City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, February 7, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 24, 2023

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:32 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-24-23 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 24, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18 Land Use Code: Recommendations

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.7–1038

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 0:35 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Meeting Date February 7, 2023 Department Community Planning & Development Staff Lead Minnie Dhaliwal, Community Planning & Development Director

1756 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ foreign

0:05 ↗ good evening everyone hello welcome I am

0:09 ↗ councilmember hunt and I call the

0:10 ↗ February 7th Planning Development and

0:13 ↗ environment committee meeting to order

0:14 ↗ as a reminder we continue to have a

0:16 ↗ remote aspect to our meetings both staff

0:18 ↗ and members of the public may be

0:21 ↗ participating in tonight's meeting

0:23 ↗ remotely via WebEx and there are

0:25 ↗ multiple public comment opportunities at

0:26 ↗ tonight's meeting there is a general

0:28 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

0:29 ↗ beginning of the meeting or you may make

0:31 ↗ comments after the presentation and

0:33 ↗ committee question and answer periods on

0:35 ↗ tonight's agenda items I will also

0:36 ↗ introduce my fellow committee members

0:38 ↗ council president Walsh and Council

0:40 ↗ Deputy president Hall the first order of

0:43 ↗ business will be public comment so I

0:45 ↗ will check in I will note that there are

0:47 ↗ no members of the public present in

0:49 ↗ council chambers this evening I'll check

0:51 ↗ in with city clerk if there are any

0:53 ↗ members of the public online that wish

0:55 ↗ to make public comment

0:57 ↗ so I will read the directions

1:00 ↗ chair hunt no one has signed up

1:01 ↗ previously and no one has a virtual hand

1:04 ↗ raised

1:06 ↗ thank you very much

1:08 ↗ as a reminder you can provide email

1:10 ↗ comments at issaquah.gov

1:15 ↗ and with that we will go to the first

1:18 ↗ order business which is approval of the

1:20 ↗ minutes

1:21 ↗ these are the minutes from the January

1:23 ↗ 24th city council meeting

1:26 ↗ are there any corrections or

1:30 ↗ okay

1:32 ↗ um I'll move to approve the minutes from

1:33 ↗ the January 24th city council meeting

1:36 ↗ all those in favor say aye

1:38 ↗ aye the minutes are approved with that

1:41 ↗ we will go to our first and only agenda

1:42 ↗ item this evening which is Title 18 land

1:44 ↗ use code

1:45 ↗ id1308 and this will be presented by

1:48 ↗ director dollywall director of community

1:49 ↗ Planning Development director dollywall

1:51 ↗ please take it away

1:53 ↗ good evening committee members and

1:56 ↗ members of the community who are online

1:58 ↗ I'm going to quickly share my

2:02 ↗ um

2:03 ↗ screen here let's see if this will work

2:17 ↗ okay

2:19 ↗ um so tonight we bring forth

2:22 ↗ um planning and policy commission's

2:24 ↗ recommendation to this committee

2:27 ↗ um on Title 18 as well as Shoreline

2:29 ↗ master program

2:31 ↗ um with the hope for the committee to

2:33 ↗ review it and then finalize your

2:35 ↗ recommendation at the upcoming meeting

2:37 ↗ for full city council the direction

2:41 ↗ we're seeking from you all is uh do you

2:45 ↗ want any additional edits to ppc's

2:48 ↗ recommended draft or any additional

2:51 ↗ information you may need to finalize

2:53 ↗ your recommendation at the next meeting

2:55 ↗ um

2:57 ↗ see as you all know you know this has

3:02 ↗ been a journey that started in April of

3:04 ↗ 2021

3:06 ↗ three different phases many meetings

3:09 ↗ with the boards in commission and the

3:11 ↗ community members and we are here at

3:14 ↗ Council committee review in phase three

3:16 ↗ so

3:17 ↗ um that's where we're at today as part

3:21 ↗ of your packet we have some attachments

3:24 ↗ we have some policy questions that we

3:26 ↗ had previously walked through with this

3:28 ↗ committee then we've brought forth uh

3:31 ↗ planning and policy commission's

3:32 ↗ recommendation on those policy questions

3:34 ↗ and they were teased out for the final

3:37 ↗ draft Consolidated draft based on when

3:40 ↗ either this committee or planning and

3:42 ↗ policy commission asked for additional

3:43 ↗ information so we wanted to highlight

3:45 ↗ what research was done and what options

3:47 ↗ was selected or they were informed by

3:50 ↗ some public comments on that particular

3:52 ↗ topic

3:54 ↗ also included is the PPC letter with

3:58 ↗ their you know a recommendation to you

4:01 ↗ it also has an attachment of all the

4:04 ↗ different meetings with their agendas

4:05 ↗ videos and minutes for the complete

4:08 ↗ record

4:08 ↗ there's also a letter from environmental

4:11 ↗ board and their previous two letters

4:13 ↗ that they had written to us so we had

4:15 ↗ provided responses to environmental

4:17 ↗ board on the first two letters as well

4:19 ↗ as the third letter we did have a

4:23 ↗ response to them and so we can provide

4:25 ↗ that additional response for this

4:27 ↗ Committee in the next meeting

4:29 ↗ um

4:30 ↗ there's the list of planning and policy

4:32 ↗ commissions motions uh and attachment e

4:36 ↗ is underlying strikeout of all the

4:38 ↗ changes that were Incorporated in the

4:40 ↗ draft since the draft was released

4:43 ↗ public comments we've been maintaining

4:46 ↗ them in this Matrix format for the first

4:49 ↗ two phases we didn't include that with

4:51 ↗ your packet this time and but we have

4:53 ↗ those if you're interested but this one

4:56 ↗ is a list of all the public comments

4:58 ↗ since the Consolidated draft was

5:01 ↗ released and then of course the the

5:04 ↗ entire Title 18 PPC recommended draft

5:07 ↗ and the shoreline master program

5:10 ↗ um Title 18 you know is now organized

5:13 ↗ into eight different parts uh we kind of

5:15 ↗ walked you through the executive summary

5:17 ↗ for each one of them at your last

5:18 ↗ meeting

5:20 ↗ um I'll quickly go over uh ppc's

5:23 ↗ recommendation on the policy questions

5:25 ↗ the first six policy questions that we

5:28 ↗ had previously informed you all on

5:31 ↗ um and so site-specific reasons there

5:35 ↗ was discussion about the process who

5:37 ↗ should make a recommendation to council

5:39 ↗ because these are treated now under the

5:42 ↗ code AS quasi-judicial matters they

5:45 ↗ would go to the hearing examiner first

5:46 ↗ as a recommendation and come to city

5:48 ↗ council for approval there's still going

5:51 ↗ to be a requirement for Council to not

5:53 ↗ have direct you know ex parte

5:54 ↗ Communications with any community

5:56 ↗ members applicants or proponents or

5:58 ↗ opponents of the site-specific reason

6:00 ↗ but you will still be the decision maker

6:03 ↗ however you'll get a formal you know

6:06 ↗ report from the hearing Examiner

6:10 ↗ um the criteria planning and policy

6:12 ↗ commission weighed in made some tweaks

6:15 ↗ uh to the criteria and so the updated

6:18 ↗ criteria was included in your pack at

6:20 ↗ the underlying strikeout version is in

6:22 ↗ that attachment e that um is the all you

6:25 ↗ know that tracked all the changes that

6:27 ↗ were made

6:28 ↗ um

6:29 ↗ and one of the the Criterion here

6:32 ↗ relates to growth targets and you know

6:34 ↗ it's been changed from what's in the

6:37 ↗ existing code they were they're still

6:39 ↗ debated uh that particular criteria

6:42 ↗ there was amendments proposed but in the

6:44 ↗ end they passed the current criteria

6:47 ↗ that you have but they wanted Council to

6:48 ↗ take a look at it

6:50 ↗ um

6:51 ↗ deviations so when we first shared this

6:54 ↗ information there were two I think the

6:56 ↗ true block connections and essential

6:57 ↗ public facilities that were missing from

6:59 ↗ that list so we had a total of nine now

7:01 ↗ they're a total of eleven uh deviations

7:04 ↗ and specific criteria

7:07 ↗ um PPC discussed these you know there

7:09 ↗ was a general concern about are we going

7:12 ↗ to have a code and then we're going to

7:13 ↗ Grant out deviations I think we sort of

7:16 ↗ explained that it's very different from

7:18 ↗ the current AAS administrative

7:20 ↗ adjustment of Standards to a very

7:22 ↗ specific

7:23 ↗ criteria so they have recommended this

7:27 ↗ for your review

7:29 ↗ outdoor amenity space

7:31 ↗ I think at this point the recommendation

7:34 ↗ is 100 square feet per unit there is an

7:36 ↗ additional 48 square feet of private

7:38 ↗ balcony open space that that is in the

7:42 ↗ code as well in addition to this common

7:44 ↗ outdoor amenity space

7:47 ↗ steep slope buffers

7:49 ↗ um

7:50 ↗ so we laid out four options I think

7:53 ↗ there's some questions about the

7:55 ↗ difference between option one and option

7:57 ↗ four I can get into those details if you

8:00 ↗ want

8:02 ↗ um it

8:03 ↗ yep nope thank you that was my question

8:07 ↗ so um on that one well would you prefer

8:10 ↗ that I hold my questions until you're

8:12 ↗ done okay so for that one

8:15 ↗ um it seemed to me that there were

8:16 ↗ multiple cons listed by uh so drawbacks

8:21 ↗ listed by

8:22 ↗ staff for the option that was selected

