if so how do growth targets apply or

1:26:18 ↗ Not Apply so Kristen Leeson who worked

1:26:21 ↗ on that code Amendment back in that time

1:26:23 ↗ when this criteria was put in had that

1:26:26 ↗ context of where that came from and so

1:26:28 ↗ so but we can I hear you what you're

1:26:30 ↗ saying is you want more background on

1:26:32 ↗ why that why this is the recommended

1:26:35 ↗ change and so yeah and you and you don't

1:26:37 ↗ want feedback on that right now you want

1:26:40 ↗ it to go through the planning policy

1:26:42 ↗ right so we don't want to provide

1:26:43 ↗ feedback we're just sort of raising

1:26:46 ↗ a context piece that we think should be

1:26:49 ↗ raised and I wanted to clarify one thing

1:26:51 ↗ or ask you a question so you said it's a

1:26:54 ↗ like a tight criteria do you mean like

1:26:56 ↗ it's binary like it's a yes or no versus

1:26:58 ↗ these other ones that are like enhanced

1:27:00 ↗ Public Safety which kind of judgment

1:27:03 ↗ call more okay

1:27:04 ↗ yeah

1:27:05 ↗ so maybe just raise those as context

1:27:07 ↗ pieces for consideration since council

1:27:11 ↗ president serves on the relevant board

1:27:14 ↗ and has you know some of that context

1:27:16 ↗ that would be important for them to know

1:27:18 ↗ okay

1:27:20 ↗ okay

1:27:22 ↗ um do we have anything else

1:27:25 ↗ I'm just excited to see what PPC comes

1:27:28 ↗ back with

1:27:31 ↗ they have a

1:27:33 ↗ lot of work ahead of them

1:27:35 ↗ yeah

1:27:36 ↗ all right um do we have any additional

1:27:38 ↗ feedback comments on any elements of

1:27:41 ↗ this council president Walsh I guess I

1:27:44 ↗ would just ask when looking at the code

1:27:47 ↗ testing I felt like the multi-family was

1:27:51 ↗ kind of a gap and I understand why it

1:27:53 ↗ happened but I still wonder whether it

1:27:55 ↗ would be useful to go through that

1:27:57 ↗ process with staff

1:27:59 ↗ and whether the committee or PPC might

1:28:03 ↗ find that useful or a gap or whether we

1:28:07 ↗ feel like the feedback that we got from

1:28:10 ↗ code testing

1:28:12 ↗ for the areas that were done was enough

1:28:18 ↗ um I I think that you know test testing

1:28:21 ↗ is a process right and and you test

1:28:23 ↗ something and then you learn from

1:28:25 ↗ something and then you make changes and

1:28:28 ↗ then you may or may not test again so I

1:28:30 ↗ think that you know what this is is I

1:28:32 ↗ think the testing is great and I hope

1:28:33 ↗ informed informed

1:28:36 ↗ um you guys where you need to make make

1:28:39 ↗ changes where does it fall apart so

1:28:42 ↗ um so I think doing the testing is great

1:28:44 ↗ and the fact that the testing may have

1:28:46 ↗ not shown that everything was perfect I

1:28:47 ↗ think that's okay I think sometimes

1:28:49 ↗ testing that shows flaws is probably

1:28:51 ↗ better testing so if you can you know

1:28:55 ↗ take the testing results and figure out

1:28:57 ↗ well if we had done this different or

1:28:59 ↗ that you know how to use the testing

1:29:01 ↗ results to tweak the code to make it

1:29:03 ↗ more usable

1:29:07 ↗ is this is the concern about the content

1:29:10 ↗ of the multi-family relevant code or is

1:29:13 ↗ it more about having the

1:29:16 ↗ multi-family developers having that

1:29:19 ↗ perspective because I was thinking if

1:29:22 ↗ it's about

1:29:23 ↗ like the code having not sort of gone

1:29:26 ↗ through

1:29:27 ↗ or not seeing that then maybe we could

1:29:29 ↗ ask that to combine the two asks of the

1:29:33 ↗ the predictability and ask it to be a

1:29:35 ↗ review of that multi-family code for the

1:29:37 ↗ stuff yeah and then I would check in if

1:29:38 ↗ that makes sense

1:29:40 ↗ yeah my thought process there is just

1:29:42 ↗ this is the major development that we're

1:29:44 ↗ going to see these are very visible

1:29:45 ↗ developments to the community and I know

1:29:48 ↗ it's something staff is going to have to

1:29:50 ↗ go through sure I mean do you want to

1:29:52 ↗ take like an existing multi-family

1:29:54 ↗ complex that was approved under the old

1:29:55 ↗ code and run it through the testing I

1:29:57 ↗ mean that would be fantastic and really

1:30:00 ↗ what I'm what I care the most about is

1:30:04 ↗ that staff isn't going to be banging

1:30:05 ↗ their head because they all come to

1:30:07 ↗ different conclusions We'll add one

1:30:09 ↗ prototype for a multi-family that was

1:30:11 ↗ already built in this it'll just give

1:30:13 ↗ staff the opportunity to say yes we're

1:30:15 ↗ really we're getting to know it we know

1:30:17 ↗ that we can get through it and get

