City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, January 24, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 4, 2023

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 2:03 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-04-23 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. January 4, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18: Executive Summary & Overview ID 1307

90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning and Development · packet pp.37–89

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 2:21 Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

The City’s current update of the Title 18, the City’s land use code has three phases prior to the final decision by the City Council: 1) gaps analysis/policy guidance (complete), 2) public hearings on the

Executive Session The Committee will recess into Executive Session to discuss pending/potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). Please note, Executive Sessions are closed to the public ID 1351

30 min

▶ Watch from 2:23

2504 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ welcome everyone Hi councilmember hunt

0:11 ↗ called the January 24th 2023 city

0:15 ↗ council Planning Development and

0:16 ↗ environment committee to order I am

0:19 ↗ joined this evening by council president

0:21 ↗ Walsh and Council Deputy president Hall

0:24 ↗ and

0:26 ↗ um as a reminder we continue to have a

0:27 ↗ remote aspect to our meetings both staff

0:29 ↗ and members of the public may be

0:31 ↗ participating in tonight's meeting

0:32 ↗ remotely via WebEx for those attending

0:35 ↗ remotely you may notice a slightly

0:37 ↗ different look to the virtual meeting

0:39 ↗ software tonight is one of our first

0:42 ↗ meetings using a new version of the

0:43 ↗ WebEx called WebEx webinar please send

0:46 ↗ the host a chat message or email the

0:48 ↗ clerk's office at clerks at issaquah.gov

0:51 ↗ if you have any questions or issues

0:53 ↗ there will be multiple public comment

0:55 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:57 ↗ will be a general public comment

0:58 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

1:00 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

1:01 ↗ the presentation and committee question

1:03 ↗ and answer period on tonight's agenda

1:05 ↗ items so we will start with public

1:08 ↗ comments members of the public May

1:10 ↗ address council at this time and for

1:11 ↗ Center virtually and those who are

1:13 ↗ signed up in advance will to make

1:15 ↗ comments will be called on first

1:18 ↗ if you are joining us virtually and

1:19 ↗ would like to make comments please raise

1:21 ↗ your virtual hands if you're on the

1:22 ↗ phone please press star 3 and if you

1:24 ↗ have joined by computer or smartphone

1:26 ↗ look for the hands icon this varies by

1:28 ↗ device one option may be to go to the

1:30 ↗ participant panel and choose the raise

1:32 ↗ hand icon in the lower right hand corner

1:34 ↗ there are no members of the public in

1:37 ↗ council chambers this evening so I will

1:39 ↗ check in with city clerk if there are

1:41 ↗ any members of the public on the line

1:43 ↗ and if so I have some additional

1:44 ↗ directions

1:47 ↗ chair hunt we have no virtual attendees

1:50 ↗ uh from the public at the moment okay

1:53 ↗ great thank you very much then we will

1:55 ↗ move past public comment and as a

1:56 ↗ reminder written comments can be

1:58 ↗ submitted at any time to city council at

2:00 ↗ issaquah.gov

2:01 ↗ the first item on our agenda will be

2:03 ↗ approval of the minutes we have minutes

2:05 ↗ from January 4th do we have any

2:08 ↗ corrections or comments on those no okay

2:12 ↗ I moved to approve the minutes of the

2:15 ↗ January 4th Meeting those in favor

2:17 ↗ please say aye all right okay that

2:20 ↗ passes

2:21 ↗ and then we have three agenda items this

2:24 ↗ evening including one executive session

2:26 ↗ the first item will be

2:28 ↗ id1327 amending IMC 3.73 impact fee

2:32 ↗ study update frequency and this will be

2:34 ↗ presented by Stephen Padua

2:37 ↗ Stephen please take it away

2:41 ↗ good evening committee members

2:43 ↗ uh for the record my name is Tim Perdue

2:45 ↗ I'm the long range planning manager

2:47 ↗ thank you for having me tonight and I'm

2:49 ↗ going to talk about the proposed

2:51 ↗ amendments for the impact fees

2:55 ↗ give me one second

2:58 ↗ you see okay

3:02 ↗ so tonight I'm hoping to get direction

3:04 ↗ on two sets of amendments the first set

3:06 ↗ of amendments is to remove the

3:09 ↗ three-year requirement

3:11 ↗ for

3:13 ↗ updating the impact fee studies and the

3:16 ↗ Second Amendment is on adopting the 2023

3:20 ↗ rates for the impact and mitigation fees

3:25 ↗ so just for a little background

3:27 ↗ information on the fees the city has two

3:29 ↗ sets of fees we have impact fees for

3:32 ↗ traffic parks and fire and we also have

3:34 ↗ mitigation fees for pedestrian bicycle

3:37 ↗ infrastructure law enforcement and

3:40 ↗ general government mitigation fee that

3:42 ↗ the city collects the largest difference

3:44 ↗ between these two fees is that the city

3:46 ↗ Only collects the mitigation fees when

3:48 ↗ it's cipa triggered through the

3:50 ↗ development review process otherwise all

3:52 ↗ Impact fees are collected through

3:53 ↗ development review

3:57 ↗ on an annual basis the city updates

3:59 ↗ these fees in accordance with inflation

4:02 ↗ for the fire mitigation fee we update

4:05 ↗ according to the building cost index for

4:08 ↗ inflation and the transportation Parks

4:10 ↗ law enforcement and general government

4:12 ↗ is updated in accordance with the

4:13 ↗ construction cost index

4:16 ↗ additionally we update the studies which

4:18 ↗ determine the rates for these fees

4:21 ↗ currently where code requires an update

4:24 ↗ to these studies every three years and

4:27 ↗ it's recognized in these sections or

4:30 ↗ these chapters of the municipal code

4:37 ↗ so for the first set of amendments we're

4:39 ↗ looking at exhibit a and exhibit B

4:42 ↗ um we're proposing to update the fire

4:45 ↗ fire

4:46 ↗ fee by 28.37 and that's a cumulative

4:50 ↗ increase since the last increase last

4:53 ↗ update we made to the fees was back in

4:55 ↗ 2020 so it's just adding up the levels

4:58 ↗ of inflation each year since 2020 and

5:01 ↗ the same goes for the cost index

5:02 ↗ increase to 15.65 percent increase for

5:08 ↗ the traffic Parks police and general

5:11 ↗ government mitigation fee

5:16 ↗ foreign

5:18 ↗ part of Exhibit C and that is to remove

5:21 ↗ the three-year requirement is primarily

5:23 ↗ just to remove that line that's in code

5:26 ↗ that has the three-year requirement for

5:29 ↗ the study updates and allows the

5:31 ↗ administration to update

5:34 ↗ um based on evaluations that we plan to

5:36 ↗ make on an annual basis and and part of

5:39 ↗ what that process will be is the

5:41 ↗ development of a checklist or set of

5:44 ↗ criteria that I'll look at a lot of the

5:46 ↗ variables that go into the studies for

5:48 ↗ each of the fees and that could be

5:50 ↗ whether there's changes in the

5:51 ↗ population growth projections looking at

5:54 ↗ changes in the capital facilities or the

5:57 ↗ cost for Capital facilities or changes

5:59 ↗ in the city's assets in terms of

6:03 ↗ for police looking at the fleet and

6:05 ↗ equipment and for fire looking at the

6:07 ↗ stations and buildings as well as the

6:09 ↗ equipment used

6:11 ↗ and part of why we are recommending

6:14 ↗ removal of the three-year requirement is

6:15 ↗ primarily because

6:17 ↗ we have a lot of upcoming projects the

6:22 ↗ periodic update to the comprehensive

6:23 ↗ plan is going to be looking at new

6:25 ↗ population growth projections the park

6:28 ↗ strategic plan is going to be

6:29 ↗ potentially making changes to how we're

6:30 ↗ estimating our Capital facilities for

6:32 ↗ Parks the concurrency update that we're

6:34 ↗ planning to do in the next year or two

6:36 ↗ is going to be changing how we look at

6:38 ↗ the traffic impact fees or potentially

6:40 ↗ change and and the same with the

6:43 ↗ upcoming facilities planning study is

6:45 ↗ going to potentially make changes to how

6:47 ↗ we are planning to operate or maintain

6:50 ↗ certain buildings for the next five to

6:52 ↗ ten years and so for that reason we're

6:55 ↗ recommending removal of the three-year

6:57 ↗ requirement because

6:59 ↗ a lot of these changes don't happen

7:01 ↗ consistently and there's a lot of other

7:04 ↗ variables that we have to consider with

7:05 ↗ the studies that go into

7:09 ↗ where we want or what warrants updates

7:12 ↗ to the studies that don't necessarily

7:15 ↗ happen every three years and so we want

7:16 ↗ a little more flexibility to evaluate

7:18 ↗ all those variables on a annual basis

7:21 ↗ and make proposals to the city council

7:24 ↗ and once update the studies

7:28 ↗ so for next steps we're planning to

7:30 ↗ bring this item to the city council for

7:32 ↗ a public hearing on February 6th and

7:34 ↗ then returned to City Council on

7:36 ↗ February 21st

7:40 ↗ so back to the direction needed

7:54 ↗ all right thank you

7:56 ↗ um do we have any questions

8:00 ↗ yes president Walsh I'll just vocalize

8:04 ↗ some of the things that I think was

8:06 ↗ pre-asked over email is

8:10 ↗ you know have we done changes via

8:15 ↗ inflation previously in either impact

8:18 ↗ fees or other fees that the city has

8:21 ↗ done and then is this something that is

8:24 ↗ common among cities in the area

8:27 ↗ yes to the uh first question yes the

8:30 ↗ city has updated these fees and

8:31 ↗ according to the inflation the

8:34 ↗ methodologies came with the rates was

8:35 ↗ slightly different in the previous

8:36 ↗ studies but in the study that we did

8:39 ↗ back in 2019

8:41 ↗ the the increase or the use of inflation

8:44 ↗ was consistent with what we did before

8:45 ↗ and it is consistent with several other

8:48 ↗ jurisdictions in this region to update

8:50 ↗ their fees in accordance with inflation

8:56 ↗ Council Deputy president Hall uh thank

8:59 ↗ you um one just first of all most thank

9:01 ↗ you for replying to all my questions by

9:03 ↗ email earlier I just thought of another

9:05 ↗ one so

9:07 ↗ um for the 2023 fees accounting for a

9:11 ↗ couple years of inflation

9:13 ↗ um there's no legal risk or anything

9:15 ↗ like that to updating our fees by more

9:18 ↗ than one year of inflation or anything

9:20 ↗ we should be worried about from that

9:21 ↗ perspective

9:23 ↗ good evening for the record Rachel

9:25 ↗ Turpin City attorney no however that's

9:28 ↗ why we're having you adopt them uh by

9:31 ↗ ordinance this evening I did think it

9:32 ↗ would be

9:34 ↗ um possibly problematic to just apply

9:36 ↗ the multiple years in uh inflation just

9:40 ↗ administratively but if you're adopting

9:42 ↗ them by ordinance and there's a clear

9:46 ↗ rationale for the increases which is the

9:50 ↗ cost increases in those cost indexes

9:52 ↗ then you are officially adopting them in

9:55 ↗ the correct Manner and they're legally

9:57 ↗ defensible

10:04 ↗ okay

10:05 ↗ um so my question is a follow-up to one

10:08 ↗ I sent in an email which was about what

10:11 ↗ are the criteria for determining if it's

10:14 ↗ a year in which we would actually need a

10:18 ↗ study or not and so you gave the

10:22 ↗ variables that you would be looking at

10:24 ↗ but would it be possible to have

10:26 ↗ thresholds or some sort of articulated

10:30 ↗ criteria that we could know in advance

10:33 ↗ and then could that be brought forth

10:36 ↗ with the public hearing on February 6th

10:38 ↗ because that would then allow me to

10:40 ↗ better understand

10:42 ↗ what you would use as the as the gating

10:46 ↗ criteria for needing that study

10:50 ↗ yes we can take a look at thresholds and

10:52 ↗ propose it uh for the februarys

10:54 ↗ um when we bring it to city council for

10:56 ↗ the public hearing

11:02 ↗ that was my question any other questions

11:04 ↗ from the committee no I'm not seeing any

11:06 ↗ I will check in with the city clerk if

11:08 ↗ there is anyone who has joins the

11:09 ↗ meeting that might want to give a public

11:11 ↗ comment

11:13 ↗ chair hunt no one has joined the meeting

11:16 ↗ from the public okay then we will close

11:18 ↗ public comment on this item and we have

11:21 ↗ two questions before the committee

11:24 ↗ um

11:24 ↗ which are about removing the three-year

11:27 ↗ requirement on the studies and then also

11:30 ↗ the proposed 2023 impact and mitigation

11:34 ↗ fee rates included in the ordinance so

11:36 ↗ those updates based on those index

11:38 ↗ indices that are in our materials

11:42 ↗ um should we take them one at a time so

11:43 ↗ we'll take the first one first any

11:45 ↗ comments from the committee on the first

11:46 ↗ one

11:48 ↗ council president Walsh yeah sure

11:50 ↗ um I think I always like to make sure

11:53 ↗ that we're coming back to it so I

11:54 ↗ appreciate that we previously had a

11:58 ↗ three-year requirement I'm comfortable

12:00 ↗ with more flexibility as needed but I do

12:05 ↗ appreciate the idea of having some sort

12:07 ↗ of criteria and then also a process to

12:09 ↗ make sure that we're checking in on

12:11 ↗ things because as my experience on

12:13 ↗ Council has shown we sometimes Miss some

12:17 ↗ of these things and so I really want to

12:19 ↗ make sure that we have a process for

12:21 ↗ saying hey at budget season you know

12:25 ↗ are we or are we not

12:27 ↗ um increasing the impact fees are we or

12:30 ↗ are we not increasing our Recreation

12:33 ↗ fees

12:34 ↗ um and so that is all I will say on that

12:37 ↗ but generally I'm fine with more

12:39 ↗ flexibility as long as we're making sure

12:41 ↗ to get it done

12:45 ↗ it's a deputy resident uh yeah my

12:47 ↗ thoughts exactly

12:48 ↗ um totally fine with removing this

12:49 ↗ requirement

12:51 ↗ um ensuring though that we have some

12:52 ↗ sort of internal system of process to

12:54 ↗ make sure that we come back to it once a

12:56 ↗ year to analyze is this something we

12:57 ↗ need to update other than that yes I'm

12:59 ↗ comfortable

13:03 ↗ okay uh great thank you both so

13:06 ↗ um I wanted to confirm though and I I

13:09 ↗ had written this in a multi-part

13:10 ↗ question

13:11 ↗ um in my email and I don't think they're

13:14 ↗ um so it would be helpful to have a

13:15 ↗ response to this how will the results of

13:18 ↗ the checklist or analysis be presented

13:21 ↗ to how will it be communicated to

13:23 ↗ council because that would be good to

13:25 ↗ have a way to

13:28 ↗ see what's the rationale for either

13:30 ↗ doing a study or not

13:35 ↗ we could return to the committee with

13:37 ↗ results each year as with our evaluation

13:39 ↗ look at

13:41 ↗ the criteria or the checklist with the

13:44 ↗ thresholds and make a determination

13:46 ↗ whether or not a study updates are

13:48 ↗ updated or we could go about it another

13:51 ↗ way if the committee wants us to look at

13:53 ↗ a different direction

13:56 ↗ I think maybe

13:58 ↗ if you think about if you have a

14:01 ↗ proposed Way Forward and you bring that

14:03 ↗ back to the committee I think that would

14:04 ↗ be back to the council when this comes

14:07 ↗ back to council I think that would be

14:08 ↗ great I think it could be done in budget

14:11 ↗ for example just a justification for why

14:13 ↗ or why not the rates are increasing but

14:15 ↗ I do think just that regular Cadence of

14:18 ↗ checking in would be

14:20 ↗ helpful to understand why the rates are

14:23 ↗ changing with the study or not so

14:26 ↗ that would be another ask for the next

14:28 ↗ time this comes back to council is the

14:30 ↗ way in which this will be communicated

14:32 ↗ back to council

14:35 ↗ yep a real quick question and this is

14:37 ↗ specific to the studies right so it's

14:40 ↗ still an administrative function to

14:42 ↗ adjust based on inflation in the

14:44 ↗ different indexes right so that wouldn't

14:46 ↗ be coming to council just whether or not

14:48 ↗ the criteria has been met or the

14:50 ↗ threshold has been met for a particular

14:51 ↗ study is that right

14:53 ↗ correct as Rachel stated we're bringing

14:56 ↗ in ordinance to council just because

14:58 ↗ we're using a cumulative increase this

15:00 ↗ year

15:02 ↗ [Music]

15:06 ↗ okay I think we're clear on that first

15:08 ↗ question and then does the committee

15:09 ↗ concur with the proposed 2023 impact and

15:12 ↗ mitigation fee rates included in the

15:14 ↗ ordinance

15:17 ↗ we'll just go down the line again

15:20 ↗ um yes I think it's a little bit

15:23 ↗ you know surprising and I don't want to

15:26 ↗ impact the ability to create missing

15:29 ↗ middle housing so I'm always cautious on

15:32 ↗ that

15:33 ↗ um but we are living in a time of high

15:36 ↗ inflation and if we don't take that into

15:39 ↗ account then we are really

15:42 ↗ not asking development to pay for the

15:46 ↗ fees that

15:48 ↗ create all of the things that our

15:50 ↗ residents enjoy and that the development

15:53 ↗ relies on as well so yes I'm comfortable

15:56 ↗ with it I'm glad we're using a legally

15:58 ↗ defensible tactic to make such a change

16:03 ↗ and then going forward just making sure

16:05 ↗ that it the administrative change

16:07 ↗ happens would be appreciated thanks

16:12 ↗ uh yeah I do concur I mean this would

16:15 ↗ otherwise be the community's money left

16:17 ↗ on the table right um year over year so

16:20 ↗ um and I just think we just forge ahead

16:21 ↗ and catch up on last time so I'm

16:23 ↗ comfortable with there

16:26 ↗ okay I agree with my fellow committee

16:28 ↗ members

16:30 ↗ do you have what you need on this item I

16:32 ↗ do thank you okay great all right then

16:35 ↗ we will move ahead to yes I'm sorry

16:38 ↗ um we also need a determination on

16:40 ↗ consent or regular business when it

16:43 ↗ comes back to the council

16:44 ↗ well this has a public hearing

16:47 ↗ so but we're so the public hearing

16:50 ↗ happens separate from returning to the

16:52 ↗ council

16:53 ↗ so we've the administration is proposing

16:56 ↗ that this be a two-step process at full

16:58 ↗ Council one with a public hearing where

17:00 ↗ there'd be no other action other than

17:01 ↗ the public hearing and then come back at

17:03 ↗ the next meeting for Action so would you

17:05 ↗ like that on consent to regular

17:08 ↗ or would you like to wait until after

17:09 ↗ the public hearing to see if there's

17:12 ↗ it's a little bit unusual with the

17:13 ↗ public Hearing in the middle right I

17:15 ↗ think if it's possible to make that

17:17 ↗ determination after the public hearing

17:19 ↗ then I would prefer to do that but so if

17:22 ↗ the committee is

17:23 ↗ perhaps could just articulate that

17:25 ↗ you're comfortable delegating that to

17:27 ↗ the chair versus having to put this back

17:29 ↗ on a committee agenda yeah I think

17:32 ↗ that's a great way to handle it great so

17:34 ↗ will the administration will confer with

17:36 ↗ chair hunt after the public hearing okay

17:39 ↗ I'm seeing

17:40 ↗ nodding right because Council will be

17:42 ↗ able to ask questions at the hearing

17:43 ↗ right there'll be a presentation

17:45 ↗ opportunity for questions and then the

17:47 ↗ public hearing is opened is that how

17:49 ↗ that works let me ask the City attorney

17:51 ↗ just to confirm that that there would

17:53 ↗ there would still be an opportunity for

17:54 ↗ Council to ask questions as part of the

17:56 ↗ public hearing there'd be a staff

17:58 ↗ presentation

17:59 ↗ and then questions then public comment

18:01 ↗ and then we would close the hearing

18:04 ↗ great and then we'll confer with chair

18:06 ↗ hunt after that replacement

18:10 ↗ okay I'm seeing nodding yes

18:14 ↗ we are in agreement okay so are we ready

18:17 ↗ now to move to the next item yes thank

18:19 ↗ you okay great

18:21 ↗ um so the next item is id1307 Title 18

18:25 ↗ executive summary and overview and this

18:28 ↗ will be presented by director Dolly wall

18:30 ↗ so Valley well please take it away

18:33 ↗ good evening members of the committee

18:35 ↗ any community members online and

18:39 ↗ wonderful Community Planning and

18:41 ↗ Development staff that's online so today

18:45 ↗ we're going to focus more on giving our

18:48 ↗ staff the time to talk to you directly I

18:52 ↗ think our staff appreciated that they

18:54 ↗ can committee members expressed an

18:56 ↗ interest of knowing what does staff

18:59 ↗ think about this update you know what

19:02 ↗ was their role so but we have a little

19:04 ↗ bit of a presentation so I'll I'll be

19:07 ↗ really fast and quick through this but

19:09 ↗ feel free to pause me

19:11 ↗ as we move forward in this so let me

19:14 ↗ share my screen

19:16 ↗ because we're launching this as

19:21 ↗ are uh where's my WebEx

19:26 ↗ um

19:29 ↗ can I share uh content Chris

19:33 ↗ [Music]

19:34 ↗ you've been made the presenter director

19:37 ↗ Deli while you should have that ability

19:41 ↗ [Music]

19:44 ↗ actually I see

19:46 ↗ [Music]

19:52 ↗ a program to share but I'm not seeing

19:56 ↗ that here

20:02 ↗ okay would you like me to present

20:04 ↗ director dally well uh

20:06 ↗ I think I got it okay does it look

20:14 ↗ so

20:16 ↗ um land use code update

20:18 ↗ um first time for uh council member Hall

20:21 ↗ to be looking at this so for your

20:23 ↗ benefit we'll walk through the executive

20:26 ↗ summary a little bit I think that was

20:28 ↗ included in your packet but just to give

20:30 ↗ you a chance to and for the rest of the

20:32 ↗ committee members you probably have sat

20:34 ↗ through many many meetings

20:37 ↗ um

20:37 ↗ so the purpose of tonight's meeting

20:40 ↗ really is to follow up from our last

20:42 ↗ meeting where you asked us how does the

20:44 ↗ proposed draft meet the intended golden

20:46 ↗ outcomes so we did that exercise and

20:49 ↗ that's part of your packet and you asked

20:51 ↗ about staff's reflection so that that's

20:53 ↗ what we're going to cover tonight we're

20:55 ↗ also seeking input from uh your from

20:59 ↗ your perspective what's your preferred

21:00 ↗ process as we bring forth planning and

21:02 ↗ policy commissions recommended draft for

21:04 ↗ your upcoming meeting if there's

21:06 ↗ anything specific you'd like us to cover

21:08 ↗ or include we can take feedback on that

21:12 ↗ um

21:13 ↗ the as you all know

21:16 ↗ and for some of the folks that have been

21:18 ↗ very involved in from our staffs you

21:22 ↗ know already know this but some of them

21:24 ↗ were really tasked with working on an

21:26 ↗ individual project we divided it into

21:28 ↗ three different phases we started off

21:30 ↗ with a gaps analysis many meetings later

21:33 ↗ we understood what the policy Direction

21:35 ↗ was on on major topics phase two started

21:39 ↗ when we released the first draft that

21:42 ↗ took all that input for boarding

21:43 ↗ commissions from council members and and

21:46 ↗ community members and held a series of

21:49 ↗ public hearings we came and briefed you

21:51 ↗ after each of those six individual

21:54 ↗ topics that we or topic areas that we

21:56 ↗ were covering

21:58 ↗ and then we're at phase three now where

22:00 ↗ we have a Consolidated draft and we're

22:02 ↗ holding public hearings with the

22:04 ↗ planning and policy commission closing

22:05 ↗ the loop with other boards and

22:07 ↗ commissions and

22:09 ↗ um and we plan to bring forth ppc's

22:11 ↗ recommended draft to you

22:13 ↗ um beginning of February

22:16 ↗ um

22:17 ↗ uh the in your packet uh some of the

22:20 ↗ attachments are the the summary that

22:23 ↗ we'll cover today of Title 18 and part

22:26 ↗ of this is also a shoreline master

22:28 ↗ program update that is separate from

22:30 ↗ Title 18 so we want to make sure that we

22:33 ↗ cover that as well the golden outcomes

22:35 ↗ chart is attached you also asked us to

22:38 ↗ take a look at the code testing and go a

22:40 ↗ little bit further to to evaluate for

22:42 ↗ consistency so we had two planners look

22:44 ↗ at one project and they can talk about

22:46 ↗ whether they came to the same conclusion

22:48 ↗ you know what their experience was with

22:50 ↗ that

22:52 ↗ um we've also maintained a list of all

22:53 ↗ the agenda's videos and minutes in one

22:56 ↗ place so for folks that are coming in

22:59 ↗ into the process later for community

23:00 ↗ members that want to go and check back

23:03 ↗ um instead of going on a search it's all

23:06 ↗ in this packet and we'll continue to

23:08 ↗ maintain it as more meetings occur

23:12 ↗ so there are eight parts now as you all

23:14 ↗ know there were six different buckets

23:16 ↗ and so now it all looks like the general

23:19 ↗ Provisions the procedures subdivision

23:21 ↗ zoning

23:23 ↗ special use standards and then part six

23:26 ↗ is all of your development standards and

23:29 ↗ then neighborhood overlays for Old Town

23:34 ↗ Highlands Dallas and Central and then

23:37 ↗ the environment section

23:40 ↗ um

23:41 ↗ part one includes

23:45 ↗ you know there's a lot of conversations

23:47 ↗ we've had on the definitions but really

23:50 ↗ the focus here was to consolidate the

23:52 ↗ definitions from five different

23:53 ↗ documents delete any unnecessary

23:56 ↗ definitions and then we had sprinkled

23:59 ↗ standards within the definitions which

24:02 ↗ we've taken out and put them in the

24:04 ↗ standards and the definitions are just

24:06 ↗ defining

24:07 ↗ and then also as part of part one is a

24:12 ↗ process to seek amendments to comp plan

24:14 ↗ or land use code so there's you know

24:17 ↗ that has been clarified the criteria has

24:18 ↗ been added in process

24:21 ↗ part two is uh where a lot of work

24:24 ↗ occurred and this is hopefully will help

24:26 ↗ applicants staff and the community

24:30 ↗ members understand and and be legally

24:33 ↗ defensible procedures

24:35 ↗ um so in here we have a step-by-step

24:38 ↗ process for permits I think we heard we

24:41 ↗ need a little bit more clarity added so

24:43 ↗ that people can uh you know it sets the

24:45 ↗ stage a little bit better so we'll look

24:47 ↗ at adding some language there we used to

24:49 ↗ have an assortment of community meetings

24:51 ↗ so they're not now all called

24:53 ↗ pre-application one community meeting

24:55 ↗ there's no confusion as to who's going

24:57 ↗ to staff it is it the development

24:58 ↗ commission or staff

25:01 ↗ um and we had a process called

25:03 ↗ administrative adjustment of Standards

25:05 ↗ uh that we heard a lot of feedback that

25:07 ↗ you know people were asking for it all

25:09 ↗ the time there was not really clear

25:10 ↗ criteria so we've eliminated all of that

25:13 ↗ and we have a very specific criteria and

25:16 ↗ for a specific things that uh to provide

25:19 ↗ flexibility but not but you can still

25:22 ↗ come to

25:23 ↗ um a predictable decision for that

25:26 ↗ criteria but yet be flexible in your

25:28 ↗ standards we have a new review table we

25:32 ↗ will put some language to kind of walk

25:34 ↗ through for folks to understand that

25:36 ↗ aren't into the weeds with land use code

25:39 ↗ um is one of the feedback we've received

25:41 ↗ so far there's a process table

25:45 ↗ we'll talk a little bit about site

25:47 ↗ development permit thresholds I think

25:49 ↗ you asked for some additional

25:50 ↗ information here

25:52 ↗ so currently it's set up as uh if you

25:56 ↗ are doing new development or

25:58 ↗ Redevelopment in the proposed draft

26:01 ↗ um up to 4 000 square feet is level one

26:04 ↗ so you can do small additions and things

26:06 ↗ like that as a level one uh anything

26:10 ↗ from four thousand to ten thousand

26:12 ↗ square feet new or Redevelopment is a

26:15 ↗ level two

26:16 ↗ any anything over ten thousand is a

26:18 ↗ level four which requires a development

26:20 ↗ Commission now slightly different

26:22 ↗ thresholds uh we had a nice good

26:25 ↗ discussion uh with the development

26:27 ↗ Commissioners they've fed into some of

26:29 ↗ this info information for all town and

26:32 ↗ and stuff along French Street the

26:34 ↗ thresholds are slightly different but

26:36 ↗ for the rest of the city because the

26:37 ↗ type of development that occurs there is

26:40 ↗ slightly different and they also asked

26:42 ↗ us to add a one acre threshold so

26:44 ↗ anything over an acre is automatically a

26:46 ↗ level four but this really cleans up the

26:50 ↗ assortment of thresholds that we

26:52 ↗ currently had in our code it was if you

26:54 ↗ are on this street or that street or

26:56 ↗ that Street then you go into this method

26:59 ↗ and and otherwise you go into this

27:00 ↗ method and so hopefully this will

27:02 ↗ provide some predictability and anything

27:05 ↗ over priority streets was automatically

27:08 ↗ getting bumped up to development

27:09 ↗ commission and so even a small addition

27:12 ↗ along those streets are required a

27:14 ↗ development commission approval

27:17 ↗ um and then we have this new technical

27:19 ↗ review process which again is meant as

27:23 ↗ uh as an interim step where we can give

27:25 ↗ people answers early on in the process

27:28 ↗ if you have a wetland we should be able

27:30 ↗ to tell them it's a type 3 or type two

27:33 ↗ and this is your setback and this is

27:36 ↗ your developable site area

27:38 ↗ currently we had to roll it all up with

27:41 ↗ the public hearing process and one of

27:45 ↗ the feedback we received from the

27:46 ↗ development commission was that they

27:49 ↗ um would like uh not to be put in a seat

27:52 ↗ where they have to approve geotechnical

27:53 ↗ reports and storm water reports because

27:55 ↗ that's a very technical review process

27:57 ↗ so hopefully this will address that we

28:00 ↗ are discussing this with planning and

28:01 ↗ policy commission as to what is what

28:03 ↗ this interim step should land as should

28:06 ↗ it all currently the draft shows it as

28:08 ↗ level one so we have uh based on public

28:11 ↗ comments are debating whether it should

28:13 ↗ be level one for some but level two for

28:15 ↗ the others so we'll bring back ppc's

28:17 ↗ recommendation on that uh public notice

28:20 ↗ procedures

28:21 ↗ um so we are going to be notifying the

28:24 ↗ residents and the property owners so

28:27 ↗ tenants and the property owners and and

28:29 ↗ increase the setback the notification to

28:31 ↗ 500 feet

28:33 ↗ um and and other really procedural

28:36 ↗ things have been updated

28:38 ↗ uh developer obligations we we're still

28:40 ↗ continuing to look at a few few of those

28:42 ↗ things but most of them we have folded

28:45 ↗ them into this was a lot of effort went

28:47 ↗ on with the central Issaquah plan and

28:50 ↗ there was discussion about this yeah and

28:52 ↗ written as a more of a policy language

28:54 ↗ so we folded them into regulations that

28:56 ↗ we've shared with you in the past but

28:58 ↗ there's a few that were still looking

29:00 ↗ through

29:01 ↗ um Talus and Highlands had a zoning cap

29:04 ↗ for each parcel in the in the code so

29:08 ↗ we've taken the only the undeveloped

29:10 ↗ that actually had zoning cap numbers not

29:12 ↗ the ones with a zero the ones that had

29:15 ↗ zero zoning cap we've moved them into

29:17 ↗ you're allowed to build what you were

29:19 ↗ built you know built under so you're not

29:21 ↗ considered a non-conforming use we have

29:24 ↗ a new process for Capital Improvement

29:26 ↗ permits so it's a Consolidated process

29:29 ↗ as opposed to you come for land use and

29:31 ↗ then you come for building permit and

29:32 ↗ then you come for these five other

29:34 ↗ permits

29:35 ↗ um

29:36 ↗ hopefully because the capital projects

29:39 ↗ go through a lot of public rigor during

29:42 ↗ the design phase and we want all of that

29:44 ↗ early design input and Council decisions

29:47 ↗ to be honored and and provide feedback

29:50 ↗ during that early process but the

29:53 ↗ permitting phase is more streamlined

29:57 ↗ division of land is our part three so we

30:00 ↗ didn't have any subdivision design

30:02 ↗ standards so we've added those we have a

30:05 ↗ new land unit lot subdivision so that's

30:08 ↗ if you are trying to build Town Homes

30:10 ↗ you can sell them individually you don't

30:13 ↗ have to sell them as a condo

30:16 ↗ um we've increased the thresholds for

30:18 ↗ short plots from four to nine

30:20 ↗ we have made our final plats an

30:23 ↗ administrative decision

30:25 ↗ we have put in expiration dates and

30:28 ↗ timing and and bonding of constructions

30:31 ↗ is only for minor things so we've

30:34 ↗ cleaned up all of that

30:36 ↗ part four is the zoning so this is the

30:40 ↗ the Crux of the regulations uh that we

30:44 ↗ haven't changed any zoning or the

30:46 ↗ permitted uses as part of this current

30:48 ↗ update but a lot of effort went into

30:50 ↗ consolidating all of this into one

30:52 ↗ location so you we you know as Council

30:54 ↗ over time we'll look at it some of these

30:57 ↗ things may you may question why is this

30:59 ↗ and you know and all that but but the

31:02 ↗ intent here wasn't to make any policy

31:03 ↗ changes or take away entitlements so

31:06 ↗ we've kept it as is there are some

31:08 ↗ nuances that we you can tell us if we

31:10 ↗ need to fix those but

31:12 ↗ um but for most part this was a

31:14 ↗ consolidation exercise and was very

31:16 ↗ tedious and staff can tell you uh it

31:19 ↗ many many hours went into making sure

31:21 ↗ everything got carried forward

31:24 ↗ um and you know a lot of time is spent

31:27 ↗ on figuring out which is your front and

31:29 ↗ rear for odd shape Lots so we've added

31:31 ↗ graphics and provided some clarity as

31:33 ↗ opposed to just some broad process

31:38 ↗ um so part five are very specific things

31:40 ↗ that don't fall anywhere else so

31:43 ↗ um as you may remember we had a lot of

31:45 ↗ testimony for food trucks so accessory

31:47 ↗ and temporary uses so we heard that we

31:50 ↗ don't have a time limit on food drugs

31:52 ↗ affordable housing standards those were

31:55 ↗ updated but not significant policy

31:57 ↗ changes so that's

31:59 ↗ was most of a cleanup kind of an effort

32:02 ↗ with Arch participating in helping us

32:05 ↗ Wireless facilities you know we aligned

32:08 ↗ them with the FCC regulations added some

32:10 ↗ graphics and such to make things better

32:15 ↗ um

32:16 ↗ part six is your development standard so

32:19 ↗ this covers your Urban Design site

32:21 ↗ planning building design parking

32:24 ↗ Landscaping community and amenity spaces

32:28 ↗ outdoor lighting and signs so this is

32:31 ↗ sort of all of those standards I'm not

32:33 ↗ going to go into the detail but I think

32:35 ↗ in yeah we have a question

32:39 ↗ um if you're on a roll feel free to

32:40 ↗ address this at the end but um could you

32:43 ↗ quickly summarize the food truck issue

32:45 ↗ just because I wasn't here I think I

32:47 ↗ remember some emails coming through

32:48 ↗ about that but yeah so

32:50 ↗ um you know we currently process food

32:53 ↗ trucks as under a business license so

32:56 ↗ they get an annual renewal for their

32:59 ↗ business license we don't have a permit

33:01 ↗ but we generally review for a lot of

33:03 ↗ stuff under the business license part

33:07 ↗ um and you know some some of the

33:08 ↗ regulations come from King County Public

33:10 ↗ Health Department things like you have

33:12 ↗ to have access to a restroom or and then

33:15 ↗ we look at whether it's you know

33:16 ↗ impacting any safety where they're

33:19 ↗ parked does it meet the setback side

33:20 ↗ distance and all those kind of things

33:22 ↗ but in as the as the first round we also

33:26 ↗ had a you know you were only allowed for

33:30 ↗ six a year or something like that per

33:33 ↗ site so we had a turn limit for that

33:35 ↗ that it's mobile so it should move

33:37 ↗ around but I think what we heard from

33:40 ↗ the vendors was I just signed this lease

33:43 ↗ and are you guys really gonna move me

33:46 ↗ out and I wouldn't have done this and

33:48 ↗ then we have to go back uh asking for

33:50 ↗ property owners to do that so we don't

33:52 ↗ have a term limit but they will be in

33:54 ↗ that you know if there is a problem

33:55 ↗ during that first year there's an annual

33:58 ↗ uh renewal which they currently do

34:00 ↗ through a business license but we would

34:02 ↗ just have a simplified permit for them

34:04 ↗ to just give us a site plan show us

34:07 ↗ where they're located and as long as it

34:09 ↗ meets everything you're good good to go

34:13 ↗ um

34:13 ↗ separate from that was whether they can

34:15 ↗ use the public right-of-way but that's a

34:18 ↗ separate conversation with the street

34:19 ↗ standards

34:20 ↗ um that's not part of the title 18

34:22 ↗ whether they can park in the public

34:23 ↗ right away which gets more complex

34:26 ↗ yep

34:30 ↗ um

34:31 ↗ so the urban the part seven is the

34:35 ↗ neighborhood overlays as I said Old Town

34:37 ↗ Central

34:39 ↗ Highlands and Talus mainly for Central

34:43 ↗ one of the main changes we made was we

34:46 ↗ have a design manual that you have to

34:48 ↗ pick a menu out of the five

34:50 ↗ architectural Styles and what we heard

34:54 ↗ from during the public comments were and

34:57 ↗ and during our own review was you can't

35:00 ↗ fit some of these existing businesses

35:03 ↗ such as bones candy or Gilman Village

35:06 ↗ into one of those five uh you know

35:09 ↗ selection menus and and so we looked at

35:14 ↗ um we the councils adopted as a court

35:16 ↗ Treasures as part as an appendix to the

35:19 ↗ comprehensive plan and and so we

35:21 ↗ Exempted those properties that are

35:23 ↗ designated as um as the treasures from

35:26 ↗ meeting one of those architectural

35:27 ↗ Styles because they're unique and

35:30 ↗ special

35:32 ↗ um and in their own way that it was not

35:35 ↗ felt that we had to go through that

35:37 ↗ exercise with them and the outcome

35:39 ↗ wasn't any different you know we just

35:40 ↗ had to go get them through that process

35:44 ↗ um

35:44 ↗ the

35:46 ↗ um we added a new section that about uh

35:49 ↗ blocked through block passages that's

35:51 ↗ the other part that I think we've

35:53 ↗ cleaned up quite a bit uh through the

35:56 ↗ first public hearing we've received a

35:57 ↗ comment that that probably that needs to

35:59 ↗ be added to the list of deviations so

36:02 ↗ we'll be discussing that with the

36:04 ↗ planning and policy commission that uh

36:06 ↗ that perhaps that it makes sense to add

36:08 ↗ that uh to the list of deviations

36:11 ↗ um

36:12 ↗ other than that

36:14 ↗ um part eight again a significant amount

36:17 ↗ of work went into this part eight uh

36:19 ↗ because it it fit in with the golden

36:21 ↗ outcome so we focused a lot in here

36:24 ↗ um the cepa was a lot of legal issues

36:27 ↗ were fixed but substantively the

36:29 ↗ thresholds were increased to 10

36:31 ↗ residential units and 10 000 square feet

36:33 ↗ from four and four thousand um I mean

36:38 ↗ most of our peer cities had we have had

36:40 ↗ many many meetings on those thresholds

36:42 ↗ for cipa the Public Notices we clarified

36:45 ↗ those

36:46 ↗ critical area code procedural changes

36:49 ↗ you know we've really lined those with

36:52 ↗ state law and there were broad

36:54 ↗ exemptions that we've deleted

36:57 ↗ um reasonable use exception criteria has

36:59 ↗ been clarified there's still some

37:01 ↗ questions from some community members

37:03 ↗ that we're addressing

37:05 ↗ um

37:06 ↗ wetlands are the buffers are now aligned

37:08 ↗ with Department of ecology we've

37:12 ↗ also taken away the buffer reduction and

37:15 ↗ buffer averaging so that was a

37:17 ↗ recommendation from ecology as well

37:21 ↗ um stormwater facilities such as

37:23 ↗ underground vaults people would say well

37:25 ↗ you can plant over it so it's not an

37:27 ↗ intrusion into the buffer so we've

37:28 ↗ clarified that so we don't have to have

37:30 ↗ debates over that

37:32 ↗ streams there was you know we have our

37:37 ↗ definition doesn't quite align with the

37:40 ↗ the best available science so we fixed

37:43 ↗ that we've made our classifications

37:46 ↗ consistent with fish and wildlife the

37:49 ↗ buffers I think this is where the public

37:52 ↗ said you guys need to do best available

37:54 ↗ science update and which we did and

37:57 ↗ we've released it with our CPA

38:00 ↗ determination and Title 18 so the

38:01 ↗ buffers have gone up for fish bearing

38:03 ↗ stream from 100 to 150 feet

38:06 ↗ again no reduction buffer reductions or

38:09 ↗ averaging permitted anymore

38:12 ↗ um there's also uh you know if you have

38:15 ↗ a a culvert and you're going to be

38:18 ↗ impacting when you're doing development

38:21 ↗ um then you are required to go through

38:22 ↗ and assess whether that needs to be made

38:25 ↗ fish friendly so there's some Provisions

38:27 ↗ it can happen for everything but but if

38:30 ↗ they are building a road over it or

38:32 ↗ completely you know changing it in those

38:34 ↗ circumstances they would that would come

38:36 ↗ into play

38:37 ↗ we have a new section fish and wildlife

38:39 ↗ conservation areas

38:41 ↗ um this is there's some confusion I

38:43 ↗ think we're addressing that is it an

38:45 ↗ overlay is it an above I think the

38:47 ↗ streams at one time were underneath this

38:49 ↗ but it's very clear now at least um or

38:52 ↗ we're getting it to a Clarity where you

38:54 ↗ have your Wetlands you have your streams

38:56 ↗ and you have a fish and wildlife habitat

38:58 ↗ conservation areas you got to meet

38:59 ↗ requirements for all of them and this

39:02 ↗ one you know we have priority habitat

39:05 ↗ species map

39:06 ↗ um but as but the biologists would go in

39:09 ↗ onto a site and see if there's an eagle

39:12 ↗ nest or anything that then those

39:14 ↗ protections would would apply to

39:16 ↗ something here

39:19 ↗ uh critical aquifer reach uh yep yep

39:23 ↗ um so on the last slide on this streams

39:26 ↗ in the future updates there's a note um

39:31 ↗ on the website so I'm reading from the

39:32 ↗ website right now following the title 18

39:34 ↗ update project conduct city-wide

39:36 ↗ existing stream buffer and channel

39:38 ↗ characterization of type upstreams

39:40 ↗ limited type Etc streams so there is

39:42 ↗ another step on the stream buffer work

39:45 ↗ that I believe is plans following Title

39:47 ↗ 18

39:48 ↗ and it is documented so could you uh

39:52 ↗ could you let me know what the timeline

39:54 ↗ is for that update sure no thanks for

39:57 ↗ asking um yeah I think that came through

39:59 ↗ the the first round of public hearings

40:01 ↗ and so

40:02 ↗ um we have a scope for that work

40:05 ↗ um and uh thank you Council for funding

40:07 ↗ it through the budget process

40:09 ↗ um so we have a report from parametrics

40:11 ↗ a consulting firm that was done in 2003

40:14 ↗ that really looked looked at very fine

40:18 ↗ grained on the grounds assessment you

40:20 ↗ know as their large Woody debris missing

40:22 ↗ so it's not just the stream width but

40:24 ↗ it's also the channelization the

40:26 ↗ migration and the and all of that so so

40:30 ↗ that part of the work will will get into

40:33 ↗ more of

40:35 ↗ um what else you know updating that and

40:38 ↗ coming up with some recommendations

40:39 ↗ perhaps for here's a way to get some

40:42 ↗ grant money to do some more fishing you

40:44 ↗ know habitat enhancements along the

40:46 ↗ stream so some some guidance that can

40:48 ↗ come with on the grounds assessment and

40:51 ↗ help us improve the habitat

40:53 ↗ projects in the future

40:55 ↗ to clarify is that work that's expected

40:57 ↗ to be completed in 2023 it will start in

41:01 ↗ 2023 yes

41:03 ↗ expect it to be completed the

41:05 ↗ characterization of the streams would be

41:07 ↗ completed

41:10 ↗ we hope to get it done in 2023 I think

41:13 ↗ we also want to coordinate with King

41:16 ↗ counties doing some work and so we want

41:19 ↗ to align some of those timings but we'll

41:21 ↗ come and brief the committee on as we

41:24 ↗ launch that project and and in terms of

41:26 ↗ the actual schedule for it okay so fair

41:29 ↗ to say it starts in 2023 probably

41:31 ↗ finishes in 2023 but we're not sure at

41:34 ↗ this point okay 2024 at the latest yes

41:37 ↗ absolutely all right thank you

41:42 ↗ um so critical Aquifer recharge area

41:45 ↗ um Julie from our public works

41:48 ↗ department was uh instrumental in

41:50 ↗ helping us

41:51 ↗ um with this very technical project so

41:54 ↗ she can speak to that as well but uh

41:56 ↗ Public Works had done a study in 2019 uh

41:59 ↗ consultant geosyntex and so this was

42:02 ↗ really taking a lot of that information

42:03 ↗ putting it in our code but we also then

42:06 ↗ coordinated with uh Sam Platt uh Warren

42:10 ↗ Sewer Department of Health

42:12 ↗ and in here you'll see we have a

42:15 ↗ prohibited land uses list which you've

42:17 ↗ heard some public comments on it what

42:19 ↗ happens to the to the businesses that

42:21 ↗ are in existence that may become

42:23 ↗ non-conforming so I think

42:25 ↗ um we have some language there to

42:27 ↗ address that

42:29 ↗ temporary dewatering during construction

42:31 ↗ ends up being an issue for potential

42:35 ↗ recharge of the area not necessarily

42:37 ↗ from a pollution prevention standpoint

42:40 ↗ but you know is the water getting back

42:41 ↗ to to um to the aquifer and so

42:45 ↗ we have we've attempted to to address

42:48 ↗ some of those things

42:50 ↗ geologically hazardous areas Emily

42:52 ↗ Appleton is online and and our

42:55 ↗ consultant Jim Johnson

42:57 ↗ um helped with a lot of this stuff one

42:59 ↗ of these topics is highlighted for your

43:01 ↗ policy discussion of the steep slope

43:03 ↗ puffers

43:04 ↗ but we have new buffers for coal mine

43:08 ↗ there was discussion about Peak

43:10 ↗ settlement prone critical areas we've

43:12 ↗ addressed those

43:15 ↗ and really

43:17 ↗ strengthen the guidelines for the

43:19 ↗ studies that we get so we don't get the

43:21 ↗ debates about what uh the peer the very

43:24 ↗ technical geotechnical reports have to

43:26 ↗ include what what you know so all of

43:29 ↗ that is now very explicitly clearly

43:31 ↗ listed and the focus here as I've said

43:34 ↗ before whether geologically hazardous

43:37 ↗ areas the focus is Public Safety uh you

43:40 ↗ know not necessarily ecological buffers

43:43 ↗ and and things as we as you we debate

43:45 ↗ about the setbacks for that

43:48 ↗ um Shoreline master program uh Doug

43:50 ↗ yormick was instrumental in in getting

43:53 ↗ all of these I think he worked on the

43:55 ↗ previous update as well so common line

43:58 ↗ setback exception I think Council asked

44:00 ↗ us to

44:01 ↗ um uh to to review and eliminate and you

44:05 ↗ know assess that and and the consultant

44:07 ↗ did a nice uh GIS studied and said this

44:10 ↗ really didn't want to impact and so

44:12 ↗ that's being that's gone

44:14 ↗ um buffer reduction incentive was hardly

44:16 ↗ ever used uh for bulkhead removal that's

44:19 ↗ gone and it's a requirement now for any

44:22 ↗ new developmental Redevelopment dock

44:24 ↗ lighting standards um were added

44:27 ↗ um and actually we're sharing that with

44:29 ↗ the rest of the the cities through

44:32 ↗ the light abatement program that um

44:35 ↗ councilmember Hunt is part of

44:37 ↗ uh Shoreline master program

44:40 ↗ is now aligned with the critical area up

44:42 ↗ updates as well so the

44:45 ↗ um SMP you know has an appendix to the

44:48 ↗ critical areas uh but Department of

44:50 ↗ ecology has some requirements that we

44:52 ↗ can have the same exceptions uh the

44:54 ↗ reasonable use exception so those you'll

44:56 ↗ see in the strikeout

45:00 ↗ um and and the other part with the

45:02 ↗ shoreline master program is you all will

45:05 ↗ approve it will recommend approval but

45:07 ↗ it has to be actually approved by

45:09 ↗ Department of ecology for us to take

45:12 ↗ effect so that'll that'll happen after

45:15 ↗ your approval

45:16 ↗ um transfer of development rights so

45:20 ↗ this is not very often used but very

45:23 ↗ interesting you know it has been used in

45:25 ↗ Issaquah in the past

45:26 ↗ for larger things

45:29 ↗ um you know Grand Ridge and all those

45:31 ↗ things so larger areas preserved as open

45:33 ↗ spaces and density moved into City

45:37 ↗ Limits

45:38 ↗ um what we some of the changes we made

45:40 ↗ in this section were forested hillsides

45:43 ↗ were made eligible to be ascending site

45:45 ↗ because that was one of the goals of the

45:48 ↗ uh the update

45:50 ↗ the certification you know the process I

45:54 ↗ think we are still discussing uh the

45:56 ↗ draft shows the certification is level

45:58 ↗ one receiving site review is level two

46:01 ↗ and then TDR map is level five I think

46:04 ↗ we're getting some comments about if you

46:07 ↗ just want to add a sending site perhaps

46:09 ↗ that that can be a easier process than a

46:12 ↗ code amendment process so we'll discuss

46:15 ↗ that with bpc and bring forth there

46:17 ↗ recommendation

46:19 ↗ we've cleaned up some Bank approved

46:21 ↗ activities purchase authorization all of

46:24 ↗ that stuff I mean we we have that in our

46:26 ↗ code

46:27 ↗ and we'll continue to evaluate that

46:31 ↗ um

46:32 ↗ the other thing we've fixed is the map

46:34 ↗ showed sending and receiving sites but

46:37 ↗ then the text showed if you're zoned

46:39 ↗ this you're not eligible as a sending a

46:42 ↗ receiving site and they were

46:43 ↗ contradictory so things like that have

46:45 ↗ been cleaned up

46:47 ↗ landmarks now we're just adopting the

46:50 ↗ King County Landmark preservation code

46:52 ↗ rather than having you know that

46:56 ↗ embedded

46:57 ↗ forested Hillside preservation is a

47:00 ↗ brand new chapter

47:01 ↗ and IT addresses uh you know how do you

47:04 ↗ how does the new streets designed that

47:07 ↗ respect the the topography grading

47:11 ↗ retaining wall how do we measure them

47:14 ↗ there this has a flexible options

47:17 ↗ process that we're we've highlighted for

47:20 ↗ you to discuss and debate as one of your

47:22 ↗ policy questions

47:24 ↗ um tree preservation so Dan Martinez

47:28 ↗ he's online as well he took the staff

47:32 ↗ lead with our Consulting team looking at

47:36 ↗ this canopy coverage objectives and so

47:39 ↗ the main emphasis here is we used to

47:42 ↗ count free preservation you know we've

47:45 ↗ gone to an approach where we're looking

47:46 ↗ at canopy as opposed to the size of the

47:49 ↗ tree density

47:51 ↗ so a small tree if you you know in our

47:54 ↗ existing code counts even if it is eight

47:57 ↗ inches versus a 30 inch you you there's

48:00 ↗ no incentive for you to save the 30 inch

48:02 ↗ this will get you that because it the

48:05 ↗ the canopy presumably is larger for the

48:07 ↗ other one a lot of details here I want

48:10 ↗ you know we we can we've gone through

48:12 ↗ that but we're happy to to get more into

48:15 ↗ it this was a lot of info you know a lot

48:18 ↗ of input from our environmental board

48:21 ↗ from planning and policy commission from

48:23 ↗ The Parks Board

48:25 ↗ we also as part of this have increased

48:29 ↗ some of the retention requirements

48:31 ↗ um really cleaned up the replacement the

48:34 ↗ fee in lieu has been cleaned up

48:36 ↗ Heritage trees is a process that the

48:40 ↗ parks department had most of them on the

48:42 ↗ list are city-owned trees so now they're

48:45 ↗ codified

48:47 ↗ there's also

48:49 ↗ um we had four different version of

48:52 ↗ treeless one non-preferred one preferred

48:55 ↗ some Street treeless so

48:58 ↗ Dan Heinz one of them our environmental

49:01 ↗ board members helped us create one list

49:04 ↗ we don't have a non-preferred list but

49:07 ↗ this doesn't live in the code so it's

49:09 ↗ going to be an outside document that we

49:11 ↗ can update as we get more information

49:14 ↗ or if we want to get more specific about

49:17 ↗ the street trees

49:20 ↗ and that concludes the content aspects

49:24 ↗ of the title 18. uh in your packet we

49:28 ↗ walked you through the six policy

49:30 ↗ questions that we had highlighted for

49:32 ↗ you all to think about as you review

49:34 ↗ this code one was the site-specific

49:37 ↗ rezone what's the process uh we are

49:40 ↗ discussing the criteria with planning

49:42 ↗ and policy commission they're making

49:43 ↗ some tweaks and changes

49:45 ↗ um so we'll bring that to you for uh

49:47 ↗ consideration deviation criteria we

49:50 ↗ provided you know the global criteria

49:53 ↗ and then specific list of nine things

49:55 ↗ that you can get administrative

49:57 ↗ deviations from

50:00 ↗ um we've also posed a question about the

50:02 ↗ amenity space whether you want to go up

50:04 ↗ to 100 square feet per residential unit

50:07 ↗ instead of 48. we've given you some

50:10 ↗ background information in the past

50:12 ↗ sleep steep slope buffers should they be

50:16 ↗ on a variable based on the height

50:18 ↗ recommendation is listed in your packet

50:22 ↗ in previously but we can bring that

50:24 ↗ forward more details on that

50:26 ↗ and ppc's recommendation the last item

50:29 ↗ was you know we learned from our code

50:32 ↗ testing that the critical area code and

50:35 ↗ study requirements may be too onerous

50:37 ↗ for homeowners and that might deter some

50:40 ↗ to just even do their project or they

50:43 ↗ may just do the project and not get a

50:44 ↗ permit or do we really want them to

50:48 ↗ spend the money on on the study or would

50:50 ↗ we rather have them do some plantings

50:52 ↗ for small additions so we're going to be

50:55 ↗ discussing some policy options with PPC

50:57 ↗ and bring that forth to you

50:59 ↗ uh we've done the first four uh Parts

51:03 ↗ with bpc and

51:05 ↗ through that round there were five other

51:07 ↗ comments that we are we've highlighted

51:10 ↗ for them technical document review

51:12 ↗ whether it should be level one level two

51:14 ↗ or one or the two or combination uh

51:18 ↗ public utility exemptions currently are

51:21 ↗ listed as as level one so we're gonna

51:24 ↗ discuss this with PPC and make them

51:26 ↗ level two where the public notice

51:28 ↗ required Master site plan has been a

51:31 ↗ point of discussion and mostly the

51:35 ↗ um so the little background on the

51:38 ↗ master site plan it's no longer a thing

51:41 ↗ in the proposed draft and part of the

51:43 ↗ reason for that is it was for properties

51:46 ↗ over 15 Acres but it was coming as a

51:49 ↗ closed record appeal to a city council

51:52 ↗ and development commission would hold an

51:54 ↗ open record hearing Council would hold a

51:56 ↗ closed record hearing and you acted as a

51:59 ↗ judge in a quasi-judicial matter

52:00 ↗ couldn't talk to the community members

52:02 ↗ on the topic so to solve that issue it's

52:05 ↗ now going to be approved by development

52:07 ↗ Commission

52:09 ↗ the other part is the criteria is very

52:11 ↗ specific and clear it had a very broad

52:14 ↗ criteria and and so that's been cleaned

52:17 ↗ up however recognizing that we have some

52:20 ↗ previously approved Master site plans

52:23 ↗ and and what how do we amend those and

52:27 ↗ so we've proposed a minor Amendment and

52:29 ↗ a major Amendment

52:31 ↗ and the criterias from the existing code

52:34 ↗ but it was again ambiguous substantial

52:36 ↗ change but then you had to it was

52:39 ↗ opinion whether it was substantial or

52:41 ↗ not and so we've cleaned cleaned that up

52:43 ↗ by saying 10 so we're discussing if any

52:46 ↗ tweaks need to be made with bpc and

52:48 ↗ bring that forward

52:49 ↗ we highlighted the non-conforming

52:51 ↗ chapter for PPC you know just so that

52:54 ↗ they could focus on it because it that's

52:56 ↗ where

52:57 ↗ um the existing businesses and and

52:59 ↗ Property Owners um but we haven't made

53:02 ↗ any policy changes to that it's it's

53:03 ↗ what's uh now but it's re-structured to

53:07 ↗ make things clear

53:09 ↗ um site development permits

53:12 ↗ um we want to make we wanted to discuss

53:14 ↗ this to be explicitly clear that

53:16 ↗ interior remodels we're not going to

53:18 ↗ make them people go through a site

53:20 ↗ development permit and so I think the

53:22 ↗ definition of Redevelopment creates some

53:24 ↗ ambiguity so those are some of the

53:26 ↗ cleanup fixes on these five topics that

53:28 ↗ we'll be doing as a going through this

53:30 ↗ public process the last round of public

53:32 ↗ process

53:34 ↗ um so like I said we have January 12th

53:37 ↗ and 19th done with planning and policy

53:39 ↗ commission we have a meeting on Thursday

53:41 ↗ night where we're talking about Parts

53:44 ↗ five through eight and then

53:47 ↗ um February 2nd is also a public hearing

53:49 ↗ and we hope that we will get the final

53:52 ↗ recommendation from PPC that night and

53:55 ↗ bring their recommendation to this

53:57 ↗ committee on February 6th and then you

53:59 ↗ can decide when you're ready to pass it

54:01 ↗ on to city council

54:03 ↗ that concludes the presentation part so

54:08 ↗ now

54:09 ↗ um if I can unshare

54:14 ↗ and bring everyone

54:17 ↗ that's on our staff to share their role

54:21 ↗ and their reflections

54:25 ↗ I think before we do that but that

54:27 ↗ sounds great we have a question council

54:29 ↗ president Walsh

54:37 ↗ um quick clarifying question

54:39 ↗ um I thought

54:41 ↗ it was the administration's

54:42 ↗ recommendation that Master site plans

54:44 ↗ would go to the hearing examiner instead

54:46 ↗ of PPC or am I is that for another item

54:49 ↗ oh that was for the site-specific reason

54:53 ↗ well that's it yeah and and so that one

54:56 ↗ planning and policy commission debated

54:58 ↗ and um the there was they haven't

55:00 ↗ formally taken a vote on on our emotion

55:03 ↗ but there was consensus to keep that

55:05 ↗ with the hearing examiner making a

55:08 ↗ recommendation to council okay

55:11 ↗ yeah so

55:14 ↗ um looking at all of this great

55:16 ↗ information

55:17 ↗ what feedback at this point on this

55:21 ↗ portion separate from the code testing

55:23 ↗ are you looking for at this point

55:26 ↗ because a lot of it it sounds like we

55:28 ↗ have to wait to get ppc's feedback so is

55:32 ↗ there anything specifically you want

55:33 ↗ today or is it just ahead of time for

55:36 ↗ the February sixth meeting yeah this is

55:38 ↗ to prepare you for your February 6

55:40 ↗ meeting so we're not looking for

55:42 ↗ feedback other than if there's anything

55:44 ↗ in during your review has a that has

55:46 ↗ come up that you want PPC to focus on

55:49 ↗ our way in that that would help you make

55:51 ↗ a decision we can you know we can take

55:54 ↗ that information back for them

55:57 ↗ okay

56:00 ↗ yep

56:03 ↗ this should be yes please proceed okay

56:07 ↗ so how do we want to do this I have

56:09 ↗ folks listed on my screen so I can call

56:13 ↗ them by the name

56:16 ↗ um Kristen Leeson

56:24 ↗ oh

56:28 ↗ so hi I'm Kristen Leeson a senior

56:31 ↗ planner and I think we were asked to

56:33 ↗ discuss or just areas of areas in which

56:36 ↗ we worked and sort of what the result

56:39 ↗ was what the outcome was particularly

56:40 ↗ with the goals and outcomes charged so

56:43 ↗ I worked as um I was tasked as many

56:48 ↗ mentioned earlier with the very tedious

56:49 ↗ task of combining before

56:51 ↗ permitted uses tables that did indeed

56:54 ↗ take hours

56:56 ↗ um and I also worked on zoning I was

56:58 ↗ focused on the affordable housing

57:00 ↗ section 18514 and I did some work on the

57:04 ↗ 18.700 overlays section bringing in

57:07 ↗ specifically the Old Town standards into

57:10 ↗ the

57:12 ↗ into the Consolidated draft

57:14 ↗ I think most of my work was really

57:18 ↗ consolidating these things making them

57:21 ↗ consistent making sure that it worked

57:24 ↗ right coming in from four different

57:25 ↗ areas if you had four different topics

57:27 ↗ on you know what something was supposed

57:29 ↗ to look like

57:31 ↗ um

57:31 ↗ and I think that you know in affordable

57:33 ↗ housing I think it made it uh clear it

57:36 ↗ made it consistent with other

57:36 ↗ jurisdictions and someone said one of

57:38 ↗ the comments was don't make it

57:39 ↗ consistent make it better but they were

57:41 ↗ better we wouldn't have done it

57:42 ↗ otherwise and

57:45 ↗ um I think that's it I will let someone

57:47 ↗ else have a turn thank you

57:49 ↗ yeah you know I'll say Kristen was

57:52 ↗ instrumental in this whole package one

57:55 ↗ the institutional knowledge he brought

57:57 ↗ to it she'd done all this and knows her

58:00 ↗ zoning and and setbacks and all that too

58:03 ↗ she's part-time but we got her you know

58:06 ↗ every planning and policy commission

58:08 ↗ meeting that and packets and and really

58:11 ↗ her Polished Work uh we couldn't have

58:13 ↗ done it without her support so thank you

58:17 ↗ Kristen

58:19 ↗ next on my screen is Dan Martinez

58:28 ↗ hi good evening

58:30 ↗ um I'm an associate planner with CPD and

58:35 ↗ my primary involvement with Title 18 was

58:39 ↗ focused on drafting the tree

58:42 ↗ preservation code

58:44 ↗ uh two goals from the goals and outcome

58:49 ↗ chart specifically relate to the work

58:52 ↗ that I did

58:53 ↗ the first was to ensure that the city

58:56 ↗ retains 50 canopy and the second was a

59:01 ↗ higher quality of landscaping with

59:03 ↗ increased environmental and Community

59:05 ↗ benefit

59:07 ↗ with more green storm water

59:08 ↗ infrastructure we took several measures

59:12 ↗ to ensure that we can not only meet the

59:17 ↗ 50 canopy goal but uh to

59:21 ↗ increase it as well uh the goal in the

59:25 ↗ eye cap and in the comprehensive plan

59:27 ↗ are a little misaligned right now the

59:30 ↗ comp plan says 50 but the icap increased

59:34 ↗ that to 55 by 2035.

59:38 ↗ um

59:39 ↗ so a few things that we did to make sure

59:45 ↗ that we can achieve that goal or at

59:48 ↗ least increase our canopy is uh we

59:51 ↗ replaced minimum pre-density with

59:54 ↗ canopy coverage targets we increased

59:57 ↗ tree retention requirements for single

1:00:00 ↗ family development from 30 to 35 percent

1:00:04 ↗ and we also eliminated uh

1:00:09 ↗ the tree removal notification form or

1:00:12 ↗ maximum removal on Signal Family

1:00:16 ↗ Properties moving forward all

1:00:19 ↗ significant tree removal requests will

1:00:21 ↗ require a permit this is going to

1:00:25 ↗ allow us to require replacement and it

1:00:30 ↗ will also ensure that we can track

1:00:33 ↗ removal and replacement better

1:00:39 ↗ thank you Dan and you you know Dan

1:00:42 ↗ brought the perspective of having done

1:00:44 ↗ these tree permits and what it really

1:00:45 ↗ meant and so that made the code so much

1:00:48 ↗ more

1:00:49 ↗ a real world of you know what will this

1:00:52 ↗ mean uh and and I'm sure there'll be

1:00:54 ↗ questions that'll come up uh but we'll

1:00:56 ↗ go to him for answers on of what were we

1:01:00 ↗ thinking in in terms of the trees um

1:01:02 ↗ well director Dolly well I think we do

1:01:04 ↗ have a question so yeah yeah so I really

1:01:08 ↗ really appreciate all the planning staff

1:01:10 ↗ being here and so Dan on the tree canopy

1:01:14 ↗ since you've had experience with that

1:01:16 ↗ I'm just wondering how easy that is

1:01:20 ↗ going to be to you know find

1:01:22 ↗ professionals that come up with the same

1:01:25 ↗ answers that everybody else is I mean

1:01:27 ↗ it's it's really easy to measure the

1:01:30 ↗ caliper of a tree's you know base and

1:01:34 ↗ everything

1:01:35 ↗ is is it easy enough to measure the tree

1:01:39 ↗ canopy and come up with the same answer

1:01:42 ↗ from different people

1:01:45 ↗ we should be able to come up with the

1:01:48 ↗ same answer for uh from different people

1:01:53 ↗ um I wouldn't say that measuring tree

1:01:55 ↗ canopy is as easy or intuitive as

1:01:59 ↗ measuring

1:02:00 ↗ diameter we do

1:02:04 ↗ want to try and facilitate that for

1:02:07 ↗ folks so what we I worked with a

1:02:10 ↗ consultant to

1:02:13 ↗ create educational materials and this

1:02:16 ↗ would be both for homeowners and for

1:02:22 ↗ other applicants so you know there's a

1:02:25 ↗ difference between a homeowner and a

1:02:28 ↗ someone applying for major development

1:02:31 ↗ and so we created two different uh

1:02:35 ↗ handouts

1:02:37 ↗ um

1:02:38 ↗ to help address and guide people through

1:02:42 ↗ through those steps

1:02:44 ↗ um

1:02:45 ↗ and

1:02:46 ↗ just to clarify it wasn't necessarily

1:02:48 ↗ something that I was familiar with

1:02:50 ↗ before this effort but I definitely dove

1:02:54 ↗ in and learned a lot more than I

1:02:57 ↗ expected to

1:02:58 ↗ okay fantastic well thank you very much

1:03:01 ↗ because you know the each of these

1:03:03 ↗ little areas where we're making changes

1:03:05 ↗ is really about are we going to come to

1:03:08 ↗ a consistent answer are we making things

1:03:10 ↗ you know easier and better or are we

1:03:14 ↗ potentially facing problems in the

1:03:16 ↗ future so I appreciate the uh answer the

1:03:18 ↗ question

1:03:23 ↗ so next up is uh Doug yormick

1:03:30 ↗ and Doug helped us with the shoreline

1:03:32 ↗ master program and anything and

1:03:34 ↗ everything critical areas so take it

1:03:36 ↗ away

1:03:37 ↗ uh good evening

1:03:39 ↗ um as many mentioned I'm Doug the

1:03:42 ↗ associated environmental planner my

1:03:44 ↗ involvement with the title 18 update

1:03:46 ↗ focused on critical area regulations

1:03:49 ↗ specifically Wetlands streams and fish

1:03:52 ↗ and wildlife habitat conservation areas

1:03:54 ↗ as well as updating the shoreline master

1:03:56 ↗ program

1:03:58 ↗ um with this update we focused on

1:04:00 ↗ addressing three primary goals uh first

1:04:03 ↗ is to conserve and protect

1:04:05 ↗ environmentally critical areas from loss

1:04:07 ↗ and degradation second is enhanced

1:04:10 ↗ wetlands and riparian corridors and

1:04:12 ↗ improve fish and wildlife habitat and

1:04:15 ↗ last is the modernized code and

1:04:17 ↗ incorporate best practices so these

1:04:20 ↗ goals guided our critical area

1:04:21 ↗ regulations

1:04:23 ↗ critical area of Regulation update we

1:04:27 ↗ included a new section for fish and

1:04:28 ↗ wildlife habitat Conservation Area we

1:04:31 ↗ further protected riparian corridors by

1:04:33 ↗ increasing buffer sizes based on best

1:04:35 ↗ available science specific to Issaquah

1:04:37 ↗ and created dock lighting standards for

1:04:39 ↗ Lake Sammamish

1:04:41 ↗ there are other changes too that we've

1:04:44 ↗ made throughout the critical area

1:04:45 ↗ regulations

1:04:47 ↗ but our primary focus was on these three

1:04:51 ↗ goals so I'd be happy to discuss any of

1:04:55 ↗ the proposed changes with you at this

1:04:57 ↗ meeting or in a follow-up conversation

1:04:59 ↗ in the future

1:05:05 ↗ great thank you Doug yeah he's our go-to

1:05:09 ↗ person when you know all the technical

1:05:12 ↗ aspects of the the critical areas he's

1:05:15 ↗ he's our he's a guy

1:05:18 ↗ um thanks Doug next up is Emily Adams

1:05:22 ↗ and I think Emily has this you're

1:05:24 ↗ probably the first me a first council

1:05:26 ↗ meeting so she you're joined and she's

1:05:28 ↗ our newest planner earlier this year she

1:05:31 ↗ joined our team

1:05:33 ↗ um and has really blossomed into knowing

1:05:37 ↗ everything and everything so uh you know

1:05:39 ↗ open space standards can you do a peer

1:05:41 ↗ review City research she would whip it

1:05:44 ↗ up in a in a heartbeat so

1:05:47 ↗ um and and she's enjoyed working on some

1:05:50 ↗ of the updates so and testing so Emily

1:05:52 ↗ take it away

1:05:54 ↗ well thank you

1:05:56 ↗ um as many said I'm Emily Adams I'm an

1:05:58 ↗ associate planner I've been here about

1:06:00 ↗ six months I primarily worked on the

1:06:03 ↗ amenities space and open space portion

1:06:05 ↗ of the code but coming in so late I also

1:06:07 ↗ touched on building design amendments

1:06:09 ↗ and Landscaping and I conducted the

1:06:12 ↗ Dakota Tech

1:06:13 ↗ to

1:06:14 ↗ sites that staff did along with Valerie

1:06:17 ↗ the code revisions for amenity space

1:06:19 ↗ will help us implement the green

1:06:20 ↗ necklace in the Parks plan and these

1:06:23 ↗ changes help achieve one of the primary

1:06:25 ↗ goals of realigning the land use code

1:06:27 ↗ with the community aspirations for the

1:06:29 ↗ city

1:06:35 ↗ uh thanks Emily next up is Holly Keaton

1:06:40 ↗ she's our senior planner and she

1:06:43 ↗ supported the planning team as we were

1:06:45 ↗ transitioning and without a planning

1:06:47 ↗ manager so she was our acting planning

1:06:49 ↗ manager during those few months while we

1:06:52 ↗ were recruiting

1:06:53 ↗ and Holly take it away

1:06:58 ↗ okay good evening everyone as many

1:07:00 ↗ mentioned I am Holly Keaton I'm the

1:07:02 ↗ senior planner in current planning and

1:07:05 ↗ my primary focus through the code update

1:07:07 ↗ process was with the wireless code 18512

1:07:11 ↗ as well as the sign code and then

1:07:14 ↗ hopping on the piggyback Kristen who did

1:07:17 ↗ a ton of work on the Old Town standards

1:07:20 ↗ as well as Central standards

1:07:23 ↗ a couple of things really stood out in

1:07:26 ↗ the process in terms of meeting the

1:07:29 ↗ goals overall the probably the biggest

1:07:34 ↗ goal that was met through ensuring these

1:07:37 ↗ standards were updated properly or are

1:07:39 ↗ going to be updated properly is to

1:07:41 ↗ ensure that we are

1:07:43 ↗ maintaining the unique and special

1:07:47 ↗ historic charm of certain areas of

1:07:51 ↗ Issaquah and helping to ensure that a

1:07:53 ↗ variety of public spaces and amenities

1:07:55 ↗ housing types and other types of

1:07:57 ↗ services are able to be provided

1:08:00 ↗ throughout the community when thinking

1:08:03 ↗ about the sub-area standards

1:08:06 ↗ and then in addition focusing on how

1:08:09 ↗ standards are written in the wireless

1:08:11 ↗ code and ensuring that they are aligned

1:08:14 ↗ with FCC requirements and in general

1:08:17 ↗ going through and making sure that the

1:08:19 ↗ code is written well and easy to

1:08:20 ↗ understand so that we can actually

1:08:22 ↗ administer it well

1:08:28 ↗ thanks Holly

1:08:30 ↗ next up is Emily Appleton she's our

1:08:33 ↗ engineering manager and took the lead to

1:08:37 ↗ work with the Consultants on Geo hazards

1:08:40 ↗ and concurrency

1:08:43 ↗ hi yes I'm Emily Appleton I manage the

1:08:47 ↗ engineering group and CPD and one of the

1:08:50 ↗ things the engineering group is tasked

1:08:52 ↗ with is managing the Geo hazards

1:08:54 ↗ critical areas peer review so the scope

1:08:56 ↗ of my work was focused on you know

1:08:58 ↗ geologically hazardous critical areas

1:09:00 ↗ section primarily

1:09:02 ↗ and relying heavily on the city's

1:09:05 ↗ geologists and geotechnical expert Jim

1:09:08 ↗ Johnson at Golder and Associates along

1:09:10 ↗ with some of the other Specialists there

1:09:13 ↗ um

1:09:14 ↗ I also worked on the concurrency section

1:09:17 ↗ A little bit most of that had to do with

1:09:20 ↗ uh just housekeeping and cleaning up the

1:09:22 ↗ language and you know making sure the

1:09:24 ↗ definitions were clear

1:09:26 ↗ but my primary effort was in the

1:09:29 ↗ critical areas section and we you know

1:09:32 ↗ methodically went through the code and

1:09:34 ↗ with with director dollywal's guidance

1:09:36 ↗ and sometimes you know asking the tough

1:09:38 ↗ questions we worked to untangle

1:09:41 ↗ sometimes there are technical

1:09:42 ↗ requirements and policy decisions kind

1:09:44 ↗ of all tangled up in that code and so we

1:09:46 ↗ untangled those and all the while you

1:09:49 ↗ know discussing an energetically

1:09:50 ↗ debating the meaning and the intent and

1:09:53 ↗ how best to communicate those because we

1:09:55 ↗ really wanted to make sure that we were

1:09:58 ↗ while we were updating the code we

1:10:00 ↗ wanted to make sure we were you know

1:10:01 ↗ really communicating it clearly

1:10:04 ↗ um my group is looking forward to using

1:10:06 ↗ the updated code I think you know we

1:10:09 ↗ provided a lot more clarity on the

1:10:11 ↗ requirements for what's in you know what

1:10:13 ↗ what you need to have in a Geo Hazard

1:10:15 ↗ critical area study and then help to

1:10:19 ↗ define a more rigorous criteria for

1:10:22 ↗ evaluating the required buffers and

1:10:24 ↗ buffer reduction requests

1:10:27 ↗ um I think I think this code will result

1:10:29 ↗ you know in in more transparent and

1:10:31 ↗ predictable regulations or

1:10:33 ↗ administration of these regulations of

1:10:36 ↗ the geohazard areas and we use data and

1:10:38 ↗ science to make these consistent safe

1:10:41 ↗ and I think it was Kristin who alluded

1:10:44 ↗ to it yes I think better uh decisions

1:10:56 ↗ great thank you Emily

1:10:59 ↗ next up is Julie from our public works

1:11:03 ↗ department

1:11:05 ↗ like I said uh before we were the two of

1:11:09 ↗ us would communicate over teams at odd

1:11:12 ↗ hours but she's worked hard on on this

1:11:15 ↗ piece and hopefully we got it right so

1:11:17 ↗ Julie take it away

1:11:19 ↗ yeah hi good evening I'm Julie Ortiz I'm

1:11:21 ↗ a senior environmental and Regulatory

1:11:23 ↗ specialist for the public works

1:11:24 ↗ department and my involvement in Title

1:11:27 ↗ 18 primarily consisted and focused on

1:11:30 ↗ the city's pollution prevention programs

1:11:33 ↗ and how they are related to the critical

1:11:35 ↗ Aqua recharge area and protection of the

1:11:38 ↗ groundwater Supply and quality of that

1:11:41 ↗ of the groundwater

1:11:42 ↗ these updates incorporate a best

1:11:44 ↗ available science in the form of a

1:11:46 ↗ hydrogeologic assessment report that

1:11:48 ↗ geosyntec authored and they made some

1:11:51 ↗ specific recommendations within that

1:11:53 ↗ report for how we incorporate some of

1:11:55 ↗ the car updates that are proposed in

1:11:57 ↗ this work

1:11:59 ↗ uh the car updates also represented uh

1:12:02 ↗ compliance with the Safe Drinking Water

1:12:04 ↗ Act and the Department of Health

1:12:05 ↗ requirements as well

1:12:07 ↗ so I think that they align really well

1:12:09 ↗ with the the goals and outcomes elements

1:12:11 ↗ around conserving and protecting

1:12:13 ↗ environmentally critical areas from loss

1:12:15 ↗ and degradation

1:12:17 ↗ so happy to answer any questions now or

1:12:19 ↗ later

1:12:23 ↗ thanks Julie

1:12:24 ↗ Thomas valdras

1:12:27 ↗ um

1:12:28 ↗ he's also was a new addition to our team

1:12:31 ↗ although it seems like he's taken on a

1:12:33 ↗ lot and is no longer a new

1:12:36 ↗ Transportation planner but knows all

1:12:39 ↗ everything in anything about Street

1:12:42 ↗ standards so take it away

1:12:46 ↗ great thank you uh good evening

1:12:48 ↗ committee members my name is Thomas

1:12:49 ↗ valdres I'm the city's senior

1:12:51 ↗ Transportation planner and I worked on

1:12:54 ↗ the parking code update section 18604.

1:12:58 ↗ so this specifically helps to achieve

1:13:00 ↗ goal two which is providing adequate

1:13:03 ↗ parking while utilizing land effectively

1:13:06 ↗ it also helps to achieve goal 10

1:13:09 ↗ effective management of travel resulting

1:13:11 ↗ from new development in line with DOT

1:13:14 ↗ motorized Transit and climate goals and

1:13:18 ↗ lastly goal 13 which is modernizing code

1:13:22 ↗ and incorporating best practices so two

1:13:25 ↗ examples of changes that were made to

1:13:27 ↗ the parking update would include

1:13:30 ↗ creating new Geographic boundaries which

1:13:33 ↗ we're calling parking tiers so these

1:13:36 ↗ help differentiate the multimetal goals

1:13:39 ↗ of a of an urban landscape versus a

1:13:42 ↗ suburban area within the city

1:13:46 ↗ um additional changes that we made

1:13:48 ↗ include updating the flexible parking

1:13:51 ↗ tools standards and these specifically

1:13:54 ↗ help to provide methods techniques and

1:13:57 ↗ incentives to reduce the parking

1:13:59 ↗ requirements that we have while also

1:14:01 ↗ making sure that we're providing enough

1:14:03 ↗ parking for adjacent land uses

1:14:10 ↗ thank you Thomas

1:14:12 ↗ Valerie Porter is next

1:14:15 ↗ um

1:14:16 ↗ and she's been in both courts as a

1:14:20 ↗ current planning planner and and also as

1:14:23 ↗ a long-range planner so she brought in

1:14:25 ↗ her perspective of actually having

1:14:27 ↗ looked at these projects and permits and

1:14:29 ↗ and you know all that common Matrix

1:14:31 ↗ public common Matrix that's her her hers

1:14:35 ↗ to to keep so take it away

1:14:40 ↗ thanks Minnie hello everyone my name is

1:14:43 ↗ Valerie Porter I'm an associate planner

1:14:45 ↗ in CPD so my role in the title 18 update

1:14:48 ↗ has been to update the landmarks

1:14:50 ↗ preservation chapter review each code

1:14:53 ↗ section and identify code conflicts

1:14:55 ↗ update outdated or unclear language and

1:14:58 ↗ propose possible solutions to streamline

1:15:01 ↗ the process and remove inconsistencies I

1:15:04 ↗ also conducted the code testing program

1:15:06 ↗ with community members and staff from

1:15:08 ↗ other departments and I also

1:15:10 ↗ participated in a note another code

1:15:12 ↗ testing exercise with Emily Adams where

1:15:14 ↗ we both reviewed the Riva townhome site

1:15:17 ↗ where we explored the similarities and

1:15:19 ↗ differences between the current and

1:15:21 ↗ draft code and so while reviewing Title

1:15:24 ↗ 18 my goal has been to moderate

1:15:26 ↗ modernize the code incorporate best

1:15:28 ↗ practices all while retaining and

1:15:31 ↗ protecting essential characteristics and

1:15:33 ↗ established neighborhoods thank you

1:15:37 ↗ thank you Valerie

1:15:39 ↗ and um here in the room we have our two

1:15:43 ↗ long-range planning managers Stephen

1:15:45 ↗ Padua and Christian do you want to say a

1:15:48 ↗ few words and then of course after

1:15:50 ↗ they're done we have our Madrona team

1:15:54 ↗ online and

1:15:57 ↗ thank you Minnie Steven video long range

1:15:59 ↗ planning manager I've been working very

1:16:02 ↗ closely with many on on working through

1:16:04 ↗ every aspect of this project and getting

1:16:07 ↗ everything

1:16:08 ↗ um

1:16:08 ↗ getting the project moving forward as

1:16:10 ↗ well as working with each of the staff

1:16:11 ↗ to make sure everybody knows what the

1:16:13 ↗ expectations are and in terms of what

1:16:15 ↗ we're looking for with this update but

1:16:17 ↗ also making sure we're staying within

1:16:19 ↗ kind of the scope of the project as well

1:16:21 ↗ and I'll turn it over to Chris

1:16:24 ↗ hi Christian guys current planning

1:16:26 ↗ manager uh really excited to be here and

1:16:29 ↗ can't be more excited about the next

1:16:32 ↗ steps looking at implementation so kind

1:16:34 ↗ of what what my team is going to be

1:16:35 ↗ working on they are very excited they

1:16:37 ↗ may not have expressed it enough as they

1:16:40 ↗ as they talked about what they worked on

1:16:43 ↗ um but we're ready to to update

1:16:45 ↗ applications look at our forms look at

1:16:47 ↗ our handouts once we have this sort of

1:16:49 ↗ final Direction and move into that that

1:16:51 ↗ active planning practice

1:16:54 ↗ and you know we're as as planners we

1:16:58 ↗ look forward to kind of working with the

1:17:01 ↗ code evaluating what we're doing going

1:17:02 ↗ back in time to look at what was the

1:17:04 ↗ intent here look talking to the specific

1:17:06 ↗ experts looking at the files making sure

1:17:08 ↗ we're doing it right and and we're doing

1:17:11 ↗ it consistently with what the intent of

1:17:13 ↗ of this committee what PPC looked for

1:17:16 ↗ what the community looked for

1:17:18 ↗ um and uh I'm I think I'm the most

1:17:21 ↗ excited because this is the code that

1:17:22 ↗ I'm focused on rather than current of

1:17:25 ↗ the current code my head's not too busy

1:17:27 ↗ with the old stuff but new stuff is

1:17:29 ↗ really good

1:17:36 ↗ hi

1:17:37 ↗ Rachel Turpin City attorney I have

1:17:41 ↗ enjoyed my work on this project but I

1:17:43 ↗ really have to give most the credit from

1:17:45 ↗ uh to the Madrona team to Kim Adams

1:17:49 ↗ Pratt and Anne Marie Soto from my firm

1:17:51 ↗ who are the ones that really took the

1:17:53 ↗ heavy lifting from our office on it Kim

1:17:57 ↗ is on this meeting online Anne-Marie

1:17:59 ↗ would have been here this evening but

1:18:01 ↗ she had another meeting she had to go to

1:18:03 ↗ for a different city but the two of them

1:18:06 ↗ worked a very tireless tirelessly on

1:18:10 ↗ this uh spotting legal issues and

1:18:13 ↗ changing language and working with the

1:18:16 ↗ planners and they were an excellent team

1:18:19 ↗ to work with and it was a difficult

1:18:23 ↗ project and a long project but it was a

1:18:26 ↗ worthwhile project

1:18:35 ↗ just came on to say

1:18:38 ↗ Kim do you wanna

1:18:43 ↗ you're muted

1:18:47 ↗ I do appreciate the fact that uh staff

1:18:51 ↗ had worked on this for months and put in

1:18:53 ↗ so many hours before we came in and did

1:18:55 ↗ the legal review

1:18:57 ↗ um and so the work product was very good

1:19:00 ↗ and I uh appreciated the staff being so

1:19:05 ↗ willing to work with us to come in and

1:19:07 ↗ do that legal review afterwards

1:19:11 ↗ and giving us time and thank you to the

1:19:14 ↗ council too for giving us extra time we

1:19:17 ↗ appreciate it your patience was

1:19:20 ↗ was appreciated and hopefully you will

1:19:22 ↗ be happy with the end result as

1:19:28 ↗ thank you all thanks Kim

1:19:31 ↗ um so that concludes what we were

1:19:33 ↗ prepared to to share with you if you

1:19:36 ↗ have any questions for us

1:19:40 ↗ council president wall

1:19:42 ↗ thank you now that I have everyone here

1:19:45 ↗ I can just go and ask my questions um no

1:19:48 ↗ hearing from the staff as they were

1:19:50 ↗ talking about developing the code and um

1:19:52 ↗ everything has been super valuable

1:19:56 ↗ um what I always want to go back to is

1:19:58 ↗ kind of the umbrella goals and so

1:20:02 ↗ I know

1:20:04 ↗ we haven't had a huge amount of time to

1:20:06 ↗ work with the code and really you know

1:20:09 ↗ give it a run for its money

1:20:12 ↗ um but I'm wondering if you found any

1:20:16 ↗ areas confusing or causing you to kind

1:20:19 ↗ of trip over it and have to ask a few

1:20:21 ↗ other questions or easier to

1:20:24 ↗ misinterpret like if you had your

1:20:26 ↗ druthers and you

1:20:28 ↗ asked us to do something with the code

1:20:32 ↗ to make it easier to work with is there

1:20:35 ↗ anything there that you've determined

1:20:36 ↗ through this code testing

1:20:38 ↗ um

1:20:39 ↗ that caused you any problems

1:20:43 ↗ um

1:20:44 ↗ you know I mean it caused us problems I

1:20:48 ↗ would say no but

1:20:51 ↗ can it be better absolutely I mean you

1:20:54 ↗ know we can keep polishing it till till

1:20:57 ↗ forever and and it'll never be you know

1:21:00 ↗ perfect in that sense and so but I think

1:21:02 ↗ our approach to this is going to be it's

1:21:04 ↗ we've we've done it's a huge undertaking

1:21:07 ↗ and with everyone's help support and and

1:21:10 ↗ all that it we're here at this point in

1:21:13 ↗ time but we're committed to doing an

1:21:16 ↗ annual housekeeping code changes so we

1:21:19 ↗ won't we don't want to get off the you

1:21:21 ↗ know a decade later and we didn't change

1:21:24 ↗ it kind of the thing and so we will set

1:21:26 ↗ up annual housekeeping code changes as

1:21:28 ↗ as we interpret the code during the year

1:21:31 ↗ we will we may have to write up code

1:21:33 ↗ interpretations if there's something

1:21:35 ↗ that comes up but those will all get

1:21:36 ↗ codified in the next round of

1:21:39 ↗ um housekeeping code changes and the

1:21:40 ↗ other I think the question we got

1:21:42 ↗ earlier by email was also in our

1:21:45 ↗ whiteboard list

1:21:47 ↗ you know we've shared that with all of

1:21:49 ↗ you in the past and then during the

1:21:51 ↗ budget process there were three items

1:21:53 ↗ that were prioritized uh diversity of

1:21:55 ↗ housing types as a housing strategy

1:21:58 ↗ um you know implementation of that and

1:22:00 ↗ and code updates related to that and

1:22:03 ↗ then parking there was more work to be

1:22:06 ↗ done on the parking side and then the

1:22:08 ↗ stream buffer study

1:22:10 ↗ so those we are going to start

1:22:13 ↗ undertaking the scope of those studies

1:22:16 ↗ specially the diversity of housing types

1:22:18 ↗ and parking we'll come back to this

1:22:20 ↗ committee and share the scope before we

1:22:22 ↗ roll that out and schedule scope and

1:22:26 ↗ schedule meeting will be scheduled to

1:22:29 ↗ finalize those things so

1:22:33 ↗ well you kind of answered my second

1:22:36 ↗ question which was related to well as we

1:22:39 ↗ use the code is there a plan to make

1:22:43 ↗ updates so I appreciate the annual idea

1:22:46 ↗ of updates part of my question there

1:22:50 ↗ though is like is there a process to

1:22:52 ↗ document

1:22:54 ↗ problems for the people that are

1:22:55 ↗ Hands-On and using it every day

1:22:58 ↗ um is there a process for hey if we run

1:23:02 ↗ into a problem

1:23:04 ↗ can we document it and can we make you

1:23:07 ↗ know emergency or more urgent fixes as

1:23:10 ↗ needed absolutely I mean a Christian

1:23:12 ↗ will lead the current planning team and

1:23:14 ↗ so they'll set up a shared document and

1:23:17 ↗ anyone can enter things you know you I

1:23:20 ↗ was in the phone call and this was

1:23:21 ↗ confusing and so that'll all kind of be

1:23:24 ↗ a rolling list for anyone to add two

1:23:26 ↗ things to you'll be making the code

1:23:28 ↗ interpretations as a first you know

1:23:31 ↗ point and providing guidance to his team

1:23:33 ↗ of what what is the intent and and where

1:23:36 ↗ where does this belong and then I'll of

1:23:39 ↗ course if there's things to be written

1:23:40 ↗ then the director would assign the code

1:23:42 ↗ interpretations and those can be

1:23:44 ↗ appealed to the hearing examiner so

1:23:45 ↗ there's a process for those things if if

1:23:48 ↗ there is some ambiguity and or someone

1:23:49 ↗ challenges us over something we will

1:23:52 ↗ provide in writing a factual

1:23:53 ↗ interpretation with the due process for

1:23:56 ↗ disagreements and and resolution of

1:23:58 ↗ those

1:24:00 ↗ okay and just kind of one more related

1:24:05 ↗ to the Riva code testing since that was

1:24:07 ↗ something where you had two planners

1:24:09 ↗ Emily and Valerie taking it on um one of

1:24:13 ↗ my asks was do you come to any different

1:24:16 ↗ conclusions were there any areas where

1:24:19 ↗ it was hard to come to agreement or see

1:24:24 ↗ the obvious answer in that so where was

1:24:27 ↗ there anything that

1:24:29 ↗ sure I think Emily and Valerie if you

1:24:31 ↗ can turn on your videos and answer that

1:24:33 ↗ question that would be great did you

1:24:35 ↗ both come to the same conclusion did you

1:24:37 ↗ read it the same way

1:24:39 ↗ or was were the parts confusing not so

1:24:42 ↗ much the comparison but actually the

1:24:45 ↗ from two different people reading the

1:24:47 ↗ code it was it consistent as I think

1:24:50 ↗ what cancer members hoping to get an

1:24:52 ↗ answer for

1:24:56 ↗ um I'll go first

1:24:58 ↗ um for the most part we read the code

1:25:00 ↗ consistently consistently the only areas

1:25:02 ↗ where we felt like things weren't

1:25:04 ↗ consistent were because the project was

1:25:06 ↗ adopted before the design manual had

1:25:11 ↗ been adopted so

1:25:13 ↗ um or there were

1:25:15 ↗ um you know areas where the code was

1:25:18 ↗ requiring something different than what

1:25:20 ↗ the applicant submitted so like for

1:25:21 ↗ instance for instance like the tree code

1:25:23 ↗ changed from

1:25:25 ↗ a caliper to

1:25:28 ↗ canopy so that we kind of had to guess

1:25:30 ↗ on how to interpret those types of

1:25:32 ↗ things but for the most part

1:25:34 ↗ um regarding parking

1:25:37 ↗ um process we came to the same

1:25:39 ↗ conclusions

1:25:42 ↗ and I would agree on that we came to all

1:25:44 ↗ the same conclusions like Valerie said

1:25:46 ↗ anything that was we weren't consistent

1:25:48 ↗ with each other it's just because

1:25:50 ↗ um you know what they were what the

1:25:53 ↗ reports we were working off of were uh

1:25:56 ↗ tailored to the old code instead of the

1:25:58 ↗ new code so we didn't have all the data

1:26:00 ↗ that we would typically have

1:26:02 ↗ to fine-tune an answer

1:26:06 ↗ great those were all my questions I have

1:26:09 ↗ comments later but yeah

1:26:15 ↗ thank you

1:26:17 ↗ um great I I had a question about the

1:26:19 ↗ scope of the future parking study but my

1:26:21 ↗ understanding from your earlier answer

1:26:23 ↗ is that that has to be scoped is there

1:26:26 ↗ any is there any

1:26:28 ↗ so much I don't know if you have

1:26:30 ↗ anything to share at this point for uh

1:26:32 ↗ the future updates related to the

1:26:35 ↗ parking study or Steven to you

1:26:39 ↗ I can provide a quick update we're going

1:26:41 ↗ to be going to the council to ask for a

1:26:43 ↗ little feedback on specific scope but we

1:26:46 ↗ wanted to get we were looking to get

1:26:48 ↗ clarity on

1:26:50 ↗ how we want to approach the parking

1:26:52 ↗ regulations if if we want to look at

1:26:55 ↗ specifically because president Walsh

1:26:58 ↗ your comment on looking at the middle

1:27:00 ↗ housing impact for parking regulations

1:27:01 ↗ if that can be done part of the parking

1:27:05 ↗ or the middle housing studies that's

1:27:07 ↗ going to be in separate or if that needs

1:27:09 ↗ to be incorporated as part of the full

1:27:11 ↗ parking study as well because we could

1:27:14 ↗ see it going either way but that'll

1:27:15 ↗ impact that total cost in terms of how

1:27:17 ↗ we want to look at the parking

1:27:18 ↗ regulations but also in terms of the

1:27:21 ↗ scope of the middle housing are we

1:27:22 ↗ wanting to look at all of the city

1:27:24 ↗ regulations in particular with

1:27:26 ↗ single-family housing

1:27:28 ↗ which will also impact that scope so

1:27:30 ↗ that's that's just there's some clarity

1:27:32 ↗ questions behind the scope that we're

1:27:33 ↗ going to be looking for

1:27:38 ↗ okay so more more information

1:27:42 ↗ to come on that

1:27:45 ↗ um that was my question do we have

1:27:46 ↗ anything yeah but if you all have any

1:27:48 ↗ feedback for what your thoughts are on

1:27:49 ↗ par you know the future parking we can

1:27:51 ↗ take that and and when we bring the

1:27:54 ↗ information back for you we want to

1:27:55 ↗ capture it

1:27:57 ↗ sounds good thank you any other

1:27:59 ↗ questions before we check on public

1:28:01 ↗ comment

1:28:04 ↗ all right great

1:28:05 ↗ um

1:28:06 ↗ city clerk do we have anyone on the line

1:28:09 ↗ that might want to give a public comment

1:28:13 ↗ chair hunt as before there are no

1:28:15 ↗ members of the public in attendance all

1:28:17 ↗ right thank you for confirming I will

1:28:18 ↗ also confirm that there are no members

1:28:20 ↗ of the public here in council chambers

1:28:23 ↗ this evening

1:28:24 ↗ um so with that we will move to council

1:28:27 ↗ deliberation and discussion on this item

1:28:30 ↗ and council president I will just

1:28:34 ↗ started off it's a trend at this point

1:28:37 ↗ um

1:28:38 ↗ I have met with director dollywall about

1:28:41 ↗ this and I will be as you know

1:28:43 ↗ expressive as I was

1:28:45 ↗ um during that meeting

1:28:46 ↗ you guys are amazing I was really really

1:28:50 ↗ concerned having gone through this

1:28:53 ↗ entire process how I was gonna sit down

1:28:55 ↗ and grock all of this idea

1:29:00 ↗ in one final draft document and really

1:29:05 ↗ truly the executive summary going

1:29:08 ↗ through each of the sections documenting

1:29:10 ↗ what was changed and then the update

1:29:13 ↗ that you made to the goals and outcomes

1:29:16 ↗ chart to show the regulations in the

1:29:21 ↗ draft that apply to those areas

1:29:23 ↗ really made that job so much easier and

1:29:28 ↗ it really allows me to have confidence

1:29:31 ↗ going into this portion

1:29:34 ↗ um of our work to be able to say oh gosh

1:29:38 ↗ yeah these were goals

1:29:40 ↗ this was a possible action these were

1:29:43 ↗ the outcomes we wanted and here's where

1:29:45 ↗ it is in the new code

1:29:47 ↗ um so I am truly truly happy with this

1:29:52 ↗ much more confident that I thought I was

1:29:55 ↗ going to be as we were slogging through

1:29:57 ↗ all of the different areas

1:29:59 ↗ so I'm really looking forward to hearing

1:30:02 ↗ the PPC feedback on some of these items

1:30:05 ↗ that have come up as the final question

1:30:08 ↗ marks but as far as the goals and

1:30:11 ↗ outcomes uh chart I am feeling really

1:30:15 ↗ confident with those additional items

1:30:18 ↗ that are coming out in the future

1:30:20 ↗ updates I do think I would say those

1:30:23 ↗ areas haven't been satisfied but we kind

1:30:26 ↗ of knew that at that point when we said

1:30:28 ↗ are we going to handle them now or is it

1:30:30 ↗ going to be a future update so but

1:30:32 ↗ everything else I seriously went through

1:30:35 ↗ the list and was able to put check marks

1:30:38 ↗ on so many things which

1:30:40 ↗ really yeah really great work everyone

1:30:43 ↗ thank you

1:30:46 ↗ thank you

1:30:48 ↗ Council Deputy president hall or would

1:30:50 ↗ you like me to go first I can I can go

1:30:52 ↗ first all right

1:30:53 ↗ um well yes thank you all for coming to

1:30:56 ↗ the meeting and telling us about the

1:30:59 ↗ work that you do it was great to get to

1:31:02 ↗ see you all and hear from you about the

1:31:04 ↗ hours of work that you put into making

1:31:07 ↗ this code

1:31:08 ↗ um and improving it so thank you and um

1:31:12 ↗ really appreciate that it was great

1:31:14 ↗ information and great work so um a few

1:31:18 ↗ things that I wanted to single out as my

1:31:21 ↗ highlights for this land use code update

1:31:25 ↗ um or I really appreciate the

1:31:27 ↗ improvements to the Shoreline master

1:31:28 ↗ program

1:31:30 ↗ um the the uh reductions that were

1:31:34 ↗ possible in the in the old code building

1:31:37 ↗ into Lake Sammamish or closer to Lake

1:31:40 ↗ Sammamish those have been corrected in

1:31:43 ↗ this code

1:31:45 ↗ um and I really appreciate that so I

1:31:47 ↗ also really appreciate the dock lighting

1:31:49 ↗ standards those are standards that a

1:31:52 ↗ number of other cities along Lake

1:31:54 ↗ Sammamish are looking to get their hands

1:31:56 ↗ on and to use in their own codes so

1:31:58 ↗ that's going to be a model for other

1:32:01 ↗ cities along Lake Sammamish and really

1:32:03 ↗ great work on that really excited about

1:32:05 ↗ adopting that code I'm also excited

1:32:09 ↗ about green necklace having codes to

1:32:11 ↗ kind of support and actualize that

1:32:14 ↗ concept which would be this connected

1:32:16 ↗ trail system throughout the city and we

1:32:19 ↗ have bits and pieces of it we now have

1:32:21 ↗ more

1:32:23 ↗ more support in terms of staff to

1:32:26 ↗ realize that and so I think having that

1:32:28 ↗ code piece as well is really exciting

1:32:32 ↗ um and it also really grateful for and

1:32:35 ↗ excited about all of the improvements

1:32:37 ↗ and increased protections for our

1:32:40 ↗ critical areas and the steps forward

1:32:42 ↗ towards protecting

1:32:44 ↗ forested areas our tree canopy our

1:32:47 ↗ hillsides that's all very important to

1:32:51 ↗ our community and big big improvements

1:32:54 ↗ in all of those areas so thank you very

1:32:55 ↗ much

1:32:56 ↗ as council president Walsh said and I

1:32:58 ↗ agree there were areas that we

1:33:01 ↗ identified previously through previous

1:33:04 ↗ Council review of of where we were

1:33:07 ↗ headed that I think still need

1:33:10 ↗ additional work and partly it was

1:33:12 ↗ because there there was such a

1:33:18 ↗ a large policy goal that we had in those

1:33:22 ↗ areas so things like missing middle

1:33:24 ↗ that's something that we struggle with

1:33:26 ↗ our whole region struggles with missing

1:33:29 ↗ middle housing having missing middle

1:33:31 ↗ housing and

1:33:32 ↗ and adequate housing that meets our

1:33:35 ↗ community's needs and so you know I

1:33:37 ↗ think we have work to do to continue to

1:33:40 ↗ improve our code to support that but we

1:33:43 ↗ knew that going in I agree and I think

1:33:45 ↗ we have articulated and we have a plan

1:33:48 ↗ with staff to continue to address that

1:33:50 ↗ same with parking

1:33:53 ↗ uh there are big improvements in this I

1:33:56 ↗ do think we need to continue to

1:34:00 ↗ um

1:34:01 ↗ address

1:34:02 ↗ issues in code around parking when I was

1:34:07 ↗ looking at our goals and outcomes chart

1:34:10 ↗ for parking we have as our issue

1:34:14 ↗ parking is not land's highest and best

1:34:16 ↗ use and generates negative impacts such

1:34:18 ↗ as storm water aesthetic dead zones and

1:34:21 ↗ over 75 percent of central issaquah's

1:34:24 ↗ surface parking lots so it was a big it

1:34:27 ↗ was a big issue and I think we've taken

1:34:29 ↗ steps towards addressing it in right

1:34:31 ↗ sizing parking and future proofing our

1:34:34 ↗ code but I think we have a ways to go

1:34:36 ↗ and that's one of the areas the council

1:34:39 ↗ agreed with needed future study and

1:34:41 ↗ future work so I agree with both the

1:34:44 ↗ diversity of Housing and parking as

1:34:46 ↗ being things that we need to continue

1:34:48 ↗ working on and stream buffers which was

1:34:51 ↗ also mentioned

1:34:52 ↗ so I look forward to the continuing the

1:34:56 ↗ conversation about the scope of the

1:34:57 ↗ parking in particular and the reason why

1:34:59 ↗ I single that one out of the three is

1:35:01 ↗ because that one seems

1:35:04 ↗ um that the diversity of housing we have

1:35:07 ↗ a grant and that has specific policies

1:35:09 ↗ that we are going to be considering and

1:35:12 ↗ investigating so that's scoped according

1:35:14 ↗ to that Grant then the stream buffers we

1:35:17 ↗ also have a scope that's based on this

1:35:19 ↗ other characterization of streams and

1:35:21 ↗ the needs for that information and then

1:35:23 ↗ the parking Still Remains a little bit

1:35:25 ↗ more open-ended in my opinion

1:35:28 ↗ um I think we do need to look Citywide

1:35:32 ↗ at that and the impacts to our other

1:35:35 ↗ goals on reducing

1:35:38 ↗ or right sizing our parking

1:35:41 ↗ um but I look forward to having

1:35:43 ↗ information brought back about that I

1:35:45 ↗ will I will say I think it's important

1:35:47 ↗ because it impacts so many other

1:35:49 ↗ of our goals as far as having

1:35:50 ↗ walkability having affordability

1:35:54 ↗ um having development that is more

1:35:59 ↗ sustainable all of that ties in with

1:36:02 ↗ parking so I look forward to continuing

1:36:04 ↗ that conversation and I think we knew

1:36:06 ↗ going in that that would be a

1:36:08 ↗ conversation that would continue beyond

1:36:09 ↗ this update so I'll just end with thanks

1:36:13 ↗ again for all of the staff all of your

1:36:15 ↗ hard work and for joining the call this

1:36:18 ↗ evening and

1:36:20 ↗ um really grateful

1:36:23 ↗ Council Deputy president Hall yeah

1:36:25 ↗ thanks what a fun meeting like genuinely

1:36:29 ↗ what a treat are they all like this yeah

1:36:31 ↗ man I made a good decision didn't I

1:36:34 ↗ um you know what an interesting time for

1:36:36 ↗ a new Committee Member to come on to the

1:36:38 ↗ Planning Development environment

1:36:39 ↗ committee and just be

1:36:41 ↗ um

1:36:42 ↗ thrown into the deep end of all this

1:36:43 ↗ work

1:36:45 ↗ um

1:36:46 ↗ humming coming in after kind of a Year's

1:36:49 ↗ worth of pde meetings even more if you

1:36:52 ↗ account for all the ad hoc committee

1:36:53 ↗ meetings I was worried I'm going to be

1:36:55 ↗ honest when you know coming into the

1:36:57 ↗ meeting I was really worried that you

1:36:58 ↗ know I wouldn't feel comfortable right

1:36:59 ↗ away coming in

1:37:01 ↗ my first reaction is wow look how far

1:37:06 ↗ we've come look how accessible some of

1:37:08 ↗ these items are that that the committee

1:37:11 ↗ is is looking at the goals and outcomes

1:37:13 ↗ crosswalk that we have in particular I

1:37:15 ↗ mean wow that that was incredible the

1:37:17 ↗ the summary that was written ahead of

1:37:19 ↗ time thank you so much for getting that

1:37:20 ↗ to me ahead of time that was very

1:37:22 ↗ informative as well

1:37:24 ↗ um and um you know just a note too to

1:37:27 ↗ any council members that might be

1:37:29 ↗ watching this in the future going back

1:37:31 ↗ and watching the YouTube videos of pde

1:37:33 ↗ meetings and PPC meetings has also been

1:37:35 ↗ very helpful even if it's just kind of

1:37:37 ↗ on in the background on double speed

1:37:39 ↗ which is what I do

1:37:40 ↗ um

1:37:41 ↗ I am feeling better than I thought I

1:37:45 ↗ would and looking forward to kind of the

1:37:47 ↗ review that PPC has and and what their

1:37:49 ↗ thoughts are I also have lots of

1:37:51 ↗ thoughts about that missing middle item

1:37:53 ↗ and the parking item these title Title

1:37:55 ↗ 18 whiteboard items that we've kind of

1:37:57 ↗ scheduled for the next year

1:37:59 ↗ um two years I guess so I'm looking

1:38:01 ↗ forward

1:38:02 ↗ for that coming back to the committee

1:38:04 ↗ but you know I just want to express wow

1:38:07 ↗ like I'm in complete shock of like the

1:38:09 ↗ progress that you've all made so far to

1:38:12 ↗ YouTube in particular like incredible

1:38:14 ↗ work on the committee so far staff thank

1:38:17 ↗ you for everything that you've done if

1:38:19 ↗ this is any indication for how council

1:38:21 ↗ is going to feel coming into this I'm

1:38:22 ↗ I'm encouraged by where we're at So yeah

1:38:25 ↗ thank you

1:38:30 ↗ all right it's great

1:38:32 ↗ um so uh one thing that I know would be

1:38:35 ↗ helpful is if we do have any additional

1:38:38 ↗ questions or

1:38:40 ↗ um things that we want PPC to consider

1:38:45 ↗ or take into consideration as they're

1:38:47 ↗ considering these last lists of final

1:38:49 ↗ questions that it would be really

1:38:50 ↗ helpful if we get those on the table now

1:38:53 ↗ I haven't heard anything like that so

1:38:56 ↗ far but I wanted to ask my fellow

1:38:59 ↗ committee members if there is anything

1:39:00 ↗ that you want to flag for PPC

1:39:04 ↗ at this at this time because I think

1:39:06 ↗ after this we're gonna try to consider

1:39:09 ↗ things

1:39:10 ↗ for for the future but not for this

1:39:13 ↗ update um if possible

1:39:16 ↗ council president Washington so I

1:39:19 ↗ honestly I went through this trying to

1:39:21 ↗ find a whole bunch of things that I felt

1:39:24 ↗ like needed to be handled and other than

1:39:26 ↗ the areas of the goals and outcomes that

1:39:28 ↗ I know are going to address in the

1:39:30 ↗ future

1:39:31 ↗ um I was able to answer pretty much all

1:39:34 ↗ my questions

1:39:36 ↗ um either through reading or through

1:39:38 ↗ conversations with staff

1:39:40 ↗ the only one that's still kind of

1:39:43 ↗ bugging me is the through block passages

1:39:46 ↗ in the neighborhood overlays in part

1:39:49 ↗ seven as a resident of the Highlands I'm

1:39:53 ↗ just a little bit concerned that

1:39:59 ↗ we implemented through block passages

1:40:01 ↗ for Central Issaquah and don't have that

1:40:05 ↗ as a section for the highlands and Talus

1:40:09 ↗ because those areas were developed to be

1:40:12 ↗ a development agreement and have trails

1:40:17 ↗ and public plazas instead of necessarily

1:40:19 ↗ through a blocked passages so I'm just

1:40:24 ↗ I'm a little bit concerned about that no

1:40:28 ↗ longer or that not being in the code in

1:40:31 ↗ the case of any

1:40:33 ↗ development that were to occur in the

1:40:36 ↗ area sure

1:40:37 ↗ um you know so the trails and plazas are

1:40:40 ↗ pretty much built out and there is a map

1:40:42 ↗ for Talus but there isn't a map for

1:40:45 ↗ Highlands that's part of that

1:40:48 ↗ replacement regulations that were done

1:40:49 ↗ we can take a look at it to see if we

1:40:52 ↗ need to pull some of that into the

1:40:53 ↗ neighborhood overlay section

1:40:55 ↗ we do have we talk about trails in the

1:40:58 ↗ community amenity space section and then

1:41:01 ↗ I think with this consolidation of all

1:41:04 ↗ the street standards under the public

1:41:06 ↗ work standard the tree Trail sections

1:41:08 ↗ and cross-sections would live there but

1:41:10 ↗ you know a lot more discussion on the

1:41:12 ↗ trails will probably happen with the

1:41:14 ↗ park strategic plan as well

1:41:16 ↗ so but we'll take a look at at least

1:41:19 ↗ getting some verbiage in language in the

1:41:22 ↗ neighborhood overlays as an option if if

1:41:24 ↗ you want to add that there

1:41:26 ↗ yeah I think it's interesting because

1:41:28 ↗ both Telus and the highlands are very

1:41:30 ↗ hilly and so it would be very difficult

1:41:33 ↗ to do a true through block passage for a

1:41:38 ↗ lot of the areas but and yet the trails

1:41:42 ↗ that we have that go through block areas

1:41:45 ↗ are very important

1:41:46 ↗ so I guess if

1:41:50 ↗ if staff feels like the existing trails

1:41:54 ↗ are codified in another way and that

1:41:58 ↗ that

1:41:59 ↗ protects those that's good there are

1:42:02 ↗ still some areas that are developing in

1:42:05 ↗ West Highlands and such

1:42:08 ↗ um

1:42:09 ↗ so I guess I'll just put that out there

1:42:10 ↗ we want to preserve the opportunities

1:42:12 ↗ for as as development occurs if there's

1:42:14 ↗ an opportunity to make those connections

1:42:16 ↗ that that's preserved or new you know if

1:42:20 ↗ it's a larger block that we do get some

1:42:22 ↗ of those some of those connections so

1:42:23 ↗ we'll take a look at it to see if it

1:42:26 ↗ makes sense to bring that into the

1:42:28 ↗ neighborhood overlay section or the

1:42:30 ↗ community amenities

1:42:34 ↗ be a chapter one or the other

1:42:37 ↗ thank you director dollywell to clarify

1:42:39 ↗ do you think that that's something you

1:42:41 ↗ would like to have PPC weigh in on or

1:42:43 ↗ something that you would like to have

1:42:44 ↗ director Dolly wall and staff bring back

1:42:47 ↗ information to the committee on what do

1:42:50 ↗ you I'll defer to staff I've I've put

1:42:52 ↗ the idea out there if you feel like

1:42:54 ↗ that's something that would be

1:42:55 ↗ appropriate to go to PPC

1:42:59 ↗ um that's fine I just sure that's one of

1:43:02 ↗ my only question marks at this point but

1:43:04 ↗ I'm perfectly fine with staff figuring

1:43:07 ↗ out where it's most appropriate will do

1:43:11 ↗ okay great so I would say then whatever

1:43:14 ↗ is decided if you could bring it back in

1:43:16 ↗ a written memo or whatever

1:43:20 ↗ um whatever else you decide is best but

1:43:22 ↗ if it could come back to this committee

1:43:23 ↗ that would be great we'll do

1:43:25 ↗ okay Council Deputy president Hall thank

1:43:28 ↗ you so the question is beyond these six

1:43:31 ↗ policy questions that are here is there

1:43:33 ↗ anything else for PPC to consider right

1:43:35 ↗ so I thought at the last oh sorry right

1:43:38 ↗ okay I thought at the last committee

1:43:40 ↗ meeting someone brought up the issue of

1:43:43 ↗ Housing and job growth targets and how

1:43:47 ↗ political in nature those are and

1:43:48 ↗ whether or not those should be tied

1:43:51 ↗ um

1:43:52 ↗ and use this criteria in code was that

1:43:54 ↗ something that was going to be

1:43:55 ↗ considered by PPC or how are we

1:43:57 ↗ approaching that yeah I think we're

1:43:59 ↗ still looking at the

1:44:00 ↗ that may be something we may consider

1:44:02 ↗ consider do I

1:44:03 ↗ do ask his question

1:44:12 ↗ okay

1:44:15 ↗ um is there anything else any other

1:44:16 ↗ questions

1:44:20 ↗ okay all right um I didn't have any

1:44:23 ↗ additional questions that I thought

1:44:26 ↗ would require additional PPC

1:44:29 ↗ discussion I think the list is is good

1:44:32 ↗ and

1:44:35 ↗ again appreciate the work do you have

1:44:37 ↗ what you need at this point from YouTube

1:44:38 ↗ committee we do thank you

1:44:41 ↗ all right great exciting

1:44:45 ↗ in the home stretch and thank you again

1:44:47 ↗ to everybody who joined us on this call

1:44:49 ↗ it was great to hear from you also thank

1:44:51 ↗ you again

1:44:53 ↗ all right done with that we will move to

1:44:55 ↗ our last item of business this evening

1:44:57 ↗ which is

1:44:58 ↗ id1351 executive session the committee

1:45:01 ↗ will reach us into executive session to

1:45:03 ↗ discuss pending potential litigation per

1:45:06 ↗ RCW

1:45:09 ↗ 42.30.110 parentheses one parentheses I

1:45:13 ↗ please note executive sessions are

1:45:15 ↗ closed to the public and no action will

1:45:17 ↗ be taken after the executive session

1:45:20 ↗ so with that I will take a brief moment

1:45:23 ↗ for us to enter into executive session

1:45:25 ↗ thank you

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