8:24 ↗ by a planning policy commission and then

8:26 ↗ there was one option that was also

8:29 ↗ um one option that had a drawback that

8:32 ↗ was the same as option one so if you

8:34 ↗ could explain a little bit about why

8:36 ↗ they picked the option they did yeah so

8:39 ↗ um you know the first three of the first

8:41 ↗ one was what we currently have but we've

8:43 ↗ cleaned up the criteria for doing buffer

8:46 ↗ reductions you start out at 50 feet but

8:49 ↗ if you're geotechnical engineer says and

8:52 ↗ the city's geotechnical engineer agrees

8:54 ↗ that for it meets all the safety

8:56 ↗ considerations you can have a minimum

8:58 ↗ buffer of 10 feet the con listed in this

9:02 ↗ option one was this public perception

9:04 ↗ that these buffer reductions are given

9:06 ↗ out all the time which is true that we

9:11 ↗ did give buffer reductions however they

9:13 ↗ met the safety standards so the buffers

9:16 ↗ for steep slopes are different than your

9:19 ↗ buffer reduction for a wetland or a

9:21 ↗ stream it's really based on safety

9:24 ↗ standards so if you meet the safety

9:26 ↗ standards there is an Italian for the

9:27 ↗ city to say you need a larger buffer so

9:30 ↗ we developed the fourth option to

9:32 ↗ address the public perception of is

9:35 ↗ there a way to have a 50-foot but your

9:38 ↗ buffer reductions are still reduced to

9:40 ↗ no more than 50 you know are based on

9:43 ↗ your height of your

9:45 ↗ um

9:46 ↗ if a 20-foot vertical height difference

9:48 ↗ versus a 200 vertical height difference

9:51 ↗ PPC debated and discussed that and they

9:54 ↗ felt that as long as the safety

9:57 ↗ standards are met that's you know they

9:59 ↗ wanted to base the decision on on the

10:01 ↗ science and not necessarily in the

10:03 ↗ public perception and so they

10:05 ↗ recommended option one and that was our

10:07 ↗ recommendation as well because there

10:10 ↗ wasn't a real requirement for increasing

10:12 ↗ the buffer that we could base it on

10:14 ↗ science other than the safety factors

10:19 ↗ okay

10:21 ↗ um so then the the last policy question

10:24 ↗ uh oops

10:29 ↗ that they uh had us go back and create

10:32 ↗ some additional options was the critical

10:35 ↗ area code for non-conforming structures

10:38 ↗ and this was informed by the testing the

10:40 ↗ code testing options that were done

10:43 ↗ where someone had a patio you know that

10:46 ↗ they wanted to enclose in a

10:48 ↗ single-family residence and the code

10:50 ↗ required a critical area study which is

10:52 ↗ thousands of dollars but there was an

10:55 ↗ exemption to enclose an existing

10:57 ↗ impervious surface

10:59 ↗ um and so with the planning and policy

11:02 ↗ commission that fix was made that was

11:04 ↗ option one when they discussed their

11:06 ↗ options so no critical area studies

11:08 ↗ needed when you're expanding an

11:10 ↗ impervious surface uh but then there

11:13 ↗ were two additional options that were

11:14 ↗ asked uh to develop you know for us to

11:16 ↗ come back with and those were do you you

11:20 ↗ know really from a policy perspective to

11:22 ↗ say do you want to provide some leniency

11:24 ↗ for non-conforming structures to do some

11:27 ↗ smaller upgrades that

11:31 ↗ um you know with some benefit to the

11:33 ↗ stream of the Wetland buffer so these

11:35 ↗ would only apply for critical areas of

11:37 ↗ streams or Wetlands

11:39 ↗ that you can add an expansion of about

11:42 ↗ 500 square feet if you already have a

11:44 ↗ structure in between your critical area

11:47 ↗ and you know then on the opposite side

11:49 ↗ on the other side not closer to the

11:51 ↗ critical area but on the other side you

11:54 ↗ can expand about 500 square feet you

11:57 ↗ still have to do mitigation at one to

11:59 ↗ one on the buffer so you get some net

12:01 ↗ gain to the environment and the two

12:04 ↗ options that they considered was do you

12:05 ↗ want a critical area study the homeowner

12:07 ↗ or anyone with a non-conforming

12:09 ↗ structure to do a critical area study or

12:12 ↗ do you want to just grant this without a

12:14 ↗ critical area study and PPC felt that

12:16 ↗ this would be

12:18 ↗ a requirement to have a critical area

12:20 ↗ study because you're not only

12:23 ↗ um you're adding more impervious surface

12:25 ↗ and so you do want to have a planting

12:28 ↗ plan and things like that that would

12:30 ↗ inform where it makes more sense to do

12:32 ↗ your mitigation and such so two

12:36 ↗ recommendations no critical area study

12:38 ↗ for expansion and impervious surface

12:40 ↗ also to allow 500 square foot editions

12:44 ↗ or to critical to non-conforming

12:46 ↗ structures on the opposite side so not

12:49 ↗ closer to critical areas but with a

12:52 ↗ critical area study

12:55 ↗ that's yeah

12:57 ↗ okay was there a reason that 500 square

13:00 ↗ feet was chosen

13:02 ↗ you know we we at one point we had said

13:04 ↗ 100 square feet versus 500 and I think

13:07 ↗ um it was meant to be not a huge

13:10 ↗ expansion but you know 20 by 25 someone

13:15 ↗ wants to add a room or a deck or

13:17 ↗ something like that I think that's where

13:19 ↗ 500 came from more for homeowners

13:22 ↗ um kind of a setback but there wasn't a

13:25 ↗ lengthy discussion or debate of what

13:27 ↗ square footage makes the most sense okay

13:29 ↗ I think

13:32 ↗ kind of some of my thoughts on that are

13:34 ↗ just that if we're getting really good

13:36 ↗ mitigation on an area that we wouldn't

13:39 ↗ otherwise and we're getting it in a

13:41 ↗ one-to-one I would just like to be able

13:44 ↗ to maximize that

13:46 ↗ to all effects possible so I don't it

13:50 ↗ would be nice if it was

13:52 ↗ maybe related to

13:54 ↗ a percentage of the critical area buffer

13:59 ↗ that was that could be improved or

14:02 ↗ something like that or whether there's

14:04 ↗ an average edge of a property on one of

14:08 ↗ these that might justify I think the 500

14:12 ↗ is probably fine but I wonder whether

14:14 ↗ we're leaving things on the table there

14:19 ↗ it was like was it a question or just no

14:23 ↗ sorry okay

14:25 ↗ um I did I did have a question follow-up

14:27 ↗ question on this one so is it possible

14:30 ↗ we we generally if you have a

14:32 ↗ non-conforming structure you don't

14:34 ↗ um

14:35 ↗ my understanding is we don't allow for

14:37 ↗ it to become more non-conforming with

14:40 ↗ improvements in fact it has to

14:42 ↗ um go the other way and so doesn't this

14:45 ↗ allow for a non-conforming structure to

14:49 ↗ expand into an area that they wouldn't

14:51 ↗ otherwise be able to

14:52 ↗ building correct so if you it goes

14:57 ↗ beyond what's currently allowed as a

14:59 ↗ non-conforming structure but I think it

15:00 ↗ recognizes that you have non-conforming

15:02 ↗ structures in the city and they're not

15:04 ↗ going to you know you can so the policy

15:07 ↗ question is we could we could let them

15:09 ↗ maintain an upgrade but keep the

15:12 ↗ footprint the same

15:13 ↗ and that's in the existing code you're

15:15 ↗ allowed to maintain an upgrade I think

15:17 ↗ some of the requests were to go beyond

15:20 ↗ that and so these uh questions you know

15:24 ↗ these options were developed related to

15:26 ↗ that to to answer the question of why

15:29 ↗ 500 should be you know if you're getting

15:31 ↗ so you you get some buffer enhancements

15:34 ↗ that you wouldn't otherwise so that's

15:36 ↗ the trade-off of letting people do but

15:39 ↗ but cumulatively you may get increase

15:42 ↗ your you know impervious surface more in

15:44 ↗ the buffers so that that's where I think

15:46 ↗ 500 seems like you start off and if the

15:50 ↗ if everyone's doing 500 how much does

15:52 ↗ that cumulatively add up

15:54 ↗ okay thank you

15:59 ↗ um so those were the six questions that

16:03 ↗ we previously previously discussed with

16:05 ↗ you all

16:06 ↗ um but during the PPC deliberations some

16:09 ↗ of the public comments that informed

16:11 ↗ some other discussions that were had and

16:13 ↗ options laid out were these five

16:16 ↗ additional ones the first one was a

16:19 ↗ technical document review so what this

16:21 ↗ is is in our current

16:25 ↗ um in the in the proposed draft this was

16:27 ↗ a type of a review that was added for

16:30 ↗ two reasons one was we we want to be

16:33 ↗ able to give people an answer on what's

16:36 ↗ the buffer on your property and we can't

16:38 ↗ do that without getting a technical

16:39 ↗ review of the Wetland report and say

16:42 ↗ this is type 1 your buffer is 100 feet

16:45 ↗ so we want to give people answers early

16:47 ↗ in the process the second part was

16:50 ↗ development commission felt that they

16:53 ↗ were not subject matter experts on these

16:55 ↗ very technical geotechnical reports and

16:58 ↗ Wetland reports that

17:00 ↗ they brought value to the the process by

17:03 ↗ providing input into the building design

17:06 ↗ the site design as opposed to these

17:08 ↗ technical documents so we created this

17:10 ↗ technical document review as an early uh

17:14 ↗ process people don't have to do this

17:16 ↗ they could bundle everything and and we

17:18 ↗ would process it as a level four site

17:19 ↗ development permit if that's what they

17:21 ↗ need but if they wanted an earlier

17:23 ↗ answer to some of these questions they

17:25 ↗ we could do a technical document review

17:27 ↗ for them

17:29 ↗ so the quest the policy questions were

17:32 ↗ is it should it be level one or level

17:34 ↗ two

17:35 ↗ um level the difference between level

17:37 ↗ one and level two is they're both

17:39 ↗ administrative level one is your

17:42 ↗ building permit if you want to build a

17:43 ↗ deck you want to build a house you don't

17:45 ↗ you know use the level one we don't

17:47 ↗ circulate a notice there's no notice

17:49 ↗ board none of that level two requires a

17:52 ↗ notice and and and things so but the

17:55 ↗ decision maker and the appellant body is

17:57 ↗ the same

17:59 ↗ um so planning policy commission

18:00 ↗ recommended level one

18:03 ↗ um public utility exemptions

18:06 ↗ um were listed as level one in the draft

18:08 ↗ uh and their recommendation is to change

18:11 ↗ it to level two

18:13 ↗ um Master site plan discussion came from

18:17 ↗ public comments and these are no longer

18:20 ↗ in your proposed draft so Master site

18:22 ↗ plan in the past as you remember the

18:24 ↗ school project or some parks projects

18:27 ↗ many decades ago had gone through a

18:29 ↗ master's site plan process that was

18:31 ↗ approved by Council by ordinance

18:34 ↗ and since

18:36 ↗ um you know Council being a body that's

18:39 ↗ making decision on quasi-judicial

18:41 ↗ matters was one of the goals to not have

18:43 ↗ that be the best practice

18:46 ↗ so we've eliminated the master site plan

18:49 ↗ it's just called a site development

18:51 ↗ permits that are approved by the

18:54 ↗ development commission

18:56 ↗ but we wanted to recognize if there was

18:58 ↗ an existing Master site plan and someone

19:00 ↗ wanted to amend it what is the criteria

19:03 ↗ for that so we carried forward the the

19:06 ↗ criteria for Major versus minor however

19:10 ↗ we clarified that criteria it the

19:12 ↗ existing criteria in the existing code

19:15 ↗ is is there a substantial increase in

19:17 ↗ Building height or is there a

19:19 ↗ substantial increase in the impervious

19:21 ↗ surface but it's very subjective what is

19:24 ↗ substantial so we clarified that to say

19:27 ↗ if you are increasing your building

19:29 ↗ height by more than 10 percent of what

19:31 ↗ was previously approved you still have

19:33 ↗ to meet the new criteria and the new

19:34 ↗ code but it can be processed as an

19:38 ↗ administrative decision if you're going

19:40 ↗ Beyond 10 then you have to go back to

19:42 ↗ the development commission the criteria

19:44 ↗ for evaluation Remains the Same it's

19:46 ↗ just the process is different

19:49 ↗ um

19:49 ↗ so planning and policy commission said

19:52 ↗ yes they're fine with the clarification

19:54 ↗ of the the criteria and for adding that

19:58 ↗ percentage

19:59 ↗ and and but add the phasing language for

20:03 ↗ projects you know allow phasing for

20:05 ↗ projects that are over 15 years 15 Acres

20:07 ↗ or more

20:09 ↗ um

20:09 ↗ the other question that you know there

20:12 ↗ were a lot of questions on the

20:13 ↗ non-conforming chapter

20:16 ↗ um so that's your you know what your

20:17 ↗ grandfathered in and and and really if

20:20 ↗ you uh and there are special things for

20:23 ↗ if you're within a wetland or a stream

20:24 ↗ buffer but generally and then you have

20:27 ↗ if you burn down or there's an

20:29 ↗ earthquake what are your grandfathered

20:30 ↗ rights so none of the policies changed

20:34 ↗ in that chapter in the new draft

20:36 ↗ um in the proposed draft however we've

20:38 ↗ cleaned up into those different

20:39 ↗ categories so

20:41 ↗ um I think planning a policy commission

20:43 ↗ didn't make any additional changes to

20:45 ↗ the proposed draft except for the one

20:47 ↗ about the um expansions of 500 square

20:51 ↗ feet allowed that we just talked about

20:54 ↗ the last question that was sort of

20:57 ↗ discussed was

20:59 ↗ um site development permit

21:01 ↗ um

21:02 ↗ you know right now the language in the

21:04 ↗ proposed draft says new development or

21:07 ↗ Redevelopment triggers that you know a

21:10 ↗ site development permit and their

21:12 ↗ different thresholds up to four thousand

21:13 ↗ it's level two and over ten thousand is

21:16 ↗ level four

21:19 ↗ um and the question was what if your

21:22 ↗ Redevelopment is 50 of the value of the

21:25 ↗ property of the building so what if

21:28 ↗ you're just doing interior work and you

21:31 ↗ trigger that 50 threshold do you still

21:34 ↗ need a site development permit I think

21:36 ↗ in the in the proposed draft we made it

21:38 ↗ clear that interior you know remodel it

21:41 ↗ doesn't trigger it however the

21:42 ↗ definition of Redevelopment conflicts

21:44 ↗ with that so

21:46 ↗ I think we got direction from PPC that

21:48 ↗ didn't you know make it clear that

21:50 ↗ interior improvements regardless of the

21:52 ↗ value don't necessarily trigger site

21:54 ↗ development permit

21:55 ↗ uh the non-conforming chapter

21:58 ↗ will dictate and that there's the there

22:00 ↗ the threshold is 75 so if you don't meet

22:03 ↗ your setback or don't meet your you know

22:05 ↗ any other uh standard you can do those

22:08 ↗ improvements but if you do more than 75

22:10 ↗ you have to bring it into compliance

22:14 ↗ um so that was the policy question

22:16 ↗ discussion

22:18 ↗ um and then I think the rest of the

22:21 ↗ packet captures uh their other

22:22 ↗ discussions or concerns that they had so

22:26 ↗ we had three public hearings on the

22:28 ↗ Consolidated draft and we're here today

22:30 ↗ uh we have another planned meeting with

22:33 ↗ you all on February 28th and uh we can

22:37 ↗ you know schedule uh times with City

22:40 ↗ Council on March 13th April 17th

22:44 ↗ um and then it'll go into effect

22:48 ↗ um you know after council's adoption but

22:51 ↗ at this point I think we're thinking of

22:53 ↗ any changes that the committee makes or

22:55 ↗ any new edits that might come in that we

22:57 ↗ would hold one public hearing with the

23:00 ↗ committee of the whole

23:02 ↗ to capture that

23:04 ↗ and I think that concludes my

23:07 ↗ presentation

23:11 ↗ um

23:12 ↗ I think the only other thing I would add

23:13 ↗ to that is since the

23:16 ↗ planning and policy commission hearing

23:19 ↗ we captured some of the things that came

23:21 ↗ in in the public comments uh one of them

23:25 ↗ relates to this Redevelopment piece you

23:28 ↗ know that we can bring forth a revised

23:31 ↗ draft that clarifies some of the

23:32 ↗ language for that the other one is

23:36 ↗ critical Aquifer recharge area and

23:40 ↗ prohibited uses list and so we have some

23:42 ↗ proposed language in the public comment

23:45 ↗ Matrix that we can bring in with the

23:47 ↗ next committee's packet and I think

23:50 ↗ there was one addition the transfer of

23:54 ↗ development rights I think there's

23:56 ↗ still some questions outstanding on that

23:58 ↗ so if the committee wants some

24:01 ↗ additional edits or based on our review

24:03 ↗ if there's any anything additional

24:04 ↗ needed on the tdrs we can

24:07 ↗ include that in the next packet the

24:09 ↗ other thing the environmental board

24:11 ↗ had some questions and I think

24:15 ↗ we we had a good meetings with them they

24:19 ↗ really took a deeper dive on on some of

24:21 ↗ these things

24:22 ↗ overall I think they they were they had

24:26 ↗ they wanted you to hear directly on on

24:28 ↗ some of the items I'll touch base on a

24:32 ↗ couple things that I think I got as

24:34 ↗ questions

24:35 ↗ common line setback and removal of

24:38 ↗ Bulkhead incentives you know they were

24:41 ↗ wondering if that could be applied to

24:43 ↗ other Shoreline Master uh you know to

24:45 ↗ the streams and we identified that that

24:49 ↗ doesn't you know it doesn't that those

24:52 ↗ Provisions didn't apply to anything they

24:53 ↗ were only for Lake Sammamish in the

24:55 ↗ existing SMP and those have been taken

24:57 ↗ out

24:58 ↗ so I think that question was just

25:01 ↗ clarification for them

25:03 ↗ the other one carbons sequestration they

25:08 ↗ wanted some recognition of that in the

25:10 ↗ purpose section so we can propose and

25:12 ↗ edit and include that

25:14 ↗ the last one I think was reconsider

25:17 ↗ allowance of non-native plant species in

25:20 ↗ Wetland buffer I couldn't find that but

25:22 ↗ the discussion it may have been in an

25:24 ↗ earlier version of environmental boards

25:27 ↗ uh

25:28 ↗ uh comments but the discussion at the

25:31 ↗ last meeting they had which was a good

25:33 ↗ point I think was the code

25:36 ↗ says anytime you're in the buffer you

25:38 ↗ have to have this native plant but there

25:41 ↗ was a concern from the board one of the

25:44 ↗ board members that's in your letter as

25:46 ↗ well what if you are in a very Urban

25:48 ↗ environment like a street tree

25:51 ↗ or a parking lot so those native plants

25:54 ↗ will not be successful that perhaps

25:57 ↗ there should be an out for those kind of

26:00 ↗ circumstances so we'll look at that and

26:02 ↗ maybe propose some edits uh we can bring

26:04 ↗ forth any edits that environmental board

26:06 ↗ wants in your next packet

26:12 ↗ um I can clarify that one because that

26:13 ↗ was one of my questions that I emailed

26:14 ↗ in so it's from the March 16th 2022.

26:18 ↗ um okay which was in our packet um but

26:21 ↗ those minutes and it says uh

26:24 ↗ to it's on under Wetlands so maybe three

26:28 ↗ or so pages in and it says the last one

26:30 ↗ under Wetlands is reconsider allowance

26:32 ↗ of non-native plant species in the

26:33 ↗ Wetland buffer and generally I was just

26:36 ↗ wondering if we could get a response to

26:39 ↗ to these they had some other good points

26:42 ↗ like you mentioned the carbon

26:43 ↗ sequestration

26:45 ↗ um

26:45 ↗ so I think that that would be helpful

26:47 ↗ because I had a number of questions

26:48 ↗ about about things they raised but could

26:51 ↗ maybe all be taken care of by having

26:53 ↗ their responses sure yeah well we'll

26:55 ↗ include that in the next but you know uh

26:57 ↗ we we did provide them a response so the

27:00 ↗ letter that you currently see

27:02 ↗ uh is not that you know it we were able

27:06 ↗ to answer a bunch of these but these

27:08 ↗ they felt like they needed to kind of

27:10 ↗ bring that forth so

27:15 ↗ that's president Walsh

27:16 ↗ yeah so on that

27:19 ↗ um do you expect that you'll be bringing

27:22 ↗ back a list of the environmental board

27:25 ↗ suggestions that you're then going to

27:28 ↗ incorporate into the code and then also

27:31 ↗ let us know if there's any that it

27:34 ↗ doesn't that the administration doesn't

27:36 ↗ agree with so that we can make sure I

27:38 ↗ want to make sure we close out

27:39 ↗ everything because these were fantastic

27:42 ↗ detailed wonderful reviews and edits so

27:46 ↗ I really just want to make sure we're

27:48 ↗ absolutely yeah in your packet is this

27:52 ↗ other uh if I can find it you know there

27:55 ↗ is uh we we included a list of changes

27:58 ↗ that we've Incorporated and in there is

28:00 ↗ one that we've already made those edits

28:02 ↗ um but this remainder of the letter from

28:05 ↗ environmental board so I think we we

28:08 ↗ gave you a list of edits that we've

28:10 ↗ already made based on environmental

28:11 ↗ board's comments but there are some

28:14 ↗ other ones from here so we'll provide a

28:16 ↗ response to all of these and if there's

28:18 ↗ edits to be made we'll make them

28:24 ↗ okay yeah

28:26 ↗ similarly I just wasn't sure where to

28:29 ↗ find if it had already been addressed

28:31 ↗ for a number of them so I think having

28:34 ↗ that response list would be super

28:37 ↗ helpful for these will do

28:45 ↗ that's present watch

28:48 ↗ so

28:50 ↗ um two things that kind of came up that

28:55 ↗ I know PPC made a recommendation on but

28:59 ↗ I'm

29:00 ↗ almost feeling like these are

29:04 ↗ substantial enough ideas that I might

29:07 ↗ want to put them to the whole Council

29:10 ↗ and so I just wanted to bring up the

29:12 ↗ outdoor amenity space PPC recommended

29:16 ↗ increasing it from the 48 square feet to

29:18 ↗ 100 square feet

29:20 ↗ which puts us in line with a lot of the

29:23 ↗ other cities but I know we're also

29:25 ↗ looking to have a conversation about

29:27 ↗ housing affordability and what other

29:29 ↗ changes we could make

29:31 ↗ I don't yet have a clear understanding

29:34 ↗ of how much this would add to the cost

29:38 ↗ of development and whether it would put

29:40 ↗ any projects Out Of Reach so I almost

29:43 ↗ want that type of analysis and whether

29:46 ↗ that happens

29:47 ↗ now or when we do the missing middle

29:52 ↗ conversation I'm not sure but I wanted

29:56 ↗ to

29:57 ↗ bring that up because I don't know how

29:58 ↗ to effectively make a decision on that

30:01 ↗ other than just saying it's what other

30:02 ↗ cities do but we also do Parks really

30:06 ↗ really well so

30:09 ↗ I don't know is that something that we

30:11 ↗ feel like we could address or do some

30:15 ↗ kind of analysis on

30:17 ↗ um or I guess for the other council

30:19 ↗ members do we feel like this is

30:21 ↗ something to go to the full Council or

30:28 ↗ um okay so I think the first question

30:29 ↗ was for

30:31 ↗ for director volleyball if that would

30:34 ↗ what your thoughts are on doing an

30:36 ↗ analysis like that and then

30:39 ↗ yeah I mean if you're asking for like an

30:41 ↗ economic analysis of

30:43 ↗ um you know the cost what what does it

30:45 ↗ do to the affordability of the project I

30:48 ↗ think it makes more sense to look at

30:50 ↗ comprehensively all the development

30:51 ↗ standards for that you know what does

30:53 ↗ parking do what are what are our parking

30:55 ↗ requirements and and all of that so not

30:58 ↗ just a piecemeal uh kind of an

31:00 ↗ assessment perhaps is more

31:03 ↗ appropriate

31:05 ↗ um

31:06 ↗ and you'll see some of that with the

31:08 ↗ inclusionary zoning

31:10 ↗ um you know research that we're doing

31:12 ↗ with the happy Grant but

31:16 ↗ um

31:17 ↗ we can do you know we can do whatever

31:19 ↗ you think is is necessary yeah yeah just

31:23 ↗ I appreciate grouping those together and

31:27 ↗ having a comprehensive conversation on

31:29 ↗ it

31:31 ↗ um I guess I would just talk to my

31:34 ↗ fellow committee members do we feel like

31:36 ↗ it's appropriate to make this change

31:39 ↗ or does it make more sense to leave it

31:42 ↗ as is until we can make that change

31:46 ↗ well um great question I think maybe we

31:49 ↗ should say that for our deliberation

31:50 ↗ because we have to do public comments as

31:52 ↗ well and then we'll go to deliberation

31:54 ↗ do we have any more questions I have two

31:56 ↗ more okay

31:57 ↗ um two more questions one is in public

31:59 ↗ comments there was a concern raised

32:02 ↗ about tenant improvements our tenant

32:04 ↗ improvements improvements subject to

32:07 ↗ level 2 review I believe this was

32:09 ↗ addressed in PPC and we think that that

32:12 ↗ comment has been

32:13 ↗ addressed but I just wanted to

32:16 ↗ check in yes so I I think that

32:19 ↗ particular was the comment was is

32:22 ↗ addressed and I think that commentator

32:24 ↗ is satisfied with the response we are

32:27 ↗ still going to bring forth a cleanup of

32:29 ↗ the code language to make it explicitly

32:31 ↗ clear for interior tenant improvements

32:34 ↗ what yeah and then just a facade change

32:37 ↗ so if you have a building that you're

32:40 ↗ just changing the facade what level of

32:43 ↗ you know that that should just be a

32:44 ↗ building permit so it's a level one as

32:46 ↗ opposed to an expansion so and that

32:50 ↗ turns into that site development permit

32:52 ↗ so we can propose some language for

32:54 ↗ their next draft on on that topic okay

32:58 ↗ um the other one is if you could review

33:00 ↗ what happened since this committee last

33:03 ↗ saw this um with regards to the zero

33:07 ↗ outline code

33:09 ↗ um because that was a little bit

33:10 ↗ confusing I went through a few

33:12 ↗ iterations confusing for me anyway

33:14 ↗ describe that yeah so

33:17 ↗ um you know if we had the zero lot line

33:19 ↗ Provisions in the code initially and I

33:22 ↗ think during the first round of public

33:24 ↗ hearing so the question was raised where

33:26 ↗ all should these zero lot lines be

33:28 ↗ allowed there was some confusion between

33:31 ↗ what is a zero lot line so we tried to

33:34 ↗ you know add definitions and clarify all

33:36 ↗ of that

33:37 ↗ so basically what these are are they

33:40 ↗ don't change your density they don't

33:42 ↗ change your lot size your zoning allows

33:45 ↗ where where homes and lot sizes but it

33:49 ↗ provides another flexibility to shift

33:51 ↗ your home on one side of your lot not

33:55 ↗ your exterior Lots on the interior side

33:57 ↗ of your lot to to for someone on a small

34:01 ↗ you know lot to have a 10 foot side yard

34:04 ↗ setback that becomes a more usable space

34:06 ↗ than have two five foot five foot with a

34:09 ↗ fence in between

34:11 ↗ um so um I think this committee said go

34:14 ↗ back to planning and policy commission

34:15 ↗ and have that discussion of where it

34:17 ↗ should all be allowed the direction we

34:19 ↗ got from PPC at that time was to allow

34:23 ↗ it in central

34:25 ↗ um Talus Highlands and small lot single

34:28 ↗ family lots that have a minimum density

34:31 ↗ of 7.26 dwelling units per acre so that

34:34 ↗ was in the proposed Consolidated draft

34:37 ↗ since that time some of the membership

34:40 ↗ of the PPC changed we have a few new

34:43 ↗ members but an existing member proposed

34:46 ↗ it as an amendment during this last

34:49 ↗ go-round and that recommendation was

34:54 ↗ changed to only allow zero lot lines and

34:58 ↗ Central Highland and Talus and the

35:01 ↗ language about allowing it in

35:02 ↗ single-family small lot was struck out

35:06 ↗ um so there was a question about where

35:09 ↗ which

35:10 ↗ um areas of the city are zoned single

35:14 ↗ family small lot you know that South

35:16 ↗ Cove and some other areas and So based

35:19 ↗ on their understanding of which areas

35:22 ↗ these were and perhaps not fully

35:25 ↗ understanding that it's not changing

35:27 ↗ your density or your lot size they

35:30 ↗ switched their recommendation

35:33 ↗ yep and quick follow-up staff's

35:36 ↗ recommendation on that would be to was

35:38 ↗ was to have the small

35:41 ↗ Cuts in there yeah because we felt it

35:45 ↗ wasn't it was just an additional option

35:47 ↗ for folks it didn't change and then I

35:50 ↗ think there was some public comments

35:51 ↗ about have we notified South coven what

35:54 ↗ does it mean and all that and so I think

35:57 ↗ it's just uh a when we get a plot

36:01 ↗ that proposes so it's not a single

36:03 ↗ family existing lot that can go in and

36:05 ↗ put their house on a corn you know on

36:07 ↗ the property line it would be only when

36:09 ↗ you propose a plat a short plat or

36:10 ↗ something that you have this flexibility

36:13 ↗ at that time there would be a

36:14 ↗ notification to the surrounding property

36:16 ↗ owners and we would kind of explore the

36:18 ↗ options and and it won't you know it's

36:20 ↗ just these internal lines lot lines that

36:23 ↗ you you would have a way to situate your

36:25 ↗ home to make better use of land

36:31 ↗ if that was my questions

36:33 ↗ have any other questions

36:35 ↗ great thank you I will at this time uh

36:39 ↗ note that we still have no members of

36:41 ↗ the public in council chambers

36:44 ↗ um

36:45 ↗ the city clerk if there are any members

36:46 ↗ of the community online

36:49 ↗ um that might wish to give public

36:51 ↗ comment at this time

36:55 ↗ chair hunt we have a couple of online

36:56 ↗ attendees give them a moment to

37:00 ↗ raise their hand if they'd like to speak

37:03 ↗ okay and I do have some directions if if

37:06 ↗ anybody would like this no one has

37:08 ↗ raised their hand chair

37:11 ↗ great

37:12 ↗ um well

37:14 ↗ remind again if you have any email

37:16 ↗ comments we are at city council at

37:18 ↗ issaquah.gov

37:20 ↗ we will move to deliberations

37:23 ↗ um we have a number of

37:25 ↗ sections that we could deliberate one by

37:28 ↗ one or what is the

37:31 ↗ it's on that

37:34 ↗ I'm not sure I need to go one by one I'm

37:38 ↗ feeling really good about ppcs but I'm

37:41 ↗ happy to go down my full list but if you

37:45 ↗ want to go one by one I'm happy to

37:47 ↗ um I I feel similarly so I will I will

37:51 ↗ start off by

37:53 ↗ making sure to say last time we had the

37:57 ↗ staff come and speak to us about all the

38:00 ↗ hard work that you've done and that was

38:02 ↗ really great and this time I wanted to

38:03 ↗ make sure to thank our commissions who

38:06 ↗ have worked so hard 35 Plus meetings and

38:09 ↗ many hours and both the PPC as well as

38:13 ↗ the environmental board

38:15 ↗ Apple comments and I think have an

38:19 ↗ excellent job I really

38:21 ↗ benefited from their review in reading

38:24 ↗ through and wanted to make sure to thank

38:27 ↗ them so much for their time and really

38:30 ↗ value their contributions and their time

38:33 ↗ that they volunteer to do this with that

38:35 ↗ I also said a few things that I wanted

38:38 ↗ to discuss with this committee so would

38:40 ↗ you like to go ahead and do okay

38:43 ↗ so the first one was the housing Target

38:46 ↗ criteria that was in the rezone

38:51 ↗ um we have struggled a bit with this in

38:54 ↗ the past especially when it was less

38:56 ↗ clear it has been clarified

38:58 ↗ um my thoughts on this are that I don't

39:01 ↗ know that this is really

39:04 ↗ meant to be a criteria for a rezone it's

39:07 ↗ also not within our control we're using

39:12 ↗ County

39:13 ↗ growth targets and

39:16 ↗ I I think that when I look through that

39:19 ↗ list of criteria that one stands out to

39:21 ↗ me as unlike all of the others the

39:24 ↗ others are sort of judgment calls and

39:26 ↗ about benefits to the community and

39:28 ↗ about

39:29 ↗ the neighboring properties and and

39:32 ↗ things like that that I think we could

39:33 ↗ tick through and this one stood out as

39:35 ↗ different so I would propose to

39:38 ↗ remove that one but I wanted to check in

39:42 ↗ with

39:42 ↗ Council

39:45 ↗ committee yeah

39:47 ↗ um that also stuck out for me and

39:49 ↗ looking at the PPC debate and the fact

39:52 ↗ that it came out to five

39:54 ↗ um I I think

39:56 ↗ knowing the

39:58 ↗ the politics that goes into creating

40:01 ↗ that number at the county level while it

40:05 ↗ is a target our development

40:09 ↗ and the idea of a reed Zone shouldn't be

40:13 ↗ limited by that so I think we have great

40:16 ↗ criteria that apply to a particular area

40:20 ↗ of the city that we can really make the

40:23 ↗ Judgment calls over whether this would

40:26 ↗ serve a higher level of development

40:29 ↗ um

40:30 ↗ and I don't think we need that option to

40:33 ↗ be about the countywide housing targets

40:36 ↗ so I would agree with that

40:40 ↗ yeah thanks

40:42 ↗ um yeah I wrote that down too I was

40:44 ↗ thinking similarly but I think maybe

40:45 ↗ it's a question to pose to council I

40:48 ↗ don't think we necessarily need to pull

40:49 ↗ it out right now because I think there

40:50 ↗ are some questions in terms of what like

40:53 ↗ I would like to know what other

40:54 ↗ communities do this is a common criteria

40:57 ↗ and then also there's kind of a broader

41:00 ↗ policy discussion to be had about the

41:02 ↗ increased housing diversity goal and

41:06 ↗ then in the desired outcomes within that

41:08 ↗ and making sure that in our criteria are

41:11 ↗ aligned with that so maybe we can have

41:12 ↗ that kind of broader discussion and tee

41:14 ↗ that up for the full Council

41:16 ↗ okay

41:18 ↗ um

41:19 ↗ I I think well first of all I'll check

41:22 ↗ in with director Dolly well do we have

41:24 ↗ an answer my understanding was that

41:26 ↗ other cities have different criteria but

41:29 ↗ not necessarily using this housing

41:31 ↗ Target it's our city is really we

41:34 ↗ shouldn't find any anything but there's

41:35 ↗ some legislative history with why it

41:38 ↗ came about and I think

41:41 ↗ um the debate with bpc was that when are

41:45 ↗ you going to actually you know this is a

41:47 ↗ 20-year Target so if you're in your

41:50 ↗ 20 you know 18 then maybe you will have

41:55 ↗ met that criteria so

41:57 ↗ [Music]

41:57 ↗ um

41:58 ↗ there is no other city that has this

42:01 ↗ criteria if that's what we're but

42:03 ↗ there's some legislative history in

42:05 ↗ Issaquah that debated this Criterion

42:08 ↗ it's there we've tried to clarify it but

42:11 ↗ we kept it but if it needs to come out

42:13 ↗ you know it can happen now

42:16 ↗ okay so no other cities have this

42:19 ↗ criteria

42:20 ↗ um

42:21 ↗ is there a yeah

42:23 ↗ um it seems to me that that is another

42:25 ↗ reason to not do this we don't want to

42:28 ↗ be the only

42:29 ↗ city that has a certain rezoning

42:31 ↗ criteria in the car or in the

42:35 ↗ in known

42:37 ↗ yeah

42:38 ↗ um so I I think um I think posing it to

42:41 ↗ council would make sense this does

42:42 ↗ affect

42:44 ↗ our decision making process all of

42:46 ↗ council will weigh in and we'll be using

42:48 ↗ these criteria so I I definitely think

42:50 ↗ as a flag for Council but I would be

42:52 ↗ comfortable recommending based on our

42:55 ↗ previous conversations and based on this

42:58 ↗ conversation we've just had I would be

43:00 ↗ comfortable recommending as this

43:02 ↗ committee that we remove that one yeah I

43:05 ↗ would agree with that Mo that idea of

43:08 ↗ going ahead and removing it but I think

43:11 ↗ this we're starting to get into some of

43:14 ↗ these policy questions that should come

43:16 ↗ before the full Council and so one of

43:18 ↗ the ways to do this I think would be

43:20 ↗ really nice to show here's our current

43:22 ↗ criteria here's the proposed criteria as

43:26 ↗ just a way to tee up some of these

43:29 ↗ conversations for the full Council so

43:33 ↗ that they can make some effective

43:35 ↗ decisions especially when we are going

43:37 ↗ to be the decision maker on those

43:40 ↗ true so if I understand it correctly

43:43 ↗ um the entire number two because number

43:47 ↗ two criteria has

43:48 ↗ you know you're allowed an app Zone

43:51 ↗ basically an increase in housing density

43:53 ↗ if you're located in the regional growth

43:55 ↗ Center or if you're outside the growth

43:58 ↗ Center and the growth targets have not

44:00 ↗ been met so you're just striking out 2B

44:03 ↗ or are you striking out the whole C and

44:05 ↗ then the C is on the if the council

44:08 ↗ approves a development agreement

44:10 ↗ concurrently with the rezone proposal

44:13 ↗ so is it just take out 2B or take out

44:16 ↗ entire two

44:19 ↗ that's something you all can discuss

44:25 ↗ would it be possible to put it up on the

44:28 ↗ screen sure if you're looking at it

44:30 ↗ thank you

44:35 ↗ I'm sure

44:36 ↗ just from a process perspective I'm not

44:39 ↗ sure if you wanted maybe just keep start

44:41 ↗ keeping a list of the council issues

44:43 ↗ rather than try to resolve each one as

44:45 ↗ you come through them because I think

44:47 ↗ we're going to want to make sure at the

44:50 ↗ very end of this that we walk through

44:52 ↗ what that council meeting looks like and

44:55 ↗ so we're happy to do it however you

44:57 ↗ think is is convenient but

45:00 ↗ um if you'd rather just kind of put a

45:02 ↗ little bit of a pile of things to come

45:04 ↗ back that works

45:06 ↗ yeah yeah thank you City administrator

45:08 ↗ yes I I think that's makes a lot of

45:11 ↗ sense I think just because for this one

45:13 ↗ we

45:14 ↗ um started walking down the path of what

45:15 ↗ is a recommendation

45:17 ↗ close it out but then we can yes I agree

45:20 ↗ and I sort of have a list that sounds

45:21 ↗ like we have some other items colleagues

45:24 ↗ this is going to be

45:25 ↗ overwhelming and so I think they're

45:28 ↗ depending on you to come up with nice

45:30 ↗ bite-sized chunks

45:31 ↗ to the greatest extent possible for them

45:34 ↗ okay thank you so for this one

45:44 ↗ I think I would suggest removing

45:49 ↗ item two

45:54 ↗ I think there's lots of other criteria

45:56 ↗ here that are judgment calls and it

45:58 ↗ sounds like are more similar to what

46:00 ↗ other

46:01 ↗ cities use for rezoning

46:05 ↗ um I will check in though with our City

46:06 ↗ attorney if that

46:08 ↗ sounds reasonable

46:12 ↗ yes I think that's reasonable great okay

46:16 ↗ um is this committee ready to move to

46:18 ↗ the next item

46:20 ↗ okay uh councilmember Hall did you have

46:22 ↗ you had an additional question about

46:25 ↗ aligning with missing middle or or

46:29 ↗ I just I wasn't sure I caught that it

46:31 ↗ was just uh reinforce the point you were

46:33 ↗ we were just discussing so one of the

46:36 ↗ desired outcomes in that is across the

46:38 ↗ city there are a variety of housing

46:40 ↗ types so

46:41 ↗ um recognizing obviously we want there

46:43 ↗ to be built in central Issaquah and in

46:45 ↗ that area but one of our desired

46:47 ↗ outcomes that Council has already

46:49 ↗ identified is across the city so

46:51 ↗ foreign got it okay

46:55 ↗ um so my next one was I

46:59 ↗ um

47:00 ↗ generally

47:03 ↗ feel like the non-conforming the code

47:05 ↗ around non-compriting properties is to

47:08 ↗ allow them to continue to be

47:10 ↗ non-conforming to the extent they are

47:11 ↗ but not to

47:13 ↗ further become even more non-conforming

47:16 ↗ and so especially for the Wetland

47:18 ↗ buffers and for the fact that we have

47:20 ↗ buffers to protect the streams and the

47:23 ↗ Wetland areas and um

47:26 ↗ environmental stewardship that change

47:30 ↗ which was a change that was recently

47:33 ↗ made that change did not resonate with

47:35 ↗ me I think allowing further building in

47:40 ↗ the

47:41 ↗ um within the buffer which this would

47:43 ↗ allow

47:45 ↗ um would not necessarily be offset by

47:48 ↗ making enhancements and it and generally

47:50 ↗ it just seemed like it was counter to

47:53 ↗ our usual

47:55 ↗ um our usual way of addressing the

47:59 ↗ non-conforming structures in code so I I

48:03 ↗ did not I flagged that one would like to

48:06 ↗ hear what other company members think

48:09 ↗ so I guess maybe I didn't understand

48:12 ↗ this I was assuming that if there was a

48:15 ↗ wetland buffer area on say one side of

48:20 ↗ the property and you've got a house

48:23 ↗ there it was less likely or maybe even

48:27 ↗ not likely that let's say the front of

48:32 ↗ the house where there would be proposed

48:34 ↗ building would be still in the buffer

48:37 ↗ but it sounds like maybe I was wrong on

48:40 ↗ that

48:42 ↗ yeah so that could be one scenario where

48:45 ↗ your house is in the buffer but then

48:47 ↗ you're outside the buffer that you don't

48:49 ↗ need a change in the code that you can

48:51 ↗ already build outside the buffer if your

48:54 ↗ entire house is in the buffer and and

48:57 ↗ additional land is in the buffer do you

48:59 ↗ want to allow some expansions is I think

49:01 ↗ what this this amendment was getting at

49:06 ↗ do you have a sense of how common that

49:07 ↗ is just City Wide wink I mean it could

49:11 ↗ be common and you know the stream

49:12 ↗ buffers are going up too so

49:16 ↗ um something that is not non-conforming

49:18 ↗ now could become non-conforming with uh

49:22 ↗ with the rules so uh and and so it's

49:26 ↗ just the Buffer's already interrupted I

49:29 ↗ think was the thought process there that

49:30 ↗ you're not you know you already have

49:32 ↗ your critical area and there's already a

49:34 ↗ structure in between so therefore the

49:36 ↗ criteria was to kind of weigh in and get

49:39 ↗ some gain out of it but give some more

49:41 ↗ flexibility but as long as you're not

49:43 ↗ taking out any trees because that could

49:45 ↗ still be a habitat value for the buffer

49:48 ↗ um or um you know so that that's I think

49:52 ↗ the thought process there that it's

49:53 ↗ already interrupted by a structure

50:00 ↗ is this something that other cities do

50:04 ↗ I think there's generally some provision

50:06 ↗ for flexibility for single-family

50:08 ↗ homeowners at least I think in in our

50:10 ↗ case we it would sit in non-conforming

50:12 ↗ structures so it would apply to any any

50:15 ↗ structure that and which we feel like

50:17 ↗ you can't have

50:19 ↗ you know if if it's not but it would

50:22 ↗ only be if your structure is

50:23 ↗ non-conforming so you can't just go and

50:25 ↗ build into

50:27 ↗ um a buffer if there's no existing

50:29 ↗ structure

50:30 ↗ so it would limit

50:33 ↗ to who all can take advantage of this

50:36 ↗ would be you already have a

50:37 ↗ non-conforming structure it's you could

50:40 ↗ you know limit them to that same

50:41 ↗ footprint and not allow any expansions

50:43 ↗ as a policy or

50:46 ↗ you Allah want to allow some flexibility

50:48 ↗ but in a in

50:50 ↗ response you know in in exchange want to

50:53 ↗ have some plantings and things like that

50:55 ↗ along the stream or or a wetland

50:58 ↗ okay I appreciate that you've brought

51:01 ↗ this up I I think this sounds like a an

51:04 ↗ interesting topic and I appreciate the

51:07 ↗ idea of I don't know how many structures

51:09 ↗ this applies to or how much of an impact

51:12 ↗ that is so I'm not sure quite what to do

51:15 ↗ with it but I think it's a good set of

51:17 ↗ questions or conversations

51:20 ↗ okay so we'll add it to the list I'll

51:22 ↗ just note

51:23 ↗ um that it also didn't we didn't used to

51:26 ↗ have this in code

51:27 ↗ um we're in the in the current Title 18

51:29 ↗ this is not allowed so this is allowing

51:32 ↗ additional building in these buffers

51:35 ↗ seems counter to the point of the buffer

51:37 ↗ to me it also reminds me a bit of the

51:39 ↗ common line setback conversation where

51:42 ↗ it was like if you already have

51:44 ↗ structures in next to you know closer to

51:48 ↗ Lake Sammamish than they're supposed to

51:49 ↗ be if your neighbor is there you could

51:51 ↗ move you can build out to that line

51:53 ↗ because it's already that which has

51:55 ↗ which never made sense to me so I um I

51:59 ↗ this one as I said does not resonate

52:02 ↗ with me as something we need to add to

52:05 ↗ our code

52:09 ↗ um but we will add it to the list unless

52:11 ↗ there's

52:12 ↗ yeah okay we'll add it to the list

52:16 ↗ um all right uh my last one is on

52:21 ↗ the zero lot line

52:23 ↗ I think

52:26 ↗ um to be brief I think that we should I

52:28 ↗ would recommend that we recommend the

52:31 ↗ staff's recommendation which was to also

52:33 ↗ allow it in these smaller

52:36 ↗ um Lots so higher density higher minimum

52:40 ↗ density

52:41 ↗ neighborhoods because it it just allows

52:44 ↗ you to have a little bit more

52:45 ↗ flexibility with how you're building

52:47 ↗ your home in better more efficient use

52:49 ↗ of the land in those areas and

52:52 ↗ um I agreed with the previous

52:54 ↗ conversation that PPC had on that where

52:57 ↗ committee members spoke about living in

53:01 ↗ that kind of neighborhood and the

53:03 ↗ benefits of being able to build to the

53:04 ↗ lot line and

53:06 ↗ um I I

53:08 ↗ still support that so I would

53:11 ↗ I would recommend

53:14 ↗ going back to that recommendation

53:18 ↗ yeah I would agree with that I live in a

53:22 ↗ house that's built to the edge and it

53:24 ↗ gives me a little five foot

53:26 ↗ yard and I very much appreciate that

53:29 ↗ rather than having two and a half feet

53:31 ↗ on the other side

53:33 ↗ and I think given that this is tied to

53:38 ↗ um

53:39 ↗ the small Lots it absolutely makes sense

53:46 ↗ okay great

53:48 ↗ um

53:50 ↗ thoughts do we think that's a change

53:52 ↗ that we can just make or something to

53:54 ↗ tee up and add to that pile

53:56 ↗ uh I feel comfortable making a

53:58 ↗ recommendation on it it's a very

54:00 ↗ technical one

54:01 ↗ um so I think it would be helpful for us

54:03 ↗ to have a recommendation on that one

54:06 ↗ um yeah and does our current code our

54:09 ↗ current code

54:11 ↗ how does it address zero lot lines yeah

54:14 ↗ we don't have a provision for zero lot

54:15 ↗ lines yeah okay this was an added you

54:18 ↗ know

54:19 ↗ section in the subdivision chapter yeah

54:22 ↗ but we do have neighborhoods built out

54:25 ↗ that way tell us and the highlands are

54:28 ↗ built out that way already

54:34 ↗ that's that's the kind of houses that

54:37 ↗ are yeah majority

54:39 ↗ yeah I feel comfortable making that

54:43 ↗ um

54:45 ↗ yeah I think there are a lot of other

54:48 ↗ policy ideas that we'll really want to

54:51 ↗ address with the full Council

54:57 ↗ all right um my last one was actually a

54:59 ↗ question that I forgot to ask earlier so

55:01 ↗ one of the additional deviations that I

55:05 ↗ believe was added or recommended to be

55:07 ↗ added by PPC was the deviation of

55:10 ↗ essential public facilities and what's

55:12 ↗ the location yes you know actually it

55:14 ↗ was it didn't come from PPC we just

55:16 ↗ missed it in the list it was always in

55:18 ↗ the code okay but then the section that

55:20 ↗ listed all nine was missing this one for

55:24 ↗ through block connect connections and

55:26 ↗ then the essential public facility so

55:28 ↗ that already existed in the code but the

55:30 ↗ list was missing those two so we just

55:31 ↗ wanted to highlight that okay yeah okay

55:34 ↗ uh then no I guess I don't have a

55:36 ↗ question on that one

55:38 ↗ um that was my list

55:42 ↗ council president Walsh yeah so you guys

55:46 ↗ have already addressed many of the

55:48 ↗ points that I had but the other one I

55:51 ↗ just want to make sure is on there is

55:52 ↗ that outdoor open amenity space

55:55 ↗ um whether we want to keep it at the

55:58 ↗ existing 48 and then do the evaluation

56:01 ↗ or whether we want to increase to the

56:04 ↗ 100 square feet which is what PPC

56:07 ↗ recommended though in their letter and

56:10 ↗ the environmental boards letter they

56:12 ↗ both said hey we're not addressing this

56:14 ↗ missing middle piece so I know both of

56:16 ↗ them are very much looking forward to

56:18 ↗ that portion so my preference would be

56:21 ↗ to keep it at the 48 square feet

56:26 ↗ so that we don't have unintended

56:28 ↗ consequences until we do that analysis

56:33 ↗ but I don't know what the preference is

56:36 ↗ or whether that's something to bring to

56:38 ↗ the full Council

56:46 ↗ um okay so that just to clarify the 48

56:49 ↗ feet that is in the current quote Yeah

56:52 ↗ so the 48 square feet comes from Central

56:54 ↗ Issaquah standards

56:56 ↗ Talus and Highlands have a requirement

56:59 ↗ for new parks at the ratio of 250 square

57:03 ↗ feet per unit that we have carried

57:04 ↗ forward in this draft

57:07 ↗ the other parts of the city that aren't

57:11 ↗ um Central didn't have a standard so

57:13 ↗ there's that aspect of I think just this

57:16 ↗ getting all the pieces together in one

57:19 ↗ location so we carried in the table if I

57:22 ↗ have it here I can bring it up

57:24 ↗ um but it breaks it down you know it

57:27 ↗ says and so I think that the

57:29 ↗ conversations with the community members

57:30 ↗ and with bpc were common outdoor and

57:34 ↗ common private outdoor I mean private

57:37 ↗ outdoor spaces so

57:39 ↗ the private outdoor spaces of the 48

57:41 ↗ square feet the question the the concern

57:44 ↗ if we leave it at 48 was in the existing

57:47 ↗ code you could just put a balcony on

57:50 ↗ each of the units and you've met your

57:52 ↗ common outdoor space requirement you

57:54 ↗ didn't have to provide anything beyond

57:56 ↗ that

57:57 ↗ um however

57:59 ↗ you know they felt like

58:01 ↗ there needs to be some common outdoor

58:03 ↗ space people shouldn't just get to pick

58:06 ↗ the balconies but balconies are nice so

58:08 ↗ balcony should remain in addition you

58:11 ↗ want to have

58:13 ↗ um outdoor common Open Spaces

58:21 ↗ based on that explanation and the

58:24 ↗ difference between the 250 and not

58:27 ↗ having it I guess I'm probably

58:29 ↗ comfortable with going forward with the

58:31 ↗ 100 square foot recommendation and then

58:34 ↗ just putting that as part of the whole

58:36 ↗ cost analysis

58:38 ↗ um

58:39 ↗ yeah

58:45 ↗ yeah a a

58:47 ↗ um tend to agree I think

58:50 ↗ we don't want unintended consequences

58:52 ↗ either way but

58:54 ↗ um we do want community space and

58:57 ↗ um I want to make sure that there's

58:58 ↗ community space for the communities that

59:01 ↗ live there so I think I would err on

59:04 ↗ that side

59:06 ↗ okay

59:08 ↗ did you have additional items

59:11 ↗ nope nope

59:17 ↗ okay that was our that was our list of

59:20 ↗ items um I will say again thank you so

59:22 ↗ much for the very thorough documentation

59:24 ↗ and

59:26 ↗ um and also thank you again to the

59:28 ↗ commissions for their super hard work

59:32 ↗ so

59:33 ↗ I guess the next question is what's next

59:36 ↗ right so we did identify that it would

59:38 ↗ be helpful to have

59:40 ↗ um the response to the environmental

59:44 ↗ board

59:45 ↗ um things uh environmental words

59:48 ↗ concerns

59:50 ↗ with sort of in the response format so

59:54 ↗ the concern and then the response

59:57 ↗ whether it's been addressed in the draft

59:59 ↗ or not and if it has how it's been

1:00:01 ↗ addressed if not why

1:00:03 ↗ um that would be great in a memorandum

1:00:05 ↗ form um memo yeah okay I think or table

1:00:08 ↗ whichever you prefer

1:00:11 ↗ um

1:00:12 ↗ and

1:00:15 ↗ so we have a meeting scheduled is it the

1:00:17 ↗ 20th 28th the 28th of February so a

1:00:19 ↗ second meeting this month so if we bring

1:00:21 ↗ that back to you

1:00:23 ↗ um and then also perhaps a draft of what

1:00:26 ↗ a presentation to the council would look

1:00:28 ↗ like and those would be the two items

1:00:31 ↗ then for the 28th and then if you're

1:00:34 ↗ satisfied with both the analysis from

1:00:36 ↗ the environment board as well as the

1:00:37 ↗ presentation then we're done fpp's at

1:00:40 ↗ the Planning Development environment

1:00:42 ↗ I think so looking for nods yeah I'm

1:00:47 ↗ just looking over the planning calendar

1:00:48 ↗ and it looks like we currently have it

1:00:51 ↗ set to go to the committee of the whole

1:00:54 ↗ on March 13th and that's the next

1:00:56 ↗ question yeah I was going to say does

1:00:58 ↗ the February 28th give you enough

1:01:00 ↗ turnaround time on that well I I think

1:01:03 ↗ if if the presentation that we would

1:01:05 ↗ bring back on the 28th is generally

1:01:07 ↗ acceptable to you then that's what we

1:01:09 ↗ would put on the committee of the hole

1:01:11 ↗ on the 13th we do also want to start

1:01:13 ↗ reaching out to the council the other

1:01:15 ↗ four members of the council to provide

1:01:17 ↗ briefings and I think at this point many

1:01:19 ↗ we've got we know what we need to tell

1:01:22 ↗ them

1:01:23 ↗ um sure so we will start I know there's

1:01:26 ↗ some Vacations so midwinter breaks all

1:01:28 ↗ that coming up in the next few weeks so

1:01:30 ↗ we can start the process of offering

1:01:33 ↗ those briefings now even prior to your

1:01:36 ↗ final discussion on the 28th of February

1:01:38 ↗ so are you feeling confident as you can

1:01:42 ↗ here this evening that that March 13th

1:01:44 ↗ would be a one touch at the committee of

1:01:47 ↗ the whole because right now we do not

1:01:50 ↗ have a second one scheduled for the

1:01:52 ↗ month of March the city clerk's office

1:01:54 ↗ was looking at dates

1:01:56 ↗ pending your discussion this evening if

1:01:59 ↗ you felt we needed to do that I think it

1:02:01 ↗ was at March 20th March 27th March 27th

1:02:04 ↗ we would propose to the council as a

1:02:07 ↗ second Committee of the whole but we

1:02:09 ↗ didn't want to do anything before the

1:02:11 ↗ discussion this evening so

1:02:13 ↗ what's your thoughts

1:02:17 ↗ uh is the current plan to have one touch

1:02:20 ↗ at a

1:02:21 ↗ um at a council of the whole in one

1:02:23 ↗ touch than to adopt it at a regular

1:02:26 ↗ meeting I think we're looking at two

1:02:28 ↗ Touches at a regular meeting because I

1:02:29 ↗ think we okay with the attorneys and I

1:02:32 ↗ think just common sense are for

1:02:33 ↗ proposing that we would do a public

1:02:35 ↗ hearing yeah I think the dates I have

1:02:39 ↗ from

1:02:40 ↗ um were March 13th and April 17th but

1:02:44 ↗ there's a March 27th well if there was a

1:02:48 ↗ second now this is the second Committee

1:02:50 ↗ of the whole got it so I think the April

1:02:53 ↗ date would be the first meeting at the

1:02:56 ↗ councils that I don't have the calendar

1:02:58 ↗ yes the April 17th meeting would be the

1:03:00 ↗ first council meeting with the public

1:03:02 ↗ hearing and then May 1 would be a

1:03:04 ↗ regular council meeting adoption

1:03:06 ↗ yeah

1:03:07 ↗ so three touches with Council April 13th

1:03:11 ↗ the two council meeting touches in one

1:03:13 ↗ committee the whole touch so the

1:03:14 ↗ question really for this evening is

1:03:16 ↗ does your gut tell you that's okay if

1:03:19 ↗ you're if there's any hesitation fine

1:03:21 ↗ but we would like to start polling the

1:03:23 ↗ council for the uh March 27th day okay

1:03:27 ↗ um my instinct is that I think this is

1:03:30 ↗ in a really good place I think it's a

1:03:32 ↗ really well documented that the changes

1:03:34 ↗ that have been made and and the goals

1:03:36 ↗ and outcomes have been really well

1:03:38 ↗ documented how we've addressed them I

1:03:40 ↗ think presenting that to council to full

1:03:42 ↗ Council will be

1:03:45 ↗ um

1:03:45 ↗ will be organized similarly

1:03:48 ↗ um while Everything Has Come Together

1:03:50 ↗ really well is my point and so I I think

1:03:53 ↗ that schedule sounds good as is

1:03:58 ↗ I think three touches is also you know

1:04:00 ↗ meets the two touch standards so plus

1:04:03 ↗ one touch I think that's good

1:04:05 ↗ yeah I was just gonna totally agree

1:04:07 ↗ although um I don't know if I have a

1:04:09 ↗ clear sense of like what are all the

1:04:11 ↗ kind of policy questions that we're

1:04:13 ↗ teeing up for counseling there are a

1:04:14 ↗ couple that we added to the pile today

1:04:16 ↗ but since coming on to the committee I

1:04:19 ↗ don't know if you guys have kind of

1:04:21 ↗ talked through some questions previously

1:04:22 ↗ that might be out and I know it might

1:04:24 ↗ take a while to go through the goals and

1:04:26 ↗ outcomes chart with responses too and I

1:04:29 ↗ know accounts will want to focus on that

1:04:30 ↗ but you know do we have a list of

1:04:32 ↗ everything else

1:04:33 ↗ well and I think we're proposing to come

1:04:35 ↗ back on February 28th with the full

1:04:38 ↗ presentation

1:04:39 ↗ that I guess we would hope that you

1:04:42 ↗ would help with with your colleagues uh

1:04:44 ↗ at the committee of the whole then in

1:04:46 ↗ March so February 28th we would come

1:04:47 ↗ back with what we consider the full list

1:04:50 ↗ and then you tell us have we got it or

1:04:52 ↗ not

1:04:54 ↗ so the committee of the whole we're

1:04:56 ↗ currently proposing not 90 minutes for

1:05:00 ↗ the meeting on March 13th there is there

1:05:02 ↗ is a second item

1:05:04 ↗ that we're proposing for 60 minutes to

1:05:07 ↗ talk about City Hall space planning

1:05:11 ↗ okay I'm not trying to talk into more

1:05:14 ↗ meetings I just we're at a point in the

1:05:16 ↗ calendar that we just need to ask the

1:05:18 ↗ question so we'll we will not pull for a

1:05:20 ↗ second committee the whole we'll go with

1:05:23 ↗ the one that's scheduled on March 13th

1:05:24 ↗ we'll come back to you on the 28th with

1:05:26 ↗ the environment board information as

1:05:28 ↗ well as a draft presentation of what the

1:05:31 ↗ committed hole looks like and we should

1:05:33 ↗ be we should be good

1:05:35 ↗ I I think that sounds good I will also

1:05:37 ↗ make my regional report and

1:05:41 ↗ um you know sort of let Council know

1:05:43 ↗ where this committee is uh in our

1:05:46 ↗ process at that Regional report and I

1:05:49 ↗ think between that and

1:05:51 ↗ the individual sessions that are being

1:05:54 ↗ held with staff for Council Members I I

1:05:57 ↗ think

1:05:59 ↗ I would guess that that is

1:06:01 ↗ good I mean we're feeling good too I

1:06:03 ↗ mean I I think that yeah I think it'll

1:06:05 ↗ be good for us to know what your

1:06:06 ↗ thoughts are you know you've you've

1:06:08 ↗ touched it many times in the first round

1:06:10 ↗ and and so with the council coming in

1:06:13 ↗ with this big thing

1:06:15 ↗ um where you think would would bring

1:06:17 ↗ value to them I mean where do we start

1:06:18 ↗ do we start with the executive summary

1:06:20 ↗ and the goals and outcomes chart and and

1:06:23 ↗ then

1:06:25 ↗ or you have other thoughts or ideas

1:06:27 ↗ about what to include in the prison

1:06:28 ↗ we'll bring the draft presentation for

1:06:30 ↗ you to weigh in but if you have feedback

1:06:32 ↗ for us what to include in that

1:06:34 ↗ presentation that would be helpful okay

1:06:37 ↗ um my my first thought is I think it'd

1:06:39 ↗ be great to do a high level summary of

1:06:42 ↗ all the work that has gone in we as our

1:06:45 ↗ committee has have

1:06:47 ↗ um have seen that we've gotten these

1:06:49 ↗ recommendations we know you know

1:06:51 ↗ planning policy had 35 meetings so just

1:06:52 ↗ a summary of planning policy at 35

1:06:54 ↗ meetings we had this many Community

1:06:55 ↗ meetings we had this many public

1:06:57 ↗ comments that we've addressed

1:06:59 ↗ individually and tracked I mean it's

1:07:01 ↗ been a huge amount of work and

1:07:04 ↗ um I don't want that to

1:07:06 ↗ uh I would I think starting with that is

1:07:09 ↗ is good

1:07:10 ↗ um and then I think the goals and

1:07:12 ↗ outcomes chart uh really sets the stage

1:07:14 ↗ well I think it has been

1:07:16 ↗ um very clearly laid out how we've

1:07:18 ↗ addressed those items and the ones we

1:07:19 ↗ haven't addressed are the ones that are

1:07:22 ↗ teed up for future work

1:07:24 ↗ um so I think

1:07:28 ↗ that's that's my recommendation do we

1:07:30 ↗ have other recommendations and then we

1:07:31 ↗ have a couple items that we want to

1:07:34 ↗ raise for additional consideration

1:07:38 ↗ um do we have other thoughts on what

1:07:40 ↗ should be included in that presentation

1:07:44 ↗ yeah

1:07:46 ↗ um

1:07:47 ↗ I will second all of that

1:07:50 ↗ um and just say that I found the

1:07:52 ↗ executive summary very helpful I think

1:07:57 ↗ that it will be a little bit difficult

1:07:59 ↗ during a meeting to talk about you know

1:08:02 ↗ part one is General provisions and you

1:08:05 ↗ know this part is zoning and all of that

1:08:08 ↗ and really to understand that but to be

1:08:12 ↗ able to point out those areas that are

1:08:15 ↗ particularly new

1:08:17 ↗ that were added

1:08:19 ↗ um based on either we were doing it for

1:08:22 ↗ best available science or we were doing

1:08:24 ↗ it because of the goals and outcomes

1:08:26 ↗ chart would be really useful and then

1:08:28 ↗ the areas that maybe had the most

1:08:33 ↗ changes

1:08:36 ↗ would probably be a good one to

1:08:38 ↗ highlight other than that I would

1:08:41 ↗ probably utilize the executive summary

1:08:44 ↗ as content for Council but I don't know

1:08:47 ↗ if going through one by one on all of

1:08:49 ↗ those things would be as helpful at the

1:08:51 ↗ meeting

1:08:55 ↗ maybe also too just just actually I

1:08:58 ↗ can't remember if this is described in

1:09:00 ↗ the executive summary but some statement

1:09:02 ↗ of description of the code testing work

1:09:04 ↗ that was done to just to assure council

1:09:06 ↗ members that you know

1:09:08 ↗ um that was thought through

1:09:10 ↗ um where possible and then also just a

1:09:12 ↗ ditto

1:09:13 ↗ um to kind of you know the goals and

1:09:16 ↗ outcomes chart is pretty lofty in some

1:09:18 ↗ places in the scope of this particular

1:09:20 ↗ update doesn't always meet that

1:09:22 ↗ loftiness and so recognizing that this

1:09:24 ↗ is this scope and we've got the

1:09:25 ↗ Whiteboard items teed up and coming up

1:09:27 ↗ and making sure everyone's reminded of

1:09:29 ↗ that

1:09:33 ↗ I think that's helpful

1:09:38 ↗ professional

1:09:39 ↗ thoughts comments

1:09:41 ↗ um I know the storm water the SMP was

1:09:46 ↗ also

1:09:47 ↗ part of the meeting or part of what PPC

1:09:51 ↗ reviewed is there anything that we need

1:09:52 ↗ to go over for that

1:09:55 ↗ the shoreline master program yes thank

1:09:57 ↗ you yeah no I think we've included the

1:09:59 ↗ summary in the in the previous packet so

1:10:02 ↗ some of that Direction came from you

1:10:04 ↗ from the council in order to you know

1:10:06 ↗ the last update from 2019 identified

1:10:08 ↗ some things that were left undone so

1:10:12 ↗ we've included those and mostly it's the

1:10:14 ↗ common line setback is no longer you

1:10:16 ↗ know just because your neighbors have it

1:10:17 ↗ closer to the like you know you don't

1:10:19 ↗ that's gone away they used to be an

1:10:21 ↗ incentive for removal of the bulkhead

1:10:23 ↗ that has gone away and you just required

1:10:27 ↗ if you're building a new house you do

1:10:28 ↗ need nobody really took that incentive

1:10:30 ↗ you know wasn't used except for ones I

1:10:32 ↗ think in the in the last few decades the

1:10:35 ↗ dock lighting Provisions were added and

1:10:38 ↗ then the other substantive changes the

1:10:41 ↗ critical areas code update will be the

1:10:44 ↗ new appendix to s p so they were bought

1:10:46 ↗ a line because it's Department of

1:10:48 ↗ ecology has to approve our Shoreline

1:10:50 ↗ master program so as you make your final

1:10:52 ↗ recommendation

1:10:53 ↗ to ecology then ecology will make the

1:10:56 ↗ final decision on on the shoreline s p

1:10:59 ↗ so there may be yeah you know thanks I

1:11:01 ↗ just there's attachments a through H and

1:11:05 ↗ so you know just occasionally like to

1:11:07 ↗ check in on those extra ones

1:11:11 ↗ um and I I noted that in the

1:11:14 ↗ environmental boards letter they

1:11:16 ↗ commented on their appreciation for the

1:11:18 ↗ common line change and the other

1:11:20 ↗ improvements to environmental

1:11:22 ↗ stewardship that are represented in the

1:11:24 ↗ changes to the Shoreline master program

1:11:25 ↗ so um and I agree and also appreciation

1:11:28 ↗ for the green necklace connectivity

1:11:32 ↗ planning that has gone into that and a

1:11:34 ↗ number of other really important changes

1:11:36 ↗ so I

1:11:39 ↗ satisfied with that although I uh

1:11:42 ↗ there's

1:11:42 ↗ I would note there's so many pieces to

1:11:45 ↗ this you know I do think

1:11:47 ↗ um

1:11:48 ↗ breaking it down into the things that

1:11:51 ↗ really changed and um and again I

1:11:54 ↗ personally found the goals and outcomes

1:11:56 ↗ chart

1:11:59 ↗ really helpful because it was in a chart

1:12:01 ↗ form and it had you know this change was

1:12:03 ↗ made it was to address this goal this

1:12:05 ↗ change was made to address this goal so

1:12:07 ↗ that that one for me really was super

1:12:10 ↗ helpful

1:12:14 ↗ anything else

1:12:17 ↗ great um do you have what you need do

1:12:20 ↗ you have any questions for us

1:12:23 ↗ all right thank you

1:12:24 ↗ okay well um that was our last order of

1:12:28 ↗ business then

1:12:30 ↗ um our only order of business we do have

1:12:32 ↗ announcements do we have any

1:12:33 ↗ announcements

1:12:35 ↗ okay there being no further business

1:12:37 ↗ then this meeting is adjourned at 7 43

1:12:40 ↗ pm thank you all

1:12:42 ↗ foreign

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Victoria Hunt

Lindsey Walsh

Zach Hall

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Chair Hunt moved to adopt the minutes as presented.