1:30:19 ↗ consistent results so thanks

1:30:26 ↗ okay great

1:30:28 ↗ um

1:30:28 ↗ anything else very set

1:30:32 ↗ all right um I'll just add that I will

1:30:34 ↗ summarize this for

1:30:37 ↗ uh I will summarize this for the full

1:30:40 ↗ council at our next regular meeting I

1:30:42 ↗ did flag that I would also raise it go

1:30:44 ↗ to the order just in case um there are

1:30:46 ↗ comments but I I want to start also

1:30:49 ↗ um raising this for at good of the order

1:30:52 ↗ in case there are comments so that we

1:30:54 ↗ can incorporate those into our process

1:30:57 ↗ as soon as possible so there isn't a lot

1:30:59 ↗ of issues at the very end but if there's

1:31:01 ↗ any feedback on that or ways I could do

1:31:03 ↗ it differently I'm also open to that

1:31:04 ↗ council president Walsh

1:31:07 ↗ um I know we had kind of talked I don't

1:31:09 ↗ know whether it was in a meeting or not

1:31:10 ↗ but about bringing the other council

1:31:12 ↗ members into the loop and so has there

1:31:16 ↗ been conversation with the

1:31:17 ↗ administration on we're gonna set up

1:31:20 ↗ some one-off meetings to kind of talk

1:31:22 ↗ people through the process or is is that

1:31:26 ↗ something you're looking I don't want to

1:31:28 ↗ get feedback on it I just want to know

1:31:30 ↗ you're going to handle it I think first

1:31:32 ↗ we want the draft to be done and the

1:31:34 ↗ draft's not done yet so we want the

1:31:35 ↗ draft to be done we want PPC to get

1:31:38 ↗ started

1:31:39 ↗ um I I think as we look at the calendar

1:31:41 ↗ we want to we'll do a touch base item in

1:31:44 ↗ January in addition to the the code of

1:31:46 ↗ conduct

1:31:47 ↗ um

1:31:48 ↗ I think we don't want to go to the full

1:31:50 ↗ Council until we know that the plane's

1:31:53 ↗ really Landing

1:31:54 ↗ um our senses is that you'll spend the

1:31:56 ↗ month of February on this and they'll

1:31:58 ↗ start seeing it in March so I think it

1:32:00 ↗ would make sense for us in the month of

1:32:01 ↗ February to reach out

1:32:04 ↗ um you know your colleagues are all over

1:32:06 ↗ the place on their interests in how far

1:32:09 ↗ they would like to go I think the uh the

1:32:12 ↗ goals and outcomes will be sort of a key

1:32:15 ↗ that they will use and the advice of the

1:32:18 ↗ committee itself but we will offer to

1:32:21 ↗ them I think once once PPC has concluded

1:32:24 ↗ and you have it uh

1:32:26 ↗ sit down and do whatever they would like

1:32:28 ↗ to do

1:32:31 ↗ that make sense

1:32:34 ↗ and I I think this committee could raise

1:32:38 ↗ out the things that you want full

1:32:40 ↗ Council to weigh on because just giving

1:32:41 ↗ them the code and all that you know like

1:32:44 ↗ the golden outcome job we can share that

1:32:46 ↗ but then maybe you can tease out the

1:32:48 ↗ things you want the council to stay at

1:32:50 ↗ that level because it won't be perfect I

1:32:51 ↗ mean there won't be a the document won't

1:32:53 ↗ be final you will say we like 95 of it

1:32:57 ↗ but here's the five percent of it

1:32:58 ↗ Council we want you to focus on we'll do

1:33:01 ↗ our best to get them up to speed on the

1:33:03 ↗ other 95 percent in the meantime so that

1:33:05 ↗ when it's that down to that last five

1:33:06 ↗ percent they feel comfortable we'll

1:33:08 ↗ connect whatever miscellaneous thoughts

1:33:10 ↗ we need to in order for them to deal

1:33:12 ↗ with those last pieces I think that's

1:33:14 ↗ how this all concludes yeah I mean the

1:33:17 ↗ the other work product could be you know

1:33:18 ↗ a summary a bullet point summary of The

1:33:20 ↗ Eight Parts so part eight part one this

1:33:23 ↗ is what happened part two so you don't

1:33:25 ↗ have to go read the whole thing if you

1:33:27 ↗ just want to stay at that level I mean

1:33:29 ↗ we that's something

1:33:31 ↗ that may be useful for okay and it's for

1:33:34 ↗ individuals I think we could it probably

1:33:36 ↗ will take us less time to tailor four

1:33:38 ↗ discussions than it would be to craft

1:33:41 ↗ lots and lots of new documents for them

1:33:43 ↗ so we'll figure it out okay we'll figure

1:33:45 ↗ it out they will be prepared and they

1:33:47 ↗ will feel comfortable so when it comes

1:33:49 ↗ to the committee the whole hopefully in

1:33:50 ↗ March

1:33:51 ↗ everybody's ready

1:33:58 ↗ okay

1:34:01 ↗ um

1:34:01 ↗ you have what you need I do thank you

1:34:04 ↗ great

1:34:06 ↗ um any announcements

1:34:09 ↗ okay then there being no further

1:34:11 ↗ business this meeting is adjourned at

1:34:13 ↗ 804 pm thank you all

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF